←back to thread

Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

(shkspr.mobi)
205 points ColinWright | 4 comments | 30 Aug 25 12:03 UTC | HN request time: 1.099s | source
Show context
anfilt ◴[31 Aug 25 08:49 UTC] No.45081577[source]▶
The owner of a device should have the final say. The way a lot of this is set up basically deprives the owner of one of their core property rights, in particular the right of exclusion. Instead, in many systems the decision about what software to include or exclude is made cryptographically by a third party rather than by the device’s owner. I don’t think we should support limiting people’s property rights for “safety” or other reasons. iOS is probably one the worst in this regard and it sad to see android moving more and more towards this direction.

I have posted multiple times before that this effectively limits people’s property rights. Here are some other posts I have made on the subject:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236853

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067455

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727203

replies(3): >>45082440 #>>45082499 #>>45082521 #
1. QuadmasterXLII ◴[31 Aug 25 12:01 UTC] No.45082521[source]▶
There are two reasons to install an app: I personally want to install it or a powerful third party will bring down a wildly disproportionate punishment if I don’t. Nowadays the vast majority of app installs are in the second category, and in this category, being able to make it common knowledge that I physically can’t install your (parking app / apartment app / course selection app /banking app) as root with unlimited privileges even if you (tow my car / evict me / expell me / close my bank account) is super valuable. This value skyrockets further if a large section of the population has this same inability to root themselves, which apple coordinates. This is why people buy apple! ask anyone who buys an iphone for grandma. I would be quite pissed off if the government steps in and takes away this coordination mechanism.
replies(2): >>45082944 #>>45083497 #
2. ACCount37 ◴[31 Aug 25 13:18 UTC] No.45082944[source]▶
>a powerful third party will bring down a wildly disproportionate punishment

That's the problem to attack - not user freedom. "Mandatory app" is an anti-accessibility anti-feature.

3. fruitworks ◴[31 Aug 25 14:41 UTC] No.45083497[source]▶
Your coordination mechanism is to just to rely on the good will of a single company. How long do you expect it to last before apple starts cooperating with invasive parking apps, banking apps, etc?
replies(1): >>45092153 #
4. QuadmasterXLII ◴[01 Sep 25 12:21 UTC] No.45092153[source]▶
It is a little rough. On reflection, the scenario when apple would sell you a locked down phone and google would sell you a side-loadable phone was ideal- the locked down phone was in my opinion better for phone tasks, but apple couldn’t abuse that too much or I’d just switch to android. A scenario where everyone is selling locked phones could remove that necessary check.