3 ms·

Android offers sideloading and third-party app stores (with minor limitations), yet the vast majority of users do not sideload Android apps. I remember reading

by Zak 5y ago

Android offers sideloading and third-party app stores (with minor limitations), yet the vast majority of users do not sideload Android apps. I remember reading it's about 1 in 200 who does, which I found surprisingly small. Commercial apps that aren't in Google's store usually want to do something against Google's rules - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. I don't think you'll find many apps jumping ship entirely. They might offer lower prices elsewhere.

donmcronald 5y ago
I bet part of the reason for that is because of how it's presented. Google puts up several warnings that you have to click through and they're all along the lines of "this will ruin you phone!" IMO having sideloading isn't anything more than a well thought out, long term plan to deflect accusations of anti-competitive behavior. In reality they do everything they can to discourage users from sideloading. The biggest issue for me personally is that it's not clear how, or if, sideloaded apps are sandboxed and how they're granted permissions. The warnings seem intentionally designed to play on those fears. If they're sandboxed the same as other apps and have fine grained permission controls I'd do a lot more sideloading.
- idle_zealot 5y ago
  > If they're sandboxed the same as other apps and have fine grained permission controls I'd do a lot more sideloading. They are subject to the same permission request/granting system as apps installed through a store. That system is OS-level and applies to all non-system apps.
  - hparadiz 5y ago
    This is actually exactly the same as how MacOS does it except for, ironically, terminal based tools (like homebrew).
    - idle_zealot 5y ago
      > except for, ironically, terminal based tools Are you sure? I've had to go into Accessibility Settings and grant command line tools permissions there.
      - hparadiz 5y ago
        The issue is that once you grant access to terminal.... anything you run in it has access. So it's not very useful since almost everyone will have granted that access within a few minutes of being in the terminal.
- binkHN 5y ago
  > The biggest issue for me personally is that it's not clear how, or if, sideloaded apps are sandboxed and how they're granted permissions. The warnings seem intentionally designed to play on those fears. If they're sandboxed the same as other apps and have fine grained permission controls I'd do a lot more sideloading. As someone who recently started dabbling in Android app development, I'm side loading my own app all day long. My app, whether side loaded or downloaded from the Google Play store, makes permission requests and the user must approve every one of them.
PeterisP 5y ago
The important thing is that mere existence of the option - and the possibility that if you tighten the screws too much, it can go from 1-in-200 to 1-in-20 overnight - keeps the policies and pricing of the "primary" store in check. Competition is useful for consumers even if they don't switch to a competitor, because their current vendor expects that they could, and can't freely do monopolistic exploitation.

by Zak 5y ago

donmcronald 5y ago

I bet part of the reason for that is because of how it's presented. Google puts up several warnings that you have to click through and they're all along the lines of "this will ruin you phone!" IMO having sideloading isn't anything more than a well thought out, long term plan to deflect accusations of anti-competitive behavior. In reality they do everything they can to discourage users from sideloading. The biggest issue for me personally is that it's not clear how, or if, sideloaded apps are sandboxed and how they're granted permissions. The warnings seem intentionally designed to play on those fears. If they're sandboxed the same as other apps and have fine grained permission controls I'd do a lot more sideloading.

idle_zealot 5y ago
> If they're sandboxed the same as other apps and have fine grained permission controls I'd do a lot more sideloading. They are subject to the same permission request/granting system as apps installed through a store. That system is OS-level and applies to all non-system apps.
- hparadiz 5y ago
  This is actually exactly the same as how MacOS does it except for, ironically, terminal based tools (like homebrew).
  - idle_zealot 5y ago
    > except for, ironically, terminal based tools Are you sure? I've had to go into Accessibility Settings and grant command line tools permissions there.
    - hparadiz 5y ago
      The issue is that once you grant access to terminal.... anything you run in it has access. So it's not very useful since almost everyone will have granted that access within a few minutes of being in the terminal.
binkHN 5y ago
> The biggest issue for me personally is that it's not clear how, or if, sideloaded apps are sandboxed and how they're granted permissions. The warnings seem intentionally designed to play on those fears. If they're sandboxed the same as other apps and have fine grained permission controls I'd do a lot more sideloading. As someone who recently started dabbling in Android app development, I'm side loading my own app all day long. My app, whether side loaded or downloaded from the Google Play store, makes permission requests and the user must approve every one of them.

PeterisP 5y ago

The important thing is that mere existence of the option - and the possibility that if you tighten the screws too much, it can go from 1-in-200 to 1-in-20 overnight - keeps the policies and pricing of the "primary" store in check. Competition is useful for consumers even if they don't switch to a competitor, because their current vendor expects that they could, and can't freely do monopolistic exploitation.