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

91–100 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#91

Post by cb321 »

rsch wrote: post #69
cb321 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the situation is worse as this "subscription-esque" model is "spreading" to areas beyond software. Exercise equipment like ellipticals and bicycles - whose software is/could be borderline +/- resistance level trivial - has been moving to "only works with an online subscription" business models for a long time. I mean, I have had instances that controlled resistance with like a manual knob , but these new…

That planned obsolescence thing on light bulbs isn't the entire story. Light bulbs will last longer if driven less hard, due to the lower temperature. But that lower temperature also means much lower efficiency because the blackbody spectrum shifts even further into the infrared. So some compromise had to be picked between having a reasonable amount of light and a reasonable life span. But yeah agree, this subscripti…

I'm not an expert on the case law, but supposedly United States v. General Electric Co. et al., 82 F.Supp. 753 (D.N.J. 1949) indicates that whatever design trade-offs might have existed, corporate policy makers were really just trying to screw consumers [1] (which is why they probably had to agree on short lifespans as a cartel rather than just market "this line of bulbs for these preferences" vs. "this other line for other people" -- either as a group or separate vendors). I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop where they figure out how to make LED bulbs crappy enough to need replacement.

EDIT: and, shucks, @kragen beat me to it! :-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel#cite_ref-USvGE-...

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#92

Post by CrossVR »

ef2k wrote: post #19

On MacOS it warns you when you're about to open an app you've downloaded and installed yourself. "Foo has been downloaded from the internet, are you sure you want to open it?". It doesn't stop you from installing it. Why should doing so on your phone be any different?

> Why should doing so on your phone be any different?

Because it's obscenely profitable for the platform holder to have complete control over app distribution.

Can we stop pretending it's about anything else than that? Just imagine if Microsoft got a 30% commission on every PC software purchase in the world...

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#93

Post by marcosdumay »

cesarb wrote: post #56
999900000999 wrote: post #26

You 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…

> And weirdos like us can always just import a Chinese phone that doesn't have mandatory Google verification crap. No, we can't. One of the first countries with that mandatory Google verification is Brazil, and we can't import phones which are not certified by ANATEL, they will be rejected by customs in transit.

With elections coming next year, and this being practically a "law" created in partnership with the banks cartel, this may be the time to make some noise about the change.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#94

Post by VadimPR »

Dilettante_ wrote: post #41
tetris11 wrote: post #13

> https://keepandroidopen.org/ The UK petition link appears to be broken: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744446

The EU page is also no longer accepting new feedback * https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...

Right, the period closed:

Feedback: Closed Consultation period 17 July 2025 - 24 October 2025 (midnight Brussels time)

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#95

Post by kragen »

Boogie_Man wrote: post #29

Is the title an intentional mirror of Carver's short story collection "What we talk about when we talk about love"? If so, can someone smarter than me explain what the author means by this connection?

Perhaps an unintentional one: https://lithub.com/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-thi...

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#96

Post by celsoazevedo »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #54
pmontra wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are we going to download APKs from fDroid to our computers and then adb install them to our phones? For every update? I see a lot of people, even developers, giving up.

You can run adb from the phone itself via wireless debugging. From what I understand, you can do this via Shizuku or Termux, and there are apps that can give you a user interface for this. What changes is that users have to enable developer mode to get this, which adds another warning label. Although admittedly they may remove this feature or add more hoops to jump through to use it.

Wireless debugging not only requires an initial setup, but it also requires being connected to a Wi-Fi network to work. Considering the number of Android users in countries where many don't have Wi-Fi, it's not an option for many.

There's also the problem of some banking apps refusing to work if developer tools are enabled.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#97

Post by hypeatei »

gruez wrote: post #75
hypeatei wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of people say "sideload" without trying to convey such negative meanings Sure, but they effectively do even if they're not trying to. It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said: deviant.

>Sure, but they effectively do even if they're not trying to. What specific acts are referring to? Is it just their recent plans to restrict sideloading? This feels circular. "Google is evil because they're trying to restrict sideloading. They're also extra evil because trying to demonize sideloading. How? By restricting sideloading!" >It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said:…

I think the recent push to restrict "sideloading" made people realize that the term itself helps Google frame it to normies as a fringe, non-standard thing that needs controls around it. When in reality you're just installing software on a device.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#98

Post by paul_h »

rcarmo wrote: post #12
vezycash wrote: post #10

Everyone developer who worked hard to make windows phone die. Hope you're happy.

I was a telco product manager at the time and I can tell you right away that it wasn't developers that killed Windows Phone. This book ( https://asokan.org/operation-elop/ ) tells part of the story, but the telcos I worked for (and competed with) definitely played a big role.

That book is new to me. I wrote https://paulhammant.com/2013/05/07/android-and-the-art-of-wa... on Google vs MSFT and phones before the book. Mine's a perspective that doesn't mention Nokia or its leadership.

I did own a Treo and loved it up to the OG iPhone - I repaired the eff out of it in the hope that something worthy would come along. I kidded myself I would write apps for it. I'd previously played with Simbian tech (and met a very bitter Simbian team dev in London one "eXtreme Tuesday Club" meetup in 2003). I had a Psion Organizer way back and Palm pilot. I thought Palm's WebOS stood a chance. I still own a Ubuntu Phone that I don't use - single script QML apps would have been the killer, but all that's passed now.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#99

Post by marcosdumay »

lisdexan wrote: post #88
cesarb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And weirdos like us can always just import a Chinese phone that doesn't have mandatory Google verification crap. No, we can't. One of the first countries with that mandatory Google verification is Brazil, and we can't import phones which are not certified by ANATEL, they will be rejected by customs in transit.

I knew Brazil was kinda weird with tech import taxes but I didn't know they banned non-certified phones, jezz. Here in Chile they get disconnected from the cell towers after 30 days, but you just need register it^. Do you know if the Brazilian gov or regulators asked for this first from Google or something? ^: It's less spooky than it sounds, any phone in Chile needs to be compatible with the natural disaster alert s…

Yes, Brazil doesn't allow the commerce of uncertified radio transmitters. It has been like that for close to a century.

If you are asking why the change is happening in Brazil first, the banks cartel met with google and decided to rely on that, for security.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#100

Post by api »

cb321 wrote: post #52
marcprux wrote: post #27

Author 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…

I would say the situation is worse as this "subscription-esque" model is "spreading" to areas beyond software. Exercise equipment like ellipticals and bicycles - whose software is/could be borderline +/- resistance level trivial - has been moving to "only works with an online subscription" business models for a long time. I mean, I have had instances that controlled resistance with like a manual knob , but these new…

The reason subscriptions are spreading everywhere is that stock markets and private investors usually value recurring revenue at a much higher multiple than non-recurring revenue. The effect can be so large that it can be better to have less recurring revenue than more non-recurring revenue, at least if you are seeking investment or credit.

It creates a powerful incentive to seek recurring revenue wherever possible. Since it affects things like stock prices and executives and sometimes even rank and file employees often have stock, it's an incentive throughout the organization. If something is incentivized you're going to get more of it.

In the past it was structurally hard to do this, but now that everything is online it becomes possible to put a chip in anything and make it a subscription. We are only going to see more and more of this unless either consumers balk en masse or something is done to structurally change the incentives.

Post reply on HN