9 ms·

the locked in store model has completely failed. both for ios and android it is a terrible experience compared to PC. you are stuck with only the search tools t

the locked in store model has completely failed. both for ios and android it is a terrible experience compared to PC. you are stuck with only the search tools the hardware maker gives you, often designed in a user hostile way (ios brings up ads) and no way to bail out to a different store. as well the monoculture leads to a race to the bottom with garbage programs shoving their way to the top via misleading a dishonest means, and by sheer numbers. i want no part of it. when a phone maker comes to the market without this locked down model i will buy it, and if windows goes this route i will drop it for linux. and yea i know you can sideload on android, but the unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter.

nemothekid 8y ago
>and yea i know you can sideload on android, but the unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter. Then what is your solution? The unwashed masses tried the wild wild west of digital software delivery back in the 2000s. It ended with tears, viruses, UAC and SaaS. Even today, most sideloading, for general consumers, begins with trying to pirate apps and ends with even more invasive spyware. The locked in store model is better than than what we had before for the general consumer (at least iOS's, unequivocally is, IMO). The App Store might be bad for developers, but it's way better for consumers.
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  I'd say that the sandboxing introduced by mobile OSes today solves the vast majority of the problem. By isolating applications and introducing permissions, malware that can steal or encrypt user data isn't possible even for people installing those pirated APKs.
  - comex 8y ago
    But the type of malware described in the article obviously is possible, given that it’s possible even on the Play Store. The OP posed switching to a decentralized model as a solution to that, and it’s hard to see how that makes any sense.
    - shittyadmin 8y ago
      I'd argue the type of malware described in this article is fairly to completely harmless to the user. Harm to ad networks and a bit of wasted bandwidth is basically the worst case scenario. The wasted bandwidth would be made clear by the OS to the user too, so it'd be trivial to identify if it was a significant consumer.
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    But in the end the software running on our phones is mostly crap. I doubt user data being protected by these mechanisms helped people to guard their data.
  - vbezhenar 8y ago
    Don't trust Android or iOS or macOS sandbox. Google invests huge amounts of development time and research into Google Chrome JavaScript sandbox. It is the real wild west, there are malicious actors who want to break that sandbox. There are multiple layers of protection. Yet there are successful attacks. Much less people trying to break Android or iOS sandbox, because you can just ask for permission from Android and because Apple can kick bad app from the store and prevent infestation. It means that security of those sandboxes is worse, there are many undiscovered (or undisclosed) holes. Check out history of Java sandbox with its numerous vulnerabilities. I have no reasons to expect anything different from built-in sandboxes. It's like relying on unix user permissions and allow to run anything under untrusted user. Works in theory, but you'll be owned pretty soon, because local root escalation vulnerabilities are not that rare. In those days the only sandbox I would trust is JavaScript one. It's battle tested.
    - shittyadmin 8y ago
      > because you can just ask for permission from Android You cannot ask for permission to bypass sandbox restrictions on Android. You need root access, which means physical access to do things like unlock the bootloader or an exploit. iOS sandbox seems slightly weaker here due to the use of hidden/private functions to protect certain things, sideloaded apps would likely be a bigger risk on iOS than Android at the moment, but that's not something unresolvable. In any case, the things you're discussing aren't really so problematic - isolation systems are only getting better, OS level ones are improving every day. We could easily have sandboxes at this level just as secure as the javascript ones.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  The solution is what has been suggested earlier: allow users to choose their own 'store', don't lock them to a single vendor. This is already possible with Android where F-Droid is a good example of a 'store' where the chance of being exposed to these shenanigans is close to zero. Currently iOS users lack this option so for them the only way out is to change platform.
  - thekyle 8y ago
    Another nice thing about F-Droid is that it uses Linux style "repositories" meaning that individuals/companies can setup repos for apps without needing to build their own custom app store. There are also multiple independent implementations of the F-droid client: https://gitlab.com/gdroid/gdroidclient/ https://gitlab.com/gdroid/gdroidclient/ https://github.com/SkyzohKey/M-Droid https://github.com/SkyzohKey/M-Droid
    - tty2300 8y ago
      I am told thses software repos are super useful for the 3rd world because phone stores can run a local app repo and people can download apps without using their very limited internet data. Fdroid also allows local app transfers to people near you.
  - acdha 8y ago
    That doesn’t seem like much of an improvement: if it became popular, you’d see the same social attacks switch from getting people to install apps to enabling a new store. F-Droid is safer because it’s much smaller and mostly free software: that’s good for people who don’t want anything else but it seems unlikely to satisfy mainstream demand or survive a motivated attack.
    - Yetanfou 8y ago
      Linux survived these attacks. Debian survived them. Ubuntu did. More or less all Linux distributions have been attacked but survived, many of them thrive. Yes, this is free software. Being less susceptible to these problems has been one of the stated advantages of using such for a long time. Alternative 'stores' carrying 'pirated' non-free software do not have this advantage and can easily turn into dark places so the solution does not lie there. Will people choose a 'boring' free software 'store' over a 'cool pirate store' (Arrrrr!)? Some will, some won't. Those who will will end up being mostly silent as the thing just works. Those who won't will be susceptible to the whims of those who put up those 'stores' and are likely to come home with a bit more than they asked for. Some 'stores' will get a good reputation along the lines of that of F-Droid, some will get the reputation of being the place to go to get the latest craze but also the latest infection. Users will start making conscious decisions based on those reputations, just like they already do elsewhere. Will opening up closed platforms like iOS for third-party software repositories get rid of these problems? No, it won't, it will even raise the average level of problematic software on that platform. The difference between closed systems and more open ones is not that the closed ones are inferior, it is that they limit the user's choice to get something which is better as well as worse than what the walled garden offers. In this context better can mean software which does not come with tracking, analytics, profiling and other such privacy-invading nonsense. I can get the source code and build it myself, I can host my own repository, only time limits where I can go. This is not true for the Google Play Store or the Apple Appstore, nor is it true for the Amazon equivalent or any of those Chinese alternatives. That is why I chose to use something like F-Droid. By the way, there is nothing keeping e.g. Facebook or Twitter from releasing a free software version of their apps. Their value - and most of their profiling proficiency - lies in their platforms, not in the apps used to access them. They might lose any additional venues for leaching the user of data but they would gain some believability when they state that they're not up to no good. Of course there are plenty of alternative apps for these services so they don't really need to but they could if they wanted to.
- wolco 8y ago
  The single source has many advantages but also many negatives. Android apps run the risk of becoming facebook apps. A rising platform that had a lot going for it. Little by little more restrictions pushed many away and turned into what it is today.
- 43920 8y ago
  The problem with early 2000's-style software delivery wasn't that you could choose which software to install, it was that there was no separation between programs, so that any random program you installed could add toolbars to your browser, steal all your passwords, etc. If iOS or Android made it easier to install apps outside the store, I highly doubt you'd see anywhere near the same level of problems, since everything is so isolated from each other.
  - tty2300 8y ago
    I would find it acceptable if side loading apps was allowed by default but sideloaded apps are blocked from the dangerous permissions like device admin and draw over screen. Apps that really do require this have to be checked by a maintainer or require the device to be in developer mode. This way almost everyone is happy because most apps don't really require anything other than internet, camera and GPS which can be denied by the user.
    - floatingatoll 8y ago
      Isn’t that what native web apps are for, where you Share > Home Screen and they store themselves in local storage in the browser cache?
      - tty2300 8y ago
        Web apps can't use GPS like an app can
        stephenr 8y ago
        Im generally not a fan of web apps but this is incorrect. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation
        LoSboccacc 8y ago
        can't see anywhere mentioned geofencing.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  It is amazing that we can fly aircrafts to space but cannot solve software installations, in't it? Maybe the software industry as a whole needs a kick in the butt.
  - cmpxchg8b 8y ago
    Flying to the moon isn’t filled with profit motivated bad actors.
- z3t4 8y ago
  Funny thing is the pirated apps often remove spyware and other crap.
- tallanvor 8y ago
  The locked in store model in iOS also forces you in to a specific and rather puritanical morality when it comes to the apps you can choose from.
gruez 8y ago
>unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter. They seem to be able to find epic's fortnite just fine. What more do you want?
- scarface74 8y ago
  With the Fortnite security issues, that’s not exactly saying much for alternate stores. https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-android-security-problems-is-just-getting-started/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-andro...
ggm 8y ago
I feel the problem is the complexity of permissions models. Rather than expose many fine-grained permissions, apps ask for wide ranging permissions. Good apps and Bad apps. because the good apps are written naievely from days past and didn't know there is now a specific APP_PERMISSION_THIS_THING rather than 'all files' Because even good apps ask for all things, It cannot be used as a filter to determin bad apps.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  With physical consumer products this used to be solved by the distributor and retail buyer chain. Company makes a product and provides samples to the distributors buyers who then run it through the wringer. If it's crap then they don't order any. If it's 'good' then they'll market it to the retail buyers who place orders if they think they can sell it (and it's not crap). None of that exists in the 'app market'. If it did then you'd submit an app to a distributor who would notice you're sending private user data to a Chinese website and they'll not only not market it, they'll never touch any of your stuff again. The downside of that system is 99.99% of apps out there would never get installed on a phone in the wild.
  - chii 8y ago
    When the app is free, there's no incentive for the consumer to check like they would for white goods. What's really needed is the abolishment of ad driven revenue model. If the user derives value from the app, they ought to pay for it. This way, the app developer is incentivized to make the app better for the consumer, rather than attempt to generate revenue thru illicit/anti-user means.
duskwuff 8y ago
How does this follow from the article? Sure, a walled garden isn't a perfect model. But opening it up further would make abuse, like the behaviors described in the article, even easier for developers to execute, and harder for anyone to stop.
thekyle 8y ago
> i want no part of it. when a phone maker comes to the market without this locked down model i will buy it, and if windows goes this route i will drop it for linux. > and yea i know you can sideload on android, but the unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter. I don't totally understand what you want. You say you want a phone (presumably OS?) that does not require an app store then totally dismiss a very popular operating system that has exactly that feature. Who cares if a large segment of Android users don't side load apps, that does nothing to prevent you from doing it. I've been using Android without Google Play services for a few months and everything works fine. My bank apps work, the few social media apps I use work, WhatsApp/Signal work, Bing/Cortana work, I could go on but I think you get the idea. Most of my apps have been side loaded (or downloaded via F-Droid).
- dzdt 8y ago
  So if google's app store is so bad (and I tend to agree it isn't great) what is preventing the rise of a better alternative app store? They exist, but as far as I can tell none have gained any traction.
  - thekyle 8y ago
    Well I'd say Google Play's dominance is mostly because it is default. Additionally, there is a natural vendor lock-in as you begin buying apps since your purchases won't be available on other app stores. There are other apps stores that have become relatively popular when pre-installed such as Amazon's and the various Chinese app stores. https://www.appinchina.co/market/app-stores/ https://www.appinchina.co/market/app-stores/
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Google's illegal anticompetitive contracts with phone manufacturers that forbid them from developing/selling non-Google-app-store-infected phones if they want to sell any phone's with Google's app store: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/Google-s-Confidential-Android-Contracts-Show-Rising-Requirements https://www.theinformation.com/articles/Google-s-Confidentia...
thorwasdfasdf 8y ago
well, there's always the Mobile Web. we just gotta get users to adopt it.
Kiro 8y ago
> compared to PC How is Steam or Windows Store any different? How do you install apps/games on PC?
- oblio 8y ago
  > How do you install apps [..] on PC? Not through Windows Store, that's for sure :)))
codedokode 8y ago
But Linux is not better. Android at least has permissions for apps and allows you to deny some of it; on a typical desktop Linux distribution or on Windows every app has full access to all of your data: a calculator can read your browser history. If you install the Slack app from Deb package on Linux, it will add its repository into APT sources list which means that Slack Inc. can now "patch" any program on your system, for example, sshd or Firefox. Also, it will add a daily cron task that checks that added configuration is not commented out (they explain that it is necessary for the case of upgrading a distribution). Such behaviour is simply impossible on Android. So I think it is the opposite: mobile OS provide better security than desktop OS.
- zambal 8y ago
  That's why I hope snap or flatpack will gain more momentum. While I assume they still are far from perfect at the moment, they seem to me a step in the right direction for desktops and servers.
- stubish 8y ago
  Checkout snaps, where packages are preferred sand boxed and locked down, and require explicit permission from store operator and the user to install with unrestricted rights https://snapcraft.io/ https://snapcraft.io/
oblio 8y ago
> the locked in store model has completely failed Nope, it hasn't. It's very successful. It succeeded in lining the pockets of Apple and Google.
simonh 8y ago
How can you on the one hand complain the locked into a store model has failed, then say yes you know Android has multiple stores and you can side-load. Doesn't that mean the multiple-stores and side-loading model has failed also? I'm not quite sure what your point is.

nemothekid 8y ago

>and yea i know you can sideload on android, but the unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter. Then what is your solution? The unwashed masses tried the wild wild west of digital software delivery back in the 2000s. It ended with tears, viruses, UAC and SaaS. Even today, most sideloading, for general consumers, begins with trying to pirate apps and ends with even more invasive spyware. The locked in store model is better than than what we had before for the general consumer (at least iOS's, unequivocally is, IMO). The App Store might be bad for developers, but it's way better for consumers.

shittyadmin 8y ago
I'd say that the sandboxing introduced by mobile OSes today solves the vast majority of the problem. By isolating applications and introducing permissions, malware that can steal or encrypt user data isn't possible even for people installing those pirated APKs.
- comex 8y ago
  But the type of malware described in the article obviously is possible, given that it’s possible even on the Play Store. The OP posed switching to a decentralized model as a solution to that, and it’s hard to see how that makes any sense.
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    I'd argue the type of malware described in this article is fairly to completely harmless to the user. Harm to ad networks and a bit of wasted bandwidth is basically the worst case scenario. The wasted bandwidth would be made clear by the OS to the user too, so it'd be trivial to identify if it was a significant consumer.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  But in the end the software running on our phones is mostly crap. I doubt user data being protected by these mechanisms helped people to guard their data.
- vbezhenar 8y ago
  Don't trust Android or iOS or macOS sandbox. Google invests huge amounts of development time and research into Google Chrome JavaScript sandbox. It is the real wild west, there are malicious actors who want to break that sandbox. There are multiple layers of protection. Yet there are successful attacks. Much less people trying to break Android or iOS sandbox, because you can just ask for permission from Android and because Apple can kick bad app from the store and prevent infestation. It means that security of those sandboxes is worse, there are many undiscovered (or undisclosed) holes. Check out history of Java sandbox with its numerous vulnerabilities. I have no reasons to expect anything different from built-in sandboxes. It's like relying on unix user permissions and allow to run anything under untrusted user. Works in theory, but you'll be owned pretty soon, because local root escalation vulnerabilities are not that rare. In those days the only sandbox I would trust is JavaScript one. It's battle tested.
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    > because you can just ask for permission from Android You cannot ask for permission to bypass sandbox restrictions on Android. You need root access, which means physical access to do things like unlock the bootloader or an exploit. iOS sandbox seems slightly weaker here due to the use of hidden/private functions to protect certain things, sideloaded apps would likely be a bigger risk on iOS than Android at the moment, but that's not something unresolvable. In any case, the things you're discussing aren't really so problematic - isolation systems are only getting better, OS level ones are improving every day. We could easily have sandboxes at this level just as secure as the javascript ones.
Yetanfou 8y ago
The solution is what has been suggested earlier: allow users to choose their own 'store', don't lock them to a single vendor. This is already possible with Android where F-Droid is a good example of a 'store' where the chance of being exposed to these shenanigans is close to zero. Currently iOS users lack this option so for them the only way out is to change platform.
- thekyle 8y ago
  Another nice thing about F-Droid is that it uses Linux style "repositories" meaning that individuals/companies can setup repos for apps without needing to build their own custom app store. There are also multiple independent implementations of the F-droid client: https://gitlab.com/gdroid/gdroidclient/ https://gitlab.com/gdroid/gdroidclient/ https://github.com/SkyzohKey/M-Droid https://github.com/SkyzohKey/M-Droid
  - tty2300 8y ago
    I am told thses software repos are super useful for the 3rd world because phone stores can run a local app repo and people can download apps without using their very limited internet data. Fdroid also allows local app transfers to people near you.
- acdha 8y ago
  That doesn’t seem like much of an improvement: if it became popular, you’d see the same social attacks switch from getting people to install apps to enabling a new store. F-Droid is safer because it’s much smaller and mostly free software: that’s good for people who don’t want anything else but it seems unlikely to satisfy mainstream demand or survive a motivated attack.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    Linux survived these attacks. Debian survived them. Ubuntu did. More or less all Linux distributions have been attacked but survived, many of them thrive. Yes, this is free software. Being less susceptible to these problems has been one of the stated advantages of using such for a long time. Alternative 'stores' carrying 'pirated' non-free software do not have this advantage and can easily turn into dark places so the solution does not lie there. Will people choose a 'boring' free software 'store' over a 'cool pirate store' (Arrrrr!)? Some will, some won't. Those who will will end up being mostly silent as the thing just works. Those who won't will be susceptible to the whims of those who put up those 'stores' and are likely to come home with a bit more than they asked for. Some 'stores' will get a good reputation along the lines of that of F-Droid, some will get the reputation of being the place to go to get the latest craze but also the latest infection. Users will start making conscious decisions based on those reputations, just like they already do elsewhere. Will opening up closed platforms like iOS for third-party software repositories get rid of these problems? No, it won't, it will even raise the average level of problematic software on that platform. The difference between closed systems and more open ones is not that the closed ones are inferior, it is that they limit the user's choice to get something which is better as well as worse than what the walled garden offers. In this context better can mean software which does not come with tracking, analytics, profiling and other such privacy-invading nonsense. I can get the source code and build it myself, I can host my own repository, only time limits where I can go. This is not true for the Google Play Store or the Apple Appstore, nor is it true for the Amazon equivalent or any of those Chinese alternatives. That is why I chose to use something like F-Droid. By the way, there is nothing keeping e.g. Facebook or Twitter from releasing a free software version of their apps. Their value - and most of their profiling proficiency - lies in their platforms, not in the apps used to access them. They might lose any additional venues for leaching the user of data but they would gain some believability when they state that they're not up to no good. Of course there are plenty of alternative apps for these services so they don't really need to but they could if they wanted to.
wolco 8y ago
The single source has many advantages but also many negatives. Android apps run the risk of becoming facebook apps. A rising platform that had a lot going for it. Little by little more restrictions pushed many away and turned into what it is today.
43920 8y ago
The problem with early 2000's-style software delivery wasn't that you could choose which software to install, it was that there was no separation between programs, so that any random program you installed could add toolbars to your browser, steal all your passwords, etc. If iOS or Android made it easier to install apps outside the store, I highly doubt you'd see anywhere near the same level of problems, since everything is so isolated from each other.
- tty2300 8y ago
  I would find it acceptable if side loading apps was allowed by default but sideloaded apps are blocked from the dangerous permissions like device admin and draw over screen. Apps that really do require this have to be checked by a maintainer or require the device to be in developer mode. This way almost everyone is happy because most apps don't really require anything other than internet, camera and GPS which can be denied by the user.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    Isn’t that what native web apps are for, where you Share > Home Screen and they store themselves in local storage in the browser cache?
    - tty2300 8y ago
      Web apps can't use GPS like an app can
      - stephenr 8y ago
        Im generally not a fan of web apps but this is incorrect. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation
        LoSboccacc 8y ago
        can't see anywhere mentioned geofencing.
StreamBright 8y ago
It is amazing that we can fly aircrafts to space but cannot solve software installations, in't it? Maybe the software industry as a whole needs a kick in the butt.
- cmpxchg8b 8y ago
  Flying to the moon isn’t filled with profit motivated bad actors.
z3t4 8y ago
Funny thing is the pirated apps often remove spyware and other crap.
tallanvor 8y ago
The locked in store model in iOS also forces you in to a specific and rather puritanical morality when it comes to the apps you can choose from.

gruez 8y ago

>unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter. They seem to be able to find epic's fortnite just fine. What more do you want?

scarface74 8y ago
With the Fortnite security issues, that’s not exactly saying much for alternate stores. https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-android-security-problems-is-just-getting-started/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-andro...

ggm 8y ago

I feel the problem is the complexity of permissions models. Rather than expose many fine-grained permissions, apps ask for wide ranging permissions. Good apps and Bad apps. because the good apps are written naievely from days past and didn't know there is now a specific APP_PERMISSION_THIS_THING rather than 'all files' Because even good apps ask for all things, It cannot be used as a filter to determin bad apps.

Gibbon1 8y ago
With physical consumer products this used to be solved by the distributor and retail buyer chain. Company makes a product and provides samples to the distributors buyers who then run it through the wringer. If it's crap then they don't order any. If it's 'good' then they'll market it to the retail buyers who place orders if they think they can sell it (and it's not crap). None of that exists in the 'app market'. If it did then you'd submit an app to a distributor who would notice you're sending private user data to a Chinese website and they'll not only not market it, they'll never touch any of your stuff again. The downside of that system is 99.99% of apps out there would never get installed on a phone in the wild.
- chii 8y ago
  When the app is free, there's no incentive for the consumer to check like they would for white goods. What's really needed is the abolishment of ad driven revenue model. If the user derives value from the app, they ought to pay for it. This way, the app developer is incentivized to make the app better for the consumer, rather than attempt to generate revenue thru illicit/anti-user means.

duskwuff 8y ago

How does this follow from the article? Sure, a walled garden isn't a perfect model. But opening it up further would make abuse, like the behaviors described in the article, even easier for developers to execute, and harder for anyone to stop.

thekyle 8y ago

> i want no part of it. when a phone maker comes to the market without this locked down model i will buy it, and if windows goes this route i will drop it for linux. > and yea i know you can sideload on android, but the unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter. I don't totally understand what you want. You say you want a phone (presumably OS?) that does not require an app store then totally dismiss a very popular operating system that has exactly that feature. Who cares if a large segment of Android users don't side load apps, that does nothing to prevent you from doing it. I've been using Android without Google Play services for a few months and everything works fine. My bank apps work, the few social media apps I use work, WhatsApp/Signal work, Bing/Cortana work, I could go on but I think you get the idea. Most of my apps have been side loaded (or downloaded via F-Droid).

dzdt 8y ago
So if google's app store is so bad (and I tend to agree it isn't great) what is preventing the rise of a better alternative app store? They exist, but as far as I can tell none have gained any traction.
- thekyle 8y ago
  Well I'd say Google Play's dominance is mostly because it is default. Additionally, there is a natural vendor lock-in as you begin buying apps since your purchases won't be available on other app stores. There are other apps stores that have become relatively popular when pre-installed such as Amazon's and the various Chinese app stores. https://www.appinchina.co/market/app-stores/ https://www.appinchina.co/market/app-stores/
- deogeo 8y ago
  Google's illegal anticompetitive contracts with phone manufacturers that forbid them from developing/selling non-Google-app-store-infected phones if they want to sell any phone's with Google's app store: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/Google-s-Confidential-Android-Contracts-Show-Rising-Requirements https://www.theinformation.com/articles/Google-s-Confidentia...

thorwasdfasdf 8y ago

well, there's always the Mobile Web. we just gotta get users to adopt it.

Kiro 8y ago

> compared to PC How is Steam or Windows Store any different? How do you install apps/games on PC?

oblio 8y ago
> How do you install apps [..] on PC? Not through Windows Store, that's for sure :)))

codedokode 8y ago

But Linux is not better. Android at least has permissions for apps and allows you to deny some of it; on a typical desktop Linux distribution or on Windows every app has full access to all of your data: a calculator can read your browser history. If you install the Slack app from Deb package on Linux, it will add its repository into APT sources list which means that Slack Inc. can now "patch" any program on your system, for example, sshd or Firefox. Also, it will add a daily cron task that checks that added configuration is not commented out (they explain that it is necessary for the case of upgrading a distribution). Such behaviour is simply impossible on Android. So I think it is the opposite: mobile OS provide better security than desktop OS.

zambal 8y ago
That's why I hope snap or flatpack will gain more momentum. While I assume they still are far from perfect at the moment, they seem to me a step in the right direction for desktops and servers.
stubish 8y ago
Checkout snaps, where packages are preferred sand boxed and locked down, and require explicit permission from store operator and the user to install with unrestricted rights https://snapcraft.io/ https://snapcraft.io/

oblio 8y ago

> the locked in store model has completely failed Nope, it hasn't. It's very successful. It succeeded in lining the pockets of Apple and Google.

simonh 8y ago

How can you on the one hand complain the locked into a store model has failed, then say yes you know Android has multiple stores and you can side-load. Doesn't that mean the multiple-stores and side-loading model has failed also? I'm not quite sure what your point is.