18 ms·

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

• glenstein 11mo ago
  >Regardless, the term “sideload” was coined to insinuate that there is something dark and sinister about the process, as if the user were making an end-run around safeguards that are designed to keep you protected and secure. I also recall a time in the nascent era of web file hosts, like Rapidshare.de and Mega upload, and some others that came and went so quick that I don't even remember their names, some services offered the option to "sideload" (as opposed to download) straight to their file server.
• blueg3 11mo ago
  I realize F-droid has an understandably strong opinion here, but this writing is disingenuous. From the post: > Regardless, the term “sideload” was coined to insinuate that there is something dark and sinister about the process, as if the user were making an end-run around safeguards that are designed to keep you protected and secure. But if we reluctantly accept that “sideloading” is a term that has wriggled its way into common parlance, then we should at least use a consistent definition for it. Wikipedia’s summary definition is: > the transfer of apps from web sources that are not vendor-approved The opening two sentences of the linked-to Wikipedia page on sideloading: > Sideloading is the process of transferring files between two local devices, in particular between a personal computer and a mobile device such as a mobile phone, smartphone, PDA, tablet, portable media player or e-reader. > Sideloading typically refers to media file transfer to a mobile device via USB, Bluetooth, WiFi or by writing to a memory card for insertion into the mobile device, but also applies to the transfer of apps from web sources that are not vendor-approved. The phrase after the "but" in the second sentence isn't the "summary definition". It's the part of the definition that best supports your argument. Cutting the Wikipedia definition down to that part is deceptive. Also in the post: > Regardless, the term “sideload” was coined to insinuate that there is something dark and sinister about the process, as if the user were making an end-run around safeguards that are designed to keep you protected and secure. Immediately later in the same Wikipedia page is a paragraph that is literally about how the word was coined: > The term "sideload" was coined in the late 1990s by online storage service i-drive as an alternative means of transferring and storing computer files virtually instead of physically. In 2000, i-drive applied for a trademark on the term. Rather than initiating a traditional file "download" from a website or FTP site to their computer, a user could perform a "sideload" and have the file transferred directly into their personal storage area on the service. That's funny. The history of how the word was coined and the post's claim about how it was coined aren't similar at all. Weird.
  • secstate 11mo ago
    > The phrase after the "but" in the second sentence isn't the "summary definition". It's the part of the definition that best supports your argument. Cutting the Wikipedia definition down to that part is deceptive. Wat? Everything after the "but" is what Google means when they use the term sideload and is the only important part of the definition for f-droid's purposes. The other definition is completely irrelevant and, I would argue, hardly ever used anymore.
  • IncreasePosts 11mo ago
    Maybe they meant coining the usage of "side load" for any non-appstore method of acquiring an app. Per the original definition, how exactly am I "side loading" if I go to the epic games store and download and install their epic game store APK?
  • bnjms 11mo ago
    You argue here that google is technically correct because they’re correctly using sideload. But that isn’t the point people are angry about. The point is that sideload was a misnomer. Correctly Android users were able to install packages and now cannot. This is anti consumer and breaks the social contract. Anyway this is so disingenuous that I think it’s astroturf. Here’s the meme we should’ve spreading: Chrome and Android should be broken off from Google. Apple should be forced to allow sideloading, at a minimum, same as any other computer. Phones and tablets should be valid targets for custom OS.
    • blueg3 11mo ago
      > Correctly Android users were able to install packages and now cannot. Not only has nothing happened yet, but this is also untrue.
      • permalac 11mo ago
        Android users will at some point next year not be able to install software unless the developer has paid and registered itsef with Google, and Google has approved the developer and the software (for an uncertain amount of time). That is not nice.
• gjsman-1000 11mo ago
  * * *
  • secstate 11mo ago
    While I wont argue about it feeling like a conspiracy theory, I will argue that pretty much no one knows sideloading as a term with regards to what i-drive meant by it. And the fact that `adb sideload` is where the concept originated does nothing to dispel the way the term is frequently used in a derogatory fashion these days. It's wielded as a bogey man to make people afraid of unsigned applications. Despite the fact that many perfectly signed applications are full of malware and dark patterns. Also, FFS, this is hacker news. Why on Earth would be arguing in favor of Google locking down how I can install software on my device.
    • sojsurf 11mo ago
      I bought an iphone knowing that Apple has a review process and that I'm limited to apps sold in their store. Similarly, when I had an Android device I knew what I was getting in to. I appreciate the fairly high level of review that apps get and I completely back Apple's right to control what runs on the OS they developed. Similarly, if _you_ want to run an OS you got from XDA on your Android device and install random stuff, I'll be the last person to stop you. Hacker news readers are part of the small circle of people who have probably developed a decent intuition for whether software we download is clean or not. Most folks I know do not have this intuition, and many will not bat an eyelash when their new app asks for access to their contacts, etc. Sideload should absolutely continue to be a term that discourages the average person from doing it.
      • Y_Y 11mo ago
        > I completely back Apple's right to control what runs on the OS they developed. Praytell, what right is this?
        • sojsurf 11mo ago
          hah, thanks. It's a bit more nuanced than that. Let me try again. I completely support Apple's right to publish software that makes it difficult for unapproved software to run on it. Similarly, I support your right to try running something else on it. Just like my neighbor has the right to publish a browser that makes it difficult to run extensions in it, and I have the right to use a different browser. Some people would like the phone OS to be regulated like a public utility. I do not support that, and if we _had_ to have it that way, it would be important to have the same standards for everyone and regulate _all_ phone OSes equally. I don't like the thought of what that would do to the chances of any "open" offering.
• ainiriand 11mo ago
  The existing comments here somehow display a big amount of discomfort with the semantics of the article, not so much with the points argued...
  • ryandrake 11mo ago
    Sorry, but "welcome to HN?" Commenters here regularly miss the forest for the trees, ratholing on minutiae and nitpicking one or two words in a 1000 word article. Often totally missing the overall point. We're notorious for it.
    • jay_kyburz 11mo ago
      Perhaps when you comment on one little thing, its a sign that you agree with the article overall, but have one little nitpick.
  • card_zero 11mo ago
    Dear F-droid, please edit your article to be technically correct so that HN can like it. All you have to do is change "coined" to "popularized".
• fngjdflmdflg 11mo ago
  `abd install` will still work as per[0] so to me sideloading is still possible, so the statement 'Google’s message that “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false' is not correct. I think users should be able to install whatever software they want, without any charge or other external permissions, but at the same time device and OS makers should be able to make it difficult to do so, within reason. Apparently scam apps are more common in some countries than others and is actually a problem in some countries, although I'm not sure.[1] Google did cite that as the reason for the change.[2] However, combined with the way Google has been locking down Android APIs more and more, (eg. the file system, but other APIs as well) it is concerning. At the same time those changes were also about security. I think every phone should be able to have full root permissions if you go through enough hoops without having to install another ROM. That seems to solve most of the issues here. [0] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-security-answering-your-top.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-... [1] see eg. https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/07/google-starts-blocking-users-from-sideloading-certain-apps-in-singapore/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/07/google-starts-blocking-use... at the end of the article for some examples [2] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...
  • pmontra 11mo ago
    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.
    • bpye 11mo ago
      This actually seems worse from a security perspective to me than allowing installing apps on device. Your email client from F-Droid has an RCE? Too bad - better hope you update manually!
    • fngjdflmdflg 11mo ago
      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.
• vezycash 11mo ago
  Everyone developer who worked hard to make windows phone die. Hope you're happy.
  • rcarmo 11mo ago
    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/ https://asokan.org/operation-elop/) tells part of the story, but the telcos I worked for (and competed with) definitely played a big role.
    • paul_h 11mo ago
      That book is new to me. I wrote https://paulhammant.com/2013/05/07/android-and-the-art-of-war 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.
  • Nextgrid 11mo ago
    > who worked hard to make windows phone die You mean Microsoft? No backwards-compatibility with Windows Mobile to begin with (so companies can't reuse their existing investment into line-of-business apps on actually nice modern devices either), then they reset the ecosystem 2 times (once during the WP7->WP8 transition, another time during the Windows 10 transition).
    • actionfromafar 11mo ago
      Well put. Microsoft following the "Double barrel shotgun, apply one wad per foot." (Reset ecosystem 2 times.)
• user3939382 11mo ago
  We should just call it loading. Loading from an app store we can call simply, mortgaging our cognitive liberty and liquidating the middle class for comfort or MOCLALTMCFC.
• tetris11 11mo ago
  > https://keepandroidopen.org/ https://keepandroidopen.org/ The UK petition link appears to be broken: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744446 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/744446
  • Dilettante_ 11mo ago
    The EU page is also no longer accepting new feedback * https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14622-Digital-Fairness-Act_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
    • VadimPR 11mo ago
      Right, the period closed: Feedback: Closed Consultation period 17 July 2025 - 24 October 2025 (midnight Brussels time)
• BrenBarn 11mo ago
  I think we could set the bar substantially higher. Don't even bother with discussion of sideloading. Talk about bounded transactions and device control. What is needed is: Once I have purchased a device, the transaction is over. I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control.
  • Valodim 11mo ago
    What does this even mean? You don't want software updates? Or strictly only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time?
    • HerbMcM 11mo ago
      I'll take that deal 9 times out of 10. Why would I want updates tied to a phone if I'm going to be installing my own software with its own updates? This is already done on most software, browsers, etc. CVE on text messages? Cool, wasn't using the manufacturer's app anyway.
    • encom 11mo ago
      Maybe I do, maybe I don't. It's for me to decide what updates I want, if any. Apple and Microsoft do not give you a choice. Precisely zero people wanted Copilot on their computers, but it's there anyway whether you want it or not.
      • commandersaki 11mo ago
        You can choose not to update in both Android and iOS. Same with running Windows.
        • necovek 11mo ago
          Security bugfixes are tied to feature upgrades, unfortunately.
    • milutinovici 11mo ago
• ef2k 11mo ago
  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?
  • bpfrh 11mo ago
    Depending on your app this is not all. If i send a golang binary to someone with a mac via signal or other mediums, apple simply displays a dialog that the app is damaged and can't be run. You need to use chmod to manually remove the quarantine flag to run it. That for me is something that should be fined ad infinitum, because it is clearly designed to disallow non technical people to run custom apps.
    • bpye 11mo ago
      > If i send a golang binary to someone with a mac via signal or other mediums, apple simply displays a dialog that the app is damaged and can't be run. Has this changed? I thought it failed to launch, but if you go to Privacy & Security in Settings it would give you the option to allow it to run? Though yes, macOS doesn't prompt you to do that, you have to know where to find it.
    • Zak 11mo ago
      On the other hand, it used to be very common for malware on Windows to email itself to all your contacts using your real email client. It's probably reasonable for an OS to add a little friction to the process in the modern era, though it probably shouldn't lie and claim the binary is damaged when that's not the problem.
      • makeitdouble 11mo ago
        chmod to dequarantine doesn't sound like "a little friction" to me. On your point about security, this kind of aggressivity from the platform owner tend to backfire. The user was already convinced to open that mail, download that file, and try to run it. Pushing the process to the terminal just means your clueless users now run the provided incantations in the shell instead, and the attack vector now becomes huge (the initial program doesn't even need to be malware)
• rcarmo 11mo ago
  As an iOS user who's been frustrated with Apple's approach to "self-loading" (i.e., running your own code on your own devices) and who's actually gone out and gotten Android devices to write PoC/PoV apps on instead, I really don't like Google's stance on this--even if I would not, at this time, choose to daily drive an Android device, I do rely on F-Droid for getting software on six or seven different devices _right now_ and they would be useless to me if I couldn't do it.
  • vagab0nd 11mo ago
    This year, I discovered SideStore on iOS, and its wonderful auto-refresh feature. Since then, I have written two iOS apps and am happily using them daily with zero issues. This plus the new Google announcement mean no going back to Android for me any time soon.
    • rcarmo 11mo ago
      Doesn't really fix Apple's 7 day re-signing on iOS 26.
      • vagab0nd 10mo ago
        But it does. That's the "auto refresh" feature. Zero maintenance after setup.
• 999900000999 11mo ago
  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 like us can always just import a Chinese phone that doesn't have mandatory Google verification crap.
  • Brian_K_White 11mo ago
    But what would be the point when no one would bother writing an app for such a small user base?
    • 999900000999 11mo ago
      So I can test my own apps on my own devices, or upload them to itch for other weird people. I don't feel like giving Google a large amount of my personal information just so I can distribute free games. Why do they need a copy of my lease ?
      • t_mahmood 11mo ago
        The point parent is making, if Google makes it so difficult sharing the software with other people, who is going to make those itch-the-scratch software going through so much trouble? We would miss out a lot of creative people making software.
        • Brian_K_White 11mo ago
          Correct. What I am saying is: There is still a few points of course like being able to modify the base system. Just being able to say, kill the built in facebook is a quality of life improvement. But it just feels like the benefits of a self owned phone os are going away even when you have it, because everything else changes around it and out from under it, so you don't get the functional benefit from it any more even when you have it. You give up the use of things like tap to pay (would have been nice a couple times when I forgot my wallet) and drm content, hell, I can't use the stupid LG app that controls an air conditioner, and (increasingly) don't get something else important in return. Today, there is still some benefit, because this latest change is only just now happening. I can use say, open source password manager and totp apps instead of google authenticator, and can use a pandora client that Pandora absolutely does not approve of, because the author doesn't need anyone's approval to produce the app and there is no choke point that Pandora can petition to block it. Hell why am I even talking about Pandora instead of Youtube and Newpipe? In what universe does Google EVER ratify the developer of Newpipe? (Wait, for that matter, what developer? what if there's an ever-changing fuzzy cloud of 20?) Or full-fat ublock origin...or countless other things whos sole purpose and value is to thwart some will of Googles? Or like the game emulator apps that Nintendo shuts down so aggressively, etc. Those ICE tracking or merely documenting apps. Countless... Will those various authors still bother putting in the time and effort it takes to make these apps so good when only about 18 people will be able to use them? I imported a Sony phone to the US because they don't sell it here, and no one else sells a current flagship with a headphone jack and removable sd card and high end cameras. I successfully found and imported the phone, and got it working on a US carrier. Yay me. It's even rootable! Yay me. Yet I still can't run Lineage on it, because there is probably not a dozen other people like me to be an audience for Lineage on this hardware, and it's too much work to do for no audience. The fact that today most phones are unrootable means that even if you somehow get around that, you still don't get the benefit because you're such a small audience that no one is producing say LineageOS for example for you. My individual success bucking the system still did not result in me getting what I want.
• marcprux 11mo ago
  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 want on your computer, regardless of whether that computer is on your desk or in your pocket. That's a hill I'll die on. I'm dismayed to see that this sentiment is not more widespread in this of all communities.
  • bigstrat2003 11mo ago
    > 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. That is not a fact, that is your opinion. Lots of people say "sideload" without trying to convey such negative meanings. For better or for worse, the term has entered the common lexicon and I very rarely see it used with negative connotations attached to it.
    • Craighead 11mo ago
      [dead]
    • alanbernstein 11mo ago
      I think the verb "promote" was chosen over "say" here very deliberately
    • huflungdung 11mo ago
      [dead]
    • hypeatei 11mo ago
      > 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.
• Boogie_Man 11mo ago
  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?
  • kragen 11mo ago
    Perhaps an unintentional one: https://lithub.com/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-this-title-format/ https://lithub.com/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-thi...
• terminalshort 11mo ago
  I think this misses the forest for the trees here. The platforms behavior here is a symptom and not the core problem. I think the following are pretty clearly correct: 1. It's your damn phone and you should be able to install whatever the hell you want on it 2. Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices Given that both of these things are obviously true, it seems like a pretty obvious solution is to just have a pop up that has a install at your own risk warning whenever you install something outside of the official app store. 99.9% of users would never see the warning either because almost all developers would register their apps through the official store. But there is a reason why Apple/Google won't do that, and it's because they take a vig on all transactions done through those apps (a step so bold for an OS that even MSFT never even dared try in its worst Windows monopoly days). In a normal market there would be no incentive to side load because legitimate app owners would have no incentive not to have users load apps outside of the secure channel of the official app store, and users would have no incentive to go outside of it. But with the platforms taxing everything inside the app, now every developer has every incentive to say "sideload the unofficial version and get 10% off everything in the app". So the platforms have to make it nearly impossible to keep everything in their controlled channel. Solve the platform tax, solve the side loading issue.
  • kragen 11mo ago
    > 2. Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices I would instead say that having a trustworthy channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool. F-Droid is such a channel; the Google Play Store is not. So Google is trying to take this valuable security tool away from users.
    • noitpmeder 11mo ago
      Sure, but you'd probably also agree it should be up to the device owner (end user) which parties are to be considered 'trusted'
• funOtter 11mo ago
  After Google implements this, will I still be able to "side-load" (install any software) on Android-derivative OSes like GrapheneOS?
  • zb3 11mo ago
    Yes (but see my comment about the permission system), however, the future of bootloader unlocking and AOSP is uncertain... :( With one switch, one nasty update (disabling bootloader unlocking on Pixels), Google could kill GrapheneOS..
  • kuratkull 11mo ago
    Currently it seems that Google is pushing for hardware attestation, so you might be able to install Graphene/Lineage if your phone manufacturer allows you to unlock your bootloader, but many Play Store apps won't work as they'll detect your root. It's actually gotten pretty insane how every low-value app considers themselves the centre of the world and unable to run on a rooted device. Example: the loyalty card app for a local store chain - there's no money in it, I can just get some discounts when I use it. So an attacker would have to steal my phone, somehow unlock it, and then they can use my loyalty card (btw which is free to obtain for anyone and there are no tiers) to get some discounts. And for that, they have implemented a pretty decent root checker which i had to put in some effort to overcome. And there are many more like it.
    • Andrex 11mo ago
      There might be insurance and bank contracts higher up the chain that classify it as a financial dealing and thus require stricter conformance. I'm speculating tbh I have no idea for sure.
    • AlgebraFox 11mo ago
      > as they'll detect your root A small clarification, neither GrapheneOS or LineageOS runs as root. Rooting is different from "installing an alternate OS".
• pr337h4m 11mo ago
  Why are OEMs like Samsung just letting this happen? A lot of power users who buy flagships will leave for iPhones if Android ceases to be an open platform. (This segment is what is preventing the “green bubbles = poor” narrative from taking over.)
  • Andrex 11mo ago
    Samsung's fought Google on a few different fronts over the years and conceded most of those fights.
  • the_pwner224 11mo ago
    > A lot of power users who buy flagships will leave for iPhones if Android ceases to be an open platform. 99.9% of people who use Android have never, and never will, install apps outside the Play Store, and aren't even aware that they can do so.
    • archargelod 11mo ago
      Did you consider piracy? I'd guesstimate that close to 50% of Android users know how to install an apk.
      • dmbche 11mo ago
        You think 50% of the 3.6 billions of android users know that?
        • LambdaComplex 11mo ago
          https://xkcd.com/2501/ https://xkcd.com/2501/
        • archargelod 11mo ago
          There are countries like China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela where installing an APK is the primary or only way to get most software, including essential bank and government apps. Outside of the Western market, installing Android apps not from Google Play is a completely normal and regular thing. In countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, and the Philippines (which represent a massive portion of global Android users) it is a standard part of using a phone.
• 1970-01-01 11mo ago
  You cannot beat them at their own game without some other Goliath like the EU getting involved. The complain and watch strategy doesn't make a difference.
  • Nemo_bis 11mo ago
    This sort of public complaint is the first step towards an European Commission finding of non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act.
• ge96 11mo ago
  Tangent about open source development As a person that tried the Pine64 ecosystem and not being able to will drivers/C++ apps into existence (like I can with web/cross platform), I did not contribute much other than buying the device/doing some videos on YT. (I bought: PP, PPP, PineBook, PineNote, PineTab) It depended on few people working on it eg. through Discord communities Anyway point is I saw Expensify I think they have these GitHub PRs which have $ values on them, would be interesting to take that approach, just pay for it literally eg. a GoFundMe for a feature. ex. https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/73681 https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/73681
• xondono 11mo ago
  I’m honestly very tired of this argument, everything about it is bad. Features aren’t rights, if you want a phone that let’s you run whatever you want, buy one or make it yourself. What you’re trying is to use the force of the state to make mandatory a feature that not only 99% users won’t use, it vastly increases the attack surface for most of them, specially the most vulnerable. If anyone were trying to create a word that gives a “deviant” feel, they wouldn’t use “sideload”, and most people haven’t even heard the term. There’s a world of difference between words like “pirate”, “crack”, “hack” and “sideload”. If anything I’d say it’s too nice of a term, since it easily hides for normies the fact that what you’re doing is loading untrusted code, and it’s your responsibility to audit it’s origin or contents (something even lot’s of devs don’t do). If you want to reverse engineer your devices, all the power to you, but you don’t get to decide how others people’s devices work.
  • juris 11mo ago
    It's a proper argument on its surface, complete with claim, warrant, and impact. "Features aren't rights" > see: Consumer Rights. "Force of the state making sideloading mandatory is bad" > ...Except we have antitrust laws? The Play Store becomes the only source of apps, all transactions are routed through Google Billing? Not a problem for you? "99% users won't use" > Except for when Google demands that transactions happen exclusively through Google Billing, which resulted in the release of the Epic Games Launcher for the world's highest grossing games by download. "Sideloading is too nice" > Listen, either it's the case that "sideloading" is a threat to normies or it's not. Are normies your 1% or 99% of users? I thought according to you 99% of users won't sideload. "You don't get to decide" > That language ties in pretty well with your fear of the use of the 'force of the state'; that tells me that you support freedom. Great-- you're right, why not let corporations be corporations and do anti-consumer things, they'll be very good to us (while they lobby the state).
    • xondono 11mo ago
      > "Features aren't rights" > see: Consumer Rights. Consumer rights aren’t features, and they’re very intentionally written to not be. > "Force of the state making sideloading mandatory is bad" > ...Except we have antitrust laws? Then sue them over those. > Listen, either it's the case that "sideloading" is a threat to normies or it's not. Are normies your 1% or 99% of users? I thought according to you 99% of users won't sideload. I meant that 99% of users aren’t afraid by the term “sideloading”. That you’re not using something doesn’t mean you’re afraid of it, it just means you don’t want it. > you're right, why not let corporations be corporations and do anti-consumer things, they'll be very good to us (while they lobby the state). Because corporations tend to die when they do anti-consumer things, but governments keep doing anti-citizen things without much trouble.
• nashashmi 11mo ago
  Is this seeking Google’s approval for the app? Or is the condition app be signed by a verified user? The latter means side loading is still viable for apps from known developers. This way anyone who is known who may create malware and will not be free from prosecution
  • blueg3 11mo ago
    It is the latter. The app has to be signed, and the signer has to register "real" identity with Google. Approval of the app itself is not a part of the process. Yes, sideloading will still be viable from known developers. Probably malware developers will still be free from prosecution -- what moron is going to distribute malware with their own identity attached to it? But it means when the malware gets caught (which it does) you can't just roll a new APK with a different signature. You've burned a developer identity and need a new one. Those are harder to come by, and so it rate-limits malware distribution.
    • Andrex 11mo ago
      Fwiw I've been getting random email offers over the years to buy my old dev account for like $100-300. Dev accounts are going to become a prized commodity on the black market with this move. (I didn't sell my acct, for the record.)
  • sfRattan 11mo ago
    > The latter means side loading is still viable for apps from known developers. This way anyone who is known who may create malware and will not be free from prosecution Important corrections: This way anyone who is known to create malware or any software which interferes with Google's current or potential future revenue, strategic interests, and unpredictable whims will not be free from prosecution in the case of distributing malware, nor from digital exile and unpersoning in the case of causing inconvenience to Google.
  • altfredd 11mo ago
    Approval is tied to individual apps. From https://developer.android.com/developer-verification https://developer.android.com/developer-verification: > You'll need to prove you own your apps by providing your app package name and app signing keys Needless to say, Google will throw out NewPipe, ad-blockers and anything else that might endanger their profits. For example, Google does not allow F-Droid to be published in Google Play (distributing competing app stores is against their ToS). This policy was in action as long as Google Play/Android Market existed.
• vzaliva 11mo ago
  I want to make a report to to US Department of Justice Antitrust Report Online and US Federal Trade Commission: Antitrust Complaint as suggested but I will appreciate some guidance on the wording. Could anyone share a sample?
• nashashmi 11mo ago
  The entire App Store system is broken. It should have always been sideloadable apps by default. And app stores for verified app makers. Instead we have Google withholding play store. And now withholding sideloading.
• zb3 11mo ago
  Note that the Android permission system is designed so that you are not in control by design, some permissions are "not for you" and only for "system apps" which you can't control. This gives Google and device manufacturers advantage over third party software developers in the name of security... I think we should focus on defending the slowly-vanishing ability to unlock the bootloader and fight for the core parts of Android to stay open source.. without these two, installing an APK will mean less and less until it might eventually become synonymous with installing a PWA.
  • aboringusername 11mo ago
    A great example of this is the 'networking' permission. Being able to control which app can speak to the WAN/LAN is a very important security consideration. Instead, every Android app can send any data it wants without the user being able to have a say in the matter. A lot of apps work just fine without being able to 'phone home'. Thankfully there's the likes of GrapheneOS, however, with Google's recent changes, unless their OEM partner pulls through, their days are likely numbered.
    • Liftyee 11mo ago
      Interestingly, on Xiaomi HyperOS they have added the ability to individually control each app's access to mobile data 1/2/WiFi. I didn't know this wasn't a general Android feature. I guess if it was, people would be turning off the network permission of all the "apps that perform a trivial function, but with ads", like I always do.
• zouhair 11mo ago
  The fact that we don't have root access to our phones is insane. This "sideloading" part is just the cherry on top of the dystopia we live in.
  • kuratkull 11mo ago
    That's also a large part of the issue IMO. I currently _have_ root on my rooted and Lineaged Poco F3. But as hardware attestation is becoming the norm I am deeply worried about the future. I have been a pretty eager Android fan due to its achievable-if-savvy openness. If I lose root and sideloading, then Android is dead to me. There would be nothing valuable in it, just another corporate walled garden.
    • zouhair 11mo ago
      I have no idea what to do when they lock everything up. I just hope my bank app works with a non google phone.
      • hansvm 11mo ago
        My HSA just implemented some bullshit where even the web interface requires a near-new phone to even log in. For now I'm just switching HSA providers rather than buying a new phone. I'm also worried about the future.
        • Barbing 11mo ago
          Wow, what are they checking for, newer OS?
          • hansvm 11mo ago
            Basically. It's just not built for any older OS.
  • andoando 11mo ago
    The result of this is very deep. Apple/Google effectively control what consumer technologies and services are allowed to gain traction.
• p0w3n3d 11mo ago
  Actually sideloading is not a made-up term. It's an existing term, that was (20yrs ago) used regarding to cracks and trainers software. Sideloaders loaded (mainly in DOS but Atari had it too) the main executable along with additional program, a routine or interrupt that would allow disabling of copy protection, cheat on the amount of lives, energy in games (trainers) or simply do something more like play demo music before the game's proper launching. One example - prehistorik game that was distributed by pirates with a "pretrain.com" which allowed to select unlimited lives and sideloaded this routine along with the main program, that would periodically check the counters and keep them up. -- edit -- Apparently after checking this term in the internet, I am not so sure that this process had been called this way. Maybe I'll leave it here to provoke a correct answer according to the internet rule #1 - to learn what is the correct answer, just post an incorrect answer in the internet and wait
• ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  What is to be done? Install LineageOS or GrapheneOS? I feel that the root problem is that there aren't enough highly skilled low level developers willing to spend their time writing free software for mobile phones. Why do we have Linux and things around it? Because a lot of very skilled developers decided to work on it and offer it to the world.
  • n3t 11mo ago
    Most (some sources say ~80%) Linux contributors are paid by their employer.
    • ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
      I hope that's true. Do you have a source?
      • n3t 11mo ago
        "About 80% of kernel contributors are paid – by their employer!" -- https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/how-linux-is-built-with-greg-kroah https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/how-linux-is-buil... (from 2025) Check out "Most active 5.10 employers" table (it's from 2020) on https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/ https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/ "Seventy-five percent of all kernel development is done by developers who are being paid for their work" -- https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/press-release/the-linux-foundation-releases-annual-linux-development-report https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/press-release/the-linu... (from 2012)
        • ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
          This is actually a super encouraging thing. I wonder why it doesn't work as well for the Gnu apps.
• aboringusername 11mo ago
  The only reason Google has decided to lock-down Android is because of apps like ICEblock and the ability for anonymous individuals to mass distribute information that governments do not like. Now, they'll be able to hunt you down by requesting Google hand over every ID document that they process. This sets a chilling precedent for free speech. It enables governments to go after those who dare 'speak out' by using platforms to their advantage. You can no longer 'hide in the shadows' and will need to put your entire identity on the line for your morals and convictions. Of course, if they could do this with Windows, Linux et al they absolutely would. And general purpose computing will, eventually, be closed and locked down, much like what we are seeing with the internet and ID laws. People would have, and did, think such ideas would be unthinkable 10-15 years ago. Yet little-by-little the screws are being ever tightened. The government wishes to tightly control the information flow and decide what is 'best for you' to see. Preferably their chosen propaganda. Work-arounds that exist today will likely be closed and forbidden in the future. VPNs to bypass age laws, ADB to bypass install-blocks will all be obsolete. You will be required to identify yourself at all times. I half-expect Google to deprecate and remove the concept of VPN's/ADB on Android entirely and laws will be passed to that affect (restricting the apps themselves, or access to the APIs to verified Android devices/Google accounts). If you don't believe me, you only need to see [1] for the direction of travel. There is little interest from the regulators to stop this. Perhaps the useless CMA will 'investigate' in 5 years time, decide Google perhaps abused its monopoly and then do absolutely nothing because they have no real re-course over an American company. It's likely governments support this position and will not do anything to influence a change of direction. Eventually, Linux itself will go the same way, people are just waiting for Torvalds to retire from the project to make their moves, but make no mistake, open general-purpose computing is under threat and there is going to be little we can do to reverse the current trends towards closely monitored and controlled computing. [1]: https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/overview https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/overvi... This will most likely be expanded in the future to limit access to certain 'dangerous' APIs like ADB/VPN's etc. This can also be used 'in app' and across the entire OS to shape your experience of what you can see and do. I wouldn't be surprised if 'unlocking bootloader' required an 18+ verified device.
  • pessimizer 11mo ago
• NoImmatureAdHom 11mo ago
  Where do I send my money to fight this? https://keepandroidopen.org/ https://keepandroidopen.org/ is about sending messages, which I have done and will continue to do. But I want to open my wallet.
  • mwnivek 11mo ago
    You may be looking for something more specifically targeted, but here two somewhat relevant ways to donate money: - https://f-droid.org/en/donate/ https://f-droid.org/en/donate/ - https://supporters.eff.org/donate/join-eff-today https://supporters.eff.org/donate/join-eff-today
• kazinator 11mo ago
  Sideloading is just a deliberately pejorative term which replaces "software installation". When you install Git Bash, Vim or GIMP on Microsoft Windows, you are side loading.
• kazinator 11mo ago
  They wanted to call it freeloading, but showed a bit of self-restraint. Whenever you side load anything, you are robbing someone's app store of income. You are not visiting their portal to be exposed to ads, you are not seeing ads in the middle of an application, you are not paying for anything. Or at least, not paying to them. The only streaming service I pay for in my household is Japanese TV, which uses a side-loaded application. I'm freeloading on the Android TV platform because I only paid for the hardware, and for a streaming service not related any Google revenue funnels whatsoever. That's what it's about. It's either a derogatory term for "software loading" or an euphemism for "freeloading", or both.
  • Liftyee 11mo ago
    I bought the hardware, for the price they chose to sell it at. Why should I be obligated to use any of their services, if I can avoid it? I'm not sure if your comment is satire. So I'll respond as is. "Not providing potential further income" is not "robbing"... what is being stolen from them? Something they never had in the first place? When I lose a bet I willingly entered, am I being "robbed" of the gains? Furthermore, who is losing if I go to F-Droid to install an open source app people wrote with no expectation of income? If Google had a better app, I would have installed it from there. Too bad everything is riddled with ads detracting from the core purpose.
    • kazinator 11mo ago
      > I bought the hardware, for the price they chose to sell it at. Why should I be obligated to use any of their services, if I can avoid it? Their answer would be something like, that the hardware vendor has nothing to do with them and is also a freeloader, taking advantage of their software ecosystem to sell hardware.
• ptrl600 11mo ago
  Will I be allowed to add keys to verify developers over ADB?
• aussieguy1234 11mo ago
  I've switched my main phone to GrapheneOS, specifically because of what Google is doing here. I'm sure alot of others will do the same.
• klawed 11mo ago
  It makes me a little sad that there’s no mention of Raymond Carver in this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Talk_About_When_We_Talk_About_Love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Talk_About_When_We_Tal... The current state of dominant mobile OS’s is about as bleak as the bleakest Carver story. Since I’m on a tangent I’ll also highly recommend the movie Shortcuts.
  • deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  • marcprux 11mo ago
    Also recommended: BIRDMAN or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
• gmueckl 11mo ago
  I know that this is a controversial take here, but this sideloading crackdown is just fallout from the inevitable disaster that is mixing general purpose computing with high security and reliability requirements. There's just no way at this time in which a single computing device can run software with high reliability expectations (emergency calls), high security expectations (controlled calling/texting, banking, money transactions) at the same time as random crap from the internet and keep the user safe and secure. The HN community is far to fixated on their own use cases to properly understand this issue and its implications which can potentially upset a person's entire existence.
  • MostlyStable 11mo ago
    I always buy this argument....to the extent that the more powerful, dangerous capabilities are still allowed but locked behind some (one time) process that indicates you have a base level of knowledge and understanding. If you want to make it default safe for normies, fine, but let me turn my own device into the dangerous thing it is capable of being. The version of the your view that we are actually getting is _incredibly_ paternalistic and condescending to the general populace. The kind of society that is capable of protecting everyone from every conceivable harm comes with the kinds of tradeoffs that no one, not even the people who actually need the protection, are going to want.
    • gmueckl 11mo ago
      Sadly, your view isn't less paternalistic in reality. It effectively amounts to telling people who have better things to do than care about their personal IT security to just suck it up. Billions of smartphone users worldwide are in this position. Look, I'm not saying that this outcome is ideal and I hate the idea of a single, almighty platform gatekeeper. But with the world being what it is right now, draconian device lockdowns of some kind are the best option that is immediately available.
  • AAAAaccountAAAA 11mo ago
    If that "disaster" was so "inevitable", it would have happened ages ago. It's not like it was somehow possible to accidentally sideload apps. You have to first find the correct option from the system settings to enable sideloading, and then approve the specific app source you want to install from. It is not like how things are/were on Windows. Back in the turn of the millennium, it was easier to catch malware than it was to install useful apps. For former, you only needed to double-click on an email attachment, for the latter, you needed to actively to go look for the website of the app developer, and download it from there. Android already was pretty much at the sweet spot between security and freedom, what it came to sideloading. What Google should have done was to crack down on the scam apps in Play Store. However, they are not going to do that, since it would cut their profits.
• nhumrich 11mo ago
  As a power user, and software creator, I absolutely hate this decision. Side loading and power features are a main reason I use android. That being said, as a grandchild, I also completely understand where google is coming from. A surprisingly high percentage of users do need protecting from themselves. They are so technology illiterate that someone random tells them to install something, "it will say it's not safe, but it's actually okay, just click approve" and they will. This is why HSTS exists, to prevent uneducated users from getting pwned, by preventing them from disabling safeguards. So, having some system of "no really, I am a power user" makes sense, even if I hate it.
• j45 11mo ago
  “Sideloading “ is the original app installing by sync or copying. You used a wire, or Bluetooth that transferred the app file. Then it ran. This is how it was. iPhone 1 was vehemently against third party apps of any kind. The use of iTunes to have a “store” helped transfer and install apps digitally, and I believe using a wire too. You either own your device or you don’t. At a software level mobile has been a challenge to keep secure and locking it all down might not secure it either as there might be side doors still instead of side loading. It has been 15-17 years since we got this batch of mobile operating systems, maybe we’re due for a new one since there’s a critical mass of users already on smartphones, unlike when Android/iOS began.
• alanhou0220 11mo ago
  [dead]
• bane 11mo ago
  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 control or "jailbreaking". This differentiator stimulated Google to "allow" installing on Android without "jailbreaking" the device aka "sideloading", giving the illusion of the kind of freedom that was never in question on normal computers. 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 where the controls against arbitrary applications is even stronger. 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. Why hasn't the kind of ferver that created Linux driven engineers to fix their phones? Is Android and iOS just good enough to keep us complacent and trapped forever? I can't help but think there might be some effect here that's locking us all in similar to how the U.S. healthcare system can't seem to shake for profit insurance. I'm sometimes surprised at the plethora of cheap handheld gaming systems coming out of China that support either Linux, Android, or sometimes both, and seem to be based on a handful of chipsets. If anybody ever slapped an LTE module and drivers onto one of those things we'd have criminally cheap and powerful, open phone ecosystem.
  • heavyset_go 11mo ago
    > 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. Why hasn't the kind of ferver that created Linux driven engineers to fix their phones? It's because each phone SoC is essentially its own bespoke architecture. You can't build one arm64 Linux ISO that will work on all phones like you can an x86_64 ISO on a PC. Each and every model of phone requires 0) unlocked bootloaders and either 1) full support from the vendor for Linux or 2) dedicated hackers willing to reverse engineer the board to get it to boot Linux in the first place & then developers willing to write missing device drivers & then maintainers willing to keep the fork up to date or mainline the changes. It will always be cheaper for phone manufacturers to develop bespoke SoCs than it is for them to implement protocols and interfaces that make booting and hardware discovery standardized like they are on the PC. Making a phone as accessible as a PC to booting generic operating systems inherently means increasing costs at every level from the design up. > I'm sometimes surprised at the plethora of cheap handheld gaming systems coming out of China that support either Linux, Android, or sometimes both, and seem to be based on a handful of chipsets. If anybody ever slapped an LTE module and drivers onto one of those things we'd have criminally cheap and powerful, open phone ecosystem. On the surface it seems like that, but all of those devices suffer from the same issues I described above. There will be thousands of devices that "support" Linux, but only nominally. What happens is, if the manufacturer even releases the kernel source, you get a git dump of a forked kernel that was never modified to be upstreamed with the vanilla mainline kernel. That essentially means you are stuck using that fork unless you have the time, knowledge and skill to port that fork over to the mainline, which is a lot of work. This applies to every SoC, and SoC modification, in gaming systems. Barely any of this work crosses over or can be standardized like it is on a PC. None of that makes a platform a real open ecosystem. Source: I'm involved in porting and maintaining a Linux distro for those cheap Chinese handheld gaming systems. The only reason Linux runs on them is because weird nerds spent time getting it to run on them. When they get bored, your Linux "support" ends. The best we can hope for is for ARM servers to scale down to the point we can use them in small form factors, as ARM servers implement the same standards PCs do to run generic Linux ISOs. We aren't going to get this from the mobile hardware ecosystem, there just are no incentives to make such an investment. Maybe we'll get them if ARM PCs truly take off. > 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 where the controls against arbitrary applications is even stronger. The conversation takes place all the time, there are tons of people who want to, and do, run homebrew and Linux on their consoles, same thing with embedded devices. Getting Linux or Doom to run on an embedded device is a rite of passage.
• kentelhowze 11mo ago
  Hackers it’s time to get money and get a life run away for good. Get more.and run away to get money
• bagol 11mo ago
  Installing software via Google play store is the actual side loading. You don't install it yourself, Google install it for you.
  • noisy_boy 11mo ago
    I wonder if compiling and installing from .tgz source code is sideloading instead installing via apt/dnf.
• endgame 11mo ago
  Australian users of alternative app stores should make a complaint to the ACCC: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us-or-report-an-issue https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us-or-report-an-iss... In the past, they forced Steam to implement proper refund policies, and they are currently suing Microsoft about the way subscribers were duped into paying more for "AI features" they didn't want.
  • marak830 11mo ago
    Done, thank you for the link.
• unsungNovelty 11mo ago
  Despite all the bad moves, one of the reasons why I use android and not iPhone is installing apps from places like fdroid. If this stops, it fundamentally disallows me to have the privacy that Apple app store can't provide. The amount of garbage apps in play store is horrible. I don't try out any new apps from there cos of this. So I will just switch to iPhone. Already degoogled for pretty much most things. This will be the last. And maybe switch my website from netlify which I think is using google cloud (need to check).
  • AlgebraFox 11mo ago
    Instead it would be great if you join the fight against Google (and Apple) by using FOSS and independent distributions like GrapheneOS. It is the most secure and private option we have today. Most apps work as it is except a few those who purposefully use Google Play Integrity API to block independent platforms.
    • free_bip 11mo ago
      As much as I'd like to, the vast majority of android phones are incapable of installing grapheneOS.
      • mgrandl 11mo ago
        If you can switch to an iPhone, you can switch to a phone capable of installing grapheneOS though…
    • PanoptesYC 11mo ago
      Yeah it would be nice to break away from the google ecosystem and install GrapheneOS on whatever device I like- GrapheneOS has official production support for the following devices: Pixel 9a (tegu) Pixel 9 Pro Fold (comet) Pixel 9 Pro XL (komodo) Pixel 9 Pro (caiman) Pixel 9 (tokay) Pixel 8a (akita) Pixel 8 Pro (husky) Pixel 8 (shiba) Pixel Fold (felix) Pixel Tablet (tangorpro) Pixel 7a (lynx) Pixel 7 Pro (cheetah) Pixel 7 (panther) Pixel 6a (bluejay) Pixel 6 Pro (raven) Pixel 6 (oriole)
• jorisboris 11mo ago
  > As a reminder, this applies not just to devices that exclusively use the Google Play Store: this is for every Android Certified device everywhere in the world, which encompasses over 95% of all Android devices outside of China. So what happens in China? Should we buy Chinese Android phones?
  • hexagonwin 11mo ago
    chinese phones usually don't have gapps installed, but many of them also have their bootloader locked and not unlockable.
• Verlyn139 11mo ago
  Didn't know this community have so many corporate bootlickers
• lovelearning 11mo ago
  I have coded some apps that are customized for my mother's usage and accessibility. I plan on coding some more. I need to install them on just 2 phones - my own for testing and my mother's. As of now, I can create APKs of my apps and install them on my mother's phone by unchecking the "prevent apps from other sources" option. Even after going through so many articles, I still don't know unambiguously whether I can continue this workflow in future, or I'll need Google's approval to install on just our own 2 family phones. There's a failure in communications here from both sides. Ambiguity suits Google perfectly fine. But it's counterproductive to its opponents because every dev who's confused will remain a fence-sitter rather than an ally, even if only motivated by personal inconvenience rather than any principled stand. I doubt I'm the only Android dev who's confused. I hope at least f-droid communicates more clearly the consequences of this policy to all types of developers and deployment scenarios.
• not4uffin 11mo ago
  I've stopped trusting Google and it's products entirely. They say one thing, then do another.
• hakube 11mo ago
  It's not "sideloading". It's called installing software on your own device!
• widikidiw 11mo ago
  [flagged]
• mt42or 11mo ago
  Fuck google
• nidiebeie 11mo ago
  Goli chalao to rukne vandan ke Lage
• atoav 11mo ago
  "Sideloading"? It is called installing where I come from and if you can't install your own software on it you don't own the hardware. The fact alone that they managed to establish "sideloading" as a term tells you 90% of what you need to know in this discourse.
• blackcatsec 11mo ago
  I think one thing the internet community, particularly the likes of folks here who dominate the HN readership, is to stop listening to Google or using Google-derived services. The problem is everyone goggles Google's googleys every time they put something out: Chrome, Android, Kubernetes, QUIC, BBR, Analytics, Gmail, GCP, Go. And y'all continue to fucking do it. I can't even go into my workplace and get the company to not install Google Chrome and use Microsoft Edge on Windows (mind you, Edge is now based on Chromium) because everyone is so far up Google's ass that they must run CHROME and not another CHROMIUM browser because MICROSOFT. It's fucking insanity. It's taken as a default. Stop using their products. Stop giving Google so much power over the fucking internet. Meanwhile I go on internet forums, IRC, and places like HN and people still fucking cry about Microsoft as if somehow we're in the 1990s. Like literally Gen Z wasn't even born in the 1990s and they decry Microsoft because us Millennials and Gen X continue to think Microsoft is the absolutely worst evil ever and Google is like the patron saint of the internet. Apologies for the little bit of pro Microsoft rant here, but the point I'm trying to make is we should evaluate both Google and Apple through the same lens that we all give Microsoft shit for. DeGooglify your brain, and then the rest of the world will begin to follow. Stop changing everything in your fucking services to kubernetes and istio. Don't switch your projects over to Go. Stop letting them run everything. Like every time Google releases a new piece of technology the entire industry jumps on their tallywhacker. And that just continues to cement their legacy in all of these stacks.
  • blackcatsec 11mo ago
    Nah screw it, it's late and I'm unable to sleep and gonna rant a little more. Microsoft made changes to force consumer users to create Microsoft accounts to login to their PCs and you can go on Youtube and see 500 videos on how to use some bespoke tool to bypass this that has racked up thousands of views because some 'nerd' who literally walks around with a Macbook and an iPhone told them that it's the most evil thing Microsoft could make you do. Meanwhile, once Google completes this transition on Android, you'll basically be forced to have a Google or Apple account to install any software on your devices, backup and restore the device, etc. And yet folks that dominate these boards are just like "yah that kinda sucks but like, ya know, ya know? ya know!?" I agree that open software and even open hardware is a good thing. But both Apple and Google have done an incredible amount of damage to the open ecosystem of the web over the last 20 years in so many more ways than Microsoft could have ever dreamed of doing back in the 1990s. And nerds not only let it happen, but embraced it, camped out in days-long lines wearing diapers to buy the latest shiny overpriced brick they could put in their pocket so they could look cool to all of their friends for a whole 12 months before the next one came out and made them look like a povo. And now walking around with a Macbook at college is like wearing the latest fashion trend because everyone has to show off that they're completely irresponsible with money and spend $2000 for something they could realistically get for under $1000 just so they can show off that they're in the same social class as everyone else. It's the most infuriating thing to happen to the internet and technology. Oh, and then to add on, they all get jobs in the tech industry and throw a fucking entitled childish hissy fit when their company hands them a $1000 Windows PC that's got monitoring and security software with no Admin rights on it instead of the $2500 Macbook Pro that they get root access to because mommy and daddy never told them no.
• lutusp 11mo ago
  You're all missing the point! This is not about whether an app can be installed on an Android device, it's about whether the device's owner has any say in the matter. It's about freedom of choice. Over the decades, from the Apple II to the present, I've owned every imaginable kind of computer. And yes -- I owned all of them -- I had the right to use them as I saw fit. They were extensions of my intellectual creativity. I've written dozens of Android apps, including TankCalc, used in industries across the world to measure and control storage containers. TankCalc is useful, it's free, and it's about to die. I tried meeting Google's demands, but over the years I realized that wasn't possible, because Google refused to take "yes" for an answer. This is true for all my Android apps -- all would require constant maintenance to meet Google's endless compliance demands. We're witnessing an extinction of personal expression, of defending the rights of individuals, and the sideloading issue is a symptom of a deadly disease, one that shifts control away from individuals to giant corporations. Sideloading is just an example. Samsung has updated its already-sold refrigerators to begin showing ads to powerless consumers. Car makers Mercedes-Benz and BMW have starting charging monthly subscription fees for access to features already present in people's cars. Farmers can no longer repair their John Deere tractors. It's an unprecedented historical shift. Instead of being crushed by an army that invades and takes over, we pay for things that own us, body and soul.
• Fokamul 11mo ago
  Easy ownership test. Try flash custom firmware on your phone. ;-) You can't? THEN YOU DON'T OWN YOUR PHONE. Simple as that.
• anticensor 11mo ago
  Why wouldn't F-Droid build their own playless Android fork where this is a non-issue?
  • iggldiggl 11mo ago
    Why waste time and duplicate the efforts of LineageOS? They've probably already got enough work maintaining F-Droid as it is, without having to add an additional Android fork (and never mind supporting a variety of devices) on top. And at the same time, the target audience interested in installing a custom Android fork would be much smaller than the potential target audience for F-Droid in its current form. (Also, for the time being, a much more minimally invasive and less resource-intensive approach would be some sort of Shizuku-like approach, i.e. using the ADB network interface originally intended for wireless debugging.)
• clapathy 11mo ago
  The reason why its happening is that most people don't care and don't need that freedom. Otherwise they wouldn't buy android devices, right? Thats how freemarket works. Its much easier for people to give away their freedom to install any software on their device in exchange of not learning all the intricacies of information security and privacy. EVerybody still can install non native os on their device and use any store they want, right? Or fork android and maintain the OS that allows installing software from other sources. Its just people don't really care - google is not non profit - its doing business for people who pay money and care more about passing the security reaponsibility on the manufacturer, thats why Apple thrives and nobody cares that you have to use their store only, only minority of people who are not an interesting market
• qwertox 11mo ago
  I have 3 personal apps, which are not published anywhere, which I have installed on all of my own 10 Android devices. They are the reason why I have not switched to an iPhone/iPad and i absolutely rely on those apps. Why on earth do I need to register with Google to use them?
• erelong 11mo ago
  There's a lot of things to be said on these topics, it probably is worth trying to keep android "open" here, but there's also a lot of alternative routes to consider and in the long run I think maybe Android is a lost cause (?) to be abandoned The big alternative is mobile linux or linux mobile, which is akin to desktop linux in the 2000s maybe in lagging behind the competing operating systems. An influx of interest in these operating systems and related hardware might make this discussion more moot (software like: postmarketos, mobian, ubuntu touch, and so on. hardware like: pinephone, raspberry pi used as a phone?, librem phones, and so on.) Some progress has been made to have android phones run on linux with projects like postmarketos and mobian. Again, more people just focusing on building these projects, especially with the help of LLMs, might make this discussion less necessary. F-Droid could also pivot a bit to promoting more linux mobile initiatives. Apple should be called out as much as Google here for already being closed off. Both platforms (ios and Android) could probably be appealed to through the incentive of "developer openness being good for business" - it probably helps both companies to make more money by making "sideloading" easy. If they both essentially become closed, this opens up a giant incentive for linux mobile to take over. (Maybe that is something we should root for?) On the hardware side, we need some ios/android alternative phones. I've seen some people post that you can attach cell dongles to raspberry pis and use those as phones (?). Maybe more diy cell phone projects would be nice to see. I guess the FSF is trying to create a Librephone; initiatives like this are overdue: https://liliputing.com/free-software-foundation-announces-a-librephone-initiative-to-develop-a-fully-free-and-open-source-smartphone/ https://liliputing.com/free-software-foundation-announces-a-... Not sure what else to add, the writing has been on the wall that Google and Apple are trying to be closed source systems, so generally linux mobile (and/or *BSD mobile, if that's to be a thing in the future) need more attention. This is probably a good moment to consider the alternatives and the seemingly predictable trajectory of where things are going.
  • pabs3 11mo ago
    Librephone is mainly about reverse engineering firmware and other binary blobs, not creating new phones. https://librephone.fsf.org/FAQ.html https://librephone.fsf.org/FAQ.html
• qwertox 11mo ago
  > Our recent analysis found over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play. Maybe they could make non-Google-Play-Store installed apps become installable only if the device owner toggles a switch which enables doing this risky thing? Maybe some toggle in the developer options? And make the developer options accessible only if a user taps several times on the Android version label in the settings? And show a message after every reboot that both of these settings are enabled, as a warning?
• PagingDr123 11mo ago
  My wife runs a clinic with about a dozen health care providers. They use a paging service that delivers pages to a phone app. It has to be a phone app because the shifts are 24hrs and the providers sleep when they can and need to be able to turn off all other notifications. This costs about $12,000/yr and uses servers in the United States. Some of the staff work very part time, but still need a license at the same cost even if they only get one or two call shifts a month. The price ratchets up regularly. There is competition, but nothing really better. I could stand up an asterisk server and write a simple Android and iOS app for an ongoing cost two orders of magnitude lower (using existing infrastructure), but the app store impedance is too high to risk it. I don't have the practical ability to confidently get an app into the Google play store and the Apple app store and keep it there. The only viable alternative to bending over for these vendors for us is to go back to discrete pagers. It may come to that.
  • PagingDr123 11mo ago
    By the way, the system we used before this was an answering service where an actual human answered the phone and triaged the call. It was cheaper. We could go back to that, but no one wants a pager again.
• zombot 11mo ago
  This article is written really well and spells it all out. What Google is doing is a travesty and an abomination but the thing about power is, you can do what you want even if everyone hates you for it.