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

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#531

Post by lucideer »

gruez wrote: post #251
lucideer wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the intended experience is that you get apps from the play/app store Once again, this is the point. > it doesn't imply you oppose the freedom to run whatever code you want But it does. Let's first look at what's good about "intended experience" & possible legitimate reasons to have a differentiation between "vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps & non-"vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps. The connotation of an "intended expe…

>Let's first look at what's good about "intended experience" & possible legitimate reasons to have a differentiation between "vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps & non-"vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps. It's pretty obvious that they think the distinction is worth having because they can vet apps they signed, rather than random apks from the internet. You might think that's a flimsy justification, but that's not a reason t…

> It's pretty obvious that they think the distinction is worth having because they can vet apps they signed

This is an assumption made in exceptionally generous good faith. It's certainly possible, but I would argue this is far from obvious, & there's enough circumstantial evidence to support this being completely untrue.

Sure, Google can vet apps they sign. Whether having this ability is their primary motivation for having a distinction (or whether they will actually vet apps they sign) is a very different question.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#532

Post by fluoridation »

L_226 wrote: post #530
bane wrote: post #349

I'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's because the "killer app" of phones is that they are a phone, aka a remote communications tool that relies on a subscription payment to access someone else's infrastructure. P…

But you can. I don't even use telephony anymore; it just works like crap here. I have all my calls over IM. At that point the phone is literally just a normal PC with an Internet connection, it just so happens the connection is wireless.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#533

Post by kakacik »

chii wrote: post #462
chasing0entropy wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That being said, digital marketplaces and DRM have there place to prevent piracy and allow developers and creators to make a living. If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal.' This is the equivalent statement to inspecting everyone's bag at any point because they might have something illegal. It's not an acceptable move from google.

> 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.

Don't ask lawyers for what the best solution should be, because its always "lawsuits!"

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#534

Post by array_key_first »

L_226 wrote: post #530
bane wrote: post #349

I'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's because the "killer app" of phones is that they are a phone, aka a remote communications tool that relies on a subscription payment to access someone else's infrastructure. P…

But the vast, vast majority of that communication is done over IP and has been for the past decade. It's not a "phone" at all. It's a computer with an Internet connection.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#535

Post by array_key_first »

kuhsaft wrote: post #494
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #493

Earlier 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'…

This is all a farce, because eventually the content must be decoded. Because our eyeballs must view it.

It doesn't matter if the OS doesn't prevent copying. The stream, in plaintext, exists and can be copied. Which is what pirates do.

The only way around this is skipping the TV and projecting the encrypted stream into your brain where it is then decoded by a Netflix Approved neurolink module.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#536

Post by pjmlp »

kuhsaft wrote: post #385
bane wrote: post #349

I'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…

> Now, the hardware between video game consoles, smartphones, and personal computers are mostly unified; and the only real difference is software, but the restricted marketplace model still remains.

Not really in regards to consoles, the hardware is still tailormade for game development, even if some components seem common.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#537

Post by MisterTea »

bane wrote: post #349

I'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 or other embedded computing devices ...

Well that is the consumers choice. A friend who has no desire to mess with computers and said hands down he will spend money on a console any day of the week because all he . He has a desktop and a laptop but rarely games on them.

Me, I don't buy game consoles because it kills me to own a powerful compute device that is crippled by the manufacturer to only run certain blessed software. No thanks. I prefer to game on open platforms like my Linux PC running open source games (e.g. gzdoom), DOSbox, Steam games and so on.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#538

Post by L_226 »

array_key_first wrote: post #534
L_226 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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's because the "killer app" of phones is that they are a phone, aka a remote communications tool that relies on a subscription payment to access someone else's infrastructure. P…

But the vast, vast majority of that communication is done over IP and has been for the past decade. It's not a "phone" at all. It's a computer with an Internet connection.

and you are welcome to buy a hackable tablet to run a browser or desktop app and use that for all your comms. This is not how most people work though :)

The far far worse issue is that public utilities (i.e. governments) and entities like banks force you to use an app only available through one of 2 privately owned distribution channels to interact with them. IMO this is a far worse and pervasive issue than phones being locked hardware.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#539

Post by L_226 »

fluoridation wrote: post #532
L_226 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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's because the "killer app" of phones is that they are a phone, aka a remote communications tool that relies on a subscription payment to access someone else's infrastructure. P…

But you can. I don't even use telephony anymore; it just works like crap here. I have all my calls over IM. At that point the phone is literally just a normal PC with an Internet connection, it just so happens the connection is wireless.

See my other reply to sibling. If this is how you operate, you are welcome to purchase or build hardware that better reflects your needs. Forcing a private company to modify their product, which people are happily paying for, because you personally disagree is a stretch. The better argument is that other entities whom you pay (government; tax, bank; fees) shall allow non Play or Apple store interfaces to their services, and not supporting this is an abdication of their responsibility to you.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#540

Post by MisterTea »

bane wrote: post #349

I'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 or other embedded computing devices ...

Well that is the consumers choice. I have a friend who is a hard core gamer and said hands down he will buy a console any day of the week because all he wants to do is play a game. He doesn't want to deal with Windows updates (or god forbid, fiddling with Linux), driver issues, things suddenly not working, and so on.

Personally, I don't buy video game consoles because it kills me to own a powerful compute device that is hamstrung by the manufacturer to only run blessed software. No thanks. I game on open platforms like my Linux PC running open source games like gzdoom, classics on DOSbox, emulators for classic consoles/arcades, Steam games and so on. And I can run whatever I damn well please.

Post reply on HN