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

71–80 of 564 posts

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

#71

Post by bitpush »

rclkrtrzckr wrote: post #30

> This logic is flawed: historically, we've seen malware slip through the Play Store—signed and “verified”—several times. Yeah, check for all the fake sora apps in the play store.

This is a weak argument. If things have slipped through the cracks with someone actively reviewing it, the alternative cant be 'lets not do any checking whatsoever'.

There are better arguments against this that other commenters here have provided (including "my device, my rule") but this isnt a strong argument.

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

#72

Post by unlikelytomato »

gruez wrote: post #33
HiPhish wrote: post #4

We need to stop calling it "sideloading", we should call it freely installing software. The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever. These are not phones, they are computers shaped like phones, computer which we fully bought with our money, and I we shall install what we want on our own computers.

>The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky "side" refers to the fact that it's not going through the first party app store, and doesn't have any negative connotations beyond that. Maybe if it was called "backloading" you'd have a point, but this whole language thing feels like a kerfuffle over nothing.

I get where you are coming from. However, language like this matters when it comes to legislation. People outside there space will be guided by the sideload language to think it's just "something extra on the side so why should I care?"

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

#73

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

like_any_other wrote: post #68
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a world of difference between "the OS throws up a bunch of warnings" and "the OS won't let you run unsigned software"

But Apple will change those "warnings" into straight-up lies, and fail to mention the user can override them, and hide those overrides in non-discoverable places: Whenever I try to open an unverified app, this popup comes up saying "[AppName] Not Opened" "Apple could not verify [AppName] is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy." Then there's only two options to either press "Done" or "Mov…

And yet, that is still less bad than what Android is doing.

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

#74

Post by pkulak »

msh wrote: post #66
jadbox wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still install apps outside the play store, but the developer does need to verify their signing information. Effectively this means that any app you install must have a paper trail to the originating developer, even if its not on the app store. On one hand, I can see the need for this to track down virus creators, but on the other, it provides Google transparency and control over side loaded app. It IS a conce…

It also makes it easy for google to blacklist a developer, if for example the trump administration don’t like them (the same way apple removing apps documenting ICE).

And basically every corporation with any business in the US has proven _more_ than willing to instantly capitulate to any demand made by the administration.

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

#75

Post by grepex »

unlikelytomato wrote: post #72
gruez wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky "side" refers to the fact that it's not going through the first party app store, and doesn't have any negative connotations beyond that. Maybe if it was called "backloading" you'd have a point, but this whole language thing feels like a kerfuffle over nothing.

I get where you are coming from. However, language like this matters when it comes to legislation. People outside there space will be guided by the sideload language to think it's just "something extra on the side so why should I care?"

Agreed. "Sideloading" has been marketed as a boogeyman opening doors to malware, when in fact malware exists on the play store anyway.

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

#76

Post by sidewndr46 »

chasil wrote: post #64
sidewndr46 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read anything about this? What you are proposing is exactly what is being disabled.

Let's say that Google implements this restriction, but allows F-Droid a permanent permission to disable it for apps installed through their store. Then there is both increased protection and accountability.

Why would google implement a restriction then allow someone to disable it? That's literally how it works today. By default your Android phone with Googled-OS installs only from Play store, where all apps are verified. When you want to install non verified apps you need to explicitly allow it first.

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

#77

Post by gpm »

bitpush wrote: post #69
moffkalast wrote: post #18

As with manifest v3, Google is once again misusing their position as a source of open standards to benefit their adware business. Hopefully the EU fines them once again. A weird hill to choose to die on given that in practice it's not really a meaningful percentage of people that are using adblockers and the negative PR they get from these oversteps is massive.

Didnt EU rule that it was OK for Apple to do, and Google is just just mirroring that?

I believed the EU specifically ruled that Apple's rules which include this are NOT ok. And they're currently fighting Apple about it. Unless I missed something.

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

#78

Post by SoftTalker »

gruez wrote: post #33
HiPhish wrote: post #4

We need to stop calling it "sideloading", we should call it freely installing software. The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever. These are not phones, they are computers shaped like phones, computer which we fully bought with our money, and I we shall install what we want on our own computers.

>The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky "side" refers to the fact that it's not going through the first party app store, and doesn't have any negative connotations beyond that. Maybe if it was called "backloading" you'd have a point, but this whole language thing feels like a kerfuffle over nothing.

Sounds like "sidestepping" i.e. doing something illegitimately or at least outside the normal path.

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

#79

Post by pkulak »

Aachen wrote: post #61
63stack wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I'm tempted to call android just a shittier iPhone now

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

> What part of cheaper

The iPhone 17 is the same price as the Pixel 10

> better

But the iPhone 17 has better hardware features, like UWB, better cameras, and a _far_ faster CPU.

> open source

Only if you install Graphene, and then never install anything that requires Google Play Services, which is basically every commercial app.

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

#80

Post by uyzstvqs »

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. If anyone at BlackBerry is reading this, just do it, please and thank you.

Post reply on HN