Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

makeuseof.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 564 posts

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#471

Post by zb3 »

divegeek wrote: post #244
freefaler wrote: post #60

Yes, it's a very unfriendly decision by Google. However, I don't think they haven't measured the number of users installing apps outside of the Play store. May be they just don't care about the small % of total users who are a large % here on HN. This is a part of a bigger trend, Cory Doctorow spoke about 13 years ago in his "The coming war on general computing": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg And this w…

It's unfriendly to developers and power users, but very friendly to the other 99.999% of users. I used to work for Google, on Android security, and it's an ongoing philosophical debate: How much risk do you expose typical users to in the name of preserving the rights and capabilities of the tiny base of power users? Both are important but at some point the typical users have to win because there are far, far more of…

Completely false dichotomy - you could release a separate android channel that would require flashing through fastboot but still be signed, don't require unlocked bootloader and fully pass "Play Integrity".

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#472

Post by ahartmetz »

jolmg wrote: post #450
edg5000 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest bank in the Netherlands at least requires the app to confirm payments. Although they do still have these paper slips (maybe) for transfers but that cannot be used for ecommerce

> Although they do still have these paper slips (maybe) for transfers Are you describing checks?

Written (on paper) transfer orders. You fill them out at home and throw them into a special mailbox at the bank. Old people still use them, I even used them occasionally 20 years ago or so because they sometimes came with invoices, pre-filled with receiver details, so they were about as convenient as online transfer.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#473

Post by ahartmetz »

londons_explore wrote: post #347
WD-42 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use the banks website from a computer? Which banks do not allow this?

Many banks in Europe are app-only and don't allow you to log in with a web browser.

In Germany at least, that's only the ones that advertise being an "app bank". It's the last thing that I want, but they exist.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#474

Post by mrsssnake »

bitwize wrote: post #358

Most consumers DON'T CARE. They want their phones to access Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Bluesky, their banking, shopping, and food order apps, etc. If anything they'd be glad to know that Google is stopping entire classes of malware at the source. This is an anti-techie move, not an anti-consumer move. Only techies care about being able to run any software you want on a device you own. Most people don't really wa…

> Most consumers DON'T CARE

Why is this argument even a thing?

They want to use Facebook, Instagram, TikTok... The exact services that wouldn't exist in the first place if there wasn't for the open neutral Internet, something they didn't care about too.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#475

Post by palata »

bitwize wrote: post #443
Pfhortune wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and new Pixels will not be able to run non-Google-certified operating systems :) I haven't heard about this. Source? I think there has been much _speculation_ around this, but no proof that I am aware of.

I can't confirm this yet but with Google refusing to provide device trees for new Pixels things definitely look headed that way; they're at least starting to make installing an alternate OS difficult. The Graphene devs are trying to set things up with a handset manufacturer to ship a GrapheneOS phone, but good luck connecting that thing to a US carrier (who allowlist handsets and often limit the allowlist to models t…

> Google refusing to provide device trees for new Pixels things definitely look headed that way

So you're just speculating.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#477

Post by preisschild »

CommanderData wrote: post #435
erinnh wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering both Graphene and Lineage have been complaining about google making development harder and harder for how long will that be a possibility?

Play Store has an attestation API, Google could simply make it harder to run banking apps and similar if you run GrapheneOS. Something like requiring banking apps to use a stricter mode. GrapheneOS even mentions it's not easy spoofing this entirely as it change often on the FAQ page. There's only so much you can do as a maintainer of a custom OS like Graphene before its too hard to maintain. I don't think there's eno…

> Google could simply make it harder to run banking apps and similar if you run GrapheneOS

Thats the Banks fault then. I complained to mine and they removed the safetynet check / let you skip it.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#478

Post by Escapade5160 »

mouse_ wrote: post #224
arccy wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you don't need permission for the hardware... you can install your own OS.

Not if you don't have permission to install your own OS... Didn't Google recently kill AOSP and stop providing board support packages for their phones?

They did for pixel phones yes.

I've been wanting to get into OS dev for years now, I may make an attempt at it soon. When I was younger I built my own kernels for the early OnePlus phones. Maybe I can build an alternative to Android, doubtful but I like a challenge.

The hardest part to making an alternative is the app ecosystem, you almost need a complete suite of 3rd party apps built before you can get any initial adoption.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#479

Post by ddoeth »

zylstra wrote: post #454
jamesnorden wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them I, too, love vendor lockin.

I have no idea why iMessage and FaceTime are draws when Signal is available.

I want to preface this by saying that I use almost only signal, but I do get the appeal. Walking out of the house and switching from wifi to mobile is so smooth, signal always takes a hot minute to reconnect, but with facetime (and for that matter meet and whatsapp video calls) you barely get a stutter. For the most part it really is a "it just works" solution whereas signal sometimes feels a little klunky. I don't mind, but I get that people value that.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#480

Post by Lutzb »

xandrius wrote: post #403
MattyRad wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I glanced at Ubuntu Touch, but its device compatibility looked severely lacking ( https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/ ).... I have old Pixel phones I could potentially try it out on, but the last Pixel phone that is officially supported is the 3a. So that is a bummer.

Device compatibility is not a feature occurred naturally, it's the result of people wanting and then working to get it supported. So, if you're interested in adding more devices, join the community and see what you can do!

Chicken egg situation. I would be interested to contribute, but I cannot run it on any of my devices. Alas I am not contributing.
Post reply on HN