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

551–560 of 564 posts

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

#551

Post by dangus »

Aachen wrote: post #488
dangus wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s an irrelevant aside because we are already comparing apples to apples here. The reality is that there are very few phones with SD card slots in them.

I’m personally fine with it at this point. It’s not ideal and it’s not consumer friendly, but SD cards are slow and failure prone compared to internal storage, and I find that multiple storage volumes introduces management friction (moving apps and content between two locations).

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

#552

Post by Palmik »

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 have no doubt that there are strong external forces that are pressuring Google to do this. The fact that Google also benefits from it makes it less likely for them to put up much of fight, don't you think?

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

#553

Post by spwa4 »

Palmik wrote: post #552
spwa4 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have no doubt that there are strong external forces that are pressuring Google to do this. The fact that Google also benefits from it makes it less likely for them to put up much of fight, don't you think?

That's a defeatist attitude. You could just as well say the opposite that Google fundamentally is a multinational company. That means to some extent it has to fight governments to create a flat market they can operate in, just by nature of what they are.

To say nothing of the fact that many governments would extend control over Google's services until nothing allowed is worth doing anymore (for example Pakistan has demonstrated many times they'd love to kill Youtube, as apparently French children's movies insult some sort of prophet, which apparently justifies blocking the whole thing)

And third many governments are adversarial towards one another. Which means Google just can't comply. India probably tries to threaten Google into stopping services in Pakistan. But while the India-Pakistan relationship regularly results in killings, nearly all governments are adversarial to some extent and will try to threaten any multinational into attacking other countries.

At best Google can give in to government pressure very slowly, because when that control gets strong enough governments would certainly use it to kill off Google.

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

#554

Post by spwa4 »

echelon wrote: post #524
spwa4 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A smartphone is essential to operate in the modern world. Facebook is not necessary at all. Google and Apple are holding the entire world hostage. I can't even order food at half the restaurants I visit any more without a Google or Apple device. They're all using smart phone QR code menus. It's absurd. Imagine what happens when they're the only way to pay. When they're the only form of government ID. Do we really wan…

> Do we really want these devices to be locked down and not owned by us?

Locked down: no. But Google does not want them locked down. That has never been how Google operated (even now switching search engines, moving away from Google's core business, is trivial on any device, including Android)

Not "owned by us"? Yes. For the simple reason that "owned by us" means government phones, and governments have demonstrated what devices they'll build (ie. none), as well as how locked down they want these phones to be.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cewd82p09l0o

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

#555

Post by bamboozled »

gizmo686 wrote: post #408
echelon wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unacceptable. Google needs to be broken up. Apple too. The lack of antitrust enforcement is a clown show. We have no choice in the most important computing category in the world. It's a duopoly and they have everyone in straightjackets - consumers, companies, competitors, governments, ... A huge percentage of the world's thoughts and economy flow through mobile. And two companies own it. Ma Bell was nothing c…

Breaking up Google will not help in this particular case. The problem is entirely within the Android unit; and would still be present even if Android were to be split off into it's own company. It certainly seems like there is problematic behavior in the restrictions Google puts on OEMs that want to use Android (or, more specifically, play services) on their devices. However, I think it would take a different enforce…

It would be great if open source could some how solve this better. Like it's a shame UX / UI seems to be difficult for open source people to master, because I would really love a great open source phone without android on it.

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

#556

Post by d3Xt3r »

MattyRad wrote: post #265
xandrius wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check UbuntuTouch, it's really a nice third option. The OS is refreshing and the dev community active. We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils this time.

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.

There are decent Linux phones you can buy now, such as the FuriPhone FLX1 (Debian), Volla Quintus (Ubuntu Touch), Jolla C2 (SailfishOS) etc. The best part is that all of them also support running Android apps (via Waydroid or similar compatibility layer), so you get the best of both worlds.

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

#557

Post by goku12 »

jhasse wrote: post #481
goku12 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Fair as in fairness. An alternative that plays fairly with me by respecting my rights as a consumer. And yes, I agree that there are multiple alternatives. The problem is that they are not viable yet. Most of them are buggy and missing crucial features. Even if those were resolved, we'll still have holdouts like banking apps, transportation apps, shopping apps, etc that rely on platform attestation and geolocking (worthless and harmful features, IMO). The question is, how do we take them mainstream? Their situation is like those of the Linux and the BSDs of the late 90s till 2010. The platforms are not popular enough to garner attention and support from service providers.

The only solution to this market share problem is for a bunch of us to just dive right in by adopting them, put up with all the inconveniences for a while (a long while), convince everyone we can to adopt it by pretending that it's the cool new trend and then complain to every organization, agency and government that they are discriminating against us by not supporting our platform. At some point, everyone will take it up. Hopefully!

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

#558

Post by fareesh »

fainpul wrote: post #409
kam wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-... > Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push builds to devices, is unaffected.

Thanks. So, simply sending a download link for an APK to a friend is not enough anymore - I now have to teach them how to install and use adb. EDIT > we are also introducing a free developer account type that will allow teachers, students, and hobbyists to distribute apps to a limited number of devices without needing to provide a government ID. Depending on how they implement that, this would at least partially impr…

from what i understand the apk route still works fine, you just have to be willing to attach your identity to it via their verification + signing process

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

#559

Post by benjaminoakes »

ohman876 wrote: post #547
benjaminoakes wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No problem. Honestly, I have this on my mind a lot these days. It feels like I'm being forced out of an apartment and I'm wondering where I'm going to put all my stuff. First I left the iPhone for what I thought was greener pastures on Android and now I'm finding that there's not a lot of great options that don't give Google or Apple complete control. What little trust I still had in Google has basically disappeared.…

I never used Android Auto, always navigated my car with phone on a phone holder :)) thanks for Organic Maps suggestion! I always felt Google did very god work on Google Maps and felt alternatives like Osmand are not as good... until recently- seeing gmaps picking weird routes for no reason, but maybe it' just my bubble.. I'll definitely give Organic Maps a try! Also observing new apps showing up on my phone after And…

I'm happy to see this comment. Best of luck!
Post reply on HN