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

481–490 of 564 posts

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

#481

Post by jhasse »

goku12 wrote: post #430
Buttons840 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switching to iPhone will make it even more obvious there is an unhealthy monopoly, so that's nice. If there's no good reason to choose Android, why not?

What we really need is a fair alternative to both these abuse platforms. Choosing an unfamiliar abuse over a familiar abuse isn't exactly the smartest move. The switch over to a free(dom) platform like plain Linux must happen even if we have to make some temporary sacrifices like the loss of mobile banking facilities. It can't be worse than using a feature phone, can it? The app ecosystem will eventually attain parit…

Multiple alternatives already exists. Or how do you define "fair"?

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

#482

Post by jhasse »

WD-42 wrote: post #436
drnick1 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the main reason to stick to FOSS Android ROMs (over a Linux phone) is that you retain compatibility with thousands of very good FOSS and non-FOSS apps. There is Waydroid, and it works very well, but if you are primarily running Android apps, an Android device makes more sense.

Isn't the Android rom scene in shambles? What phone would you have to buy now to be able to even run decent a decent custom ROM?

No. One of these: https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/

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

#483

Post by jhasse »

flawn wrote: post #321
ptrl600 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With macOS you run "sudo spctl --master disable", and then you can run whatever you want without sending PII to Apple. Is that the case with the new Android stuff?

No, the closest would be rooting your phone but then you can't use banking apps properly (there are loopholes to spoof integrity but they are slowly coming to an end as verification runs on TEE)

Couldn't you install with adb without rooting?

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

#484

Post by jhasse »

ptrl600 wrote: post #200
JohnTHaller wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still side-load signed apps. It's a similar limitation to macOS which won't let you run apps that Apple hasn't signed without command line or control panel shenanigans. Compared to iOS, Android still has the advantage of installing your own full browser (like Firefox) with full-fat ad blocking (uBlock Origin, not Lite). iOS is Safari-only right now though, in theory, some alternative engines may be available…

With macOS you run "sudo spctl --master disable", and then you can run whatever you want without sending PII to Apple. Is that the case with the new Android stuff?

We don't know yet. At the moment side-loading still works without restrictions.

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

#485

Post by jhasse »

duskdozer wrote: post #456
preisschild wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use GrapheneOS or LineageOS without the Google rootkit and continue installing any apps you want

sure. now . why do you think google won't choose a way to destroy them in the near future?

Well with that thinking you can't use an OS by any corparation???

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

#486

Post by uyzstvqs »

octoberfranklin wrote: post #375
uyzstvqs wrote: post #80

I just wish BlackBerry went in a different direction. If during the early-mid 2010s they decided to dedicate to open-source and privacy-first, as well as keeping their flagship QWERTY format with the optimized BlackBerryOS, they could still be around serving a particularly large niche in the smartphone market: Those who use their phone for communication and utility over entertainment. Maybe they can make a comeback.…

It's sad that basically anybody can type faster on a 15-year-old blackberry than on the latest and greatest touchscreen-keyboard phone.

It's logical, and comes down to accuracy and comfort. It's the same reason why mechanical keyboards are best on desktop, not those silly flat Apple butterfly keyboards.

What I'm sad about is the fact that the QWERTY format was completely abandoned to cater to the entertainment-focused users on Android and iOS. Those are also the people who "don't care about privacy" and are fine with walled gardens, as long as their TikTok, Facebook and Netflix work.

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

#487

Post by Aachen »

array_key_first wrote: post #100
Aachen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of cheaper, better, and open source is shittier exactly?

1. Not cheaper. 2. I think it's better, I like the UX but that's subjective. 3. Not open source. AOSP is open source. Android is not open source.

1: citation needed

2: yeah okay with that logic "I just subjectively feel that way", there's no point having a conversation

3: Android is short for AOSP. You're probably thinking of things like Google Play or OneUI?

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

#488

Post by Aachen »

dangus wrote: post #178
stronglikedan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly cheaper when you compare phones with like specs.

Not by much these days. The Pixel 10 actually gives you half the storage as the iPhone 17 at the same price. The only Android phones that are significantly cheaper than equivalent iPhone tend to come with some kind of compromise (and don’t forget that Apple’s phones start at $600 - the iPhone 16e exists).

Storage needn't be expensive. Any 150€ phone will let you put in a 2TB sdcard. It's specifically the premium brand phones that squeeze you out

The specs that you can't just plug and play are a bit more relevant to look at I'd say

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

#489

Post by lieks »

whycome wrote: post #211
lieks wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can install full uBlock Origin in the Orion browser, on iOS. It also has decent built-in ad blocking (though uBlock Origin is still better). I had been thinking for a long time to switch to Android (GrapheneOS, probably) when my current iPhone 13 dies, but this whole thing with "sideloading" on Android is making me reconsider. If I can't have the freedom I want either way, might as well get longer support, polish…

How did Orion sidestep the safari WebKit requirements?

They didn't. They implemented the WebExtensions API for WebKit. It's not complete (e.g. Stylus doesn't work yet), but it's enough to run uBlock Origin.

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

#490

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

spwa4 wrote: post #455
Palmik wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disabling the ability to install arbitrary apps, like ReVanced, etc. benefits other parts of Alphabet. In general, making anti consumer decisions is also easier when you know you can fall back on income from other units.

Then why does Google make so few anti-consumer decisions? I mean, compare Google with Facebook. Surely we can agree Google is the better behaved of those two. Apple only allows software on their macbooks and mac mini, and every release of MacOS it's more locked down. Everything else, from iPhone to the watch, is 100% locked down. Likewise, every version of Windows tries, again and again and again, to lock down progra…

> I mean, compare Google with Facebook. Surely we can agree Google is the better behaved of those two.

I'm not sure I agree, particularly with respect to their core businesses. Like Google basically own all parts of the ad stack and use that dominance to compete unfairly against basically everyone else, causing them to appear to be a better service. There was even an anti-trust case about it (up for sentencing at the moment, here's hoping for a breakup).

Facebook have certainly done a bunch of nefarious stuff, but Google is just a more useful product to the people who come here (and I agree with this), so they get more of a pass.

Post reply on HN