[HN Gopher] Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consu...
___________________________________________________________________
Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
Author : josephcsible
Score : 509 points
Date : 2025-10-13 15:24 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.makeuseof.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.makeuseof.com)
| itg wrote:
| Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary
| reason I decided to go with Android, despite most of the people I
| know using iPhones. If I can't do this anymore, I may as well
| switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them.
| brazukadev wrote:
| > Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the
| primary reason I decided to go with Android
|
| You still can do that with PWAs in Android. Let's see for how
| long.
| _imnothere wrote:
| > PWAs
|
| And I wonder when can we stop lying to ourselves pretending
| "web"-apps are real (native) apps?
| llbbdd wrote:
| Why?
| pooyamo wrote:
| Can you create and run a service that starts when phone
| is turned on, with a PWA app? Usecase is a backup daemon.
| claytongulick wrote:
| Does every app need to do this?
|
| I make lots of "real" healthcare apps that are PWAs.
|
| Much better installation and user experience, no dev cert
| nonsense, brain dead simple updates, no app store, etc...
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Backup, file sync, and chat... very common and important
| use cases. Not everything can start with a user request.
| Rohansi wrote:
| You shouldn't need a service running all the time for
| chat. Just use push notifications.
| koolala wrote:
| There is a big difference between Websites and Applications.
| Websites are a smaller subset of capabilities.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Do you have a single friend who isn't a programmer who has
| installed a PWA in the last two years?
| schlauerfox wrote:
| I use 3CX VOIP app as a PWA daily, I'm just an IT worker.
| jadbox wrote:
| 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
| concerning move, but currently this is far from 'killing' non-
| appstore apps for most of the market.
| detectivestory wrote:
| From a quick glance at /r/GooglePlayDeveloper/ it looks like
| Google is just as interested in killing playstore apps! It
| seems that they only want to support the existing larger apps
| now. I think they are giving a clear message to developers
| that its not really worth developing for that platform
| anymore. I think we will all agree that the playstore needed
| a purge but they seem to be making it impossible for any new
| solo devs at this point.
| jadbox wrote:
| I have no idea what this means. How does this change "kill
| playstore apps"?
| andrewl-hn wrote:
| Not related to this particular news item, but several
| high-profile App developers are either killing their apps
| on Android entirely (like iA Writer) or removing features
| due to Google tightening submission requirements and
| increasing costs for apps that integrate with their
| services.
| detectivestory wrote:
| not the change mentioned in the news link. I was
| referring to what people are discussing over on the
| reddit play store sub. Google are terminating dev
| accounts without giving any reasons or warnings. I'm sure
| most, if not all terminations have have some element of
| justification but ultimately it means that Google seem
| pretty happy to terminate any dev account without letting
| the developer know why. And to make things worse, that
| developer is forever banned from ever publishing any
| content on the playstore for life. They cannot make a new
| account. Their career in android app development can be
| destroyed in an instant. Most terminations seem to be
| handled by bots... and to rub salt in the wound, Google
| only responds to appeals... using more bots. That is
| according to what the community has been saying at least.
| I'm sure they know what they are doing and one thing we
| all know is that Google actually IS big enough not to
| fail. But it does seem like the right thing to at least
| make new developers more aware of the risks. And it is
| obviously a very stressful time for anyone who is
| actually making a living off an android app.
| instagib wrote:
| I thought most devs didn't want to develop on android
| because IOS devs made more income per user (0) and spent
| more on in app purchases. Android does well with ad
| supported apps. Paid apps have had issues with piracy also.
|
| "In 2024, the App Store made $103.4 billion to Google
| Play's $46.7 billion."
|
| 0 https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-data-report/
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| To wit, there is only one business playbook with two
| strategies: When you are weak, make friends. When you are
| strong, make war.
|
| Android used to be weak against iPhone and needed to
| cooperate, so they allowed more apps in to grow the
| userbase. Now that they're big and strong, they don't need
| allies, so they start kicking out everyone who isn't making
| them money.
|
| Every "enshittified" service does it - Imgur, Reddit,
| whatever. Everyone selling $10 bills for $9 does it.
| Microsoft did it. They took a step backwards by buying
| GitHub, when they realized they were totally blowing it on
| cloud. But now that they have users stuck on GitHub and VS
| Code, they're defecting again.
| omnimus wrote:
| Yeah... no. This is normal with desktop computers. Let's stop
| handholding people. If I trust the source, I trust the
| domain... I want to be able to install app from its source.
|
| Googles/Apples argument would have been much stronger if
| their stores managed to not allow scams/malware/bad apps to
| their store but this is not the case. They want to have the
| full control without having the full responsibility. It's
| just powergrab.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| And you are completely ignoring viruses, ransomware,
| keyloggers, the 50 toolbars etc that has been the staple of
| Windows and before that DOS for over 40 years.
|
| Scam apps are rife in the iOS App Store. But what they
| can't do easily install viruses that affect anything out of
| its sandbox, keyloggers, etc
| omnimus wrote:
| Sandboxing isn't feature dependent on Apple being a big
| curator is it? These are orthogonal but not the same
| issues. I've never said that PCs don't have viruses or
| that it isn't a problem, only that I should be able to
| install software from developer I trust if I want to.
|
| I agree let's have sandboxed app instalations on
| platforms. Flatpak is already going this way. But it
| looks like big players Microsoft,Apple and Google are
| gatekeeping app sandboxing behind their stores instead of
| allowing people/devs to use sandboxing directly.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| And then there will still be complaints about Google
| limiting what apps can do and take away "your freedom".
| What happens when a third party app wants to be able to
| read in other apps internal storage to create a back up
| solution like iCloud? Should that be allowed? What about
| if they want to create an app that autocompletes what you
| type when working in another app requiring key logger
| like capabilities?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| What part of "I should be able to install software from
| developer I trust if I want to" was hard to understand?
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Then you don't want sandboxing if you want all of those
| permissions.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| You can have sandboxing and run whatever you want. I do
| it every day on PCs where I, the user, can define the
| terms of sandboxing any appliclation I want, and not a
| trillion dollar corporation using sandboxes to enforce
| their chosen revenue streams upon users.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Yes and for you to think that is a valid argument for a
| consumer product is why most open source products suck
| for consumers and end up being about as bad as the
| "homermobile".
| ptrl600 wrote:
| Sure I do. I sandbox what I want when I want.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| So now you are expecting users to navigate hundreds of
| permissions and know the consequences of each one? How
| did that work out for Vista?
| ptrl600 wrote:
| Yes, if you bother with the rigmarole of escaping walled
| garden then you should be expected to navigate 20-30
| permissions, which is in practice all that's necessary.
|
| If users without that level of technical skill are
| pressured into making those decisions, that's because
| they're being mistreated.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| "Besides that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
| ptrl600 wrote:
| Nah it's really not that bad.
| xigoi wrote:
| The toolbars don't just magically appear there. They are
| the product of a technically illiterate user.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Yes because technically literate users shouldn't have
| trusted mainstream companies to not install bundle ware
| back in the Day? They shouldn't have trusted Zoom not to
| install a web server on Macs surreptitiously that caused
| a vulnerability? They shouldn't have searched Google for
| printer drivers not knowing that it was a fake printer
| driver? They shouldn't have trusted Facebook when they
| installed VPN software that tracked all of their traffic
| from any app?
|
| Is that really your answer? To make the phone ecosystem
| as fraught as Windows PCs for the average user? How is
| they worked out for PC users since the 80s?
| orangecat wrote:
| _How is they worked out for PC users since the 80s?_
|
| Just to be clear, are you claiming that we would be
| better off if PC hardware and OS vendors had the level of
| control that smartphone vendors do today?
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| For almost every user - yes. If apps had to run in a
| strict sandbox it would be better for most users. Where
| it would make you jump through an incredible number of
| hoops or even install "developer editions" of operating
| systems.
|
| You really can't trust developers to do the right thing -
| even major developers like Zoom (the secret web server) ,
| Facebook (the VPN that trashed usage actoss apps on iOS)
| and Google (convincing consumers to install corporate
| certificates to track usages on iOS).
|
| Even more to the point, you read about some app installed
| outside of the Google Play store that's malware -
| including the official side loaded version of FortNite...
|
| https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/fortnite-
| vulnerability-...
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Technically illiterate users should leave the default
| security settings enabled.
|
| In the modern day, I actually think this mostly works?
| Are you aware of instances where normies installed
| Windows malware because they purposefully disabled
| Windows Defender?
|
| Everyone always talks about the "Dancing Bunnies Problem"
| but I'm not convinced it's actually a thing.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| You mean like all of the ransomware that is being
| reported on a monthly basis? My mom looked for a printer
| driver by searching on Google and installed some type of
| crap that wasn't the official driver. She is 80. But she
| has actively been using computers since we had an Apple
| //e in the house in 1986.
|
| On the Mac, people installed Zoom and it installed a
| backdoor web server.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I'm explicitly only talking about ransomware that
| requires disabling Windows Defender.
| getpokedagain wrote:
| You are missing the part where the OS provider is the
| virus and keylogger. Unless of course you feel it
| reasonable that google and apple datamine everything you
| type via their software keyboard[0] or reading the
| contents of your notifications via play services[1].
|
| 0 - https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16046-google-
| keyboard-w-net... 1 -
| https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/sandboxed-google-
| play-pr...
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| You mean if you run an OS made by a company whose whole
| profit model is based on tracking users so they can
| advertise to you is invading your privacy?
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| It's normal for Windows and *nix, not for modern macOS
| which has big limitations on unsigned apps requiring
| command line and control panel shenanigans.
| close04 wrote:
| > need for this to track down virus creators
|
| I think they're just going to track down a random person in a
| random country who put their name down in exchange for a
| modest sum of money. That's if there's even a real person at
| the other end. Do you really think that malware creators will
| stumble on this?
|
| This has to be about controlling apps that are inconvenient
| to Google. Those that are used to bypass Google's control and
| hits their ad revenue or data collection efforts.
| blaze33 wrote:
| Pretty sure virus creators could just pick a real ID leaked
| by the "adult only logins" shenanigans, whereas legit app
| developers probably wouldn't want to commit identity fraud.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If it gets that bad; Google can do what they already do
| with business listings - send a letter to the physical
| address matching the ID, containing a code, which then must
| be entered into the online portal.
|
| Do that + identity check = bans for virus makers are not
| easily evaded, regardless of where they live.
| voxl wrote:
| Can you imagine what you're suggesting for a Linux
| machine? It's absurd. My box my rules, I'll run any damn
| code I please.
| JetSpiegel wrote:
| Will they send letters to sanctioned countries? What
| about a PO box, or a remailer service?
| nosianu wrote:
| That physical address will be useless, and probably
| easily worked around, in many if not most countries.
| Expecting Google to be able to use that address together
| with the law is a pretty US-centric expectation. I don't
| think most virus creators would be impacted, especially
| not the ones that are part of professional (criminal or
| government) organizations.
| msh wrote:
| 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).
| pkulak wrote:
| 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.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| So let's pick a random example app that might be popular on
| F-Droid today. Oh, I dunno...newpipe.
|
| Given that Google both owns Android/Google Play Store _and_
| YouTube: what do you think they would do with the developer
| information of someone who makes an app that skirts their ad-
| model for YouTube?
| ACCount37 wrote:
| I can't help but feel that this move is aimed specifically
| at ReVanced.
|
| The "security" wording is the usual corpospeak - you can
| always trust "security" to mean "the security of our
| business model, of course, why are you asking?"
| constantcrying wrote:
| Exactly. I don't think Google is doing this so that people
| don't install some random FOSS alternatives through
| F-Droid.
|
| Things like Newpipe seems much more of a target, especially
| if you want to take legal action. More so than stopping
| users, this gives Google fat more leverage about what Apps
| can exist. If they ever want to stop Newpipe a serious
| lawsuit against whoever signed the APK seems like an
| effective way to shut down the whole project. Certainly
| more effective then a constant battle between constraining
| them and them finding ways to circumvent the constraints.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > currently this is far from 'killing' non-appstore apps for
| most of the market.
|
| It means that Android is no longer suitable for my own
| private dev projects.
| preisschild wrote:
| You can use GrapheneOS or LineageOS without the Google
| rootkit and continue installing any apps you want
| erinnh wrote:
| Considering both Graphene and Lineage have been
| complaining about google making development harder and
| harder for how long will that be a possibility?
| JohnFen wrote:
| My devices are not supported by either of those, sadly.
| gabrielhidasy wrote:
| If it's for your own projects, for yourself only, ADB still
| works without this verification.
| JohnFen wrote:
| True, although using adb requires the use of the usb
| port, which for some of my projects is highly
| impractical.
|
| Also, with this move, Google has made it very clear that
| they don't want people to have any real control over
| their machines -- so I'm not inclined to think that using
| adb to work around the problem will always be possible.
|
| It's fine, though. My hobby projects will continue into
| the future, just probably without using Android.
| spogbiper wrote:
| I didn't think a usb port was required since the
| introduction of wifi adb?
|
| https://www.androidpolice.com/use-wireless-adb-android-
| phone...
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Google is following the same game plan we saw when they
| decided that the full version of uBlock Origin (the version
| that is still effective on YouTube) should no longer be
| allowed within their browser monopoly.
|
| The fact that there was a temporary workaround didn't change
| the endgame.
|
| It's just there to boil the frog more slowly and keep you
| from hopping out of the pot.
|
| It's the same game plan Microsoft used to force users to use
| an online Microsoft account to log onto their local computer.
|
| Temporary workarounds are not the same thing as publicly
| abandoning the policy.
| j45 wrote:
| It makes sense for average users to have identifiable
| traceability.
|
| Developers, and power users often pre-date these kinds of
| smartphones.
| rpdillon wrote:
| It's killing F-Droid, which is the only place I want to
| sideload from.
| 63stack wrote:
| Same, I'm tempted to call android just a shittier iPhone now
| Aachen wrote:
| What part of cheaper, better, and open source is shittier
| exactly?
| pkulak wrote:
| > 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.
| blackbear_ wrote:
| GOS allows you to install and use apps from the Play
| Store and the vast majority of them works flawlessly.
| xigoi wrote:
| > The iPhone 17 is the same price as the Pixel 10
|
| Too bad there aren't any other Android phones...
| rangestransform wrote:
| > and a _far_ faster CPU.
|
| No longer true with the newest chip that Mediatek cooked
| up, ARM licensed cores like C1 are catching up rapidly
| with Apple CPUs (or maybe Apple has hit the limit of
| their current design philosophy)
| terminalshort wrote:
| In terms of cameras, my pixel takes way better pictures
| than any iphone, and people I know with iphones (which is
| basically everyone) admit it.
| krabizzwainch wrote:
| Mine was better until Google kept forcing AI sharpening
| and making things look worse.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Which pixel do you have? I have the 9, and I don't seem
| to have that problem.
| brailsafe wrote:
| > The iPhone 17 is the same price as the Pixel 10
|
| I mean, flagship vs flagship idk if one has ever been
| significantly cheaper, but I've never been in the market
| for those either. It's very easy to get a higher priced,
| more interesting, highly specced Android phone. Both
| iPhones and flagship android phones are way too expensive
| for what they are capable of compared to any of their own
| prior generations of themselves, if you ignore tech specs
| and consider the tangible end-user functionality, but
| even still.
|
| I've always bought the phone that suits me in the moment,
| have never budgeted higher than $600CAD, and have simply
| never been interested in iPhones beyond what used to be
| nice industrial design. For that, last time I got a brand
| new Pixel 7 on sale, Pixel 4a, Nexus 5 etc.. and they've
| all done what I needed and usually came close to matching
| the fancier versions in some ways in the same year's
| lineup.
|
| Usually though I have breadth of options to pick from
| across a range of brands that I can choose between based
| on whatever the hell I prefer. iPhones are just iPhones,
| bigger or smaller, more expensive or cheaper, big camera
| plateau or small, and that's all fine too.
|
| The sideloading aspect for me and a better sense of
| control is absolutely a component in that preference, and
| I'll have to consider that going forward, but I'd sooner
| just dial back my dependence on phones in general than
| switch to an iPhone.
| array_key_first wrote:
| 1. Not cheaper.
|
| 2. I think it's better, I like the UX but that's
| subjective.
|
| 3. Not open source. AOSP is open source. Android is not
| open source.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| It's certainly cheaper when you compare phones with like
| specs.
| dangus wrote:
| Not by much these days. The Pixel 10 actually gives you
| half the storage as the iPhone 17 at the same price.
|
| The only Android phones that are significantly cheaper
| than equivalent iPhone tend to come with some kind of
| compromise (and don't forget that Apple's phones start at
| $600 - the iPhone 16e exists).
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Try Xiaomi.
| all2 wrote:
| I did. I cannot recommend it. There is no real way to
| unlock bootloaders on these. They've locked it down so
| much that you can't really do anything but run what they
| give you.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Ehh, I'm unconvinced. A lot of these cheapo Android
| phones have bizarre restrictions and really short
| lifespans. A used iPhone might last longer and therefore
| be cheaper in the long run.
| Rohansi wrote:
| You can definitely get cheaper Android phones than an
| iPhone. There will be compromises but it will be cheaper.
| Many people are fine with a $200 or less phone.
| realusername wrote:
| Cheaper for sure, better maybe but open source certainly
| not, AOSP doesn't run on a single device on earth, not even
| the emulators.
| floxy wrote:
| I'm out of the loop on this. What is Graphene doing?
|
| https://grapheneos.org/features
|
| >GrapheneOS is a private and secure mobile operating
| system with great functionality and usability. It starts
| from the strong baseline of the Android Open Source
| Project (AOSP) and takes great care to avoid increasing
| attack surface or hurting the strong security model.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Over the last years Android has gotten increasingly worse,
| which is something you just have to expect from a Google
| product.
|
| It is still unbelievable to me that Google is shipping a
| product which takes 10 seconds to show anything when I
| search through my phones settings. What are they doing?
|
| >open source
|
| Sure. If you buy the right phone you get some open source
| components. Of course half the Android companies are trying
| to funnel you into their proprietary ecosystem as well. The
| rest just wants you to use Google's proprietary ecosystem.
| surajrmal wrote:
| Everything in settings loads near instantly for me
| including search. What exactly has gotten worse with
| Android recently?
| xp84 wrote:
| > takes 10 seconds to show anything when I search through
| my phones settings
|
| Ah, I see ol' Google's been _shamelessly copying Apple_
| again.
|
| Unrelated but related to embarrassingly-bad search: On my
| iPhone, I have a Hacker News reader app called Octal. Now
| when I search the phone itself for "octal" (like I do to
| launch most apps), sometimes the only result found is...
| the Octal entry under Settings (where iOS sticks the
| permission-granting interface for notifications,
| location, etc.) Can't find the app itself. Just the
| settings for it.
| wiether wrote:
| And in the EU you can install apps outside of the AppStore on
| your iPhone!
| gumby271 wrote:
| But not outside of Apple's control, they have a very similar
| mechanism to this verification process with 3rd party app
| stores.
| Croak wrote:
| Thats a recent addition; hope consumer protection laws around
| the world become better.
| gdulli wrote:
| Then you'd be rewarding the company that pioneered and
| normalized taking away these rights. The next rights you'll
| lose will probably originate on Apple again years before Google
| takes them away too.
| rs186 wrote:
| It doesn't make any difference anyway, does it?
|
| Then I might as well treat myself with better hardware &
| ecosystem.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Better hardware, yes.
|
| But you'll be reminded quickly how comparatively shit
| Apple's software is.
|
| Aka the litany of "Oh, yeah, everyone knows that's broken
| but just deals with it, because there's no way to fix
| issues on a closed platform other than {wait for Apple}."
| dangus wrote:
| I think this isn't true at all, before the iPhone existed
| cellular carriers controlled software on consumer phones.
|
| Remember when GPS navigation was a $5/month app that was a
| cellular plan addon?
| ptx wrote:
| Only phones sold by carriers were controlled by carriers.
| You could easily (in Europe at least) buy an unlocked phone
| and put in a SIM from any carrier of your choice. You could
| then easily install (i.e. "sideload") Java apps from
| anywhere you wanted, e.g. from a storage card or over
| Bluetooth, although some permissions were restricted unless
| you bought an expensive code-signing certificate.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| You can still side-load signed apps. It's a similar limitation
| to macOS which won't let you run apps that Apple hasn't signed
| without command line or control panel shenanigans. Compared to
| iOS, Android still has the advantage of installing your own
| full browser (like Firefox) with full-fat ad blocking (uBlock
| Origin, not Lite). iOS is Safari-only right now though, in
| theory, some alternative engines may be available in Europe
| later.
| TuringTest wrote:
| If they need to be signed by Google, that's not side loading
| by definition; it's using an alternate Google channel.
| koolala wrote:
| What your describing isn't "side-loading". Doing that means
| the apps go through Google's chain of control. Please don't
| let them redefine the word.
| ptrl600 wrote:
| With macOS you run "sudo spctl --master disable", and then
| you can run whatever you want without sending PII to Apple.
| Is that the case with the new Android stuff?
| flawn wrote:
| No, the closest would be rooting your phone but then you
| can't use banking apps properly (there are loopholes to
| spoof integrity but they are slowly coming to an end as
| verification runs on TEE)
| jsight wrote:
| Agreed. While I do not like this move, ti is weird to me how
| far people are going in their criticism.
|
| The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
| cnity wrote:
| "The perfect should not be the enemy of the good" is the
| wrong analogy here. It's more like "death by a thousand
| cuts". Limitations on free computer usage are like a
| ratcheting mechanism: they mostly go in one direction.
| lieks wrote:
| You can install full uBlock Origin in the Orion browser, on
| iOS. It also has decent built-in ad blocking (though uBlock
| Origin is still better).
|
| I had been thinking for a long time to switch to Android
| (GrapheneOS, probably) when my current iPhone 13 dies, but
| this whole thing with "sideloading" on Android is making me
| reconsider. If I can't have the freedom I want either way,
| might as well get longer support, polished animation and
| better default privacy (though I still need to opt-out of a
| bunch of stuff).
| whycome wrote:
| How did Orion sidestep the safari WebKit requirements?
| palata wrote:
| Well GrapheneOS is not Google-certified, so it is not
| impacted by this :-).
| cortesoft wrote:
| > It's a similar limitation to macOS which won't let you run
| apps that Apple hasn't signed without command line or control
| panel shenanigans
|
| Can you do something similar to load unsigned apps on
| Android?
| jamesnorden wrote:
| >I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime
| with them
|
| I, too, love vendor lockin.
| vivalahn wrote:
| Another road that leads to BBM it seems.
|
| It's utterly bizarre how BBM could have been the iMessage and
| WhatsApp and who knows what else. But rich out-of-touch
| people thinking exclusivity is a perk in a commodities market
| just shows how business savvy and wealth are in reality
| disconnected from eachother.
| stackskipton wrote:
| BBM could have been great lock in IF OS and Hardware
| experience was not so bad.
|
| For vast majority, Android vs iPhone is not massively
| different so iMessage availability is a draw for some
| people.
| vivalahn wrote:
| BBM itself should not have been a lock-in. It would have
| taken incredibly little effort to open it as a desktop
| messenger that can seamlessly interact with people who
| have BBM numbers for example.
|
| I doubt they learned their lessons. Apple walked all over
| them in so many ways and, if memory serves me right, they
| even mocked Steve Jobs over the iPhone.
|
| Edit: just so I'm clear I'm discussing it from the
| perspective of early to mid 2000s. iPhone hadn't yet come
| out, but iPods were popular. Trillian and Pidgin were
| dominating the online landscape of software that could
| support multiple chat protocols - seamless ICQ, AIM, IRC,
| Yahoo, MSN Messenger, all in one program. If there was a
| time for RIM to corner the market here it was right then
| and there because BBM was the real deal, being available
| on phones and they could have signed agreements with
| others to bring it to, for example, Nokia and Motorola
| and whoever else.
|
| But no. They'd rather be arrogant and stupid.
| vanviegen wrote:
| > they even mocked Steve Jobs over the iPhone.
|
| Isn't that just doing their jobs as executives for a
| competitor?
|
| Though internally, one would hope they were sounding some
| alarm bells. Though at the time, it wasn't at all obvious
| that people could get used to doing relatively serious
| typing on a small (even tiny back then) virtual keyboard.
| noarchy wrote:
| We got BBM on Android and iOS. Alas, by then it was mostly
| too late. It got some initial traction but that didn't
| last.
| j45 wrote:
| BBM was the iMessage and WhatsApp before either of those.
|
| WhatsApp became popular specifically because it was a
| multi-platform replacement for BBM.
|
| BBM had little else to offer in terms of apps. It was a
| corporate ecosystem and good at that part of it.
|
| iMessage also came out after BBM, and did their own device
| lock in, except iPhones were designed for the many instead
| of the few, especially beginners to smartphones.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| I mean, we have mandatory Play Store services, so the
| experience on android is not significantly less locked-in.
| opan wrote:
| LineageOS without gapps (no microg even) works fine. Very
| few apps require play services. I think everything from
| F-Droid works.
| xandrius wrote:
| Check UbuntuTouch, it's really a nice third option. The OS is
| refreshing and the dev community active.
|
| We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils this time.
| cons0le wrote:
| I wonder if banking and messaging apps will work on it in the
| future
| MattyRad wrote:
| I glanced at Ubuntu Touch, but its device compatibility
| looked severely lacking (https://devices.ubuntu-
| touch.io/).... I have old Pixel phones I could potentially
| try it out on, but the last Pixel phone that is officially
| supported is the 3a. So that is a bummer.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah... Does it support WhatsApp? If not that's a deal-
| breaker in most of the world.
| ronsor wrote:
| Most of the world loves being shackled by a Meta product
| for some reason. The allegiance to WhatsApp is mindbending.
| XorNot wrote:
| Signal desperately needs "Signal for Business".
|
| Sell a way for businesses to send trusted communications
| to their customers in sensitive industries - i.e.
| healthcare would be a big one.
|
| They need both an actual revenue stream, but also that
| sort of professional messaging can drive adoption which
| ultimately furthers the Signal mission.
|
| Plus all those things could desperately use _good_ secure
| messaging systems.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| WhatsApp works with your phone number. If you have
| someone's number, you have their WhatsApp. And since
| basic text messaging is terrible and RCS still isn't
| universal, WhatsApp is used.
| FranzFerdiNaN wrote:
| Maybe it's because I'm European but I've never understood what
| iMessage even is or what it offers above either sms or
| WhatsApp/signal. And I've used an iPhone for the past 15 years.
| rkomorn wrote:
| For me, mainly: no international cost, no metered cost (other
| than data), no extra app like WhatsApp to install (but other
| party needs iOS).
|
| Edit: that said, nowadays, maybe because I'm back in the EU,
| I use WhatsApp way more often than iMessage.
| treyd wrote:
| You could also use a thirdparty ROM.
| XorNot wrote:
| F-droid routinely delivers me higher quality, more reliable
| apps that do exactly what I need then to do too.
|
| It's become my go-to for "I need a utility for X task".
| observationist wrote:
| Refuse to participate in either walled garden.
|
| There are no good reasons left to use either platform - you're
| basically paying an arm and a leg to rent a device whose
| primary purpose is to usurp your attention and plunder your
| wallet at every possible opportunity.
|
| Use and encourage your circle to use Signal, so you're not
| limited to any given platform, or the political or ideological
| whims of the gardenmeisters.
|
| Google has gone full enshittified with this move, might as well
| move as far and as fast away from all the shit if you're
| technically capable, introduce whatever pressure you can to
| signal that there's a desperate need in the smartphone market
| for something clean and honest.
| Fergusonb wrote:
| I just switched to the iPhone with the new cycle, explicitly
| because of this news.
|
| Sideloading was the killer feature for me as well.
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| Android is losing a unique selling point. This will have an
| impact on what a techie may recommend to a non-techie in the
| future, because everything is beige now.
|
| I have the feeling Google has given up on using nerds as
| beachheads. The market is saturated enough and they don't need
| us anymore to do grass roots spreading of their products. It's
| the same with Youtube. As long as there were enough people who
| were unencumbered by ads because of their ad block and kept
| spreading links, the importance of Youtube was growing. After
| market saturation that vehicle isn't necessary anymore and they
| can squeeze them out.
| HiPhish wrote:
| 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.
| tomall wrote:
| I like the term "direct install" which someone suggested in one
| of the previous threads.
| bigwheels wrote:
| Or just "install". This word was sufficient my entire life
| until the Apple App Store came along and hijacked it.
|
| _" Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks"_
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=ADgS_vMGgzY&t=3s
| numpad0 wrote:
| Would it be possible to exclude app store install from
| "Install", eg swapping positions with sideloading? The idea
| would be that "app store sideloads" are more like enabling
| features than installing something novel, and installs
| allow something unplanned to be enabled.
| kube-system wrote:
| You could certainly say that. But if you go up to a normal
| person on the street and say "Google has prevented you from
| installing apps on your phone", while they're still able to
| install from Google Play just fine, they're going to look
| at you like a crackhead.
|
| Language is for conveying information to other people. If
| your audience doesn't understand what you're saying, you're
| effectively screaming into the void.
| znort_ wrote:
| indeed, but they're not talking about your phone, they're
| talking about android, which is something you don't buy nor
| own, you buy a license to use it on the provider's terms.
|
| linux phones can't come soon enough ...
|
| your point about the termn "sideloading" is spot on, though.
| perverting the language is the first step of manipulation:
| installing software is "sideloading", sharing files is
| "piracy", legitimate resistance is "terrorism", genocide is
| "right to defend oneself" ...
| spankibalt wrote:
| > "your point about the termn "sideloading" is spot on,
| though. perverting the language is the first step of
| manipulation [...]."
|
| Precisely.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| > linux phones can't come soon enough ...
|
| That would require a lot tighter and broader (but not corp-
| controlled) organization than what open source is accustomed
| to - making cheap and capable phones that aren't tied to a
| big corp is big challenge.
| HiPhish wrote:
| > which is something you don't buy nor own, you buy a license
| to use it on the provider's terms
|
| The distinction between "own" and "license" is purely a legal
| one. If I buy a kitchen table I own it, I can chop it up and
| use the pieces to make my own furniture and sell it. When I
| buy a copy of a Super Mario game I cannot rip the sprites and
| make my own Super Mario game because I don't own the
| copyright nor trademark of Super Mario. But I do own the
| copy, and Nintendo does not get to march into my home and
| smash my games because they want me to buy the new one
| instead of playing my old ones.
|
| > linux phones can't come soon enough GNU/Linux. I used to
| think Stallman was being petty for insisting on the "GNU"
| part, but nowadays I understand why he insists on calling it
| GNU/Linux. There is nothing less "Linux" about Android than
| Debian, Arch or any other GNU/Linux distro, but GNU/Linux is
| fundamentally different in terms of user freedom from
| Android.
| alejoar wrote:
| I wonder where the term started?
|
| Android itself calls it "install" when you open an APK file,
| there's not mention of "sideload" in Android at all as far as I
| can tell.
| viernullvier wrote:
| There is, actually, but in a different context. The `adb
| sideload` command allows you to boot a device from an image
| without flashing it.
| chasil wrote:
| This command is also used to install 3rd-party ROMs.
|
| There is an option in the TWRP recovery tool to sideload
| any capable .ZIP file.
| viktorcode wrote:
| I call "running unsigned binaries"
| RedComet wrote:
| They are signed, though. Just not by Google.
| natch wrote:
| "Running binaries signed either by yourself or by whoever
| wants to spy on you."
|
| That last part there is the problem.
| grep_name wrote:
| It's an excuse. Give me the option to install the
| software I see fit. Period.
| generic92034 wrote:
| Is this not a meaningless differentiation if Google does
| no assume any responsibility for apps on the Play Store?
| RedComet wrote:
| Let's ignore all of the preinstalled programs, which are
| signed by Google and do a great deal of spying.
|
| Do you think the 100 most popular F-Droid apps do more
| spying than the 100 most popular Play store apps?
| gruez wrote:
| >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.
| unlikelytomato wrote:
| 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?"
| grepex wrote:
| Agreed. "Sideloading" has been marketed as a boogeyman
| opening doors to malware, when in fact malware exists on
| the play store anyway.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Sounds like "sidestepping" i.e. doing something
| illegitimately or at least outside the normal path.
| Zak wrote:
| Language strongly influences how people perceive things. For
| example, people shown videos of a car crash estimated higher
| speeds and falsely remembered seeing broken glass if the
| crash was described as "smashed" or "collided" rather than
| "hit" or "contacted"[0].
|
| "Direct installation" sounds neutral to me, but "sideloading"
| sounds advanced or maybe even sneaky.
|
| [0] https://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html
| ta1243 wrote:
| > when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our
| computers since forever
|
| You do realise that's been changing right? Slowly of course,
| there's no single villain that James Bond could take down, or
| that a charistmatic leader could get elected could change. The
| oil tanker has been moving in that direction for decades. There
| are legions defending the right to run your own software, but
| it's a continual war of attrition.
|
| The vast majority of people on this site (especially those who
| entered the industry post dot-com crash) ridicule Stallman.
|
| "Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even
| entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn
| of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers
| --you could not install one if you had one, without knowing
| your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor
| Microsoft Support would tell you that."
|
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If you want a real blackpill (I think this is the right
| word), consider the famous _Cathedral and the Bazaar_.
|
| I recently had a realization: I can name Cathedrals, that are
| 800 years old, and still standing. I can't name a single
| Bazaar stall more than 50 years old around any Cathedral
| that's still standing. The Cathedral's builders no doubt
| bought countless stone and food from the Bazaar, making the
| Bazaar very useful for building Cathedrals with, but the
| Bazaar was historically ephemeral.
|
| The very title of the essay predicts failure. The very
| metaphor for the philosophy was broken from the start. Or, in
| a twisted accidentally correct way, it was the perfect
| metaphor for how open-source ends up as Cathedral supplies.
| spookie wrote:
| I fail to see the link, businesses come and go. Their
| software dies with them.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Businesses die. Cathedrals don't. IBM is 114 years old.
| Microsoft is 50. Google is 27. Disney is 101. Nintendo is
| 136 (they'll outlive Steam and the next nuclear war at
| this rate). The COBOL running banks is 65 years old.
| Windows NT architecture is 32. The platforms become
| infrastructure, too embedded to replace.
|
| How many bazaar projects from even 10 years ago are still
| maintained? Go through GitHub's trending repos from 2015.
| Most are abandoned. The successes transform - GitLab,
| Linux, Kubernetes, more Cathedral than Bazaar.
| mariusor wrote:
| Any of the BSDs (well 2BSD is the oldest on a quick
| search), the linux project, the GNU C lib and GCC, etc.
| Just because you can't think of it, it does not mean it
| doesn't exist.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > Any of the BSDs (well 2BSD is the oldest on a quick
| search), the linux project, the GNU C lib, etc. Just
| because you can't think of it, it does not mean it
| doesn't exist.
|
| Did BSD defeat Linux? No. Which BSD is even the right
| one? BSD's biggest success is living on as the foundation
| of Apple's Cathedral in XNU, and PlayStation's Cathedral
| in the PS4 and PS5.
|
| Did Linux stay a bazaar vendor? No - 90% of code has been
| corporate contributed since 2004. Less than 3% of the
| Linux Foundation budget goes towards kernel development.
| Linux _is_ a Cathedral, by every definition, and only
| exists today because Cathedrals invest in it for
| collective benefit. It 's a Cathedral, run as a Cathedral
| joint venture, to be abandoned if a better thing for the
| investing Cathedrals ever came along.
|
| GCC? Being clobbered by Clang. Less relevant every year.
| Same with GNU coreutils, slowly getting killed by uutils.
|
| Firefox? Firefox only still exists because a Cathedral
| called Google funds it.
|
| LibreOffice, Apache, PHP, Blender? Professional
| foundations that get very picky about who is allowed to
| contribute what. They aren't amateurs and they all depend
| on Cathedral funding. Blender only got good when it
| started collecting checks from Qualcomm, NVIDIA, AMD,
| Intel, and Adobe. Blender is a Cathedral funded by
| Cathedrals.
| mariusor wrote:
| I feel like you're moving the goal posts and using the
| greed caliper for measuring open-source success. Open-
| source doesn't need "to win", because as long as they
| have developers, projects go on, and as long as they have
| any users they are still relevant.
| iamnothere wrote:
| Wtf is a bazaar vendor? A bazaar-style project is a
| project with a variety of contributors who aren't
| necessarily affiliated with a central org, where
| decisions are made at least partially through consensus.
| Linux still fits this description although it's more of a
| hybrid model at the moment, as decision-making is highly
| centralized. But as a free/open source project, that
| centralization exists with implicit community consensus.
| If a substantial portion of the community decided that
| Linus and his team were making poor decisions, a fork
| would emerge. This process of periodic de-/re-
| centralization is a common attribute of many long-term
| FOSS projects and is usually not possible with
| proprietary software, absent generosity or neglect from
| IP "owners".
| wkat4242 wrote:
| That's such an American take. Something doesn't have to
| be a "winner" to be useful. I enjoy using FreeBSD on my
| desktop and I don't care about the 0.01% marketshare.
|
| I really dislike all the corporate involvement in Linux.
| I don't believe in win-win with commercial. That was the
| main reason for my choice though there's other things I
| like too such as full ZFS support and great
| documentation.
| iamnothere wrote:
| > How many bazaar projects from even 10 years ago are
| still maintained?
|
| Uhh, all the big ones in common use? GNU's massive
| portfolio of software, Linux, multiple BSDs, Apache,
| Firefox, BusyBox, PHP, Perl, the many lineages of
| StarOffice, LaTeX, Debian, vim, fish, tmux, I mean this
| barely scratches the surface. Are you kidding me?
|
| How many startups have failed over the last decade? I
| would argue that the norm is for _any_ project to
| eventually cease. Only useful things with an active
| community (whether that community is for-profit or not)
| tend to last, until they are no longer valued enough to
| maintain. This goes for things in the physical world just
| as it does for software.
| dandellion wrote:
| I we're doing bad analogies my mom's open source duck
| recipe has been around for hundreds of years.
| nerdsniper wrote:
| There are definitely bazaars which have a very old history.
| Being that the word "bazaar" has middle-eastern origins it
| feels appropriate to highlight middle eastern bazaars. Al-
| Madina Souq in Aleppo is one such bazaar with quite a few
| shops/stalls/"souqs" dating back to the 1300's or 1400's,
| such as Khan al-Qadi (est. 1450). Khan el-Khalili in Cairo
| has its economic marketplace origins rooted in the
| 1100's-1300's.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Name a single bazaar vendor that's still going more than
| 50 years in any of them. The bazaar as an institution
| remains, as it does today, but there's no permanence with
| a bazaar, just as open-source will never have a permanent
| victory without becoming a cathedral. Bazaars persist
| through constant replacement, churn, not victory.
|
| Windows NT will be with us longer than systemd and
| flatpak.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Windows NT is younger than Unix. I'd say the smart money
| is on the Unix-derived line of operating systems
| outliving Windows NT by a considerable amount.
|
| However ... the domain of operating systems is subject to
| weird constraints, and so it's not really appropriate to
| make some of the observations one might make in other
| domains. Nevertheless, I thought the point was that we
| want things to improve via replacement (a "bazaar"
| model), rather than stand for all time. We don't actually
| want technology "cathedrals" at all, even if we do
| appreciate architectural ones.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Cathedrals change organizations too. You can't compare
| the longevity of a physical edifice (a cathedral) to an
| individual or organization (a bazaar vendor). They are
| different classes of things.
| nerdsniper wrote:
| No I meant there are individual shops inside the bazaars
| that are still going under the same brand name for
| hundreds of years. The El-Fishawy Cafe inside Cairo's
| Khan el-Khalili bazaar has been operating under the same
| name since the 1700's[0]. Bakdash ice cream parlor inside
| Damacus' Al-Hamidiyah Souq was established in 1895.
|
| For me, walking through an old Souq gives me a similar
| feeling of awe / mortality / insignificance as viewing a
| cathedral or looking from the Colorado ranch land up to
| the Rocky Mountains.
|
| Also some cathedrals have remained "Catholic" since their
| raising, but there are a lot that have changed from
| Christian to Islamic to Protestant ... both the cathedral
| and the bazaar's physical buildings are still present
| from the same era and both are used for their original
| purpose (marketplace or worship). And both have delibly
| shaped their regions by being engines of culture,
| innovation, and power.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El-Fishawy_Cafe
|
| 1:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakdash_(ice_cream_parlor)
| api wrote:
| The title also correctly describes the relationship between
| FOSS and cloud SaaS. FOSS is the bone yard and parts
| catalog that devs go to when building closed platforms to
| lock in users. It largely exists today to be free labor for
| SaaS and training data for AI.
|
| I'm not there yet, but I am perilously close to tipping
| over into believing that making open source software
| _today_ is actually doing harm by giving more free labor to
| an exploitative ecosystem. Instead you should charge for
| your software and try to build an ecosystem where the
| customer is the customer and not the product.
|
| I stress _today_ because this was not true pre-SaaS or pre-
| mobile. FOSS was indeed liberating in the PC and early web
| eras.
| api wrote:
| > The vast majority of people on this site (especially those
| who entered the industry post dot-com crash) ridicule
| Stallman.
|
| I've been in tech and startup culture for over a thousand
| programmer-years (25-30 normal years). It wasn't dot-com or
| the crash. It was mobile. The mobile ecosystem has always
| been user-hostile and built around the exploitation of the
| customer rather than serving the customer. When the huge
| mobile wave hit (remember "mobile is the future" being
| repeated the way political pundits repeat talking points?)
| the entire industry was bent in that direction.
|
| I'm not sure why this is. It could have been designed and
| planned, or it could have evolved out of the fact that mobile
| devices were initially forced to be locked down by cell
| carriers. I remember how hard it was for Blackberry and Apple
| to get cell carriers to allow any kind of custom software on
| a user device. They were desperately terrified of being
| commoditized the way the Internet has commoditized telcos and
| cable companies. Maybe the ecosystem, by being forced to
| start out in a locked-down way, evolved to embrace it. This
| is known as path-dependence in evolution.
|
| Edit: another factor, I think, is that the Internet had no
| built in payment system. As a result there was a real
| scramble to find a way to make it work as a business. I've
| come to believe that if a business doesn't bake in a viable
| and honest business model from day zero, it will eventually
| be forced to adopt a sketchy one. All the companies that have
| most aggressively followed the "build a giant user base, then
| monetize" formula have turned to total shit.
| btown wrote:
| Ironically, to take it full circle, I think that the thing
| that led to mobile being so user-hostile _was_ the lack of
| sideloading of apps.
|
| I remember sites on the early web like Hampster Dance,
| where monetization happened as an afterthought. But if you
| have to pay $99 annually and jump through hoops just to get
| your software even _testable_ on the devices of a large
| number of consenting users, the vast majority of software
| is going to be developed by people who seek an _ROI_ on
| that $99 investment - which wasn 't cheap then and isn't
| cheap now. Hampster Dance doesn't and wouldn't exist as an
| app, because Hampster Dance isn't made as a business
| opportunity.
|
| Similarly, outside of a few bright lights like CocoaPods,
| you don't get an open-source ecosystem for iOS that
| celebrates people making applications for fun. And Apple
| doesn't want hobbyist apps on its store, because Apple
| makes more money when every tap has a chance of being
| monetized. Killing Flash, too, was part of this strategy.
|
| Apple certainly could have said "developers developers
| developers" and made its SDK free. But it realized it had
| an opportunity to change the culture of software in a way
| where it could profit from having the culture self-select
| for user-hostility, and it absolutely took that
| opportunity.
|
| It's not a bad place, the environment we live in. But IMO,
| if Apple had just made a principled decision years ago to
| democratize development on its platforms, and embraced this
| utopian vision of "anyone can become a programmer"... it
| could have been a much brighter world.
| HiPhish wrote:
| > I'm not sure why this is
|
| I think a big reason was customers' ignorance. The
| manufacturers can come up with whatever they want, if no
| one buys it it does not matter. People accepted locked-down
| smartphones because they saw them a phones first and
| foremost. If I recall correctly the iPhone released without
| any app store, so it was really not that different from a
| dumb cell phone. If you had offered those same people a
| desktop PC or laptop that you could not install your own
| programs on, that had no file explorer, that could barely
| connect to anything else no one would have bought it. But
| because they say smart phones as telephones first it flew
| over their head. How many of the people who are upgrading
| to Windows 11 now because of lack of security support are
| still running an outdated smartphone? The phone probably
| has more sensitive data on it than the PC by now.
|
| People are willing to accept restrictions when they come
| with newer technology. Why is that? I don't know, I'm just
| reporting on what I see.
| dandellion wrote:
| I suspect the average computer user is significantly
| smarter than the average phone user. The reason is that
| I've never seen a really dumb person using a computer, but
| I've seen plenty using phones. That might (or might not) be
| related to why the phone ecosystem evolved the way it did
| and computers didn't end up like that.
| orangecat wrote:
| _It was mobile. The mobile ecosystem has always been user-
| hostile and built around the exploitation of the customer
| rather than serving the customer._
|
| Right. It was infuriating when those of us criticizing the
| iPhone's restrictions were told "it's just a phone, who
| cares", when it was clear that mobile computing was going
| to take over quickly.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah in the name of "security".
|
| Unfortunately it also means giving the key to the Kingdom to
| a company like Microsoft or Google which are definitely
| adversaries in my book. Keeping them in check was still
| possible with full system access.
|
| Even Apple I don't trust. They're always shouting about
| privacy but they define it purely as privacy from third
| parties, not themselves.
|
| And they were the first to come up with a plan where your
| phone would spy on you 24/7.
| chasil wrote:
| If Google provides a permanent mechanism to disable this in
| developer settings, then this devolves to an inconvenience.
|
| The setting to allow unsigned apps could be per appstore
| tracked by an on-device sqlite database, so a badly-behaving
| app will be known by its installer.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Have you read anything about this? What you are proposing is
| exactly what is being disabled.
| chasil wrote:
| 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.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| 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.
| chasil wrote:
| Because F-Droid is going to regulators.
|
| "We urge regulators to safeguard the ability of
| alternative app stores and open-source projects to
| operate freely, and to protect developers who cannot or
| will not comply with exclusionary registration schemes
| and demands for personal information."
|
| https://f-droid.org/2025/09/29/google-developer-
| registration...
| observationist wrote:
| Time to figure out how to live without a phone - gotta
| find some sort of ultramobile pocket pc with 5G and run
| your own FreePBX for text and calling, etc. I've been
| wanting to do this forever, anyway. Using Starlink 5G
| would make it palatable, or maybe even preferable,
| assuming the performance is solid.
| calgoo wrote:
| I have been thinking of secondary machine that would just
| use my phones wifi and encrypted vpn tunnels. Basically,
| the phone is only used for the banking app and whatever
| future government ID app will be required.
|
| The secondary device would basically be built on a open
| platform etc. Once we can't use the phone for sharing the
| connection, then we are basically stuck using other
| wireless connections, LoRa for short to medium
| connections, direct wifi links and offline home cloud
| environments. It gets a bit grim when you think about it,
| but there are always options. Now, would you travel with
| a home made tablet phone in an airport for example? What
| a about a train station with xray scanners. Cyberpunk
| always comes to mind as well when thinking of these
| possible futures.
| observationist wrote:
| Seems like setting up a shareable wifi6 hotspot should be
| trivial, in this scenario - either a wifi 6 usb dongle or
| an m2 board like Intel WiFi 6 AX200/210 , can turn on
| hotspot mode for other devices.
|
| WRT banking, you'd just use the browser - the whole point
| is to get away from the whole 'you need to spend
| $150/month and subscribe to a device and open yourself up
| to a whole suite of third parties in order to use an
| "app"'
|
| You could use AI to build convenience scripts and UI
| tweaks, depending on your use case. Use tampermonkey or
| other script engine browser tools if you need to recreate
| a UI feature that a banking app provides.
|
| I can build a much better machine for less than a
| flagship phone costs me, including video glasses and a
| few power packs. A wireless video stream to a dumbed down
| phone that only serves as the interface for swype style
| keyboard or something like that would also be an option -
| I think this might be a viable strategy.
|
| I've seen raspberry pi phones and tablets that would
| absolutely terrify TSA agents, but I'm thinking more
| along the lines of a modded framework laptop with display
| hacks, or a boxy little pocket PC with a chonky battery -
| nothing that would alarm people unnecessarily.
|
| I think I mostly take issue with the idea that the walled
| garden is necessary, or even preferable. Google at least
| had the barest shred of "the user has control" left -
| eliminating sideloading just eliminated any possible
| reason I would bother with them as a company.
| smm11 wrote:
| I used a super-cheap Android phone with a Win tablet over
| 10 years ago, but couldn't come up with a decent "phone"
| option. I started using the phone itself for calls,
| everything else I did on my tablet.
| glenstein wrote:
| Yes, in that world everything works out. But as TFA
| notes, Google is pushing "developer verification" as a
| non optional change at the app level. To get around it in
| the future it appears you'll need a degoogled phone.
| pessimizer wrote:
| No, I like F-Droid, but I don't want them to need an
| official Google status to operate, or for anyone who
| wants to compete with F-Droid to have to obtain that
| special status.
|
| edit: because the next step would be Google paying
| F-Droid a half-billion dollars for default search engine
| placement, or something else stupid. It becomes a
| captured organization, an _excuse subsidiary._
| ptrl600 wrote:
| Mandatory googleloading.
| api wrote:
| I always found this term utterly bizarre. It first showed up in
| the early days of the mobile "revolution" and felt astroturfed,
| since no developer would think we need a fundamentally new term
| for downloading software. It felt like something some dark
| patterns team came up with to discourage free installation of
| software on your own device.
|
| Of course maybe I'm overthinking it. It's common for people
| deep in the bowels of an industry to invent pointless jargon,
| like "deplane" for getting off an airplane. Anyone know where
| the term "sideload" was coined or by whom?
| ncr100 wrote:
| No I don't know.
|
| But: "side talking" Is a worthwhile distraction to Google and
| look at Nokia N-gage memes.
|
| I prefer the term "unlocked install". Consumers are already
| familiar with the terms: locked phones and unlocked phones.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I like your point. Never thought of it that way. Totally agree
| ncr100 wrote:
| How about "unlocked install"?
|
| Consumers are already familiar with what a "locked phone" is.
| laxd wrote:
| Unfortunately not. They are calling it "phone" and ("rooted
| phone" or "unlocked phone").
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Sounds too much like illegal jailbreaking. Direct install
| better IMO
| koolala wrote:
| How badly screwed are we that the term "installing" doesn't
| work because it doesn't exclude the now default assumption that
| someone else controls everything you are allowed to install.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| if anything, installing the app spoon fed to you by your phone
| OS provider should get the pejorative.
|
| Let's calling, "Lameloading" or something to really nail it
| home.
| nadermx wrote:
| Why having your own website is essential
| kypro wrote:
| As someone who doesn't really care about apps, if I wanted to
| move away from Android what phones and OSs are worth considering?
| sfdlkj3jk342a wrote:
| GrapheneOS on a Pixel
| moffkalast wrote:
| It's kind of ironic that you have to actually give Google
| money in order to not use Android. I'm still amazed that
| there's no Graphene support for any other device.
| floxy wrote:
| Graphene is still Android.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Truly the OS by and for people who are into excessive
| nitpicking. I suppose that's what you want for security.
| velocity3230 wrote:
| They're in discussions with an OEM to produce their own
| device.
| la_fayette wrote:
| Let's see what will the future of Graphene be, since Google
| is not publishing the device tree anymore for Pixel
| devices...
| gruez wrote:
| That's a non-issue for them:
| https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115299586595207105
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| It's not a non-issue i'm sure it's quite annoying to deal
| with, they just work around it. I hope the deal with
| their unnamed OEM works out and we get a native
| GrapheneOS Device. I'd buy it day one.
| Batman8675309 wrote:
| They are building their own device trees now.
| floxy wrote:
| Does anyone have a rough estimate for how many installation
| of GrapheneOS there are?
| ivanmontillam wrote:
| You don't really have a choice: it's either Android or Apple
| iOS.
| iamnothere wrote:
| PostmarketOS, Mobian, and GrapheneOS all seem to be good
| choices. Or simply not carrying a phone as I often do.
| yndoendo wrote:
| Don't know how the Google's actions with affect AOSP. There are
| few options depending on location / country with base band
| frequencies.
|
| Murena with e/OS/ [0], Purism with PureOS [1], Volla with Volla
| OS or Ubuntu Touch [2], and Furei Labs with FuriOS [3].
|
| Those are the companies actually trying to sell a phone versus
| Pin64 selling a device to tinker with.
|
| Alternative is checking personally managed OSes like
| postmarketOS [4] and Ubuntu Touch [5].
|
| [0] https://murena.com/ [1] https://puri.sm/ [2]
| https://volla.online/en/ [3] https://furilabs.com/ [4]
| https://postmarketos.org/ [5] https://www.ubuntu-touch.io/
| mariusor wrote:
| I've been using Sailfish OS for quite some time, but I don't do
| all of my computing on the phone. There's quite a high friction
| for using any of the mainstream Android apps, so usually you
| have to find an alternative if possible.
| m4rtink wrote:
| I also use Sailfish OS - its not perfect, but useable. :) And
| the way Android and iOS goes to shit, its current state might
| already be better than them soon. ;-)
|
| (Sailfish OS is improving over time, if a bit slowly. :) )
| numpad0 wrote:
| They all died. There were Linux phones until Android and there
| were some non-Android phones until Android 8 or so, such as Qt
| Extended, RIM BlackBerry OS, Palm webOS, Mozilla Firefox OS,
| and Microsoft Windows Phone, to name a few. They all died from
| numerous footgun wounds as well as pressures from competition.
|
| VoLTE was one of major contributors to the situation, by the
| way. Only iOS and Android supported voice call on 4G LTE for
| first 3-5 years, due to it being a huge pile of TBDs and
| transitional hacks. There were political fights in whether the
| LTE is to be 4G or it was to be 3.9999G and superseded quickly
| by a completely separate 4G standard. This meant that companies
| and consortium that maintained alternative OS could spend
| unrealistic amount of lobbying and engineering effort trying to
| get into it, risking investments needed for it, or give up and
| start procurement process for a white flag. All chose the
| latter, and we ended up with an iOS/Android duopoly with
| unprecedented totality.
| jim201 wrote:
| Antitrust action is badly needed in this area. It is ridiculous
| that I need permission from my device manufacturer to install
| software on hardware I own. There is no viable alternative than
| to live in Apple and Google's ecosystems. This duopoly cannot be
| allowed to keep this much control of the mobile platforms.
| spogbiper wrote:
| There needs to be a mandatory override for any lock down put in
| place by a manufacturer. I understand the need for security,
| but it should be illegal to prevent me from bypassing security
| if I decide to on my own device. Make it take multiple clicks
| and show me scary warnings, that's fine.
|
| Technically Android still allows installation of anything if
| you use the debugging tool. Maybe that is where we have to draw
| the line, I'm not sure.
| arccy wrote:
| you don't need permission for the hardware... you can install
| your own OS.
| JetSpiegel wrote:
| Can you, with SecureBoot?
| mouse_ wrote:
| Not if you don't have permission to install your own OS...
|
| Didn't Google recently kill AOSP and stop providing board
| support packages for their phones?
| andrepd wrote:
| Especially when partaking in the duopoly is literally mandatory
| for life: banking, government services, basic communication,
| etc.
| billev2k wrote:
| The Android Developer Blog called it "an ID check at the airport
| which confirms a traveler's identity but is separate from the
| security screening of their bags."
|
| From the mouths of rubes, I guess. The ID check at the airport
| has zero to do with safety or security and everything to do with
| the airlines' business model (no secondary market for tickets),
| enforced by government.
| gruez wrote:
| >The ID check at the airport has zero to do with safety or
| security and everything to do with the airlines' business model
| (no secondary market for tickets), enforced by government.
|
| If it's really about protecting "airlines' business model", why
| did TSA recently start requiring REAL ID to board flights? Were
| airlines really losing substantial amounts of money through
| forged drivers licenses that they felt they needed to crack
| down?
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| This is nonsensical. The minute the government doesn't check ID
| to get on a plane that coincides with your ticket, the airline
| will start doing ID checks before getting on domestic flights
| just like they do for international flights.
|
| And some airports are now allowing non fliers inside the
| terminal.
|
| Even hotels force you to verify your ID to check in even though
| the reservation I'd transferable - just add a guest to your
| room when you make the reservation.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Nope. Most of the world does the ID check, and it's recommended
| by the UN guidelines for security reasons.
| moffkalast wrote:
| 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.
| bitpush wrote:
| Didnt EU rule that it was OK for Apple to do, and Google is
| just just mirroring that?
| gpm wrote:
| 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.
| petre wrote:
| At least these user hostile actions are a source of income
| for the EU.
| mixologic wrote:
| If you want to install software on your Microsoft Windows
| computer, it has to be signed by a verified developer, otherwise
| you get an overridable warning that the developer cannot be
| verified, the software may contain malware etc.
|
| If you want to install software on you MacOS machine, the same
| thing applies. It must come from a verified developer with an
| apple account, otherwise you get a warning and must jump through
| hoops to override. As of macos15.1 this is _considerably more
| difficult_ to override.
|
| If you want to install iOS apps, the apps have to be signed by a
| verified developer. Theres no exceptions.
|
| I just dont see a future where being able to create and publish
| an app anonymously is going to be supported.
|
| Becoming a verified developer is a PITA, and can take a while or
| be impossible (i.e. getting a DUNS number if you're in a
| sanctioned country might be not at all possible) but at the same
| time, eliminating the ability of our devices from running any old
| code it downloads and runs is a huge safety win.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| 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"
| like_any_other wrote:
| 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 "Move to Trash."_ - https://old.reddit
| .com/r/mac/comments/1ekv55h/cant_right_cli...
|
| _Your only option is to click on OK button, which won't open
| the app. So how do you do it?_ - http://www.peter-
| cohen.com/2016/12/how-to-open-a-mac-app-fro...
|
| Apple knowingly falsely claiming unsigned apps are "damaged":
| https://appletoolbox.com/app-is-damaged-cannot-be-opened-
| mac...
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| And yet, that is _still_ less bad than what Android is
| doing.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| This also implies that Apple _does_ verify that app store
| apps are free from malware, when that 's not the case. It
| only verifies that they are from a developer who paid the
| fee and whose apps pass Apple's automated screens.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Apple does verify that App Store apps are free from known
| malware. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/about-
| app-store-sec...
| gumby271 wrote:
| I dunno man, it doesn't feel like a "huge safety win" that my
| computer has to check with a singular US tech company before it
| will let me use any software on it.
| mixologic wrote:
| That's only sorta how it usually works. The _developer_ has
| to check with a singular US tech company before they can sign
| the software they 've given you.
|
| Except yeah, the way this android stuff works is closer to
| that way. Instead of Google giving out a key for signing,
| they instead ask for one and tie a developer to a namespace,
| so yeah, I guess your Android phone has to check whether or
| not that namespace is "in the clear"
| gumby271 wrote:
| Right, Google could revoke that signature at any time and
| my device would refuse to install that software. The exact
| mechanics don't really matter, the end result is the same,
| my device will only install software that one company
| approves of and can change at any time, huge win for
| security right?
| ptrl600 wrote:
| I'd be fine if it was just any old code "it" downloads. The
| problem is that it's any old code "I" download too.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| I'm okay with overridable warnings, having to open system
| settings to override the verification, etc. It's a "huge safety
| win" for the 80% of users who don't really know what they're
| doing, security wise. But not for me.
|
| I won't be using any OS that doesn't allow me to step outside
| its walled garden, if I have any alternatives at all. With
| macOS it's quite simple - the second they won't allow apps from
| unverified/unsigned developers, I'm switching to Linux. On
| mobile, I might as well switch to iOS, since I'm not really
| sure what else Android offers anymore that's so compelling,
| other than being able to install apps directly. And then I'll
| just wait for a Linux phone or something.
| iszomer wrote:
| Or you can try not updating Android or continue using a
| device already EOL. Can't have your cake and eat it too on
| releases and security patches.
| Krssst wrote:
| > I just dont see a future where being able to create and
| publish an app anonymously is going to be supported.
|
| This is strongly needed if surveillance laws like Chat Control
| are not to be trivially bypassed. This way applications that
| don't offer governments the required surveillance features can
| be banned and the developpers can be sued. Not looking forward
| to that.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > eliminating the ability of our devices from running any old
| code it downloads and runs is a huge safety win
|
| No, this is just false. There's numerous, well-documented
| instances of malware making it past gatekeepers security
| checks. This move is exclusively about Google asserting control
| over users and developers and has nothing to do with security
| or safety.
|
| The only "huge safety win" comes from designing more secure
| execution models (capabilities, sandboxing, virtual machines)
| that are a property of the _operating system_ , _not_ manual
| inspection by some megacorp (or other human organization).
| mixologic wrote:
| Thats a false equivalency. I didnt say that software was safe
| because its been checked. Just that at the least, one can
| somewhat figure out where the software came from.
|
| Getting a DUNS number obviously doesn't make it so that you
| cant publish malware. It just provides a level of
| traceability/obstacle that slows down the process of
| distributing malware.
| rclkrtrzckr wrote:
| > 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.
| bitpush wrote:
| 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.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| That's the thing, they don't review their apps, and they
| actively ignore people flagging apps that are scams or
| otherwise malicious. Much like their ad empire, its all bots
| and people making money for pretending to care.
| kube-system wrote:
| The number of malicious apps that Google has removed from
| the Play Store is far from zero.
|
| It is false to say they are great at it. It's also false to
| say they don't review it. They remove some, but they're not
| great at it.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| It's not "let's not do any checking whatsoever", it's just
| "let individual users choose between Google's ineffective
| checking and alternative app sources that users can trust or
| not trust with zero involvement from Google".
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| That would make sense except they aren't doing any app
| reviews lol. They're just scanning your government ID. It is
| a farce.
| hollow-moe wrote:
| They saw apple getting away with it under the DMA so they're just
| doing the same. You can't do anything about it.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| This is the beginning of the end of Android.
|
| Google have over-reached.
|
| It is unacceptable to software developers to be unable to install
| software on their own phones, and this will lead to a successor
| to Android.
|
| It will take time, but it will now happen.
| bitpush wrote:
| > beginning of the end of Android.
|
| You underestimate how much money & effort it takes to make an
| operating system.
| floxy wrote:
| Wouldn't people just fork AOSP? Seems like GrapheneOS has a
| running start?
| kube-system wrote:
| Forking a project isn't really the same as "ending" it, as
| much as it is _becoming_ it. Even ignoring that, you can 't
| be a meaningful competitor unless you actually ship on a
| phone, and support the features that the average consumer
| is looking for. Amazon even tried and failed spectacularly.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| No - I'm not saying it will be soon, or fast. I am saying
| only it will now come, just as Linux did.
| kube-system wrote:
| If that actually were the case, the iPhone would've died in
| 2007.
|
| In reality, most people don't even know what sideloading is.
| Those are the people who are buying phones and supporting the
| market for their existence.
|
| The 0.001% of people who want to side load applications onto
| their phone, can clamor for a new OS all they want, but unless
| they put the resources in place to make that happen, it won't.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| > If that actually were the case, the iPhone would've died in
| 2007.
|
| But there was Android. If you cared about loading, you could
| ditch Apple. You had something else to go to.
|
| Now there's nothing.
| bryan_w wrote:
| Meh, I can still install what I want via adb. It's probably a
| good thing most people won't be able to click a link and have a
| new program installed by an anonymous person. Especially in an
| ecosystem where .apks are passed around manually
| ohman876 wrote:
| I know this is side topic but if buying the Android or iPhone
| hardware gives us hardware we don't control, then what
| alternatives we realistically have? I do own pinephone (and I was
| recently reading that they kinda staled with development of new
| phones hardware), I know about librem.. is there anything else on
| the market?
| sudo_and_pray wrote:
| Probably Linux phones, they are not there yet, but maybe by the
| time Android becomes an iOS it will be there.
|
| Problem will be with banking apps and such, well you can get an
| used iphone and in lockdown mode it should be fine even if it
| reaches EoL.
| freefaler wrote:
| Yes, it's a very unfriendly decision by Google.
|
| However, I don't think they haven't measured the number of users
| installing apps outside of the Play store. May be they just don't
| care about the small % of total users who are a large % here on
| HN.
|
| This is a part of a bigger trend, Cory Doctorow spoke about 13
| years ago in his "The coming war on general computing":
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
|
| And this will creep out to the major desktop systems too, Apple
| is doing it with their stupid "non-verified app" and Windows
| looks more likely to do so with their "need Microsoft account to
| login" to windows.
| user2722 wrote:
| Check Stallman's The Right to Read short story.
| bigwheels wrote:
| Link: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
|
| Meta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read
| divegeek wrote:
| It's unfriendly to developers and power users, but very
| friendly to the other 99.999% of users.
|
| I used to work for Google, on Android security, and it's an
| ongoing philosophical debate: How much risk do you expose
| typical users to in the name of preserving the rights and
| capabilities of the tiny base of power users? Both are
| important but at some point the typical users have to win
| because there are far, far more of them.
|
| The article implies that this move is security theater. It's
| not. I wasn't involved in this decision at all, but the
| security benefit is clear: Rate limiting.
|
| As the article points out, Google already scans all the devices
| for harmful apps. The problem is knowing what apps to look for.
| Static analysis can catch them, dynamic analysis with apps
| running in virtual environments can catch them, researchers can
| catch them, users can report them... all of these channels are
| taken advantage of to identify bad apps and Google Play Protect
| (or whatever it's called these days) can then identify them on
| user devices and warn the users, but if bad actors can iterate
| fast enough they can get apps deployed to devices before Google
| catches on.
|
| So, the intention here is to slow down that iteration. If
| attackers use the same developer account to produce multiple
| bad apps, the dev account will get shut down, requiring the
| attackers to create a new account, registered with a different
| user identity and confirmed with different government
| identification documents.
|
| Note that in the short term this will just create an additional
| arms race. In order to iterate their malware rapidly, attackers
| will also need to fake government IDs rapidly. This means
| Google will have to get better at verifying the IDs, including,
| I expect, getting set up to be able to verify the IDs using
| government databases. Attackers will probably respond by
| finding countries where Google can't do that for whatever
| reason. Google will have to find some mitigation for that, and
| so on.
|
| So it won't be a perfect solution, but in the real world,
| especially at Google scale, there are no perfect solutions.
| It's all about raising the bar, introducing additional barriers
| to abuse and making the attackers have to work harder and move
| slower, which will make the existing mechanisms more effective.
| 0_gravitas wrote:
| But those 99.999% of users won't be using F-droid or direct-
| installs to begin with.
| uyzstvqs wrote:
| 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.
| cmxch wrote:
| The way Google is going, you might as well just have Apple and
| fully embrace consumer hostility.
| miclill wrote:
| My hope is that this lets some more people wake up and finally
| make Linux on the smartphone a reality.
| dinkleberg wrote:
| If that ever does happen I really hope they just focus on
| making a proper phone, not trying to make it a hybrid phone and
| workstation. When they were working on Ubuntu touch (or
| whatever their phone version was called), they would show off
| how cool it was that you could just plug your monitor and input
| devices into it and boom you've got an all in one device.
|
| But who wants that? It's cool. But I'd rather just have a fully
| functional phone that happens to be Linux.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I certainly want that. I use DeX all the time. It's amazing.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| You've been able to do this on android since the Motorola
| Atrix.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| I secretly wish Framework will do this one day.
| kube-system wrote:
| Yeah, all you need to add is a desktop environment and some
| kernel drivers that are specific for phone hardware.... except
| that's what AOSP already is.
| a456463 wrote:
| Android limits on "installing" software of your choice on your
| own consumer hardware are the most anti-consumer move yet.
|
| Let's call it what it is. Attack on what ownership of our stuff
| means.
| glenstein wrote:
| Can anyone say exactly what this would mean for F-Droid? For
| instance, not that I want this to happen but if F-Droid really
| wanted, they could conceivably get verified developer status.
|
| And then they could offer apps, which (again I don't want this,
| just asking), could also be distributed if verified. F-Droid
| would have to be verified and would only be able to distribute
| apps from developers that are also verified.
|
| And so conceivably you could still install apps from outside the
| Play store if they're verified. Unless the Play store is
| administering verification.
|
| I'm not saying that would work, in fact, I think in practice it
| wouldn't. I'm just trying to play out what that would look like
| to understand the specifics of how F-Droid is being effectively
| dismantled. But I'm all ears if someone has a different
| interpretation about how F-Droid lives through this. It would
| seem that it would only survive on degoogled phones.
| marcprux wrote:
| We wrote about what it means for F-Droid at:
|
| https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registrat...
|
| And it has been discussed in a couple of HN threads:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45507173
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! Macroexpanded:
|
| _Google 's requirement for developers to be verified
| threatens app store F-Droid_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45507173 - Oct 2025 (152
| comments)
|
| _F-Droid and Google's developer registration decree_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794 - Sept 2025
| (564 comments)
| shkkmo wrote:
| > we cannot "take over" the application identifiers for the
| open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively
| seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.
|
| Since these are open source apps, couldn't f-droid maintain
| their own fork of each app with a different application
| identifier?
|
| It would give Google the ability to shutdown F-Droid at will
| by baning their account and thus far more power to control
| what F-Droid publishes and how it operates. However, it seems
| like anyone could fork an open source app and use their own
| account and setup their own unique identifier for their fork.
|
| No question this increases Google's power but it doesn't seem
| like it technically makes it impossible to operate a store
| like F-Droid.
| haolez wrote:
| And I was willing to give BlissOS a try as a summer project.
| Guess Android just became less interesting for hackers in gener.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| There's an overarching lesson that FLOSS needs to learn from the
| last fifteen years:
|
| If it's not copyleft, it's not free. Also, it's more than just a
| legal classification of IP law, it's an ethos. I don't care how
| "free" your underlying OS is, if most of the userland is
| proprietary and the only way to really effectively use the
| software on consumer hardware is to use a megacorp's
| implementation of it and to bow to their whims, it might as well
| be Microsoft Windows.
|
| This is why I always thought Android never really was Linux.
| Sure, it has a Linux kernel, but that kernel just exists to run a
| bunch of software in a way that you have no real control over.
| fareesh wrote:
| from what i understand:
|
| - if you compile from source and deploy via adb nothing changes
|
| - if you use a closed source binary, the identity of the owner
| becomes mandatory
|
| so the issue is anonymously published closed source software?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > anonymously published closed source software
|
| Yes, like the software for my ebike conversion kit for which I
| only have the APK. I have vetted the software and would like to
| install it. If Google blocks that, then fuck them.
| computerex wrote:
| > - if you use a closed source binary, the identity of the
| owner becomes mandatory
|
| So I can't just build an apk and distribute to others? What's
| the process for providing identity?
| fainpul wrote:
| > if you compile from source and deploy via adb nothing changes
|
| That's not how I understand it. Do you have a source?
|
| "Starting in September 2026, Android will require _all apps_ to
| be registered by verified developers in order to be installed
| on certified Android devices. "
|
| https://developer.android.com/developer-verification
| kam wrote:
| https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-
| talk-...
|
| > Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed
| with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push
| builds to devices, is unaffected.
| josteink wrote:
| git clone repo init make lunch "Can't get
| more open source than that!"
|
| Man that seems like a long time ago, eh?
| greatgib wrote:
| I hope that F-Droid, the FSF or anything like that will initiate
| a complaint in US or EU. I would happily give a fund for that
| purpose.
| charles_f wrote:
| It's a puzzle to me how Google moves to restrain app install out
| of its store, while Apple loses in court for similar practices.
| kube-system wrote:
| This change would make Google's policies in line with the
| policies Apple has recently implemented to comply with those
| court orders you're talking about.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| If you focus on the fact that Google fraudulently marketed an
| operating system that allows users to run any software they like
| (until they successfully drove other open options out of the
| marketplace) you have all the legal justification you need to
| force Google to back down.
| dangus wrote:
| This is a massive stretch. What marketing campaign said that?
|
| And even if it did, it's not like marketing campaigns make
| claims that last forever.
|
| Red Lobster doesn't owe you anything because endless crab legs
| isn't a thing anymore.
| koolala wrote:
| embrace, extend, extinguish
| isaacremuant wrote:
| The EU doesn't need a legal justification. They can stop Google
| but they actually love this because it helps their total
| surveillance state ideas.
| kube-system wrote:
| What country requires that?
|
| In the US, there's no requirement for a company to honor the
| claims of prior advertisements for things that they might do in
| the future for a different product. And even if a company does
| lie about the features of their product, advertising law does
| not require a company to change the features of their product
| to meet those claims. What could be required is a change in the
| advertising, or a refund for people who bought the devices
| under the false terms.
|
| But if you advertise a certain side of feature features in a
| phone three years ago, and sell something completely different
| next year, that's entirely legal.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| It's certainly possible for the same company to create an
| open platform in addition to a separate platform that is a
| walled garden.
|
| Microsoft Windows is an open platform that is open to running
| whatever software you want, while Xbox is a walled garden.
|
| That doesn't mean that Google can fraudulently market an open
| platform and then close it after driving competing platforms
| out of the market without running afoul of antitrust law.
|
| However, if Google wants to create a new platform that is a
| walled garden, as long as they are honest with users about
| what they are selling, that would be perfectly legal
| everywhere except the EU.
| NotPractical wrote:
| You keep repeating this argument verbatim, but it doesn't hold
| up upon critical examination.
|
| I already replied here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512015
|
| I think the reason you keep reiterating this is because once
| you realize that there is no legal justification to go after
| Google for this move under current US law, the only real
| solution becomes obvious: new legislation, and you really don't
| want that, because you know it will apply to Apple devices as
| well, which would be The End of the World.
|
| If you want to see what the solution to this problem looks
| like: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-
| bill/3209...
|
| (This is before Apple lobbying efforts result in either the
| death of the bill or a bunch of exceptions allowing companies
| to do "notarization" or "developer verification".)
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Sorry, but when you create an open platform, you are choosing
| to create a new market where antitrust law will apply.
|
| Google has to live with the consequences of it's decisions.
|
| Open platforms mean more growth more quickly, but they also
| place restrictions on what you are allowed to do in the
| future.
| barbs wrote:
| I imagine custom ROMs would be able to work around this
| restriction, but I wonder if simply rooting the phone would also
| allow you to switch it off?
| zb3 wrote:
| Yes, this verification will be implemented in the OS but not in
| the TEE, so rooting does give you the ability to affect it.
|
| But Google is working hard to make sure important apps won't
| work anymore due to their "Play Integrity" crap.
| exe34 wrote:
| does anyone know if this affects lineage os or are they able to
| work around the madness?
| dhbradshaw wrote:
| Sounds like we need either a viable alternative or a next thing.
|
| The next thing will probably be AR glasses and we could use some
| alternatives to Meta and Google and Apple.
| ppqqrr wrote:
| it's always hilarious (and there's a lot of this going on right
| now) when major players eliminate themselves from the
| competition, while deluding themselves that they've eliminated
| the competition.
| vayup wrote:
| Dare I say it, I think we're being too harsh on Google here.
|
| When you own a massively successful consumer product like
| Android, which is foundational to users' lives, you have an
| obligation to your users to keep them safe*. Sometimes you will
| have to choose between protecting users who don't know what they
| are doing at the expense of limiting users who know what they are
| doing. In this case, they have chosen to err on the side of the
| former.
|
| I get it. It's OK to not like this development, especially if you
| use a lot of sideloaded apps. However, if you call this "anti-
| consumer", then perhaps you and Google have different notions of
| who the consumers are.
|
| All said and done, Android/Pixel is still the most open mobile
| platform. Users are still free to install other AOSP-based OSes
| such as Graphene OS, which have no such restrictions on
| sideloading.
|
| PS: I'm a former Google employee. I don't think I am a Google
| shill. I worked on mobile security, but I was not involved on
| this matter.
|
| * I am using "safety" as a catch all for privacy and security as
| well.
| gumby271 wrote:
| > Android/Pixel is still the most open mobile platform
|
| There are 2 options in this space (practically). Being better
| than Apple, who is explicit about the fact that they own every
| iPhone on the planet, is not a flex.
|
| Do you think Apple is being reckless not doing the same thing
| on MacOS, Microsoft on Windows? Is the population too stupid to
| be permitted general purpose computers?
| vayup wrote:
| No, I am not flexing. I am just stating a fact.
|
| FWIW, I am also pissed that there are only two mainstream
| options.
| bl4kers wrote:
| AOSP is starting to be locked down. Google's idea of promoting
| safety is charging developers for recognition. When there's a
| profit incentive involved, no, we are not being "too harsh"
| vayup wrote:
| Almost all of the pushback I have seen is on the notion of
| "developer registration", not the cost. That's what I was
| responding to.
|
| I don't know how much it costs. But if there's any pushback
| that it costs too much, my comment is not about that.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _...perhaps you and Google have different notions of who the
| consumers are._
|
| A relatively small percentage of HN users have empathy for
| people who haven't the faintest idea how their gadgets work and
| no curiosity about learning that. It can seem inconceivable.
|
| I agree with you that normal people deserve safety when using
| their most intimate device, and that backdoors that can give
| technical people unfettered access will ultimately be abused by
| bad actors. I wish the world didn't work this way, but it's the
| one we live in.
| zb3 wrote:
| I have empathy for them, that's precisely why I made them
| much more secure by recommending mobile Firefox with uBlock
| :)
| zb3 wrote:
| If I buy a Google Pixel device then I AM a consumer. You don't
| have to choose, you could release a separate device for those
| who know what they're doing, just like Mozilla releases a
| separate edition of Firefox that doesn't require signatures.
|
| And yes, I while I can still install some alternative OS on my
| older Pixel (now Google has stopped providing device trees for
| the newer ones which I therefore won't buy), Google constantly
| tries to make this as insufferable as possible with their "Play
| Integrity" crap.
| vayup wrote:
| > now Google has stopped providing device trees for the newer
| ones which I therefore won't buy
|
| Yeah, that sucks. I don't know if they made any official
| statement on that. I hope they will continue releasing device
| trees. It's a feather in their cap that the best mobile
| device to use for de-Googling so far was a Pixel device (with
| alt OSes). I hope they won't lose that distinction.
| ece wrote:
| Let's make life harder for the only mobile app store (F-Droid)
| that hasn't had any malware on it since it's inception - someone
| at Google probably.
| holoduke wrote:
| I really would love to get rid of everything related to Google,
| Microsoft and Apple. Too bad I am completely depending on them.
| Business wise and privately. I wish I would wake up tomorrow with
| a Linux phone with no crippleware, no notifications, no crappy
| animations, no limits, no nothing.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| I have this profound disgusting feeling when I think I'm going to
| have to ask Google to validate which app I am allowed to install
| on the phone I paid freaking money to get !
|
| This is not about open source, the government being able to ban
| apps, or anything else but a principle.
|
| I'm not a child and Google is definitely not an authority
| respectable enough to tell me what I can't install. They have
| lied, been sued countless times, had to pay billions of fines,..
|
| At this point, there are 2 alternatives : iphone, grapheneos
| (don't even start with Linux phone).
|
| Iphone suck just as bad on that matter but at least the software
| is more suited to professionals, it's not as half ass done as
| Google software.
|
| Grapheneos, it runs just fine 99% of the time but these last 1%
| can be so annoying. Like how they disable face unlock, or how
| some apps refuse to work because of play integrity.
|
| My last hope is that the eu will come once again to the rescue
| and bring the mfcker at Google who came up with this idea back to
| earth.
|
| That or ban Google Android version and make an European Android
| alternative funded and developed by a consortium of tech
| companies that want to sell phone in Europe.
|
| After all, Europe is even a more interesting market than the usa.
| ptrl600 wrote:
| If users are drawn to the "tree of the knowledge of adb install"
| then your first assumption should be that the menu in the walled
| garden is unsatisfactory, not the designs of a serpent.
| j45 wrote:
| Android is signalling that users don't own their phone anymore.
|
| Maybe there will be options arriving in the market to re-
| introduce this concept.
| seanw444 wrote:
| If nothing prevents this from happening, then when it does
| happen, I will make it a point to carry nothing but a laptop and
| a dumb phone, maybe a hotspot. If I need something from the
| internet, I will get it before the trip. If I can't get it on the
| trip, and forgot to beforehand, I will either find another way,
| or not do whatever it is.
|
| I don't know why I don't do that now, honestly. Sounds pretty
| interesting.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-13 23:00 UTC)