←back to thread

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

(www.makeuseof.com)
516 points josephcsible | 1 comments | 13 Oct 25 15:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.245s | source
Show context
HiPhish ◴[13 Oct 25 16:27 UTC] No.45570232[source]▶
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.
replies(13): >>45570367 #>>45570379 #>>45570432 #>>45570481 #>>45570663 #>>45570698 #>>45570888 #>>45570921 #>>45571652 #>>45571793 #>>45571892 #>>45572581 #>>45573419 #
viktorcode ◴[13 Oct 25 16:45 UTC] No.45570481[source]▶
I call "running unsigned binaries"
replies(1): >>45570851 #
RedComet ◴[13 Oct 25 17:15 UTC] No.45570851[source]▶
They are signed, though. Just not by Google.
replies(1): >>45571706 #
natch ◴[13 Oct 25 18:25 UTC] No.45571706[source]▶
“Running binaries signed either by yourself or by whoever wants to spy on you.”

That last part there is the problem.

replies(3): >>45572112 #>>45572287 #>>45573225 #
1. generic92034 ◴[13 Oct 25 19:22 UTC] No.45572287[source]▶
Is this not a meaningless differentiation if Google does no assume any responsibility for apps on the Play Store?