But I think there is a good chance they will finally open those now - never really made any sense to keep them closed and preventing the community from contributing. Rumors had it it was due to non-cooperative investors.
Not Jolla is finally independent again, so at least in theory they can finally do the right thing. :)
I.N.S.T.A.L.L.I.N.G S.O.F.T.W.A.R.E
So I don't understand your analogy? Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please, as users own their phone and should have the right to do as they please? Or something else?
Grandparent is saying that the term sideloading was invented in a similar fashion to delegitimize a previously completely normal way to use an electronic device.
In the cities? Yes, absolutely.
The UK Highway Code has a RFC-like use of MUST/SHOULD; MUST parts are legally binding, the parts relating to pedestrians are SHOULD.
Jaywalking is only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50m away. (And even then it's only a misdemeanor, not a crime).
That also means that city planners have to balance between people jaywalking, putting crossings everywhere, and how crossings slow down traffic.
And every time a car makes a turn, pedestrians automatically have priority. Which creates an implicit zebra crossing.
The only roads exempt from this are autobahn/motorways. These are by law prohibited from having direct access to anything.
That's IMO also a way for the US to get out of its current situation. Set up a rule like that, with a large distance at the beginning, and slowly reduce it over the next few years, forcing local planners to introduce additional crossings, which also reduces through traffic. The separation of streets vs autobahn also mostly prevents stroads.
The only situations where it's enforced (from what I've seen so obviously biased) is major highways, city streets with dense traffic and a marked crossing within half a block, and when they want to search someone for contraband. In the latter case it's just an excuse to stop and harass you in the hopes they will manage to generate sufficient articulable suspicion to justify a search.
Only for turning traffic, though, i.e. as a pedestrian you still need to yield to traffic coming from the side street. There was some talk of having pedestrians participate more fully in right-of-way-rules, too, i.e. if the side street has a yield/stop sign, traffic would have to yield to crossing pedestrians, too, but so far that idea didn't get anywhere.
Let's apply the "side load" apps logic to Desktop applications, imagine you have to pass for an entire process just to install an app you downloaded?
n.b. "you" were not considered in my statement save as an agent.
This doesn't make sense to me. iOS and Android (and HarmonyOS) all allow you to "install software".
Every non-stock app on my phone was installed from an APK directly downloaded from the manufacturer or open source developer's site / Github releases. I've never had a Google Play account and have never used any Android "app store".
The biggest pain was having to manually logon the couple of sites I allow to keep persistent cookies since device owners aren't allowed to just import/export cookies from mobile Chrome.
It has been a very nice experience. I appreciate the feeling of sovereignty and ownership of my device (even though it does have a locked bootloader and I don't actually have root).
Of course Google would take this away. >sigh<
After all that was done, the phone felt like mine in a way that my iPhone doesn't. Was a good feeling. With luck, the Motorola + Graphene partnership will produce phones with screens better than the Pixel and I can keep doing this.
I'm hopeful, too, re: Motorola + Graphene. I wanted to use Graphene last fall wehn I got the new phone but I was committed to not giving Google any money.
I know because I’m one of them and something like 70% of my SWE colleagues I’ve known — including Android users — fit that description too. Most have never sideloaded anything and maybe 20% have flashed their phone with an alternative ROM or rooted at some point.
An individual being good with computers or even being capable of programming has little bearing on if they’re also a phone power user.
I have never told anyone what I, ahem, install.
Maybe the sideloader is a power user in comparison to the celebrities, but who is a real power user is those who can to sideload without the sideloading. Power users of your smartphone are: top-management of the vendor, the Government and 0-day scene. Sideloading actor IMO is just a poser to the idea of a power user.
Snoop-phone useds are powerless.
The other groups are those who use it identically to how they would iOS (and don’t root or sideload), those that use it as computer replacement, and those who just like to tinker. Those last two groups are a tiny, tiny sliver relative to the others.
Tge flipside of that is that Google and Apple have no viable alternatives. It would take years to build what they have.
It took Huawei about 5 years with Harmony OS to do it but odds if that making it far out side of China is limited.
Android isn't open source for a while. They started by pushing device certification which crippled any abilities of OEMs to make a better framework. Then they took many of the opensource packages out of android and redistributed as applications that they controlled via play services.
Then they made it harder to publish packages and created tons of rules that they can arbitrarily decide to cut ties with you or remove your remuneration.
What they are effectively doing now is to remove any ability of individual developers to push applications. Some will say the costs ain't that high, but (1) maybe not in USD dollars for Americans and (2) both Google and Apple will push those numbers way up high soon.
Even if that is not the case, if you don't agree with anything and you decide to have your own version of your family wiki, messenger or anything, they will be able to tell the authorities about it.
This is insane....
Different judge you say? You're right. But when Google in their appeal asked the judge why the app store isn't a monopoly, the judge told Google with a straight face
"You can't be anti-competitive if you have no competitors."
Google took note.
Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto.
I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however.
Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case the person who rings the bell may not be a friend.
That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable homeowner. Not checking in on every visitor would be evil, no?
I can't think of a better approach.
But we, owners, collectively choose that. We choose the security company, we pay then, we can vote them out. Most importantly: the construction company has zero say in this.
Also, no one actually check the IDs of my friends, and they don't have to pay the construction company when they first come.
I give the codes, they ring, I open. I hire a company to monitor the building but I can kick then out any day.
I own the place, you see?
That doesn't necessarily preclude helping the user to notice when they're doing something dangerous, but a waiting period before the computer becomes general-purpose seems pretty extreme.
(in Gilbert Huph (Wallace Shawn) voice) Yes, precisely!
I think they should help their median users and empower their power users, and they should absolutely throw a few "most vulnerable" users under the bus if that's necessary. Otherwise you think about banning kitchen knives to protect the "most vulnerable users" who are too stupid to handle a knife. No, we shouldn't do that. Their stupidity should be their problem, not our problem.
Some degree of collateral damage must be accepted to maximize the expected value of a product or service. Minimizing risks can't be the top priority. Don't ban kitchen knives. What you are effectively arguing for is transforming both Windows and macOS into a closed iOS. Don't do that.
They do. They absolutely do. Where have you been in the last 20 years? Windows has had a reputation as an unsafe ecosystem for decades. Even amongst non-tech people. And even with the various exploits the biggest source of viruses on windows was always that, lacking a proper channel to distribute applications, they had trained their users to double click any .exe on the internet and the next>next>next in whatever installer. I don't agree with the tightening of developer account requirements, but this argument doesn't hold at all.
The last time I heard these complaints were before Windows XP Service Pack 2, which added automatic Windows updates and ended the flood of viruses like Sasser or MyDoom.A. That was more than 20 years ago. On top of that, Windows Vista later added an integrated virus scanner and UAC dialogues, which gave you a big warning whenever you wanted to open an executable file. I haven't heard of any widespread viruses since. Nowadays most people don't even need to install software because most things are SAAS/cloud and run via the browser now.
Now the biggest "security issue" seems to stem from not-so-bright users being convinced by phone scammers to transfer them money or something like that. I don't think this is a problem with Windows.
Anyway in this case it's nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse to justify making ecosystem changes that are in their favor. They aren't acting in good faith.
Bold of you assuming they're doing for users. It's fear-mongering at its finest - using the threat of security to install more control that has little to no protection against the said threats.
Now you might say it's going to raise the bar for the scammers, but nobody is going to be spending time on writing scam or malware for a few bucks. When the reward is high, they can just pay out already verified developers to distribute their builds under their accounts, or just find a workaround (fake ids?) which could be still way cheaper than the potential revenue potential of a successful attack. It's just an inconvenience that didn't existed before.
This is just a policy directly targeting the legit developers distributing apps to work around some of the platform's limitations (ie. uncrappifying youtube). They were previously free to share the workarounds they've developed for themselves since it was just as easy as sharing your APK. Now with added threat of losing your developer account and probably being perma-banned from google, those devs are less likely to continue distributing their workarounds.
Just to drive the point home. Not that you would do this but you _could_ even implement such a system fully anonymously - with uploads via tor and payments via XMR - and it should still work just as well.
Add in a third even more expensive tier for those providing source code to the auditor where google verifies a signed deterministic build the same way fdroid does. Now clearly mark the three different tiers in the app store.
And if they went this route the next logical step for highly sensitive stuff like banking and password management would be a fourth licensed and bonded tier where a verified individual located in a friendly country took on liability for any fraud or other malpractice. That tier would be the equivalent to the situation for civil engineers.
Instead we're stuck in a reality where I don't trust sourcing password managers (among other things) from the play store. Those only ever come from fdroid for me - you know, an actually secure model for how to do app distribution and verify builds.
And Google benefits financially from the problem.
2%, according to the keepandroidopen.org poll[^1]
[^1] https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830
Developers and enthusiasts are an extreme minority that's incredibly vocal. I think most people here disagree with Google's approach but too many people are pretending like their interests and use cases are significant on a "half the planet" scale.
The idea isn't to protect the power users or average users. It's to protect the most vulnerable. Android is for everyone. Us power users will have a minor speed bump, but we can deal.
If Apple announced that they were going to allow installing apps like how you can install APKs you will have a whole group of people on here arguing against it because they want Apple to have control over everything. You could have seen those people in action on the Epic v. Apple and Digital Markets Act discussions.
Tie in the app to a verified identity/individual and it makes the audit process easier as well as engagement with authorities from the user's country if required (e.g. app facilitating child abuse).
I'm going to go on a limb and say that the amount of apps dedicated to facilitating child abuse is close to 0, and the popular apps from verified developers being used for child abuse is close to 100%.
There are millions of people affected by targeted scams every year, significantly outnumbering the non-developer sideload community. Especially when you take into account that the sideload community doesn't all use Google Android and isn't affected by this.
Separately, they're going to increase friction the first time you allow installing apps outside of the Play Store or via this mechanism and also decrease friction on subsequent times, also on Google Android builds.
I've been using Android since 2010 because it was open in ways that the Apple ecosystem wasn't. I do not want this and imagine hardly any other power users (for lack of a better term) do. I'm already using a mostly deGoogled device but this really seals the deal. I have been longing for a true Linux phone for years and now seems like a good time to get serious about the search and migration plan.