Why wouldn't F-Droid build their own playless Android fork where this is a non-issue?
What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
501–510 of 646 posts
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like you're not understanding the problem: > Which is why Neflix wont work with a device failing Play Protect. And yet the pirates still have all of their content, because DRM doesn't work. One pirate cracks one locked device and can download their entire catalog with it. That one pirate needs to know something about computer security and side channel attacks etc., but none of the people downloading it do. It…
> And yet the pirates still have all of their content, because DRM doesn't work. One pirate cracks one locked device and can download their entire catalog with it. I know and I'm saying what we are seeing is a push to plug all those holes. iOS, Android, macOS SIP, Windows Secure Boot. All root-of-trust systems, so that only operating systems that prevent copying can download it in the first place. Those pirates aren'…
More locked device, more difficult obfuscation -> more motivation for certain people to break it and share it with everybody.
There is no way, you can plug all holes, iPhone couldn't do it with their golden cage and they spend ridiculous amount of money so their phone cannot be rooted, but you still have rooted iphone.
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, we need a platform competitor like Huawei doing for the past years but Open Ecosystem/Platform which is likely never happen tbh, since the amount of resources that required is a lot and would need monetization which would end up like at position like this
> well, we need a platform competitor like Huawei You mean, GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone?
GNU/kReactOS phones.
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#504I'm struck with how long the history of Apple's earliest iPhone has shaped and produced long-term damage to the concept of digital ownership. Apple originally didn't allow anybody but Apple to create software for the 1st gen iPhone, and only later was forced "opening" it my market forces. People who realized they actually owned the thing they bought wanted to do what they wanted, which required circumventing Apple's…
> The fact that mobile phones aren't yet just a standard type of portable computer with an open-ish harware/driver ecosystem that anybody can just make an OS for (and hence allow anybody to just install what they want) is kind of wild IMHO.
It is worth mentioning that the push against open phones never came from big tech but from governments everywhere in the world. Tightly controlled communications was and still is the status quo. People sometimes forget that e.g. in Germany telecommunication used to be a government authority and it was prohibited by penal law to even open a telephone. Things like weak encryption standards and tightly closed down proprietary communication chips inside phones were always intentional.
None of this justifies or explains Google's actions but it puts things into perspective. Personal computing is an outlier, and if home computers had been connected to a network from the start they would probably have been as tightly controlled as all other communication devices have always been.
Unfortunately, the control authorities still exist and seek to gain more power over computing devices and their goals mostly align with the commercial interests of large tech companies, who have basically just become alternative telco providers. So, I estimate that personal computing will be more or less eradicated relatively soon.
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#505I think this misses the forest for the trees here. The platforms behavior here is a symptom and not the core problem. I think the following are pretty clearly correct: 1. It's your damn phone and you should be able to install whatever the hell you want on it 2. Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices Gi…
This comment is very uninformed and misleading. > Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices These are claims that Apple and Google make to justify their distribution monopolies, and you are repeating them as fact. I don't think it's true, and cite as evidence both major app stores and the massive amount o…
I find your comment more uninformed and misleading, the parent is actually fine.
Having a curated channel for app loading is indeed a valuable security tool. It does exist in Linux distributions as well. It does not mean that it has to be the only channel.
And it does make total sense, IMHO, to warn the users when they install something through an "unknown" channel. The first time you install an alternative store, it should tell you "you'd better be damn sure that this thing is not malicious because it will install all your apps".
Which brings me to a few points:
1. I don't really see a problem with the Google Play Store being installed by default on Google-certified phones, just like I don't have a problem with the GrapheneOS store being installed by default on GrapheneOS. But the Play Store should allow me to install alternative stores (like F-Droid), just like the GrapheneOS store allows me to install... the Play Store.
2. I should be able to install an alternative OS on my phone and relock the bootloader. Which actually the Google Pixels allow (one of the reasons why GrapheneOS runs on the Pixels). I don't see a problem in allowing Google-certified Android, it's just that Google should not be allowed (by law) to prevent me from running GrapheneOS.
3. Manufacturers should be forced by law to make it easier to some extent for alternative OSes, e.g. by opening the device tree and stuff. If they don't, they should prove that they have a good reason not to. Other than "hmm I don't know, but to be safe I will just keep it all proprietary".
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#506Author here. I admit I am rather startled by the tone of many comments here and the accusations of disingenuity. Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change the fact that those who promote the term tend to do so in order to make it feel deviant and hacker-ish. You don't "sideload" software on your Linux, Windows, or macOS computer: you install it. You have the right to install whatever you…
> You have the right to install whatever you want on your computer, regardless of whether that computer is on your desk or in your pocket. That's a hill I'll die on.
I totally agree with that. BUT:
> Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change
You can't start your article by splitting hairs about the meaning of the term, and then complain that people follow down that discussion :-).
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#507You know, this would be a fantastic time for Google to get their sandbox in order. If we need to do it like this, go ahead and create a secondary user, call it sandbox and let me install all my wild and unapproved apps there. SecureNet can automatically fail in Sandbox. But I don't think they're going to do that, ultimately users who actually care about this are an absolute tiny percentage of the market. And weirdos…
Or just install an alternative AOSP-based OS. Ironically one of the best phones for that is the Pixel, because it runs GrapheneOS.
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#508I'm struck with how long the history of Apple's earliest iPhone has shaped and produced long-term damage to the concept of digital ownership. Apple originally didn't allow anybody but Apple to create software for the 1st gen iPhone, and only later was forced "opening" it my market forces. People who realized they actually owned the thing they bought wanted to do what they wanted, which required circumventing Apple's…
> It is interesting though how this same conversation doesn't exist in the same way in other areas of computing like video game consoles Historically, when the first game consoles with game cartridges existed, the hardware was much more niche than the available personal computers. Game system developers designed hardware specifically for games, and game developers developed for those specific systems. Also, physical…
> In 2005, digital distribution for video game consoles came with the Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, and Wii.
Or at least ten years earlier with a Japanese SNES:
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal and that someone is named Gaben, and the solution is called Steam. He has done more to solve piracy than any media empire who proportedly spent billions in law suits, lobbying and anti-circumvention ever did.
And Steam implements its own DRM and takes 30% from game publishers. Also, they don't stop game developers from providing their own DRM which require root-of-trust, like CoD or BF6 which require Secure Boot.
Those are mostly to prevent cheating (which is pretty bad for an online game) rather than piracy.
Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
> well, we need a platform competitor like Huawei You mean, GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone?
"You mean, GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone?" not yet to diminish them who is build these Amazing tools/devices but I need to see it yet in real life hell even if you want to buy them, they literally often stock out in certain areas and we not counting technical expertise to operate the devices
Librem 5 is in stock, and it's my daily driver. These phones are niche, because in discussion like this one, everyone is constantly saying that it's impossible to escape the duopoly and we're doomed.