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

Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#631

Post by sneak »

armadyl wrote: post #410
bityard wrote: post #268

Welp, I guess my current Android phone will be my last one. At least half of the apps I use on a daily basis come from f-droid. This enforced 24-hour wait is simply not acceptable. Android has always been a far inferior overall user experience compared to iPhone. Android's _only_ saving grace was that I could put my own third-party open-source apps on it. There is nothing left keeping me on Android now. I'll probably…

GrapheneOS phones are still an option, it’s unaffected by these rules.

Used Graphene as a daily driver for a year. It’s an unserious toy.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#633

Post by jaimex2 »

wswin wrote: post #387
tavavex wrote: post #271

The part in the flow where you select between allowing app installs for 7 days or forever is a glimpse into the future. That toggle shows the thought process that's going on at Google. I can bet that a few versions down the line, the "Not recommended" option of allowing installs indefinitely will become so not recommended that they'll remove it outright. Then shrink the 7 day window to 3 days or less. Or only give us…

what's your solution to combat scammers?

We need to remove the play store from Android phones. People have been scammed there more than any other store.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#634

Post by flomo »

bonoboTP wrote: post #452
wswin wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's your solution to combat scammers?

Do you think regular desktop computer should be locked down like this too? Scammers can also tell people to run Windows programs. Should that be banned too? I'm fine with an opt-in lock-down feature so people can do it for their parents/grandparents/children. Also, just let people get used to it. People will get burned, then tell their friends and they will then know not to simply follow what a stranger guides them t…

Keep in mind that Android has like a billion users who have never touched a Windows computer. (And unmanaged Windows was/is also a disaster zone.) Coming at this from a internet forum perspective is missing the scope of the problem.

> I'm fine with an opt-in lock-down feature

Me too, but it's really just some UI semantics whether this is 'opt-in' or 'opt-out'. Essentially it would be an option to set up the phone in "developer mode".

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#635

Post by pabs3 »

skissane wrote: post #295
plst wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by impossible in this case? Can't you just have the coin-operated parking meters back? Where I live, in EU, parking meters even take cards. EDIT: I guess "just" is doing some heavy-lifting, so I won't argue this further, but "impossible" isn't the word I would use either. The city could revert this decision, definitely if enough people wanted them to (that's... I know, the hardest part). I just agree…

Place where I park my car for work (Gosford, Australia) just got rid of cash payment, they now take card payment only (apparently there is also going to be an app, but they haven’t launched it yet). I think the number one reason is they are upgrading to a new system, and the parking technology vendor doesn’t provide cash payments as a standard option-probably they could implement a custom integration to enable it if…

The next level of parking enshittification is pay-by-license-plate, which is starting to become widespread here in Perth, Australia, even for locations that are free parking, and locations that have parking machines. Surveillance just ratchets upwards.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#636

Post by pea »

lelandfe wrote: post #497
tavavex wrote: post #271

The part in the flow where you select between allowing app installs for 7 days or forever is a glimpse into the future. That toggle shows the thought process that's going on at Google. I can bet that a few versions down the line, the "Not recommended" option of allowing installs indefinitely will become so not recommended that they'll remove it outright. Then shrink the 7 day window to 3 days or less. Or only give us…

An actual example of this lives in the Gmail iOS app. Click a link in an email and every x days, a sheet appears: https://imgur.com/a/nlGS4Yk 1. Chrome 2. Google 3. Default browser app (w/unfamiliar generic logo) They removed the option for Safari some time in the last two years; here's how it looked in 2024: https://imgur.com/1iBVFfc And the cherry on top of dark UX patterns: an unchecked toggle rests at the bottom.…

The darkest UX pattern I have ever hit is trying to cancel Google Workspace; whereby they disable the scrollbar on the page so you cannot actually get to the cancel button.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#637

Post by 3842056935870 »

sitkack wrote: post #326
benlivengood wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is called baseline reality, unfortunately. We haven't started watering crops with salt-water but it's only a matter of time.

Israelis have a plan for that in Gaza. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-israel-floods-...

[dead]

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#638

Post by hilbert42 »

This news confirms my thoughts to abandon Google's line of Android upgrades at the first opportunity.

Even before Google's edict I disabled enforced Android updates in case that at Google's demand manufacturers slipstreamed some restrictive code that cannot be later removed. One only has to look at the disastrous precedent with Windows 11 to see how insidious and ever-increasing lock-in works.

Fact is Big Tech cannot be trusted and there's a long lineage to prove it—MS Windows, Sun/OpenOffice and many others—and now Android. To avoid future calamities like this and to ensure survival of F-Droid, et al we urgently need to break Big Tech's nexus with open source independent of Big Tech's control.

I can only hope more manufacturers are prepared to fork Android to cater for the upcoming demand.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#639

Post by p0w3n3d »

janice1999 wrote: post #7
focusedone wrote: post #5

I'm generally OK with this, but the 24 hour hang time does seem a bit onerous. Most of the apps on my phone are installed from F-Droid. I guess the next time I get a new phone I'll have to wait at least 24 hours for it to become useful. I'm seriously considering Graphene for a next personal device and whatever the cheapest iOS device is for work.

The apps might not be available though. Many developers are simply stopping in the face of Google's invasive policies. I don't blame them. Say goodbye to useful apps like Newpipe.

I'd say some od those apps starting with N and ending with E might... but I'm saying that only because of my intuition... might be the exact reason why Google introduces this policy

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#640

Post by AnthonyMouse »

GeekyBear wrote: post #409
tom1337 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so Apple then? They require you to pay the $99 yearly fee to sideload for more than 7 days

Apple was clear that they were offering the safety of a walled garden from the start. Apple didn't lie about supporting a user's freedom to run anything they like, only to execute a rug pull after they successfully drove the other open options out of the marketplace.

> Apple was clear that they were offering the safety of a walled garden from the start.

This is a red herring. Is Google a hypocrite for lying about it first? Sure. But suppose Android dies and gets replaced by something that never claimed to be open. Or gets replaced by nothing so there is only iOS. Is that fine then?

Of course not, because the problem is the lack of alternatives, and having your choice glued to an entire ecosystem full of other choices so that everything is all or nothing and the choices you would make the other way are coerced by them all being tied together into something with a network effect.

Post reply on HN