Without getting into the details of this - yeah I disagree with it - but, Android allows side loading. Isn’t that what everyone wanted from Apple?
On a higher level, what’s the problem and what should be changed? Google has a policy that people don’t like, Android can side load, isn’t that exactly what people want?
Sorry to go off-topic, but the entire existence of the word 'side-loading' is some 1984-level language manipulation. As if installing applications without getting the permission of some abstract corporate owner is the weird thing. No, having to get permission is the weird way to install things.
as a computer moves ever more towards a white-label appliance with a single purpose, the act of "installing" becomes more and more alien. It sucks, but a majority of the computer-using population cares not for it, and only want it to work. Think washing machine - have you ever seen people want to install apps into their washing machine?
If the singular fucking purpose of the washing machine was to run apps, I sure as fuck would expect to see people wanting to install apps on their washing machine.
You can call of whatever you wish. But how did loading from any untrusted source work out for the average consumer for the last 30 years? Viruses, malware, ransomware, etc?
Yes outside of the little HN/geek bubble, it’s way too easy for the average consumer to install malware on their computer.
HN users have been whining about not being able to side load on iOS devices for years. What they really seem to want is to force the app stores to carry anything.
You must get really tired after destroying straw men all day.
1. It worked out great by fostering tons of invention.
2. Untrusted code with sandboxing works well for the web/javascript ecosystem.
3. Yes "HN users" want the freedom to run software of their choice. Discussing a single aspect where one system is better is not some total endorsement of the whole system.
Regarding #3 Android gives you that choice. The open source community didn’t just complain about proprietary software they created something. Linux wasn’t easy to install along side Windows on PCs. But they made a product that some people wanted and advocated for their position until Linux is now the most widely used OS on phones and on servers - including Azure.
Google should be prohibited from pressuring device creators into not including other app stores and apps. While they do allow side loading, they still maintain an effective monopoly by making it difficult to use any other app store.
(Or at least that's the most reasonable argument/step that I've seen from an anti-trust perspective)
If you read HN you might know what sideloading is and how to do it. If you're anyone else and you even get as far as trying it (which isn't likely) you get a big scary warning about how obviously everything sideloaded is a virus and Google won't be able to scan it and you should use the play store (I don't actually know what it says, but the point is that it's a big scary warning).
The point is that sideloading presents several barriers to entry and at every extra step you'll lose a few more users. very few people will get all the way through enabling sideloading, figuring out how to actually do it with ADB or something, ignoring the scary prompts, and get all the way to actually installing and running an app. This is a nice workaround for a few people, not a solution to Google applying their policies in an aggressive way to remove apps they don't like that clearly aren't themselves dedicated to hate speech.
If you're anyone else and you even get as far as trying it (which isn't likely) you get a big scary warning about how obviously everything sideloaded is a virus and Google won't be able to scan it and you should use the play store (I don't actually know what it says, but the point is that it's a big scary warning).
So now you want both side loading and you don’t want warnings about the possible risks of doing so?
So on one hand you’re arguing that users are too ignorant to figure out side loading but they are smart enough to not download apps that may be malware?
It’s not like any mainstream vendors have had side loading and introduced a security vulnerability....
I did not say we should get rid of the warning, I said it will scare some users off. That's the point of the warning, and it's a good thing, but it means sideloading isn't a viable solution.
So what do you propose? You want the government to come in and enforce fairness? The HN talking point has been that users should be able to install whatever they want - with Android they can.
Here the main issue complex is IMHO that a) the ability to access is counted, b) this is penalized despite the system shipping with apps doing that too and c) the policy isn't consistently applied.
Roughly, web browsers, podcast players and Fediverse clients (and probably a bunch of other apps, those are just obvious examples) all fetch contents from a user-supplied source over HTTP(S) and display it. As long as they are not specifically promoting "banned" sites, they should all be treated the same in that regard.
So what do you propose? Not only have most HN users been advocating that the platform vendors allow alternate means of installing apps and being forced to do so by the government, now do you also want the government to make rules about what is allowed in the App Store?
I propose for Google to apply their guidelines consistently and fairly. Ideally on their own. If it takes a shitstorm every time, that's very annoying (but helped last time they tried to play this game with podcast apps) but at least fixes the problem for a bit. Maybe there is grounds for a lawsuit if they apply it massively unfairly, I'm not a legal expert on that.
Looking back at our last discussion, you have a serious problem of equating everything with a call for government intervention.
It is said that sideloading in Android will essentially be disabled in an upcoming release. It will still be possible for that small handful of nerds who know how to enable developer mode and install an .apk via ADB, but for the vast majority of people, the Google Play store is only going to become further entrenched as their sole source of apps.
I think this is really interesting. You hit the nail. A lot of the discussions nowadays on app stores is about having the cake and eat it. The app store providers are doomed if they do and doomed if they don't. What I hear is: "I like your platform for reach, but I would like to use my own policy"
> This is particularly worrisome because for most people Google Play is the only way they understand to install apps at all.
So this hurts discoverability and credability ("if it's not bad software, why isn't it allowed in the Google store like all the other apps?") of fediverse apps and networks.
On a higher level, what’s the problem and what should be changed? Google has a policy that people don’t like, Android can side load, isn’t that exactly what people want?