120 days until Google restricts side-loading, declaring war on Android freedom

Posted by krunck 5 days ago

Counter182Comment73OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by theandrewbailey 5 days ago

It's sad that Tuta has fallen for Big Tech newspeak. Once upon a time, we installed stuff on our devices. Calling it side-something makes it seem frowned upon, which plays right into Google's hand.

Comment by rustcleaner 4 days ago

It's a blue-bubblification, something which tricks the mind.

Comment by unrented7977 5 days ago

It's not newspeak, we've been calling it sideloading since the 90s

Comment by Gormo 4 days ago

Got any citations for that? The first time I personally ever encountered the term "sideload" was at a Microsoft developer demo for the upcoming Windows Phone around 2010, and another audience member raised his hand to ask what that term meant.

Comment by btreecat 3 days ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideloading

I don't remember calling it side loading when I had some of those earlier mp3 players but my experience wasn't universal.

Comment by Grimblewald 4 days ago

right but sideloading means installing outside the official channel. last i checked playstore was an option, not android official.

Comment by hulitu 4 days ago

> sideloading means installing outside the official channel

On VMS ? Or plan9 ?

Comment by roosterIllusi0n 5 days ago

That is untrue. It's called "installing" or just "running". Sideloading makes no sense if you describe normal installing that way. The side load is the app store.

Comment by stuaxo 4 days ago

Not for apps and games on most phones.

I made these and we installed them as JARs or Whatever Symbian used.

Comment by jdjfnfhfhtb 4 days ago

No, we called it installing software.

Comment by jdjfnfhfhtb 4 days ago

And also the phones people had in the early to mid 90's were analog bricks, with serious batteries. The smaller phones like nokias came 97 onward and were smaller.

Comment by selfhoster11 4 days ago

Lol, no.

Comment by aiauthoritydev 4 days ago

> we installed stuff on our devices

I am not sure about that. Windows, Linux based devices were like that but for a lot of things like gaming consoles etc. you were locked into the ecosystem and 'side loading" was indeed something.

I do understand developer mindset but I would be pretty unhappy if my mother's phone could just install stuff. A lot of people get harmed and lose their life's saving over wrongly installed crap.

A good middle ground for the Big Tech is to let folks pay $$, a money that is high enough and has sufficient friction.

Comment by user205738 1 day ago

A free app in the Play Market will almost always contain malware, simply because developers try to return money.

I’m not even talking about the huge number of fake and malicious apps in it.

Comment by roosterIllusi0n 4 days ago

That isn't even true about gaming consoles. They were completely open in the 90s and before. The consoles even lost lawsuits keeping it open. For newer consoles, a modchip doesn't side load, it enables normal loading without the drm check.

Bypassing/disabling drm would not be called sideloading.

If anything, the app store would be the sideload because they are loading the installer via a middleman instead of downloading the installer and running it yourself like normal.

Comment by tweetle_beetle 5 days ago

Sideloading is a type of installing defined by the source of the file(s) being installed. Google will still allow installing from the Play store. The distinction is valid.

Comment by x______________ 5 days ago

> Sideloading is a type of installing defined by the source of the file(s) being installed

Installing is the action of the owner of the device, to add functionality to that device by adding compiled executable code, regardless of the source.

Comment by gruez 4 days ago

You can acknowledge that different concepts exist and would be better served by having different words, rather than trying to force others (via downvoting) into not using a given word. Whether you support google's restrictions or not, they only apply to a subset of apps, so having a word to refer to the specific subset of apps is helpful.

Comment by owebmaster 4 days ago

Helpful to whom? Google banning installing apps outside of play store is the correct story.

Comment by gruez 4 days ago

Helpful for the purposes of discussion. Consider:

"Google is banning installing apps!"

vs

"Google is banning sideloading!"

Regardless of your position on whether Android should care whether an app came from the play store downloaded elsewhere, it's worth distinguishing them for the purposes of discussing what's happening.

Comment by NietzscheanNull 4 days ago

I think your example is stilted in exactly the direction that the anti-sideloading-as-a-term crowd fears is increasingly becoming normalized.

In fact, I think it's actually a perfect demonstration of how incredibly subtle and pernicious even small changes in the language we use can be, especially over a period of years to decades. Those changes are capable of reframing public perceptions in ways that inhibit our ability to recognize what would otherwise be obvious attacks on our expectations of rights and individual agency (were they couched in the existing terminology instead).

I would propose a modified counter-example to illustrate my point:

"Google is banning installation of apps they don't approve!"

vs

"Google is banning sideloading!"

This makes it clear what's actually happening: ownership of a Google device is no longer truly ownership. You are only allowed to install apps Google deems acceptable, and are denied the agency to install apps that are not. The device is fundamentally Google's to control; you're merely a user.

Comment by gruez 3 days ago

>In fact, I think it's actually a perfect demonstration of how incredibly subtle and pernicious even small changes in the language we use can be, especially over a period of years to decades. Those changes are capable of reframing public perceptions in ways that inhibit our ability to recognize what would otherwise be obvious attacks on our expectations of rights and individual agency (were they couched in the existing terminology instead).

>I would propose a modified counter-example to illustrate my point: ...

Which just turns into endless fight over wording, where each side tries to get the maximally sympathetic wording they can get away with, and decry the other side's attempts at rewording as "doublespeak" or whatever. eg. are they "illegal immigrants" (implying they did something illegal) or merely "undocumented" (implying they lost their documents or whatever)?

Comment by owebmaster 3 days ago

> Which just turns into endless fight over wording

Sure. One side benefits the users and the other benefits a monopoly. I don't work for that monopoly but I do use a smartphone that is locked to the monopolist OS.

Comment by x______________ 4 days ago

> You can acknowledge that different concepts exist and would be better served by having different words, rather than trying to force others (via downvoting)

Bold of you to assume that downvoting was accompanied by words.

On that note, the gain of creating doublespeak is usually in the favor of those who create it. Added unnecessary complexity will only serve to create fear, uncertainty and doubt, while the original meaning and intent was well established with words.

We have existing words and works of art to establish a link to the intents, purposes and end goals to what Google has done here.

Comment by rustcleaner 4 days ago

We should stop calling it "side-loading" and start calling it "front-loading." App store primacy in the users' minds is a cancer.

Comment by garbawarb 5 days ago

Why is it called side-loading here? Isn't that just downloading?

Comment by orphea 5 days ago

It's installing, not just downloading.

Comment by opan 3 days ago

There's an `adb sideload` command for installing an app on your phone from your PC, with the file on your PC, it's like a remote install. For some reason some people also use the term to refer to installing stuff via apks in general, but if you download an apk from your phone's browser and then open it and install it, that is not sideloading AFAIK.

Comment by saurik 3 days ago

No that command is "adb install". The "adb sideload" command (which I did not even realize existed) is for installing custom firmware.

Comment by paxys 5 days ago

Downloading and installing an app from a source other than the official store included with the OS.

Because that is a mouthful people named it "sideloading".

Comment by mrheosuper 4 days ago

Just call it "installing".

I don't "sideload" spotify on my windows machine, i installed it.

Comment by justsomehnguy 4 days ago

Nobody says "I'm downloading and installing an app from the official store for the platform". It's "installed an app" at best. And yes, Android phones had "an official" stores besides Play Market.

Comment by stuaxo 4 days ago

Eh, but you can just install apks now you don't need to say where it's from when you talk about it, or if I did I might say "install SillyOpenSourceApp" from Fdroid.

Comment by NewJazz 4 days ago

"Direct app installation"

Comment by roosterIllusi0n 5 days ago

There is no such thing as an official store for anything. You can use any app store you want. But normal installing without an app store is called normal. The app store is the side show. If an OS locks you to their brand's app store and blocks normal installation, that is not legal since its a monopoly action.

Comment by Dylan16807 4 days ago

> There is no such thing as an official store for anything.

This goes beyond advocacy into straight up... well I won't yet call it lying but it's intentionally using words in a way that will mislead people using words the normal way.

That we should just call things installing, yeah I see where you're coming from. But in your other comment where you go so far as to conclude that "The side load is the app store"? That's just wrong.

Comment by roosterIllusi0n 4 days ago

US law should never have allowed it. That is without passing anything new.

The OS controlling the software that can run on it is absolutely illegal. So you don't get to call something an "official app store" when the notion is illegal. Regulators may not regulate, but we don't change how we describe things factually.

Just look at the poor security record of these "official" app stores. They are not official anything.

Comment by Dylan16807 4 days ago

> The OS controlling the software that can run on it is absolutely illegal.

But that is a different thing from having an official app store. App stores and package managers are the same thing, and Linux distros with total freedom have official package managers and repositories.

Comment by OroPla 5 days ago

Guess it's a good thing that Android can't install updates via Ethernet, but I only connect my phone via Ethernet. My next phone is going to be a Linux phone, though, I guess.

Comment by throw_m239339 4 days ago

The only reason I chose Android was being able to install my own "native" apps without Google having a say. If that function is gone, I simply have no reason to use Android, I actually like IOS better in terms of UI, so I'll just move to Apple's ecosystem...

While using alternative OS on older Android devices.

Comment by ragequittah 4 days ago

You can still install your own apps and in my case your own operating system (graphene). The 24 hour wait to activate sideloads indefinitely seems like a non-issue to me.

https://support.google.com/android/answer/17588095

Comment by Harvy 4 days ago

How is this not mentioned in the article anywhere? I've seen similar articles and keep thinking: is this about the 24 delay or something else. It just leads to confusing messaging.

Comment by mrheosuper 4 days ago

There was no issue before.

So what the point of changing stuff and hope it does not create any issues ?

Comment by ragequittah 3 days ago

Personally I generally agree with guardrails for regular consumers. The kind of people who don't want to do things like go into developer options and enable "unsafe" options usually should be protected against installing a random .apk on a device that contains their bank info and whatever else.

Comment by ChrisArchitect 5 days ago

https://keepandroidopen.org/

Comment by megagpt1 5 days ago

Petitions never do anything. Reverse engineering does.

Comment by throwa356262 5 days ago

I am not a fan of Apple or Google, but there is no other option that works with my everyday essential apps (e.g banking)?

Comment by iAMkenough 5 days ago

I miss when websites made it possible to do essential things in my daily life without requiring I install something on my device.

Comment by amlib 4 days ago

Except there were websites requiring you to install ActiveX and proprietary plugins to do anything meaningful as soon as 1995? Also banks requiring proprietary security modules to access your account, they were pretty ubiquitous in the early 2000s where I lived.

The difference now is that accessing services through the internet is a necessity rather than a luxury. I guess passing laws could fix this, but it's exceptionally hard to get anything done through the barrage of big tech lobbying.

Comment by iAMkenough 4 days ago

Oh god I just had Microsoft Silverlight flashbacks

Comment by mysterydip 4 days ago

(warning dumb question incoming): since android apps are java, is it possible for a third contender to create a jvm for their platform and some hooks for android api’s and run anything that was made for them?

Comment by tadfisher 4 days ago

Yes. The main issue is hardware attestation, e.g. the bank's backend refusing to allow you to log in unless you can prove cryptographically that you are running a Google-certified device and operating system.

Comment by nosioptar 4 days ago

Anbox let's you run android apps on Linux. I'd assume it could also work on Mobian or something similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anbox

Comment by NewJazz 4 days ago

Is Anbox still maintained? I remember using Anbox a long time ago, then I tried waydroid.

https://waydro.id/

Comment by nosioptar 4 days ago

Doesnt look like it's still maintained, but it shows it is possible.

I completely forgot about waydroid due to Wayland not being ready for general use.

(Aside from accessibility stuff mentioned on hn numerous times, still doesn't allow keepass to type passwords last I checked. Admittedly, I check Wayland about as often as I check Hurd.)

Comment by yowo 4 days ago

GraphenOS?

Comment by black6 4 days ago

I almost never use dedicated apps. I am able to access all my bank and other financial accounts through their websites on mobile, no problem. (Vanadium browser on GrapheneOS)

Comment by spwa4 4 days ago

Note that this mechanism IS ALREADY IN android phones, with currently play store services accepting side loading, but once that app upgrades (independent of even android upgrades) and so this is not like "your next phone restricts side loading", side loading will suddenly fail on your current phone.

Comment by Markoff 4 days ago

I still don't understand whether this affects me if I have Google Play Store disabled and Google Play Protect disabled, will still affect me if I have Google Play Services enabled or do I have to disable them, install what I want and then reenable them? Sounds like quite stupid workflow, though not too worrysome.

Comment by vkaku 4 days ago

I am going to either buy a CommodoreOS phone (Jolla) or a Linux phone (TBD) at this point for any such purchases;

I currently have old phones who do not have this restriction, but if Google Play did this, I'd already be ready with Aptoid and ready to disable Play Store if I need to.

Comment by rcbdev 3 days ago

I remember when sideloading referred to running `adb sideload` for installing applications from a remote host. The Android modding community has been scattered to the winds of time, it seems.

Comment by b3nji 3 days ago

I'm excited to see what innovations, and new personal control over devices will be driven by the community out of this bad decision by Google.

Comment by MadrasThorn 5 days ago

Walled garden models I guess

Comment by zerozerotwo 5 days ago

Best part is the justification that eu regulations require this

Comment by throw_m239339 4 days ago

EU regulations do not require that, that's bullshit. Otherwise Microsoft and Apple would do the same and completely restrict what one can install on their laptop (Microsoft tried to force people to go through their store on Windows Family versions though, I'm glad they failed).

Comment by M95D 4 days ago

Too late now. Anyone could see this coming since they added a whitelist for bluetooth obex in 2009. Nobody said anything.

https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Blue...

Comment by josefritzishere 4 days ago

Sundar Pichai is violating anti-trust law for fun and profit.

Comment by yowo 4 days ago

I despise everything about google, from surveillance and user hostility to monopoloy and genocide enablement, but I can understand this change everytime I look at my grandparents app menus, for me, it feels patronizing to have to wait 24hrs to enable basic functionality, but I can understand where does this come from.

Anyways, it is a good thread to remind people that Motorola partnered with GrapheneOS and will release GrapheneOS compatible devices next year.

Comment by Natfan 4 days ago

genocide enablement? i know that meta played a "determining role" in a genocide in Myanmar[0], but i wasn't aware of google doing similar things?

[0]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

Comment by UncleMeat 4 days ago

Google is contracting with the US government in ways that advance the destruction of Palestine.

Comment by Natfan 4 days ago

very interesting, im intrigued to learn more. citation?

Comment by bhhaskin 4 days ago

The war has already been declared. It's just another battle.