15 ms·

Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

• greatgib 1y ago
  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.
• itg 1y ago
  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.
  • 63stack 1y ago
    Same, I'm tempted to call android just a shittier iPhone now
    • Aachen 1y ago
      What part of cheaper, better, and open source is shittier exactly?
      • pkulak 1y ago
        > 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_ 1y ago
          GOS allows you to install and use apps from the Play Store and the vast majority of them works flawlessly.
        • xigoi 1y ago
          > The iPhone 17 is the same price as the Pixel 10 Too bad there aren’t any other Android phones…
        • rangestransform 1y ago
          > 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)
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
        • terminalshort 1y ago
          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 1y ago
            Mine was better until Google kept forcing AI sharpening and making things look worse.
            • terminalshort 1y ago
              Which pixel do you have? I have the 9, and I don't seem to have that problem.
          • jerojero 1y ago
            I have an 8 pro. A month or so ago I went to NYC, I visited some of the museums. Although I managed to get some great pictures, framing wise and sharpness wise. The color resolution was absolutely ridiculously bad. I couldn't figure out a way in that moment to fix the issue, but seriously, the colors were so far off it kinda ruined this phone for me. My friend had an iphone, we took the same pictures of the same paintings and his photos looked much closer to life than mine. Huge disappointment. In the iphone its very easy to shoot raw and the camera app has a lot of very good intuitive controls. Not to even begin talking about video. At some point I think Google did make really good photography phones but it seems to me like they've basically stopped trying to stay ahead of the competition whereas apple is always trying to improve. Thats my impression anyway.
        • brailsafe 1y ago
          > 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.
        • akimbostrawman 1y ago
          >requires Google Play Services, which is basically every commercial app. Not my experience at all. Only some banking apps or apps that otherwise hard depend on play services feature like google pay. GrapheneOS offer isolated unprivileged sandboxed Google play services for those.
      • array_key_first 1y ago
        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 1y ago
          It's certainly cheaper when you compare phones with like specs.
          • dangus 1y ago
            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 1y ago
              Try Xiaomi.
              • all2 1y ago
                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.
              • dangus 1y ago
                Not sold in the US officially, no warranty service.
              • gkbrk 1y ago
                Xiaomi phones have built-in ads, that's one of the reasons it gets to be cheaper.
                • dangus 1y ago
      • realusername 1y ago
        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 1y ago
          I'm out of the loop on this. What is Graphene doing? https://grapheneos.org/features 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.
          • realusername 1y ago
            They are doing it like everybody else, they have their own system apps (because they got kind of unmaintainted by Google in AOSP since Android 12), they add drivers from the pixel device tree and then they add their security patches. If you would put AOSP on a Pixel, it wouldn't even boot and if you managed to get it to boot, the apps would be unusable.
      • constantcrying 1y ago
        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 1y ago
          Everything in settings loads near instantly for me including search. What exactly has gotten worse with Android recently?
        • xp84 1y ago
          > 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.
  • brazukadev 1y ago
    > 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 1y ago
      > PWAs And I wonder when can we stop lying to ourselves pretending "web"-apps are real (native) apps?
      • llbbdd 1y ago
        Why?
        • pooyamo 1y ago
          Can you create and run a service that starts when phone is turned on, with a PWA app? Usecase is a backup daemon.
          • claytongulick 1y ago
            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 1y ago
              Backup, file sync, and chat... very common and important use cases. Not everything can start with a user request.
              • Rohansi 1y ago
                You shouldn't need a service running all the time for chat. Just use push notifications.
    • 1y ago
  • jadbox 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      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 1y ago
        I have no idea what this means. How does this change "kill playstore apps"?
        • andrewl-hn 1y ago
          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 1y ago
          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.
  • wiether 1y ago
    And in the EU you can install apps outside of the AppStore on your iPhone!
    • gumby271 1y ago
      But not outside of Apple's control, they have a very similar mechanism to this verification process with 3rd party app stores.
    • Croak 1y ago
      Thats a recent addition; hope consumer protection laws around the world become better.
  • gdulli 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      It doesn't make any difference anyway, does it? Then I might as well treat myself with better hardware & ecosystem.
      • ethbr1 1y ago
        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}."
        • blibble 1y ago
          my iphone doesn't reboot every time I try to take a picture or make a phone call (on every pixel I've had) android sucks, but it was open now it just sucks
          • BenjiWiebe 1y ago
            How many pixels have you had that reboot when you take a picture or make a phone call? My pixels haven't done that (yet anyways).
            • blibble 1y ago
              4
        • rs186 1y ago
          I will take Apple's software over Samsung's ad infested, buggy & ugly software any day.
  • JohnTHaller 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      If they need to be signed by Google, that's not side loading by definition; it's using an alternate Google channel.
    • koolala 1y ago
      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 1y ago
      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 1y ago
        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)
        • jhasse 1y ago
          Couldn't you install with adb without rooting?
      • jhasse 1y ago
        We don't know yet. At the moment side-loading still works without restrictions.
  • jamesnorden 1y ago
    >I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them I, too, love vendor lockin.
    • vivalahn 1y ago
      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 1y ago
        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 1y ago
          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 1y ago
            > 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.
  • xandrius 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      I wonder if banking and messaging apps will work on it in the future
      • jolmg 1y ago
        Re: banking, not until adoption of non-Android and non-iOS devices grows. To break this chicken and egg problem, one can get an Android phone and use it exclusively for the banking app, treating it like one of those hardware security keys the banks used to give out in the early 2010s. One used to just leave it at home; maybe take it to work occasionally. Another option is to live like the early 2000s and go to an ATM/bank for all bank things, including account consultation.
        • WD-42 1y ago
          Or use the banks website from a computer? Which banks do not allow this?
          • londons_explore 1y ago
            Many banks in Europe are app-only and don't allow you to log in with a web browser.
            • WD-42 1y ago
              Yikes. That sounds tough.
            • ahartmetz 1y ago
              In Germany at least, that's only the ones that advertise being an "app bank". It's the last thing that I want, but they exist.
  • FranzFerdiNaN 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      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.
      • BenjiWiebe 1y ago
        It is easier, however, to install WhatsApp then to switch from Android to iOS.
        • rkomorn 1y ago
          Of course. iMessage is just a convenience when someone else has an iPhone.
  • treyd 1y ago
    You could also use a thirdparty ROM.
    • colordrops 1y ago
      How long until AOSP deviates so much from features in 3rd party ROMs that it becomes infeasible to for amateur developers to maintain them?
      • treyd 1y ago
        AOSP is used in many contexts like embedded devices where somehow enshackling it would screw up Google's self-interest in other market areas (like ensuring there is a wider population of Android developers). But regardless, thirdparty ROMs will continue to exist regardless of how much effort it takes because the demand exists and will not merely dissipate.
        • colordrops 1y ago
          Demand exists for a lot of things that don't exist. There's no technical reason that the internet couldn't have stayed mostly decentralized, with everyone hosting a node at their house, controlling their own data and feeds, with an experience not much different from current services and social media, and people would absolutely want this if the experience was reliable and had good UX. But so much effort has been shunted to centralized services that it never materialized. The demand is there, I've asked many people. Just one counterexample. I'm working on a project myself but it's taking forever considering the large scope. Getting close to having it ready for technical individuals to try it out. https://homefree.host https://homefree.host
  • XorNot 1y ago
    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".
    • Grimblewald 1y ago
      Same here. F droid gives clean functional and reliable apps while playstore is a dumpsterfire.
  • observationist 1y ago
    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.
    • musictubes 1y ago
      “There are no good reasons” really? One of my favorite things about iOS/ipados is the incredible selection of music creation apps. My iPad is loaded with synths, sequencers, and effects. AUM in particular is an amazing program for live performances mixing both software and hardware using a touch interface. Many, but not all, of the programs I use on iPad are also available on Mac and Windows at much higher prices. That alone is reason enough to use a iPad. Most of these apps can be run on the least expensive iPad and/or older ones. Like it or not, computing appliances have led to really good software markets. The “clean and honest” software markets are either much more expensive or don’t exist at all. The optimist in me is hoping that Android losing some freedom might lead to higher quality software and some actual competition to Apple.
  • Fergusonb 1y ago
    I just switched to the iPhone with the new cycle, explicitly because of this news. Sideloading was the killer feature for me as well.
    • drnick1 1y ago
      > I just switched to the iPhone with the new cycle, explicitly because of this news. And guess what, sideloading has never been allowed on iPhones. So you just went from bad to worse. The only rational option for tech-minded people nowadays is to buy a device that supports Lineage or Graphene (ironically Pixels are good for this) and to replace the stock OS.
      • strix_varius 1y ago
        Well no, the iPhone has niceties that Android lacks (as evidenced by its total market dominance for markets who can afford Apple devices). Lots of engineers use Android phones, but the C-suite invariably uses iPhones. So if the reason you're choosing Android over iOS is freedom and flexibility, once that's gone, why not choose slickness, speed, battery-life, photo quality, and an integrated experience?
        • drnick1 1y ago
          > the C-suite invariably uses iPhones. Hard to see that as a plus. I have owned iPhones in the past (and still have a couple of old models collecting dust in a drawer), and I don't think they are in any way more refined than my Pixel 9 running Graphene. Most importantly, it is immune to arbitrary restrictions like sideloading bans or government-mandated spyware (aka Chat Control in Europe).
        • disgruntledphd2 1y ago
          > (as evidenced by its total market dominance for markets who can afford Apple devices) This is only true in English speaking markets, the rich countries of Western Europe are much more Android heavy.
        • porridgeraisin 1y ago
  • AnonymousPlanet 1y ago
    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.
    • echelon 1y ago
      This is unacceptable. Google needs to be broken up. Apple too. The lack of antitrust enforcement is a clown show. We have no choice in the most important computing category in the world. It's a duopoly and they have everyone in straightjackets - consumers, companies, competitors, governments, ... A huge percentage of the world's thoughts and economy flow through mobile. And two companies own it. Ma Bell was nothing compared to this.
      • gizmo686 1y ago
        Breaking up Google will not help in this particular case. The problem is entirely within the Android unit; and would still be present even if Android were to be split off into it's own company. It certainly seems like there is problematic behavior in the restrictions Google puts on OEMs that want to use Android (or, more specifically, play services) on their devices. However, I think it would take a different enforcement mechanism to address that.
        • Palmik 1y ago
          Disabling the ability to install arbitrary apps, like ReVanced, etc. benefits other parts of Alphabet. In general, making anti consumer decisions is also easier when you know you can fall back on income from other units.
          • 1y ago
  • colordrops 1y ago
    It's ironic that they pull this bullshit while at the same time putting out their "Vanilla Pro" ad mocking Apple's ecosystem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWykPvftfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWykPvftfg
  • hahn-kev 1y ago
    Probably the only real benefit now is Firefox/alt browsers
    • WD-42 1y ago
      Firefox with UBO is still a huge win. But Orion browser is making progress. At this point I just don’t see a reason to go android anymore. If I have to be part of a walled garden I may as well choose the nicer one.
      • drnick1 1y ago
        For me the main reason to stick to FOSS Android ROMs (over a Linux phone) is that you retain compatibility with thousands of very good FOSS and non-FOSS apps. There is Waydroid, and it works very well, but if you are primarily running Android apps, an Android device makes more sense.
        • WD-42 1y ago
          Isn't the Android rom scene in shambles? What phone would you have to buy now to be able to even run decent a decent custom ROM?
          • drnick1 1y ago
            Graphene and Lineage work great on Pixel 9s.
          • jhasse 1y ago
            No. One of these: https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/ https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/
  • blurbleblurble 1y ago
    I might as well get a landline/dumbphone and a small linux tablet.
  • Buttons840 1y ago
    Switching to iPhone will make it even more obvious there is an unhealthy monopoly, so that's nice. If there's no good reason to choose Android, why not?
    • goku12 1y ago
      What we really need is a fair alternative to both these abuse platforms. Choosing an unfamiliar abuse over a familiar abuse isn't exactly the smartest move. The switch over to a free(dom) platform like plain Linux must happen even if we have to make some temporary sacrifices like the loss of mobile banking facilities. It can't be worse than using a feature phone, can it? The app ecosystem will eventually attain parity if the platform achieves popularity.
      • jhasse 1y ago
        Multiple alternatives already exists. Or how do you define "fair"?
        • goku12 1y ago
          Fair as in fairness. An alternative that plays fairly with me by respecting my rights as a consumer. And yes, I agree that there are multiple alternatives. The problem is that they are not viable yet. Most of them are buggy and missing crucial features. Even if those were resolved, we'll still have holdouts like banking apps, transportation apps, shopping apps, etc that rely on platform attestation and geolocking (worthless and harmful features, IMO). The question is, how do we take them mainstream? Their situation is like those of the Linux and the BSDs of the late 90s till 2010. The platforms are not popular enough to garner attention and support from service providers. The only solution to this market share problem is for a bunch of us to just dive right in by adopting them, put up with all the inconveniences for a while (a long while), convince everyone we can to adopt it by pretending that it's the cool new trend and then complain to every organization, agency and government that they are discriminating against us by not supporting our platform. At some point, everyone will take it up. Hopefully!
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
    "If I can't do this anymore..." How will Google force Android users to "update" so sideloadinng can be prevented Non-updated versions of Android running non-updated versions of sideloaded apps will not have the restriction Another example of how not every "update" is for "security" and "updates" should be optional The computer owner chooses one version of an operating system, e.g., "I chose Android because I can sideload any app", but by allowing automatic updates, without reviewing them first, the computer owner agrees to let the operating system vendor change the software remotely to anything the vendor chooses. The computer owner goes along with whatever the vendor decides, letting the vendor take them for a ride If the operating system gets _worse_ in the opinion of the computer owner, if it fails to meet their needs, e.g., "sideloading", then that's too bad. The computer owner chose one version of Android, but by subscribing to "automatic updates" they effectively chose all future versions as well This is why I prefer BSD UNIX-like operating system projects where I can choose to update or not to update. Unlike the hypothetical Android user, the project does not decide for me HN replies may try to draw attention to "security" and away from "sideloading restriction". However there is no option to accept "security updates" while rejecting "sideloading restriction updates". According to the so-called "tech" companies that conduct data collection and surveillance as a "business model" through free, auto-updated software, every update, no matter what it contains, is deemed essential and critical for "security" Online commentators seem to agree that the computer owner should have the choice to install or not install _any_ software outside the "app store", so-called "sideloading". Perhaps this freedom to choose whether to install or not install software should also apply to operating system "updates"
    • alex23478 1y ago
      > How will Google force Android users to "update" so sideloadinng can be prevented Google has the Google Play Services, which can be remotely updated via the Play Store, as has been done for the COVID exposure notification system [0]. Google's Play Protect already hooks into the installation process and could be updated to enforce the signatures. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_Notification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_Notification
    • SpaceNugget 1y ago
• HiPhish 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    I like the term "direct install" which someone suggested in one of the previous threads.
    • bigwheels 1y ago
      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 https://youtube.com/watch?v=ADgS_vMGgzY&t=3s
      • numpad0 1y ago
        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 1y ago
        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.
        • nagonago 1y ago
• kypro 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    GrapheneOS on a Pixel
    • moffkalast 1y ago
      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 1y ago
        Graphene is still Android.
        • moffkalast 1y ago
          Truly the OS by and for people who are into excessive nitpicking. I suppose that's what you want for security.
          • floxy 1y ago
            How is that a nitpick? Seems like Graphene is for those who want to have finer-grained control of what Google tracks. You are still funding Google through a hardware purchase (Pixel phone). You are still using Android. And it seems to be a big selling point that you still have access to the (sandboxed) Play Store Apps and services.
      • velocity3230 1y ago
        They're in discussions with an OEM to produce their own device.
    • 1y ago
• nadermx 1y ago
  Why having your own website is essential
  • mrsssnake 1y ago
    Need something to view, edit and serve it through.
• jim201 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
    you don't need permission for the hardware... you can install your own OS.
    • JetSpiegel 1y ago
      Can you, with SecureBoot?
    • mouse_ 1y ago
      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?
      • Escapade5160 1y ago
        They did for pixel phones yes. I've been wanting to get into OS dev for years now, I may make an attempt at it soon. When I was younger I built my own kernels for the early OnePlus phones. Maybe I can build an alternative to Android, doubtful but I like a challenge. The hardest part to making an alternative is the app ecosystem, you almost need a complete suite of 3rd party apps built before you can get any initial adoption.
• billev2k 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    >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?
    • abeyer 1y ago
      > why did TSA recently start requiring REAL ID Immigration politics
      • gruez 1y ago
        Source? The wikipedia article makes it pretty clear that it was in response to the 9/11 attacks. It got delayed several times so it ended up taking 2 decades to implement, but Trump had little to do with it. The May 7, 2025 deadline was set back in 2022, under Biden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act#Legislative_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act#Legislative_histor...
        • abeyer 1y ago
          To my knowledge the deciding factor between which state ids were considered compliant and which were not was whether the state required disclosing and documenting immigration status to get a drivers license. In theory there are other rules, but the rest of them were pretty universally followed already anyway. In addition, the source you linked explicitly points out that the id standards were just one part of a bill that "would repeal the provisions regarding identification documents in IRTPA, replace them with a version that would set the federal standards directly rather than in negotiation with the states, and would make various changes to US immigration law regarding asylum, border security and deportation."
• moffkalast 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    Didnt EU rule that it was OK for Apple to do, and Google is just just mirroring that?
    • gpm 1y ago
      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 1y ago
        At least these user hostile actions are a source of income for the EU.
• mixologic 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      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_click_open_app_on_macos_sequoia/ 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-from-an-unidentified-developer/ 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/ https://appletoolbox.com/app-is-damaged-cannot-be-opened-mac...
• rclkrtrzckr 1y ago
  > 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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      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 1y ago
        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.
      • myko 1y ago
        Even worse, they DO review their apps. And they make huge hassles for anyone to submit apps, including forcing you to create a new account if your tiny side project with 0 permissions didn't fill out a form in time (grumble grumble). Meanwhile they let shit like this go live
    • BrenBarn 1y ago
      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".
• hollow-moe 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    > beginning of the end of Android. You underestimate how much money & effort it takes to make an operating system.
    • floxy 1y ago
      Wouldn't people just fork AOSP? Seems like GrapheneOS has a running start?
      • kube-system 1y ago
        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 1y ago
      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 1y ago
    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.
• bryan_w 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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.
    • schlauerfox 1y ago
      Bought a used iPhone 7 for a specific project requiring a supported OS (iOS15) and having a hardware security module and the phone worked fine for that but Microsoft Authenticator refused to install below iOS 16 for no obvious reason.
      • wltr 1y ago
        My bet is that YOLO is the reason for Microsoft being unable to make the authenticator work on an older iOS.
  • benjaminoakes 1y ago
    LineageOS? /e/OS? ArrowOS? Android has so much momentum that seems like it would be difficult to avoid a fork. I know Waydroid exists, but I'm not sure that's good enough. Ubuntu Touch sounds really cool too, but I've put effort into it with a used Google Pixel 3A and it's not an easy, cheap thing to try out right now. And it's still dependent on binary blobs for drivers, as far as I know. Not a great situation. Regarding banking apps and things like that, I don't run into to any issues except for not being able to scan checks for deposit on the mobile website. And also I have to have physical credit cards. If you can't do what you need, consider changing to a local credit union which has your interests in mind far more than a for-profit bank. I've never run into a need for apps for a government purpose, but perhaps I will someday. I'm sure my situation where I live may be different than your situation where you live. I don't use an open source fork of Android daily and from what I can tell the best option that exists today. The only hardware that I know will continue to be open enough for this to be viable in the future is Fairphone. I hope there are others. I would definitely would NOT trust Google Pixel to remain open for the foreseeable future. Personally, I'm trying to get out of the habit of using my phone anyway, so I might as well have laptop or desktop hardware that can fulfill my needs.
• freefaler 1y ago
  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 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 1y ago
    Check Stallman's The Right to Read short story.
    • bigwheels 1y ago
      Link: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html Meta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read
  • divegeek 1y ago
    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.
• uyzstvqs 1y ago
  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.
  • octoberfranklin 1y ago
    It's sad that basically anybody can type faster on a 15-year-old blackberry than on the latest and greatest touchscreen-keyboard phone.
    • tombert 1y ago
      Is typing on a touchscreen phone really that difficult for people? I did a Monkeytype test just now on my iPhone. I got 50WPM in the 30 second test. For comparison, I get about 100WPM when I type on a regular computer keyboard. I feel like getting 50% typing speed isn't so bad, and I doubt I would get a lot better than that with physical buttons. Generally I'd rather have more screen real estate. That said, I definitely prefer physical buttons for games.
      • octoberfranklin 1y ago
        With the same accuracy? When typing text which isn't 100% dictionary words?
    • uyzstvqs 1y ago
      It's logical, and comes down to accuracy and comfort. It's the same reason why mechanical keyboards are best on desktop, not those silly flat Apple butterfly keyboards. What I'm sad about is the fact that the QWERTY format was completely abandoned to cater to the entertainment-focused users on Android and iOS. Those are also the people who "don't care about privacy" and are fine with walled gardens, as long as their TikTok, Facebook and Netflix work.
• cmxch 1y ago
  The way Google is going, you might as well just have Apple and fully embrace consumer hostility.
• miclill 1y ago
  My hope is that this lets some more people wake up and finally make Linux on the smartphone a reality.
  • dinkleberg 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      I certainly want that. I use DeX all the time. It's amazing.
    • nubinetwork 1y ago
      You've been able to do this on android since the Motorola Atrix.
    • jolmg 1y ago
      > 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. It's not a zero-sum game in that regard. The entire point of Linux phones is to get Linux distros working in phone form-factors. Getting them to work as general-purpose computers is the easier, already finished part. Getting them to work as phones is the harder-part, the new work. Removing the easy, already finished part doesn't make writing the camera drivers, modem-handling software, etc. any easier. > But I’d rather just have a fully functional phone that happens to be Linux. Without the "workstation" stuff? That's Android.
  • zikduruqe 1y ago
    I secretly wish Framework will do this one day.
  • 1y ago
• a456463 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    We wrote about what it means for F-Droid at: https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html 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=45409794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45507173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45507173
    • dang 1y ago
      Thanks! Macroexpanded: Google's requirement for developers to be verified threatens app store F-Droid - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45507173 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45409794 - Sept 2025 (564 comments)
    • shkkmo 1y ago
      > 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 1y ago
  And I was willing to give BlissOS a try as a summer project. Guess Android just became less interesting for hackers in gener.
• lenerdenator 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    > 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 1y ago
    > - 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?
    • potwinkle 1y ago
      Paying Google $25 for the privilege of giving them a picture of your face and license to save in their cloud.
  • fainpul 1y ago
    > 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 https://developer.android.com/developer-verification
    • kam 1y ago
      https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-security-answering-your-top.html 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 1y ago
  git clone repo init make lunch "Can’t get more open source than that!" Man that seems like a long time ago, eh?
• charles_f 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      embrace, extend, extinguish
      • dangus 1y ago
        Now I’m just talking to a parrot whose been living in Richard Stallman’s house.
  • isaacremuant 1y ago
    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 1y ago
    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.
• barbs 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• exe34 1y ago
  does anyone know if this affects lineage os or are they able to work around the madness?
• dhbradshaw 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    > 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 1y ago
      No, I am not flexing. I am just stating a fact. FWIW, I am also pissed that there are only two mainstream options.
    • Fade_Dance 1y ago
      >Is the population too stupid to be permitted general purpose computers? I'm strongly against this Android change (for a simple reason written below) but the answer to this is a resounding yes! The general population is a complete security disaster with unsigned software! The latest generations being brought up within abstracted mobile ecosystems are no improvement either on that front (probably worse). That said - and I think this is a key point in this debate - sideloading apps is already a fringe part of the Android ecosystem. The vast majority of average Android users will never interface with this functionality. Well there is still obviously a security risk as with any time unsigned software is offered, it doesn't seem to me to be a major issue in the ecosystem. This is clearly about control, not security. Let's say there is more antitrust action and Google loses more control over their preferred forced storefront monopoly within the ecosystem. With this change, at least according my understanding of it, they are still the arbiter of what is allowed on the platform and not even if an app comes from another app store.
• ece 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
  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.
  • wltr 1y ago
    You don’t because it’s not reasonable. It’s fun to play with (speaking from experience), but it’s not reasonable in day-to-day life. That’s why smartphones are so successful. That’s why we need to actually open platform.
    • seanw444 1y ago
      Open platform would be better, I agree. In the meantime until said open platform actually catches up to the current garbage duopoly, I may have no other choice but to be inconvenienced. Principle > convenience. I am okay with that. Right now, GrapheneOS works properly and doesn't compromise my principles in exchange for the convenience.
• everyone 1y ago
  My next phone is gonna be a Linux phone.
• monksy 1y ago
  The funny thing here: They have active spyware and malware on their app store. They go by vague offical sounding names like "Gallery" and "Messages" "Text Messages" I've reported it and that goes to an google form where the app stays up. I've even gone farenough where I've escalated through internal Google contacts. Nothing is done. It's not sideloading that's the issue. It's google. This is a hostile behavior to all users of the devices and developers of their platform. _-- My thoughts on where this might go: We're getting into an era where there are organizations that are violently hostile to your device and they demand that. These people believe that the device you paid for and the service you paid for is theirs. I.e. mobile ids from governments, which may introduce client side scanning. More so, theres a hostile push for "age verification" which would lean on the Play integrity chain. Want to find out who does this? Look into Magisck on reddit and the apps people have difficultly using. This is not a case of "someone wants to hack something".. it's all about control. If you're watching the Root/third party space.. right now there are issues running apps. Some apps scan for "SuperSU" app and will refuse to run. (As in they're not sandboxed)
  • vermilingua 1y ago
    They believe it because it’s true. RMS et al. have been predicting this for eons, but now that these companies feel comfortable to move overtly it’s pretty much too late to stop them.
  • tjpnz 1y ago
    Google know full well that it's malware. They also know that it makes them money so they're not going to do anything.
• OJFord 1y ago
  A while ago I implemented some little feature I wanted for an open source app, and tested it on my phone. Only Android development I've ever done, a few hours' work: I wasn't going to get certified as an official Android developer for it. With this, I wouldn't be able to do it? Or rather I could, but could only test with the Android Studio emulator or similar? Similarly if I just wanted to make something for myself, not distribute it at all, I know have to register with this program just to install my thing on my own phone? I don't think even Apple goes that far?
  • grishka 1y ago
    These restrictions won't apply to developer tools afaik. You will still be able to install anything using ADB. (I'm not defending the practice — Android needs to be separated from Google, and it needs to be done 10 years ago)
  • Zerot 1y ago
    No. You can still install apks through ADB, which is how you would do it during development. But you won't be able to distribute it without signing it through google.
• bitwize 1y ago
  Most consumers DON'T CARE. They want their phones to access Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Bluesky, their banking, shopping, and food order apps, etc. If anything they'd be glad to know that Google is stopping entire classes of malware at the source. This is an anti-techie move, not an anti-consumer move. Only techies care about being able to run any software you want on a device you own. Most people don't really want to own a computer because owning one means you are responsible for administrating it, and that's well beyond normies' capability and/or well outside the things they want to spend time or energy fucking with. They just want access to what the computer enables. Continuing to bang on this drum has "less space than a Nomad, lame" energy. Except it's political, so you sound even more like an autistic loon. Start thinking, techies. Not everybody is remotely like you. 99% of Google's customer base don't care about this, and Google may have actually increased Android's value to end users.
  • mrsssnake 1y ago
    > Most consumers DON'T CARE Why is this argument even a thing? They want to use Facebook, Instagram, TikTok... The exact services that wouldn't exist in the first place if there wasn't for the open neutral Internet, something they didn't care about too.
• blastersyndrome 1y ago
  Realistically, what can be done to stop this? In my eyes, Google is violating my rights because I did not agree to them stopping independent installation. I view them pushing this update as criminal vandalism.
  • NotPractical 1y ago
    A law with more teeth than the EU's Digital Markets Act (which, contrary to popular belief, does not actually require sideloading) could theoretically be passed. The current (pre-lobbying) iteration of the App Store Freedom Act looks pretty good (ctrl+f "security", "safety", "integrity" returns zero results). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209... Realistically speaking, that probably won't happen, though. What can you, yourself do to mitigate the impact? Install a forked version of Android without Developer Verification. LineageOS, GrapheneOS and CalxyOS are all pretty good options. Stop using any apps with remote attestation via Play Integrity, which will mean sacrificing more and more functionality as time goes on. Try to use mobile sites instead of mobile apps as much as possible. Watch the F-Droid catalog get smaller and smaller until it crumbles completely when it becomes unusable by >80% of Android users.
• gclawes 1y ago
  This is laying the groundwork for mandatory software. Soon after this browsers and messengers will be required to install tracking components to be included in the app stores or approved for sideloading. This is how the surveillance blob will get around the huge backlash to Apple's mandatory on-device child abuse scanning, close off any avenues to escape it before re-introducing mandatory on-device spying.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• ddxv 1y ago
  The Play Store should be taken away from Google and setup as a non profit to facilitate serving copies of software people upload.
• Ms-J 1y ago
  If you can't install software on your own device, you don't own it. You are renting a completely government and corporate controlled piece of hardware.
  • drnick1 1y ago
    Agreed, and the only reason I bought a Pixel is because it supports Graphene. But as long as the masses value convenience over privacy and freedom, nothing will change, and Apple/Google will happily keep selling them devices that are now primarily designed to spy on them.
    • Ms-J 1y ago
      "But as long as the masses value convenience over privacy and freedom, nothing will change, and Apple/Google will happily keep selling them devices that are now primarily designed to spy on them." When I have taken the time to educate someone on a very personal level about privacy, the person understands the value and will change some of their habits. We can win this.
• patcon 1y ago
  I was a big proponent of the nexus phones and Google's efforts in the space, but I am hundred percent not an android fan anymore. There's a study on positive or destructive workers, from a business management pov. The finding was that the "bad" employees and the "good" are often the same people: a "good" employee scorned becomes the worst type of employee. I think Google will be discovering some variant of this from their previous fandom, and it will be too late.
  • fooqux 1y ago
    Too late for whom though? I suspect it's not Google. The only companies with enough capital to take them on at their own game are somehow even worse, although admittedly the gap is getting narrower by the second. And yeah, giants occasionally fall suddenly. But mostly just in the software world. Phones require extensive hardware and software knowledge, and increasingly also require playing nice with carriers/TLA government agencies.
  • surajrmal 1y ago
    You seem to be framing this as if it were a business decision to curtail competition. I and likely the team pushing these changes only see the security benefits for users through these changes. People have tinted lenses to assume malice when Google does things, but if you've actually ever been close to the decision making process internally it's never anything close to what people seem to imagine. People are overestimating how problematic these changes will be in practice.
• nicman23 1y ago
  i am just waiting on the same thing that happened with sony and geohot to happen to google as well. blocking sideloading will annoy some very smart and maybe dangerous people
• rock_artist 1y ago
  This will shape the future of computing with how Apple being treated as the reference for the whole industry. (I know this is Google here. But our reference devices are iDevices that was unfortunately always locked in the Apple provisioned codesign) Our “pocket” computers are locked in. The next computing platform will be more wearable such as AR glasses. We’re expected to have 3 players in the upcoming iteration - Apple, Google. Meta due to vivid services needed for valuable glasses services. Meta already shows how you don’t really own the device by what’s running on it. It’ll be very sad if next generations most used form of computing will be able to run only border-controlled software.
• xarope 1y ago
  with all these folding phones and e-ink mobile sized e-readers having gone through several generations, I'm beginning to think the next big kickstarter[0] is a dumb e-ink phone/wifi modem connected as a 5g modem to an amoled linux tablet. [0] No royalties required if you pick up my "fantastic" idea, just send me a free device
• onetokeoverthe 1y ago
  [dead]
• pg3uk 1y ago
  Of course as rubbish as this is, it could spawn a bunch of new commercial app stores and trigger competition there. My understanding is side loading is only limited if play services are installed and Google mandates it. This may give some room to some smaller phone makers to launch less encumbered phones.
• Escapade5160 1y ago
  People choose Android because they need / want more control over their system. If Google continues to remove that control, they lose the only thing that gives their OS an edge.
  • throw101010 1y ago
    Some people do, most choose it because Android phones are a lot less expensive when you buy new (outside of the flagship/newest phones). The share of users who find this business move to be a deal-breaker is likely small enough for most manufacturers to not care.
• uhsarp1 1y ago
  Google has made a terrible decision and their justification for doing this is just laughable. Already right now, if a user wants to install an unverified app, they have to explicitly allow it through settings. They could have moved this option in to the developer settings feature to make it harder for normal people to sideload but still allow developers to sideload. Also Play Store itself is plagued with apps with severe vulnerabilities. Google has lost its consumers for good. This is really sad. I have no reason to buy an android anymore when I upgrade my phone in the future. At least Apple does gaslight us
• scotty79 1y ago
  It's time to buy a top tier phone and disable updates when it comes into effect and hope in the following years this madness will resolve.
• b0dhimind 1y ago
  I think F-Droid will have to go the ADB route, maybe have a desktop interface to wirelessly ADB install APKs to your devices... could be an awesome way to manage apps on multiple devices! I currently have a powershell script to do all that myself.
  • Permik 1y ago
    You can already bootstrap an ADB connection to your own device without any extra hardware via Shizuku. Won't be long until F-droid releases a plugin that does the installation via Shizuku.
• lunias 1y ago
  Bummer because I want a small phone, but it sounds like my phone of the future may be a laptop.
• maey2345 1y ago
  [dead]
• maeyyy2345 1y ago
  [dead]
• s1mplicissimus 1y ago
  Back in "ye olden days" (TM) sideloading was just called "running software". I think it's very unfortunate that the authors of the article propagate this "sideloading" framing.