This is so incredibly inconvenient as to be meaningless.
gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 16:33
nextcollapse
It’s not completely meaningless because if it’s truly the only option I’m going to be using it until I eventually replace my current phone with one with an unlocked bootloader.
There are plenty of people developing apps that require root, and users who run those are already jumping through a million hoops of cat and mouse to keep their fucking mcdonalds app detecting it so they can get cheaper coffees and free fries.
Like seriously, wtf McDonalds, your app is like the ultimate root/safetynet/device id detection tool, I don’t think there exists even a banking app that is as hard to fool.
gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 20:24
collapse
They’re already developing the apps for the 1% of us not just using proprietary apps from the play store. I don’t think this just kills open source app development.
So just take one day a month and do your maintance. Anything that isn’t from the Play store isn’t exactly getting Dev work every day to patch whatever.
Whatever, I don’t love this either, but it’s not some absolute deal breaker IMO. Maybe 6/10 dealbreaker. We disagree and thats fine. Now please downvote like you were going to do anyway.
I get several updates/day from FDroid, Obtainium and Accrescent. Some of them are security updates.
blargh513@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Sep 16:54
nextcollapse
It will be stupid, but I presume there will be a rise in desktop apps or webapps that require you to only plug the phone in and it will handle the rest.
gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 20:27
nextcollapse
Yeah, if something like Obtanium needs to run on my desktop instead of my phone and I have to plug it in every once in a while, that’s not the end of the world.
There are already android apps that allow you to ADB into your own phone without root, so you could VERY EASILY just make an app store that utilises that, you only need to install the app from desktop once
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
on 06 Sep 22:32
nextcollapse
We already have to do that to install older apps. It’s inconvenient, but not as bad as having to boot up an ancient phone every time you need to use the app.
Perhaps someone could write an ‘adb loopback’ app – get that into the official app store, and said app would then squirt other .apk files through adb on the phone to itself, thus sideloading it.
As far as I know, ADB needs to be run on another device which is plugged into the phone.
I suppose one could write a script/app that detects the device is plugged in, and automatically looks for and installs updates using adb. That would be the least amount of friction.
It’s not. They already allow multiple app stores so they are not profiting off of every app.
EDIT: people keep downvoting me like I’m bootlicking or disagreeing. I’m actually trying to understand what the suspicion actually is over ending sideloading. There’s definitely a security case to be made, but people don’t seem to buy that. What actually ARE you thinking?
6nk06@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Sep 16:36
nextcollapse
We hope that Google keeps its word and preserves ADB installation
lol, adb is the first loophole that will be closed.
I don’t know, even people here are already considering it a loss of the only way is through ADB, because it’s not practical for everyday usage. But it’s better than nothing.
I’d love to play around with something like this, as a programmer myself, but unfortunately the cost is prohibitive in my country.
SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
on 07 Sep 21:27
collapse
Yeah, that’s why it’s still in the “considering” phase for me as well - especially considering Trump’s tariffs crap. It also seems a tad underpowered for the price, and they still don’t have the promised removable battery replacements in their store.
It’s worth remembering, though, that the cost covers the constant software updates, as well as their user support. As such, it’s much like the Apple model of business, except much more open - so in the end it’s probably worth it.
ideonek@piefed.social
on 06 Sep 17:45
nextcollapse
yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca
on 06 Sep 18:24
nextcollapse
Don’t forget “side effects”, when really, medications only have “effects”. Whether the effects are intended or not doesn’t change the fact that they happen.
Cough medicine can induce drowsiness, but you probably shouldn’t be taking it as a sleep aid. The distinction between intended vs unintended effects is an important distinction to make, in my opinion, to prevent drugs from being unintentionally misused.
While that is true, it does not invalidate the poster’s point. All of the effects of drugs are just “effects”. They could just as easily market cough syrup as a sleep aid with the “side effect” that it suppresses coughing.
The difference in definition in this context is simply that “drug uses” is the list of its effects that they were going for, and “side effects” are a list of effects that they were not. Its entirely a man made distinction. Extend that reasoning to the “installing” vs. “side loading” discussion to see the poster’s point.
I believe him to be suggesting that “side loading” is a very different word for “installing” that can be loaded by PR people to shift public opinion against the practice. Whether or not they are doing that I can’t say myself, but that appears to be the point being made.
They could just as easily have coined it “direct installing” or “USB installing”, but they didn’t even though those terms are more descriptive. Draw from that whatever you will.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 07 Sep 04:05
nextcollapse
you shouldnt be taking medication not for his intended purpose, it has many warnings.
Talking to the wrong guy here, I’ve taken many a medications against their intended purpose: I am a curious guy.
But that sounds like saying, in the context of Google’s intention of disabling app sideloading, that warning users that it poses a security risk because it’s their intended purpose for android, is fine because the authority on android is Google.
Don’t just take the word of authority at face value, when they prioritize profit and mindshare over personal freedom.
Wait, so now I have to talk to a doctor before installing from F-Droid? Well, shit.
For all intents and purposes, your comment actually invalidates the premise of using ‘sideloading’ as a term for installing from outside the ‘official’ method.
You buy cough syrup because you’re coughing, not because you want to be drowsy (I would hope that’s the case). In the same way, you install Spotify to listen to music, not to get all your data extracted and sold. Getting drowsy is an inconvenient side effect of the medication, the same way that data grab and ads are an inconvenient side effect of the app.
You’re not ‘side-medicating’.
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Sep 20:19
nextcollapse
It’s a bad comparison because some people do take the medicine to get the side effects. For example taking benadryl to fall asleep.
You are the master of your body, the person who decides ultimately what goes in and out of your body, No doctor can force you to take anything. That’s what I mean, The play store aka the doctor wants to become the master that decides what apps go in or out of your phone, instead of the user. My comment doesn’t invalidate the premise of the use of the term sideloading, because I don’t agree with the term to begin with.
Whether the effect is ideal or not does not change what is chemically happening in the body. The body can’t tell apart side effects from the main ones, so this distinction exists because humans deemed it so, just like the distinction between play store sanctioned apps, and everything else. It’s a distinction that Google is now abusing for it’s own monetary benefit.
It is, because it’s actually the term that defines the process of transferring files not from an external networked device - downloading - or to an external networked device - uploading - but between two local devices - sideloading.
It’s over two decades old, you downloaded an mp3 from kazaa, and then sideloaded it to your player.
For android apps, I believe the term originates from the method of using ADB to directly write the app to the phone memory, the command of which is “adb sideload filename”
And companies ofted do it. Thay recoined jaywalking to put the blaim of the accidents to pedestrians and take away the road from them. They change what littering means in attrmpt to delute the responsibility for polution... We are better than that this time, right?
Thay recoined jaywalking to put the blaim of the accidents to pedestrians and take away the road from them.
How do you suppose that works, exactly?
ozymandias117@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 22:09
collapse
I assume you’re unaware of the concerted advertising campaigns by auto manufacturers to take public streets away from pedestrians, including things like
The industry hired actors dressed in old-fashioned clothing to illegally cross streets, making the behavior seem outdated
“Jay” had started as a word for drivers driving on the wrong side of the road
jaywalker was pre-dated by jay-driver – a driver of a horse-drawn carriage or automobile that refused to abide by the traffic laws by driving on the wrong side of the road
I assume you’re unaware of the concerted advertising campaigns
Maybe try to stay on topic?
jay-driver – a driver of a horse-drawn carriage or automobile that refused to abide by the traffic laws
So jay-walker seems appropriate, does it not?
ozymandias117@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 22:17
nextcollapse
It’s extremely on topic for the thread you responded to.
Google has a concerted effort to make “sideloading” bad, so they can remove it without public backlash
The next comment in the chain mentioned how auto manufacturers did the same thing, villainizing people using public spaces by calling it “jaywalking” until it became illegal to walk on public roads
That was done to take public spaces away from pedestrians and give it to cars
This is being done to take software outside of Google Play away and give the only profit to google
how and why it was used to essentially mean “a stupid person”
You told me how it was used to mean “a stupid driver”. Seems like an accurate term to describe drivers and walkers alike doing stupid things, like walking into traffic. 🤷
The existence of the word does not blame anyone.
ozymandias117@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 22:43
collapse
It wasn’t a word for crossing the street until Ford wanted to make it illegal to cross the street.
Maybe that’s the historical context you’re missing
They didn’t make illegal to cross the street. They made it illegal to cross the street in a particular time or place where the walker would endanger themselves.
I’m not missing any historical context. What I’m missing is how the term is inaccurate or used inappropriately.
ozymandias117@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 23:00
collapse
If you actually care, you can start with things like “walkable cities,” look at city planning before Ford made it illegal, look into how NYC has made it no longer a crime, etc.
It doesn’t actually seem like you do, though
Ford’s work to reframe the action caused massive changes to urban planning, mostly for the worse.
Their work to change cultural views are apparently so strong, you can’t see how changing the language around it was “inaccurate or inappropriate”
That’s what Google is doing to the average user for “sideloading” - in a few generations, they will have stigmatized it enough that people will be saying it shouldn’t be allowed
Again, you keep insisting that I just don’t understand anything about walkable cities or talking about Ford’s ad campaigns. I do. That is not what we’re discussing.
What we’re discussing is how the word is inaccurate or inappropriate or “blames” anyone other than those who are doing exactly what the word is intended to describe. And it doesn’t seem like you have any interest in putting forth a legitimate argument so I guess we’re done here.
The same goes for “sideloading”.
ozymandias117@lemmy.world
on 06 Sep 23:23
collapse
If you truly understand the historical context of how calling it “jaywalking” rather than what it was at the time has been used to change the cultural narrative, and you understand how Google (and Apple) are trying to say “sideloading” is dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed on their devices, but can’t get to how that shift in narrative is being used… I agree, there’s no point in continuing
I see your confusion. You are assessing it from the reality when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
But before the campaing, the streets actually belonged to the people and cars was the dafoult expectation. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generate the bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a basic premise "car accidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim".
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
sukhmel@programming.dev
on 07 Sep 12:43
nextcollapse
Sorry for the off-topic, but what’s with those weird typos? Are you also trying to ‘poison’ AI that will be trained on the comments?
You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit.
I have said absolutely nothing to give you that impression so I have to assume this is just an ad hominem in the absence of any legitimate explanation.
I think you may have glossed over the word “drivers” there. The word was used to describe people ignoring traffic regulations, both while driving and walking.
I didn’t “blame” anyone, I just said it was ignorant, as is the literal definition of the word, according to the person I replied to.
Society has this super weird position that there can only ever be one person or entity to blame. You can blame a pedestrian for ignorantly wandering into traffic while simultaneously blaming the driver for being inattentive.
ideonek@piefed.social
on 07 Sep 18:23
nextcollapse
To be clear, your position is that "stupid person walked into the traffic" and "it's that person fault" are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)
But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no "into the traffic" there. People didn't "wonder" on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don't defoult into "the pedestrian was likely ignorant". Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like "loonies" or "zombies" until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed... And 10 years from that somene like you will argue "but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me".
What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no “into the traffic” there. People didn’t “wonder” on the streets.
That is not what you said. What you said was, and I quote “You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit.”
If people are not “wandering into the street” then they are not “jaywalking”, are they?
People were the rule cars were the exception.
It doesn’t matter which one is which. The one that is “jay” is the one doing so without any regard for the rules, endangering themselves and other road users.
Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like “loonies” or “zombies”
That would be a completely different use of the word, since neither of these words mean “someone who operates scooters carelessly and without regard for the rules”, as jaywalking does.
You will never convince anyone by gaslighting them into believing you didn’t say things you did (especially where it’s clearly documented) and continually pursuing strawman arguments.
Yes, those are not the same and that's exactly the point.
2nd one is me trying to understand your perspective and assumimg that you asses the irresponsibility of wondering into trafic must comr from the modern perspective in accordance with modern standards (existing traffic laws and road culture) - reality after PR campaign.
1st one is pointing out that that traffic laws and road culture were different back then, and.we.can't even talk about "wondering into" traffic anymore than we could talk about "wondering into sidewalk" - reality before PR campaign.
Those two not being the same is the result of PR campaign changing one state of round culture to another by stigmatizing being a pedestrian on the street. That's the problem we are discussing.
Come on.
(Man, I'm regretting biting after it was obvious this conversation is going nowhere. This time I'm truly out. Feel free to have your last word, but - hopefully - I'll not address it)
Personally? It was based on things you said. We allready discused it, right? And it was the only thing to.me that made sense. At least than you'd be understandably wrong, instead of stubbornly wrong. If you understand that before the campaign walking on the streets was normal and perfectly leagal and the capaign stigmatized it as a simpletons behavior of irresponsible people, than I honestly don't understand what is the hill you chose to die on.
You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect. A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle, and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does.
When cars began taking over streets making it dangerous for the people there, and auto makers lobbied to make cities more car centric, it made the cities way worse.
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking. We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.
We are not talking about individual blame, we’re upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.
You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect.
How would you know that when I haven’t even specified any circumstances? Unless your intention is to suggest there are no circumstances in which a pedestrian is even partially to blame?
If a pedestrian sprints out from behind a wall into traffic moving 70MPH, that’s 100% the driver’s fault for hitting them? This is the logic you want to go with?
A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle
What does that have to do with whose responsibility it is!?
and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does
No they don’t? And why are we downtown?
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking.
You mean instead of a world where we hold responsible the people who are actually responsible?
We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.
No, we would just have more criminals. The only way we have walkable cities is by banning cars.
We are not talking about individual blame, we’re upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.
I know you want to talk about that. I agree with you. But it is, in fact, not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the supposed use of the word “jaywalking” implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions.
The time is 1900. There are no traffic laws. A car almost runs into a dude.
If you say, “that car is dangerous” you are correct, and society tends towards making laws that protect pedestrians.
If you say “that person is jaywalking” you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person. Maybe you think that cars are modern. “The wave of the future.” This is the incorrect framing. We have seen how much of a mistake this was.
Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.
We are downtown because that was the context in which the term “jaywalking” was invented. To kick pedestrians out of their own downtown.
We’re talking about the supposed use of the word “jaywalking” implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions
Maybe that’s what you’re talking about. The rest of us are talking about how “jaywalking” was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong. That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they’re saying.
Can’t help but notice you declined to answer any of my questions.
If you say “that person is jaywalking” you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person.
Incorrect. You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. “Jaywalking” does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.
Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.
Wonderful! Good for them!
We are downtown because that was the context in which the term “jaywalking” was invented.
Okay, so “jaywalking” only applies “downtown”. Presumably you can provide a source for this?
The rest of us are talking about how “jaywalking” was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong
That is not what you’re talking about. You’re talking about automotive propaganda and the history of urban infrastructure. Nothing about the term itself or how it was misused or appropriated to mean something other than exactly what it does.
That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they’re saying.
They keep saying things that I already know. Strawman topics that I agree with and don’t require further discussion.
You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. “Jaywalking” does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.
This is simply miskaken. At the time the term was invented, the streets were for pedestrians. There were natually no laws or norms saying people shouldnt walk in the street. Car companies waged a campaign to kick pedestrians out. If we can’t agree on this basic fact, I am not sure how to continue the discussion.
There were natually no laws or norms saying people shouldnt walk in the street
There aren’t any today either. But there are regulations about where and when people should walk in the street. Violations of these regulations (not literally just moving your feet back and forth) are known as jaywalking.
Now you’re doing that strawman thing again. No one said there were no laws. What I said is that there are no laws saying that people cannot walk in the street.
They are called the right of way.
Yes, exactly. Jaywalking is the act of ignoring the right of way. Thank you for clarifying that.
I will not argue further with someone who is unable to incorporate new information.
The point is, there shouldn’t be a distinction. To make one is to support prejudice against installing software from elsewhere.
If you use “installing” for stuff from the Google store but any other word for stuff from other sources, you are aiding and abetting Google’s anti-property-rights propaganda.
There has to be. When 99% of installs come from one location, there needs to be a way to describe that other than “Installing apps from outside the default app store”.
To make one is to support prejudice against installing software from elsewhere.
Okay, I understand your position. Android’s play store has market dominance, so the a term to distinguish between 99% of play store installs vs others, makes sense.
Now, that is a tangent to the main issue, just arguing semantics. The issue is control versus
openness, not about the term sideloading.
Is Google’s plan to restrict app sideloading a good thing in your eyes, or no?
Nice, I could tell you’re a smart dude, so at least we all can agree that Android is no longer to be trusted.
Funny how words and language become the focus of this thread, and then the main issues get pushed to the side. I was arguing against you as if we didn’t agree on the main problem 😅
Installing an app is not the same thing as installing an app? What difference does it make where it came from? Why do you need two different words for installing an app? Why does the distinction of where it came from matter when the outcome is no different?
I didn’t say that’s what you said, I’m making a point that its the same fucking thing. Read the rest of my comment and answer my questions please. Or do you agree that there’s no functional difference and splitting hairs about where it came from is just a way to enforce corporate hegemony?
It was clearly the implied suggestion. I’ve already answered your questions a dozen times elsewhere. Gonna have to have a poke around because I don’t feel like typing them again.
Or do you agree that there’s no functional difference and splitting hairs about where it came from is just a way to enforce corporate hegemony?
The functional difference is that one means “installing from anywhere” and the other means “installing from outside the default app store”. They are different words with different meanings, one being more specific than the other.
It’s like saying “neurosurgeon” instead of “medical professional”. There is a difference. One is much more specific. “Neurosurgeon” wasn’t made up by Big Pharma to gaslight you into believing brain surgery was bad, it’s just a lot fewer words than “medical professional who does surgery on brains”.
The functional difference is that one means “installing from anywhere” and the other means “installing from outside the default app store”. They are different words with different meanings, one being more specific than the other.
If the outcome is the same, then there is no functional difference. If I say I need to see a doctor, there is a functional difference between a neurosurgeon and another medical professional. If I say I want to download a calculator app, there is no functional difference if I download it from a first-party app store or a third-party app store. You’re splitting hairs. Stop supporting corporate hegemony.
If the outcome is the same, then there is no functional difference.
The outcome is absolutely not the same. If Google said “we’re no longer allowing you to install apps”, that would be a completely different conversation. There is a functional differrence.
If someone sent a nurse in to do your neurosugery, that would absolutely not be the same…
I don’t understand why this needs to be explained…
You’re splitting hairs
My brother in Christ, you’re literally the one splitting hairs…that’s the opposite of what I’m doing.
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Sep 20:27
nextcollapse
Why would you want to call it sideloading when you’re not loading from the side? It’s just doing what Google wants you to do.
Why would you want to call it sideloading when you’re not loading from the side?
I don’t know what you think “loading from the side” means? I use the term for the same reason I use any other term: to convey ideas through common understandings.
It’s just doing what Google wants you to do.
Why the fuck would Google care what words you use?
It means downloading not from the internet but from another device.
Google wants it to mean installing software they don’t condone, but I don’t see why the rest of us should follow their lead. I don’t know anyone who calls installing from FDroid “sideloading”
The words people use influences public opinion and the bottom line of corporations such as Ford and Google.
If there is a functional difference, then why can’t you say what the difference is? You continue to refuse to do so BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE. All you’re doing is installing an app. The only thing that changes is where the app comes from and if your corporate overlords approve of it’s origin. So again, what fundamental difference does it make where the app comes from?
My brother in Christ, you’re literally the one splitting hairs…that’s the opposite of what I’m doing.
I’m saying they’re the same. You’re saying these two things that are functionally identical are fundamentally different. In what conceivable way am I splitting hairs?
I literally just did, twice. If you’re just going to submit angry replies without actually reading the comments then this discussion is doomed, so good day.
The words for distinguishing between apps that come from one trusted location vs others is usually untrusted or unverified apps versus trusted or verified ones. “Installing apps from outside the default app store” converts to, “Installing an untrusted app”.
“Installing apps from outside the default app store” converts to, “Installing an untrusted app”.
It doesn’t. It’s not that complicated.
BootLoop@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Sep 00:30
nextcollapse
The same word that I use to when I get software that’s not on the Microsoft Store, the Mac App Store, or whatever distro’s Software GUI when I am using my desktop…
If the MS Store and Mac App store made up 99% of installs, that might make sense.
ideonek@piefed.social
on 07 Sep 08:31
nextcollapse
Why? That's a perfect example. There is no qualitative difrence between Microsoft Store and Play Store. Why quantitative difference in the market share would make any distinction in the terminology we use around the process?
So when I install an app from Fdroid, it’s only “installing” if lots of other people do it? But if other people don’t use it as much it’s “sideloading”?
When I install software from the Arch User Repository I still just call it installing, even though it isn’t through the standard path. Everywhere else, you don’t make the distinction. For some reason on phones we’ve come to call it sideloading, even though the software is just software —it doesn’t care where it came from.
Again, when I install something from the AUR (which is not where most software comes from —99+% are from official repositories) it isn’t given a special term. It’s the exact same situation as “sideloading” but we just call it installing. Can you explain what the difference is between them?
Wow, you’re frustrating. If using an unofficial source for applications is called sideloading, why isn’t that term used for desktop computing? The term only exists for phones. The AUR is an unofficial user-run source and is equivalent to a source other than the play/apple store. If that term was actually useful or needed we call installing applications from the AUR sideloading, but we don’t. Clearly the term has no real utility besides making it sound like something you shouldn’t do.
Yes they are! That’s what I’m saying. 99% of apps aren’t coming from the AUR. Why don’t we call it sideloading, if it were actually a term that were needed?
Same thing. 99% of apps are coming from official repositories. A tiny fraction are coming from non-official sources, like the AUR. It should be called sideloading if the term actually had a technical need. Obviously your reasoning that we need the term is wrong. No one feels the need for it on desktop. What’s different about mobile?
You’re perfectly clear, as I believe I have also (or I wouldn’t be repeating myself as each comment would be different if it wasn’t clear). You’re argument isn’t consistent with the rest of computing. I keep repeating myself because you keep refusing to engage. You just keep dodging.
What is the difference between getting software from the unnoficial source such as the AUR and getting software from an unofficial source on mobile?
If you can answer this then it’s done. This is the third time I’ve asked it and you haven’t answered it once. If the term, as used by Google and Apple, we’re necessary or had functional utility then we’d use if for Desktop also. Clearly it isn’t necessary or functionally useful. It’s used out of utility by these companies to sow mistrust.
Lol. And you’re not harassing? In case you see this, you have not answered it. One time you said something like “something not being used 99% of the time isn’t the same” just because I used an inversion of the word with the same meaning. That was the closest thing to actually answering it you got.
even within android, if you attempt to install an apk directly, it doesn’t say “would you like to sideload this application?”, but instead says, “Do you want to install this app?”.
Even Google’s own OS doesn’t use made up language.
When you install a ‘.exe’ file in Windows, you don’t call it ‘sideloading’, you call it ‘downloading and installing’.
This is the exact same thing. I download from sites, F-Droid, Obtainium, etc., and install the software that is the file I downloaded. I’m effectively NOT side-anything.
Yet we call people who hold a doctorate “doctors”, and if we need to specify we use terms like “medical doctors” or “doctors in philosophy”.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Sep 17:18
nextcollapse
The issue people have with making the distinction is that Google is trying to spin the narrative and make side loading seem like a dangerous and bad thing to the average user base who don’t know any better.
They’re taking umbrage with you agreeing that quantitative usage of a storefront makes something simply installing vs side loading a program. Because it helps Google’s narrative in a way.
I understand exactly what people think the issue is. I don’t understand or agree with any of the logic. Google did not invent the term. Apple did not invent the term. There’s nothing in the term itself to imply anything nefarious. It’s nothing but a word used to describe apps installed from outside the default store. When 99-100% of users are all installing exclusively from the default store, it makes sense to have a term that describes that instead of saying “installing apps from outside the default app store” every time.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Sep 18:48
nextcollapse
Google is twisting the word to justify their purpose of preventing people from installing anything that isn’t from their walled garden. So anything that sounds even close to support for that motive is going to be met with pushback, even if it is a word that existed before Google’s use of it. Google’s implicitly saying that installing something from anywhere other than their store is something nefarious or otherwise bad/risky. Google is trying to perform the same kind of security theatre as the US with the NSA at airports.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me where you install an app from because you’re simply installing it. Whether that’s from Google’s storefront, Apple’s, or somewhere else, you’re installing an app. The circumstances where I’d need a term to specifically say that I’m installing an app from outside the default app store would also be covered by simply saying “I got it from GitHub (or wherever).” It takes the same energy to answer the question of where you got it from regardless of whether you say that you installed it or you side loaded it.
How is it being twisted? They’re using it in exactly the way it is intended to be used?
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Sep 19:22
collapse
By justifying getting rid of it as “security concerns”. This is the first time the average user will have heard the term, so it will be linked in their head to this and therefore as risky/dangerous and they won’t question why Google would want to make it harder, if not impossible, for people to install apps or other software without Google’s explicit permission.
The walls around the garden get taller, and those inside won’t question why there aren’t any doors.
By justifying getting rid of it as “security concerns”.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. What you said is that they were “twisting the word”. Once again, they’re using it in exactly the way it is intended to be used.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 08 Sep 03:09
collapse
So it’s always had a negative connotation to it? Because that’s what I’m saying. That Google is using the word by its correct definition, but adding to the original definition a subtext that side loading is a bad thing. Hence, they’re twisting it from its original meaning to a negative connotation to the average person (who has never heard the word before).
It’s like Windows’ UAC popping up with a warning when you try to install just about anything. To the average computer illiterate person, they’re going to second guess whatever they’re installing as “dangerous” while the rest of us are like “shut up Windows, of course I want to install the Nvidia drivers, that’s why I clicked on the damn thing.”
I will concede that the corporate use of ‘sideloading’ is bypassing the official store, but if you look at the other examples you’ll see that it is not the only usage. I think it is important to frame installing software as just that.
track_stick_baboon@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 21:29
nextcollapse
Installing software from outside the play store should be called installing software. It’s installing software from the play store what should have a special name, like “gatedloading” for example.
In what way is installing from the play store fundamentally different? Just because it was preloaded on your phone? What if F droid was preloaded on your phone instead? Is it still sideloading? Google’s logic breaks down pretty quickly when you think about it
Yes, but littering used to be a legitimately big problem to. Like the hole in the ozone, now that it’s “solved”/ the norm for it to be getting better the focus should shift to other things.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 06 Sep 18:15
nextcollapse
why can google not just code something like this into android:
allow apps from:
( ) All sources (how it is now; allow each app to install apps from external sources)
( ) Just Google Play
( ) Apps which have been verified by Google Developer Program
Late stage capitalism absolutely forbids anything that could cause that, even if the cost of implementation outweighs any potential gain.
SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
on 06 Sep 18:43
nextcollapse
Taking Google at their word for a moment, it’s far too easy to scam the clueless masses into selecting the first one. Might work okay if it’s strictly an ADB command, tho.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 06 Sep 19:12
nextcollapse
but they could make it be google play or samsung store only as the default as a compromise
I’m inclined to think that’s not the job of an OS vendor to prevent. Sure, put a warning label on it, but it’s the user’s device; once they say they know what they’re doing, that should be that.
dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
on 06 Sep 21:36
collapse
The implication here is, if they implement this, is that they volunteer to assume liability, should e.g., your bank account be drained despite undergoing their forced strict lockdown on paid and owned devices.
Fat chance, because laws are meaningless to crime syndicates
It might be a reasonable trade for users to make if Google assumed liability. In fact, that would be an interesting way to implement laws to discourage practices like these.
If someone can be socially engineered into disabling security mechanisms, then that should just be their fate. There’s no sense in fucking everyone else in order to protect them.
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 06 Sep 19:16
nextcollapse
Because they want to stop people from using ad blockers.
mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
on 06 Sep 22:39
nextcollapse
Because it’s Google
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 07 Sep 00:44
collapse
bing! thy turkey's done
littleguy@lemmy.cif.su
on 07 Sep 19:55
nextcollapse
That would give users choice, and corporations want as many people as possible to be incapable of making decisions for themselves.
stevedice@sh.itjust.works
on 08 Sep 02:12
collapse
If Google wanted to add developer verification without being evil, it could use SSL certificates connected to domain names. I think the whole concept is ill-conceived, though I’ll admit to a modest bias against protecting people from themselves.
They couldn’t. Domains and SSL certificates can be obtained very easily anonymously and thus wouldn’t let Google identify the developers of malicious apps, which is the goal of this
The trouble is Google’s definition of malicious apps. Are adblockers malicious? How about alternative apps for YouTube? Based on the recent history, I don’t think you will be able to install those apps on the phone you purchased.
So any APK I download will just expire at some point in time that’s probably really annoying to know, and then I have to dig through the internet again so I can install the app again?
pycorax@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Sep 06:41
nextcollapse
If it’s anything like how Windows does it, you would still be able to override it. It just gives you a scary warning and hides the option unless you click “more info” or something.
Which nullifies the point of certificates having an expiration date (limited window for exploiting a compromised certificate, possibility of domains changing hands), not the point of validating the signature (tie responsibility for apps to who owned a domain on a specific date, allow third parties to create blacklists of bad developers).
Code signing certificates work a little differently than SSL certificates. A timestamp is included in the signature so the certificate only needs to be valid at the time of signing. The executable will remain valid forever, even if the certificate later expires. (This is how it works on Windows)
InnerScientist@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 14:33
collapse
Doesn’t work, the reason they can expire is to make certificate rotation possible.
If an expired ssl certificate is cracked it doesn’t matter because no browser will accept the expired certificate, with your idea the expired certificate just signs an app with the date of 1984 and it works.
Certificates in SSL can’t change the date because that date is signed by a certificate higher in the hierarchy.
This isn’t “my idea”, this is how the industry already does code signing. You can’t sign something with a date of 1984 because your certificate has a start and end date, and is usually only valid for 1 year.
InnerScientist@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 18:30
collapse
Then you need a Trusted Third Party, right? Still requires some though on how to prevent that third party from blocking applications they don’t like but I can see how a group of trusted authorities could work.
The trusted 3rd party in this case is actually multiple 3rd parties. There’s several options for trusted timestamping just like there’s multiple trusted root CAs for SSL. Since the timestamping service is free and public, anyone can use it to sign anything, even self-signed certificates. There’s no mechanism to deny access, at least for this portion.
There’s always a risk the root CAs all collude and refuse to give out certificates to people they don’t like, but at least so far this hasn’t been a problem. I don’t have a better solution unfortunately. If we could have a 100% decentralized signing scheme that would be ideal, but I have no idea how you would build such a thing without identity verification and some inherit trust in the system
ryannathans@aussie.zone
on 07 Sep 00:28
nextcollapse
Call sideloading what it is, installing apps.
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
on 07 Sep 12:16
nextcollapse
I know, I know. People don’t understand how they’ve already conceded the war with language.
Me: Like…Yeah, I’m just going to “jailbreak” the small computer I bought to… run a program.
The public unironically: Oh man, I hope you don’t get arrested.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Sep 13:22
nextcollapse
Sideload refers to moving files between two devices, like P2P
StarMerchant938@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 20:47
collapse
Found the Rossman subrsciber. 📎
gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com
on 07 Sep 01:03
nextcollapse
I’m not sure why google is over engineering this, proper mainline distros have this solved since forever. Let the community setup trusted repos with gpg keys, then let me trust the repos. If Fdroid trusts the package and I trust Fdroid, who should care?
Lemminary@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 02:30
nextcollapse
Probably because they want to target software that cracks theirs to avoid ads, like ReVanced.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
on 07 Sep 06:13
nextcollapse
Ding ding ding ding ding. It’s so obvious, it’s because Google wants to be in control and block apps it would rather not exist. Newpipe, FreeTube, Revanced and the like.
Then why aren’t they already doing that by blocking DuckDuckGo?
The DuckDuckGo app blocks all apps from sending to Google (and other advertisers) tracking/ad data on a system level. And it’s freely available on the Play Store (has been for years.
Blokada 5 blocks ads in apps and it was removed from the google store years ago. You have to sideload it in order to use it.
There’s a neutered version on the google store, but it doesn’t block ads effectively.
Google also removed an addon called Adnauseam, which clicked ads in additional to blocking them. That way, advertisers still have to pay site owners for your visit. Google removed it without justifiable reason, then kept it removed since there was no sufficient backlash.
It’s the main reason why I switched to Firefox. That kind of abuse is for useful idiots.
Because it was never actually about security to begin with. That’s obviously BS. Google just wants control.
napkin2020@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Sep 03:04
nextcollapse
I honestly think that this is just not going to happen. It’s already a giant pain in the ass to install apps from anywhere else than Play Store. With Shizuku it got much, much better.
What kind of apps are you installing? I’ve never ever had any issue with installing APKs on Samsung, you just have to allow the app that triggered it to install APKs one time and every subsequent time, it just works.
napkin2020@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Sep 06:49
collapse
In some regions, afaik, you just CANNOT install certain apps without adb, this in my experience includes: KDEConnect, Fdroid, Newpipe…etc. The list changes time to time.
This simply doesn’t work anymore for all apps on my Pixel 8.
Many I installed manually just redirect to the Play store with the message it could harm your device and you should download from Play.
pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Sep 06:44
collapse
Pixel 8a on graphene here so I’m not getting this. Maybe on stock
faerbit@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Sep 09:55
nextcollapse
Pixel 8a on stock here. I have no idea what @Hawk is talking about. I just install any app, that I want. I might had to alter some settings, to do it, but I don’t remember doing that.
KingRandomGuy@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 17:26
collapse
GrapheneOS patches this behavior if apps match their Google play signature IIRC. This is a behavior that apps on the play store can opt into (basically they block operation if they aren’t installed via Play).
It was rather annoying until recently, since some apps require you to be on a certified Android install to find them in the Play store, but don’t actually check play integrity in the app. These apps when installed via Aurora wouldn’t work for me until Graphene patched this.
AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh, ok, say no more. Samsung used to be much easier to work around and they’re really joining the “lock it down!” club lately.
QuestionMark@lemmy.ml
on 07 Sep 03:23
nextcollapse
Since Google’s goal is to improve security
This is an obvious lie.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 07 Sep 04:08
nextcollapse
they want to improve thier AI and datamining capabilities.
But you can’t shop at Target with some random app, only the Target app. Even a small business has an accessible pathway to publish their app. Besides Fortnite and my gimbal nobody out here trying to educate customers on how to install their apk file.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 07 Sep 17:23
nextcollapse
They mean a physical Target store, not a phone app. Target can track customers walking in and out the door and what they buy, how long they stay, etc. but they can’t track anything about you if you just go to a different store, especially something like a small business which isn’t hooked into the ad data sponge.
Also if the CEO of target decides he really doesn’t like a popular shirt and is able to force everyone to only shop at target, then he can come a lot closer to snuffing out the existence of that shirt.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 08 Sep 06:33
collapse
Some apps let you watch YouTube without being a YouTube app.
This is actually worse than integration in Play Protect which can be disabled very easily. Now you can only install unsigned apps via ADB which means just developers can do it.
Not only government. I can’t see my daughter’s insulin pump status if I don’t disable developer mode.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
on 07 Sep 22:13
nextcollapse
I believe I got a notification that it disables NFC payments when developer mode is enabled. Which I know not as many people use it in the U.S. but some do.
greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Sep 23:55
collapse
Shit, I’ve disabled developer mode and still can’t access my bank app
Although you are correct, you still don’t have to be a developer to find use in ADB. I’ve used it and I’ve never been interested enough in developing for Android to do more than install the SDK for it once.
Leaving ADB open to unverified apps is more than I was expecting. ADB is reasonably straightforward to use even without actually being an Android developer.
There was never any way they’d integrate it to play protect and still allow play protect to be disabled. I prefer this to being required to use play protect personally, though the services do seem somewhat redundant. Presumably the whole point of doing this is to create an Apple style walled garden (which is of course very profitable). Google likely doesn’t want to fully lock it down and risk legal trouble, they just need to make it difficult enough that the masses don’t bother installing unapproved apps that may not act in Google’s interests.
I still hope the EU takes legal action against this anyway.
I don’t think this adds anything tbh as peoppe with adb would always be able to bypass this. The issue is that this kills distribution and thats exactly what Google wants - have full competitive control. Once they don’t like your app they’ll block your account and what do you do with your customer base? Give them adb install instructions? That’s basically a death sentence for any app.
covert_czar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 07 Sep 16:27
nextcollapse
Which means I can make an app for this “Sideloading” by shizuku…
themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 06:52
collapse
I heard of shizuku before how does it work? Does it need root?
covert_czar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Sep 15:57
collapse
So a lot of speculation and we don't know much except 2 paragraphs in the FAQ... I'd like to mention though, they've recently stripped the Pixel devices of their status as developer devices and now push for their emulator for development. Once they follow that kind of logic, there isn't really a reason to keep ADB working as is, at least not on real devices.
threaded - newest
tl;dr you can still “sideload” via adb.
This is so incredibly inconvenient as to be meaningless.
It’s not completely meaningless because if it’s truly the only option I’m going to be using it until I eventually replace my current phone with one with an unlocked bootloader.
When my current phone dies I’ll be buying a flip phone.
Guess what!? Those are all Android too!
Nope, some of them run KaiOS
Guess what!? KaiOS is Android!
They can go back to being a Linux OS much easier than anybody else
But I guess those don’t have Google Play or anything Google, they’re more like a limited Android.
I’m afraid that won’t help. There will be even fewer people developing apps specifically for the 0.01% of us using custom ROMs.
There are plenty of people developing apps that require root, and users who run those are already jumping through a million hoops of cat and mouse to keep their fucking mcdonalds app detecting it so they can get cheaper coffees and free fries.
Like seriously, wtf McDonalds, your app is like the ultimate root/safetynet/device id detection tool, I don’t think there exists even a banking app that is as hard to fool.
They’re already developing the apps for the 1% of us not just using proprietary apps from the play store. I don’t think this just kills open source app development.
That’s not who we’re talking about. We’re talking about the 0.1% who have custom ROMs.
It won’t kill it completely but it will severely hurt it. The more complicated it becomes, the smaller the userbase becomes.
Apps like Syncthing have already discontinued development due to Google shenanigans + lack of users. That’ll only get worse as the userbase shrinks.
Rimjob_steve moment
Not at all, just get comfortable with ADB and use Claude to walk you through the steps.
I see this as an absolute win. /s
Edit: Y’all, ADB isn’t hard to use. At all.
No one thinks it’s hard. It is, however, as I said, extremely inconvenient and time-consuming to do this every day, and no one wants to do that.
Every day? Who needs to install an app every day?
Not saying this isn’t annoying AF, it is, but it’s not the absolute lockdown that we all feared.
My guy, have you ever heard of “updates”? How do you suppose they get installed?
So just take one day a month and do your maintance. Anything that isn’t from the Play store isn’t exactly getting Dev work every day to patch whatever.
Whatever, I don’t love this either, but it’s not some absolute deal breaker IMO. Maybe 6/10 dealbreaker. We disagree and thats fine. Now please downvote like you were going to do anyway.
I get several updates/day from FDroid, Obtainium and Accrescent. Some of them are security updates.
It will be stupid, but I presume there will be a rise in desktop apps or webapps that require you to only plug the phone in and it will handle the rest.
Yeah, if something like Obtanium needs to run on my desktop instead of my phone and I have to plug it in every once in a while, that’s not the end of the world.
I think adb can also work over Wi-Fi, just like Android Studio can connect to the phone and build and install without plugging it.
There are already android apps that allow you to ADB into your own phone without root, so you could VERY EASILY just make an app store that utilises that, you only need to install the app from desktop once
good luck updating all your apps that way…
Exactly
We already have to do that to install older apps. It’s inconvenient, but not as bad as having to boot up an ancient phone every time you need to use the app.
Perhaps someone could write an ‘adb loopback’ app – get that into the official app store, and said app would then squirt other .apk files through adb on the phone to itself, thus sideloading it.
As far as I know, ADB needs to be run on another device which is plugged into the phone.
I suppose one could write a script/app that detects the device is plugged in, and automatically looks for and installs updates using adb. That would be the least amount of friction.
I think you can run ADB on another Android device, so maybe an Obtainium+ADB device that stays at home.
ADB loopback apps already exist, such as Shizuku
Is it though? Really?
The security of their bank balance.
No.
This publication is always repeating Google’s nonsense.
What ulterior motive do they have for blocking sideloading?
Essentially banning any apps that would hurt googles profits.
I thought that was pretty obvious.
It’s not. They already allow multiple app stores so they are not profiting off of every app.
EDIT: people keep downvoting me like I’m bootlicking or disagreeing. I’m actually trying to understand what the suspicion actually is over ending sideloading. There’s definitely a security case to be made, but people don’t seem to buy that. What actually ARE you thinking?
lol, adb is the first loophole that will be closed.
I don’t know, even people here are already considering it a loss of the only way is through ADB, because it’s not practical for everyday usage. But it’s better than nothing.
We should embrace oldschool SciFy and go for (DIY) Cyberdecks.
Thankfully, for those of us without the time for all that there are Linux phones such as this one I’m considering.
Yo I’ve never seen this one. Thanks for the link!
I’d love to play around with something like this, as a programmer myself, but unfortunately the cost is prohibitive in my country.
Yeah, that’s why it’s still in the “considering” phase for me as well - especially considering Trump’s tariffs crap. It also seems a tad underpowered for the price, and they still don’t have the promised removable battery replacements in their store.
It’s worth remembering, though, that the cost covers the constant software updates, as well as their user support. As such, it’s much like the Apple model of business, except much more open - so in the end it’s probably worth it.
<img alt="" src="https://media.piefed.social/posts/AR/Oq/AROqwptsAif4JnU.png">
Don’t forget “side effects”, when really, medications only have “effects”. Whether the effects are intended or not doesn’t change the fact that they happen.
Cough medicine can induce drowsiness, but you probably shouldn’t be taking it as a sleep aid. The distinction between intended vs unintended effects is an important distinction to make, in my opinion, to prevent drugs from being unintentionally misused.
While that is true, it does not invalidate the poster’s point. All of the effects of drugs are just “effects”. They could just as easily market cough syrup as a sleep aid with the “side effect” that it suppresses coughing.
The difference in definition in this context is simply that “drug uses” is the list of its effects that they were going for, and “side effects” are a list of effects that they were not. Its entirely a man made distinction. Extend that reasoning to the “installing” vs. “side loading” discussion to see the poster’s point.
I believe him to be suggesting that “side loading” is a very different word for “installing” that can be loaded by PR people to shift public opinion against the practice. Whether or not they are doing that I can’t say myself, but that appears to be the point being made.
They could just as easily have coined it “direct installing” or “USB installing”, but they didn’t even though those terms are more descriptive. Draw from that whatever you will.
you shouldnt be taking medication not for his intended purpose, it has many warnings.
Talking to the wrong guy here, I’ve taken many a medications against their intended purpose: I am a curious guy.
But that sounds like saying, in the context of Google’s intention of disabling app sideloading, that warning users that it poses a security risk because it’s their intended purpose for android, is fine because the authority on android is Google.
Don’t just take the word of authority at face value, when they prioritize profit and mindshare over personal freedom.
Wait, so now I have to talk to a doctor before installing from F-Droid? Well, shit.
For all intents and purposes, your comment actually invalidates the premise of using ‘sideloading’ as a term for installing from outside the ‘official’ method.
You buy cough syrup because you’re coughing, not because you want to be drowsy (I would hope that’s the case). In the same way, you install Spotify to listen to music, not to get all your data extracted and sold. Getting drowsy is an inconvenient side effect of the medication, the same way that data grab and ads are an inconvenient side effect of the app.
You’re not ‘side-medicating’.
It’s a bad comparison because some people do take the medicine to get the side effects. For example taking benadryl to fall asleep.
You are the master of your body, the person who decides ultimately what goes in and out of your body, No doctor can force you to take anything. That’s what I mean, The play store aka the doctor wants to become the master that decides what apps go in or out of your phone, instead of the user. My comment doesn’t invalidate the premise of the use of the term sideloading, because I don’t agree with the term to begin with.
Whether the effect is ideal or not does not change what is chemically happening in the body. The body can’t tell apart side effects from the main ones, so this distinction exists because humans deemed it so, just like the distinction between play store sanctioned apps, and everything else. It’s a distinction that Google is now abusing for it’s own monetary benefit.
It is, because it’s actually the term that defines the process of transferring files not from an external networked device - downloading - or to an external networked device - uploading - but between two local devices - sideloading.
It’s over two decades old, you downloaded an mp3 from kazaa, and then sideloaded it to your player.
For android apps, I believe the term originates from the method of using ADB to directly write the app to the phone memory, the command of which is “adb sideload filename”
And companies ofted do it. Thay recoined jaywalking to put the blaim of the accidents to pedestrians and take away the road from them. They change what littering means in attrmpt to delute the responsibility for polution... We are better than that this time, right?
How do you suppose that works, exactly?
I assume you’re unaware of the concerted advertising campaigns by auto manufacturers to take public streets away from pedestrians, including things like
missedhistory.com/…/lobbying-trick-blamed-pedestr…
“Jay” had started as a word for drivers driving on the wrong side of the road
debrabernier.com/the-history-of-jaywalking-in-the…
Maybe try to stay on topic?
So jay-walker seems appropriate, does it not?
It’s extremely on topic for the thread you responded to.
Google has a concerted effort to make “sideloading” bad, so they can remove it without public backlash
The next comment in the chain mentioned how auto manufacturers did the same thing, villainizing people using public spaces by calling it “jaywalking” until it became illegal to walk on public roads
That was done to take public spaces away from pedestrians and give it to cars
This is being done to take software outside of Google Play away and give the only profit to google
The topic was how the existence of the term “jaywalking” “blames pedestrians” when they’re not actually to blame.
Which is why I linked two articles discussing the history of the term “jay” and how and why it was used to essentially mean “a stupid person”
Then I even took a quote out for you explaining that car companies paid people to do it trying to vilify it
You told me how it was used to mean “a stupid driver”. Seems like an accurate term to describe drivers and walkers alike doing stupid things, like walking into traffic. 🤷
The existence of the word does not blame anyone.
It wasn’t a word for crossing the street until Ford wanted to make it illegal to cross the street.
Maybe that’s the historical context you’re missing
They didn’t make illegal to cross the street. They made it illegal to cross the street in a particular time or place where the walker would endanger themselves.
I’m not missing any historical context. What I’m missing is how the term is inaccurate or used inappropriately.
If you actually care, you can start with things like “walkable cities,” look at city planning before Ford made it illegal, look into how NYC has made it no longer a crime, etc.
It doesn’t actually seem like you do, though
Ford’s work to reframe the action caused massive changes to urban planning, mostly for the worse.
Their work to change cultural views are apparently so strong, you can’t see how changing the language around it was “inaccurate or inappropriate”
That’s what Google is doing to the average user for “sideloading” - in a few generations, they will have stigmatized it enough that people will be saying it shouldn’t be allowed
Again, you keep insisting that I just don’t understand anything about walkable cities or talking about Ford’s ad campaigns. I do. That is not what we’re discussing.
What we’re discussing is how the word is inaccurate or inappropriate or “blames” anyone other than those who are doing exactly what the word is intended to describe. And it doesn’t seem like you have any interest in putting forth a legitimate argument so I guess we’re done here.
The same goes for “sideloading”.
If you truly understand the historical context of how calling it “jaywalking” rather than what it was at the time has been used to change the cultural narrative, and you understand how Google (and Apple) are trying to say “sideloading” is dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed on their devices, but can’t get to how that shift in narrative is being used… I agree, there’s no point in continuing
I see your confusion. You are assessing it from the reality when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
But before the campaing, the streets actually belonged to the people and cars was the dafoult expectation. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generate the bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a basic premise "car accidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim".
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
Sorry for the off-topic, but what’s with those weird typos? Are you also trying to ‘poison’ AI that will be trained on the comments?
Haha, no I'm just that bad at English and typing. And have trouble finding keyboard that works for me. Sorry for that.
I have said absolutely nothing to give you that impression so I have to assume this is just an ad hominem in the absence of any legitimate explanation.
To be clear, your position is that "stupid person walked into the traffic" and "it's that person fault" are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)
But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no "into the traffic" there. People didn't "wonder" on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don't defoult into "the pedestrian was likely ignorant". Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like "loonies" or "zombies" until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed... And 10 years from that somene like you will argue "but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me".
Absolutely not. Those are enormous straws…
That is not what you said. What you said was, and I quote “You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit.”
If people are not “wandering into the street” then they are not “jaywalking”, are they?
It doesn’t matter which one is which. The one that is “jay” is the one doing so without any regard for the rules, endangering themselves and other road users.
That would be a completely different use of the word, since neither of these words mean “someone who operates scooters carelessly and without regard for the rules”, as jaywalking does.
We are clearly not moving toward convincing eachother to anything even a bit, so let's stop here. Have a great day, Ulrich.
You will never convince anyone by gaslighting them into believing you didn’t say things you did (especially where it’s clearly documented) and continually pursuing strawman arguments.
Hmm? Now I'm honestly confused. What is the thing I said that I claim I didn't say?
One of these things is not like the other.
Yes, those are not the same and that's exactly the point.
2nd one is me trying to understand your perspective and assumimg that you asses the irresponsibility of wondering into trafic must comr from the modern perspective in accordance with modern standards (existing traffic laws and road culture) - reality after PR campaign.
1st one is pointing out that that traffic laws and road culture were different back then, and.we.can't even talk about "wondering into" traffic anymore than we could talk about "wondering into sidewalk" - reality before PR campaign.
Those two not being the same is the result of PR campaign changing one state of round culture to another by stigmatizing being a pedestrian on the street. That's the problem we are discussing.
Come on.
(Man, I'm regretting biting after it was obvious this conversation is going nowhere. This time I'm truly out. Feel free to have your last word, but - hopefully - I'll not address it)
So you’re confused because you made baseless assumptions about me personally? Yeah, that’ll do it.
Personally? It was based on things you said. We allready discused it, right? And it was the only thing to.me that made sense. At least than you'd be understandably wrong, instead of stubbornly wrong. If you understand that before the campaign walking on the streets was normal and perfectly leagal and the capaign stigmatized it as a simpletons behavior of irresponsible people, than I honestly don't understand what is the hill you chose to die on.
When cars began taking over streets making it dangerous for the people there, and auto makers lobbied to make cities more car centric, it made the cities way worse.
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking. We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn’t be allowed to take over.
We are not talking about individual blame, we’re upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.
How would you know that when I haven’t even specified any circumstances? Unless your intention is to suggest there are no circumstances in which a pedestrian is even partially to blame?
If a pedestrian sprints out from behind a wall into traffic moving 70MPH, that’s 100% the driver’s fault for hitting them? This is the logic you want to go with?
What does that have to do with whose responsibility it is!?
No they don’t? And why are we downtown?
You mean instead of a world where we hold responsible the people who are actually responsible?
No, we would just have more criminals. The only way we have walkable cities is by banning cars.
I know you want to talk about that. I agree with you. But it is, in fact, not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the supposed use of the word “jaywalking” implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions.
The time is 1900. There are no traffic laws. A car almost runs into a dude.
If you say, “that car is dangerous” you are correct, and society tends towards making laws that protect pedestrians.
If you say “that person is jaywalking” you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person. Maybe you think that cars are modern. “The wave of the future.” This is the incorrect framing. We have seen how much of a mistake this was.
Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.
We are downtown because that was the context in which the term “jaywalking” was invented. To kick pedestrians out of their own downtown.
Maybe that’s what you’re talking about. The rest of us are talking about how “jaywalking” was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong. That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they’re saying.
Can’t help but notice you declined to answer any of my questions.
Incorrect. You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. “Jaywalking” does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.
Wonderful! Good for them!
Okay, so “jaywalking” only applies “downtown”. Presumably you can provide a source for this?
That is not what you’re talking about. You’re talking about automotive propaganda and the history of urban infrastructure. Nothing about the term itself or how it was misused or appropriated to mean something other than exactly what it does.
They keep saying things that I already know. Strawman topics that I agree with and don’t require further discussion.
This is simply miskaken. At the time the term was invented, the streets were for pedestrians. There were natually no laws or norms saying people shouldnt walk in the street. Car companies waged a campaign to kick pedestrians out. If we can’t agree on this basic fact, I am not sure how to continue the discussion.
References: www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
salon.com/…/the_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_…
missedhistory.com/…/lobbying-trick-blamed-pedestr…
counterpunch.org/…/the-classist-racist-history-of…
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797
There aren’t any today either. But there are regulations about where and when people should walk in the street. Violations of these regulations (not literally just moving your feet back and forth) are known as jaywalking.
There are laws. They are called the right of way. I will not argue further with someone who is unable to incorporate new information.
Now you’re doing that strawman thing again. No one said there were no laws. What I said is that there are no laws saying that people cannot walk in the street.
Yes, exactly. Jaywalking is the act of ignoring the right of way. Thank you for clarifying that.
Please, by all means, stop arguing.
How is that offtopic? It's direct answer to the question that was asked.
https://youtu.be/vxopfjXkArM?si=5u1oaIMrnXsAeTyX
How is it not off-topic? It has nothing to do with the suggestion that the word is used to blame pedestrians as a whole.
What would you call it?
“installing” as in “installing software”
Okay but it’s specifically software from outside the Play Store?
.
The point is, there shouldn’t be a distinction. To make one is to support prejudice against installing software from elsewhere.
If you use “installing” for stuff from the Google store but any other word for stuff from other sources, you are aiding and abetting Google’s anti-property-rights propaganda.
There has to be. When 99% of installs come from one location, there needs to be a way to describe that other than “Installing apps from outside the default app store”.
No? It isn’t.
The majority of PC game sales happen via steam but we don’t call games purchased from GOG “sideloaded.”
There is no necessary reason to make the distinction
There is and I’ve already given it. MS app store doesn’t make up 99% of installations.
Okay, I understand your position. Android’s play store has market dominance, so the a term to distinguish between 99% of play store installs vs others, makes sense.
Now, that is a tangent to the main issue, just arguing semantics. The issue is control versus openness, not about the term sideloading.
Is Google’s plan to restrict app sideloading a good thing in your eyes, or no?
A tangent someone else made. Many others really.
100%
Absolutely not. I will no longer recommend Android to anyone. It’s cooked, as far as I’m concerned.
Nice, I could tell you’re a smart dude, so at least we all can agree that Android is no longer to be trusted.
Funny how words and language become the focus of this thread, and then the main issues get pushed to the side. I was arguing against you as if we didn’t agree on the main problem 😅
Words and language are very important sometimes. I just disagree that this is one of those times.
Y tho. What difference does it make? Its the same thing.
It’s simply not the same thing and if you can’t understand how that makes it different, I don’t know how to help you.
Installing an app is not the same thing as installing an app? What difference does it make where it came from? Why do you need two different words for installing an app? Why does the distinction of where it came from matter when the outcome is no different?
Yes, that’s exactly what I said 😮💨
I didn’t say that’s what you said, I’m making a point that its the same fucking thing. Read the rest of my comment and answer my questions please. Or do you agree that there’s no functional difference and splitting hairs about where it came from is just a way to enforce corporate hegemony?
It was clearly the implied suggestion. I’ve already answered your questions a dozen times elsewhere. Gonna have to have a poke around because I don’t feel like typing them again.
The functional difference is that one means “installing from anywhere” and the other means “installing from outside the default app store”. They are different words with different meanings, one being more specific than the other.
It’s like saying “neurosurgeon” instead of “medical professional”. There is a difference. One is much more specific. “Neurosurgeon” wasn’t made up by Big Pharma to gaslight you into believing brain surgery was bad, it’s just a lot fewer words than “medical professional who does surgery on brains”.
If the outcome is the same, then there is no functional difference. If I say I need to see a doctor, there is a functional difference between a neurosurgeon and another medical professional. If I say I want to download a calculator app, there is no functional difference if I download it from a first-party app store or a third-party app store. You’re splitting hairs. Stop supporting corporate hegemony.
The outcome is absolutely not the same. If Google said “we’re no longer allowing you to install apps”, that would be a completely different conversation. There is a functional differrence.
If someone sent a nurse in to do your neurosugery, that would absolutely not be the same…
I don’t understand why this needs to be explained…
My brother in Christ, you’re literally the one splitting hairs…that’s the opposite of what I’m doing.
Why would you want to call it sideloading when you’re not loading from the side? It’s just doing what Google wants you to do.
I don’t know what you think “loading from the side” means? I use the term for the same reason I use any other term: to convey ideas through common understandings.
Why the fuck would Google care what words you use?
It means downloading not from the internet but from another device.
Google wants it to mean installing software they don’t condone, but I don’t see why the rest of us should follow their lead. I don’t know anyone who calls installing from FDroid “sideloading”
The words people use influences public opinion and the bottom line of corporations such as Ford and Google.
It doesn’t.
If there is a functional difference, then why can’t you say what the difference is? You continue to refuse to do so BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE. All you’re doing is installing an app. The only thing that changes is where the app comes from and if your corporate overlords approve of it’s origin. So again, what fundamental difference does it make where the app comes from?
I’m saying they’re the same. You’re saying these two things that are functionally identical are fundamentally different. In what conceivable way am I splitting hairs?
I literally just did, twice. If you’re just going to submit angry replies without actually reading the comments then this discussion is doomed, so good day.
You literally didn’t. Youre a waste of oxygen.
The words for distinguishing between apps that come from one trusted location vs others is usually untrusted or unverified apps versus trusted or verified ones. “Installing apps from outside the default app store” converts to, “Installing an untrusted app”.
It’s not that complicated.
It doesn’t. It’s not that complicated.
The same word that I use to when I get software that’s not on the Microsoft Store, the Mac App Store, or whatever distro’s Software GUI when I am using my desktop…
If the MS Store and Mac App store made up 99% of installs, that might make sense.
Why? That's a perfect example. There is no qualitative difrence between Microsoft Store and Play Store. Why quantitative difference in the market share would make any distinction in the terminology we use around the process?
I’ve already explained why. I don’t know what more there is to say. If you don’t get it, that’s okay.
So when I install an app from Fdroid, it’s only “installing” if lots of other people do it? But if other people don’t use it as much it’s “sideloading”?
“lots of other people” was not the words I used.
It can be both “installing” and “sideloading”. One is just more specific.
When I install software from the Arch User Repository I still just call it installing, even though it isn’t through the standard path. Everywhere else, you don’t make the distinction. For some reason on phones we’ve come to call it sideloading, even though the software is just software —it doesn’t care where it came from.
Because 99% of people are getting it from the same place…
Again, when I install something from the AUR (which is not where most software comes from —99+% are from official repositories) it isn’t given a special term. It’s the exact same situation as “sideloading” but we just call it installing. Can you explain what the difference is between them?
LOL you just lumped every other repository into one and then excepted the AUR for…reasons?
Because the AUR is by users. The others aren’t.
I know you just can’t explain the difference though so wrote this instead.
I don’t understand what that has to do with this conversation?
Wow, you’re frustrating. If using an unofficial source for applications is called sideloading, why isn’t that term used for desktop computing? The term only exists for phones. The AUR is an unofficial user-run source and is equivalent to a source other than the play/apple store. If that term was actually useful or needed we call installing applications from the AUR sideloading, but we don’t. Clearly the term has no real utility besides making it sound like something you shouldn’t do.
You are also frustrating, asking me questions that I’ve already answered: Because 99% of people aren’t using the default app store on desktops.
Yes they are! That’s what I’m saying. 99% of apps aren’t coming from the AUR. Why don’t we call it sideloading, if it were actually a term that were needed?
I don’t understand what you’re saying. The point is not that 99% of apps aren’t coming from anywhere, it’s that they are coming from somewhere…
Same thing. 99% of apps are coming from official repositories. A tiny fraction are coming from non-official sources, like the AUR. It should be called sideloading if the term actually had a technical need. Obviously your reasoning that we need the term is wrong. No one feels the need for it on desktop. What’s different about mobile?
Brother, you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. I don’t know how to be any more clear about this.
You’re perfectly clear, as I believe I have also (or I wouldn’t be repeating myself as each comment would be different if it wasn’t clear). You’re argument isn’t consistent with the rest of computing. I keep repeating myself because you keep refusing to engage. You just keep dodging.
What is the difference between getting software from the unnoficial source such as the AUR and getting software from an unofficial source on mobile?
If you can answer this then it’s done. This is the third time I’ve asked it and you haven’t answered it once. If the term, as used by Google and Apple, we’re necessary or had functional utility then we’d use if for Desktop also. Clearly it isn’t necessary or functionally useful. It’s used out of utility by these companies to sow mistrust.
I can answer it. I have answered it 5 times at this point and this constitutes harassment so you’re being blocked now. Goodbye.
Lol. And you’re not harassing? In case you see this, you have not answered it. One time you said something like “something not being used 99% of the time isn’t the same” just because I used an inversion of the word with the same meaning. That was the closest thing to actually answering it you got.
even within android, if you attempt to install an apk directly, it doesn’t say “would you like to sideload this application?”, but instead says, “Do you want to install this app?”.
Even Google’s own OS doesn’t use made up language.
I don’t know what that’s supposed to prove. Use of the word is not mandatory.
When you install a ‘.exe’ file in Windows, you don’t call it ‘sideloading’, you call it ‘downloading and installing’.
This is the exact same thing. I download from sites, F-Droid, Obtainium, etc., and install the software that is the file I downloaded. I’m effectively NOT side-anything.
You might call it that if 99% of software was installed from MS store.
0% of my android software is installed through Google Play. Then what?
I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. We’re not talking about you.
.
Wao, such a compelling argument.
If you need to be that specific, “installing” as in “installing software from outside the play store”
We have words for things for a reason. We don’t call doctors “guys who heal people”.
Doctor can mean different things to different people.
Yet we call people who hold a doctorate “doctors”, and if we need to specify we use terms like “medical doctors” or “doctors in philosophy”.
The issue people have with making the distinction is that Google is trying to spin the narrative and make side loading seem like a dangerous and bad thing to the average user base who don’t know any better.
They’re taking umbrage with you agreeing that quantitative usage of a storefront makes something simply installing vs side loading a program. Because it helps Google’s narrative in a way.
I understand exactly what people think the issue is. I don’t understand or agree with any of the logic. Google did not invent the term. Apple did not invent the term. There’s nothing in the term itself to imply anything nefarious. It’s nothing but a word used to describe apps installed from outside the default store. When 99-100% of users are all installing exclusively from the default store, it makes sense to have a term that describes that instead of saying “installing apps from outside the default app store” every time.
Google is twisting the word to justify their purpose of preventing people from installing anything that isn’t from their walled garden. So anything that sounds even close to support for that motive is going to be met with pushback, even if it is a word that existed before Google’s use of it. Google’s implicitly saying that installing something from anywhere other than their store is something nefarious or otherwise bad/risky. Google is trying to perform the same kind of security theatre as the US with the NSA at airports.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me where you install an app from because you’re simply installing it. Whether that’s from Google’s storefront, Apple’s, or somewhere else, you’re installing an app. The circumstances where I’d need a term to specifically say that I’m installing an app from outside the default app store would also be covered by simply saying “I got it from GitHub (or wherever).” It takes the same energy to answer the question of where you got it from regardless of whether you say that you installed it or you side loaded it.
How is it being twisted? They’re using it in exactly the way it is intended to be used?
By justifying getting rid of it as “security concerns”. This is the first time the average user will have heard the term, so it will be linked in their head to this and therefore as risky/dangerous and they won’t question why Google would want to make it harder, if not impossible, for people to install apps or other software without Google’s explicit permission.
The walls around the garden get taller, and those inside won’t question why there aren’t any doors.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. What you said is that they were “twisting the word”. Once again, they’re using it in exactly the way it is intended to be used.
So it’s always had a negative connotation to it? Because that’s what I’m saying. That Google is using the word by its correct definition, but adding to the original definition a subtext that side loading is a bad thing. Hence, they’re twisting it from its original meaning to a negative connotation to the average person (who has never heard the word before).
It’s like Windows’ UAC popping up with a warning when you try to install just about anything. To the average computer illiterate person, they’re going to second guess whatever they’re installing as “dangerous” while the rest of us are like “shut up Windows, of course I want to install the Nvidia drivers, that’s why I clicked on the damn thing.”
Installing software without a store was just called installing software.
Sideloading is when you download from the side, e.g. downloading software from a separate device instead of from the internet or physical media.
It isn’t.
Why do you think it’s not?
Because it’s not? I can show you 100 sources that say it’s not, can you show me one that says otherwise?
Go for it.
Source: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/…/sideload
I will concede that the corporate use of ‘sideloading’ is bypassing the official store, but if you look at the other examples you’ll see that it is not the only usage. I think it is important to frame installing software as just that.
Installing software from outside the play store should be called installing software. It’s installing software from the play store what should have a special name, like “gatedloading” for example.
Good news. It is!
Make it hap’n Cap’n. You’re still not invalidating the term of “sideloading”.
In what way is installing from the play store fundamentally different? Just because it was preloaded on your phone? What if F droid was preloaded on your phone instead? Is it still sideloading? Google’s logic breaks down pretty quickly when you think about it
Like "Jaywalking", suddenly, walking is no longer the norm, but the car is preferred. The victims are seen as perpetrators.
And "littering" is the "real" culprit why we all drawn in uneccesey plastic. We should blame consumers not the polluters.
Corporations do it all the time.
Yes, but littering used to be a legitimately big problem to. Like the hole in the ozone, now that it’s “solved”/ the norm for it to be getting better the focus should shift to other things.
For sure. That's why it worked so well. You take a valid problem and abuse it for your corporate gains.
FTFY, at least here in a certain country…
<img alt="" src="https://feddit.org/pictrs/image/727eb4b9-a0e3-4600-8111-65802928005a.gif">
why can google not just code something like this into android:
allow apps from:
( ) All sources (how it is now; allow each app to install apps from external sources)
( ) Just Google Play
( ) Apps which have been verified by Google Developer Program
Option 1 is a potential cause of "lost" revenue.
Late stage capitalism absolutely forbids anything that could cause that, even if the cost of implementation outweighs any potential gain.
Taking Google at their word for a moment, it’s far too easy to scam the clueless masses into selecting the first one. Might work okay if it’s strictly an ADB command, tho.
but they could make it be google play or samsung store only as the default as a compromise
.
That would just continue to ensure lock-in, and at least the EU would never go for that (& neither would I). Sideloading should still be allowed.
Google’s Play Store security has never been all that stellar, anyway.
And why should we do that?
I’m inclined to think that’s not the job of an OS vendor to prevent. Sure, put a warning label on it, but it’s the user’s device; once they say they know what they’re doing, that should be that.
The implication here is, if they implement this, is that they volunteer to assume liability, should e.g., your bank account be drained despite undergoing their forced strict lockdown on paid and owned devices.
Fat chance, because laws are meaningless to crime syndicates
It might be a reasonable trade for users to make if Google assumed liability. In fact, that would be an interesting way to implement laws to discourage practices like these.
If someone can be socially engineered into disabling security mechanisms, then that should just be their fate. There’s no sense in fucking everyone else in order to protect them.
Because they want to stop people from using ad blockers.
Because it’s Google
bing! thy turkey's done
That would give users choice, and corporations want as many people as possible to be incapable of making decisions for themselves.
I can see it already:
() Just Google Play (safe)
() Verified apps (not recommended)
Advanced settings
click on Advanced settings
() All sources (Unsafe. Will probably kill your cat and burn down your house)
tick the box
Are you sure?
click yes
ARE YOU SURE?
click yes again
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE?
wait for the 30 seconds timer to count down
click yes
( ) I do not love my cat and want him to die.
tick the box
( ) I accept the very real risk of my house burning down
tick the box
Please wait 24 hours for the change to apply. You can reverse it at any time from this menu.
get spammed every hour for the next 24 hours with notifications asking me to fix my security settings
get a bigass ⚠️ every time I turn on the phone
every once in a while the change just straight up reverses and I have to do it all over again
If Google wanted to add developer verification without being evil, it could use SSL certificates connected to domain names. I think the whole concept is ill-conceived, though I’ll admit to a modest bias against protecting people from themselves.
They couldn’t. Domains and SSL certificates can be obtained very easily anonymously and thus wouldn’t let Google identify the developers of malicious apps, which is the goal of this
The trouble is Google’s definition of malicious apps. Are adblockers malicious? How about alternative apps for YouTube? Based on the recent history, I don’t think you will be able to install those apps on the phone you purchased.
Yes, I agree. Google will use this to control the Android app ecosystem beyond the Play Store and I don’t like it either
You can sure as shit know that NewPipe and Smart Tube Next won’t be getting a licence. Fuck Google so fucking hard.
Yeah I mean some form of asymmetric encryption/validation would work but it stops the real reason why Google wants to implement this.
It provides a way to open an investigation into a malicious developer without giving Google the ability to ban anyone it doesn’t like.
The problem with that is that certificates expire before someone would want to keep using the app.
It need only check at install time.
Correction: SSL certificates can expire before someone would want to continue being able to install any given app.
These two are identical for software.
Sure, the developer needs to keep the certificate up to date and re-sign the APK on occasion.
So any APK I download will just expire at some point in time that’s probably really annoying to know, and then I have to dig through the internet again so I can install the app again?
If it’s anything like how Windows does it, you would still be able to override it. It just gives you a scary warning and hides the option unless you click “more info” or something.
Another option is to allow otherwise-valid signatures after expiration. It’s generally still possible to check them.
That completely nullifies the entire point of signature validations.
How? Expiration doesn’t grant an unauthorized party access to the private key.
There’s zero cryptographic reason to have a signed date at that point.
Which nullifies the point of certificates having an expiration date (limited window for exploiting a compromised certificate, possibility of domains changing hands), not the point of validating the signature (tie responsibility for apps to who owned a domain on a specific date, allow third parties to create blacklists of bad developers).
Code signing certificates work a little differently than SSL certificates. A timestamp is included in the signature so the certificate only needs to be valid at the time of signing. The executable will remain valid forever, even if the certificate later expires. (This is how it works on Windows)
Doesn’t work, the reason they can expire is to make certificate rotation possible. If an expired ssl certificate is cracked it doesn’t matter because no browser will accept the expired certificate, with your idea the expired certificate just signs an app with the date of 1984 and it works.
Certificates in SSL can’t change the date because that date is signed by a certificate higher in the hierarchy.
This isn’t “my idea”, this is how the industry already does code signing. You can’t sign something with a date of 1984 because your certificate has a start and end date, and is usually only valid for 1 year.
You can read more about how this works here: …digicert.com/…/rfc3161-compliant-time-stamp-auth…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping
Then you need a Trusted Third Party, right? Still requires some though on how to prevent that third party from blocking applications they don’t like but I can see how a group of trusted authorities could work.
The trusted 3rd party in this case is actually multiple 3rd parties. There’s several options for trusted timestamping just like there’s multiple trusted root CAs for SSL. Since the timestamping service is free and public, anyone can use it to sign anything, even self-signed certificates. There’s no mechanism to deny access, at least for this portion.
There’s always a risk the root CAs all collude and refuse to give out certificates to people they don’t like, but at least so far this hasn’t been a problem. I don’t have a better solution unfortunately. If we could have a 100% decentralized signing scheme that would be ideal, but I have no idea how you would build such a thing without identity verification and some inherit trust in the system
Call sideloading what it is, installing apps.
I know, I know. People don’t understand how they’ve already conceded the war with language.
Me: Like…Yeah, I’m just going to “jailbreak” the small computer I bought to… run a program.
The public unironically: Oh man, I hope you don’t get arrested.
Sideload refers to moving files between two devices, like P2P
Found the Rossman subrsciber. 📎
I’m not sure why google is over engineering this, proper mainline distros have this solved since forever. Let the community setup trusted repos with gpg keys, then let me trust the repos. If Fdroid trusts the package and I trust Fdroid, who should care?
Probably because they want to target software that cracks theirs to avoid ads, like ReVanced.
Ding ding ding ding ding. It’s so obvious, it’s because Google wants to be in control and block apps it would rather not exist. Newpipe, FreeTube, Revanced and the like.
Then why aren’t they already doing that by blocking DuckDuckGo?
The DuckDuckGo app blocks all apps from sending to Google (and other advertisers) tracking/ad data on a system level. And it’s freely available on the Play Store (has been for years.
play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.duckduc…
If they wanted to prevent apps from blocking their ad abilities, this app would never have been allowed on the Play Store.
Antitrust lawsuits and plausible deniability
Thank you random lemming, didn’t know about duckduckgo-s tracker blocking capabilities, have it installed now.
If they blocked it now, people would just sideload it.
Does it actually block ads in apps?
Blokada 5 blocks ads in apps and it was removed from the google store years ago. You have to sideload it in order to use it.
There’s a neutered version on the google store, but it doesn’t block ads effectively.
Google also removed an addon called Adnauseam, which clicked ads in additional to blocking them. That way, advertisers still have to pay site owners for your visit. Google removed it without justifiable reason, then kept it removed since there was no sufficient backlash.
It’s the main reason why I switched to Firefox. That kind of abuse is for useful idiots.
Because it was never actually about security to begin with. That’s obviously BS. Google just wants control.
I honestly think that this is just not going to happen. It’s already a giant pain in the ass to install apps from anywhere else than Play Store. With Shizuku it got much, much better.
Huh? Downloading an apk and clicking open with -> package installer is nothing but straightforward.
It nags me a lot, sometimes downright blocks me from installing without adb shit. Samsung.
What kind of apps are you installing? I’ve never ever had any issue with installing APKs on Samsung, you just have to allow the app that triggered it to install APKs one time and every subsequent time, it just works.
In some regions, afaik, you just CANNOT install certain apps without adb, this in my experience includes: KDEConnect, Fdroid, Newpipe…etc. The list changes time to time.
What region are you in if you don’t mind me asking? It works perfectly fine in Singapore.
This simply doesn’t work anymore for all apps on my Pixel 8.
Many I installed manually just redirect to the Play store with the message it could harm your device and you should download from Play.
Pixel 8a on graphene here so I’m not getting this. Maybe on stock
Pixel 8a on stock here. I have no idea what @Hawk is talking about. I just install any app, that I want. I might had to alter some settings, to do it, but I don’t remember doing that.
GrapheneOS patches this behavior if apps match their Google play signature IIRC. This is a behavior that apps on the play store can opt into (basically they block operation if they aren’t installed via Play).
It was rather annoying until recently, since some apps require you to be on a certified Android install to find them in the Play store, but don’t actually check play integrity in the app. These apps when installed via Aurora wouldn’t work for me until Graphene patched this.
You may want to re-evaluate how you’re installing non-Play apps. I use F-droid all the time and never had anything even approach “inconvenient.”
Like I said, Samsung does this crap in certain regions, specifically South Korea. I’m using Shizuku now and couldn’t be happier.
AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh, ok, say no more. Samsung used to be much easier to work around and they’re really joining the “lock it down!” club lately.
This is an obvious lie.
they want to improve thier AI and datamining capabilities.
What am I not seeing? How does this improve datamining capabilities?
Target can track your purchases when you shop at Target, but can’t really do that when you’re shopping at a local store. Same applies here.
But you can’t shop at Target with some random app, only the Target app. Even a small business has an accessible pathway to publish their app. Besides Fortnite and my gimbal nobody out here trying to educate customers on how to install their apk file.
They mean a physical Target store, not a phone app. Target can track customers walking in and out the door and what they buy, how long they stay, etc. but they can’t track anything about you if you just go to a different store, especially something like a small business which isn’t hooked into the ad data sponge.
Also if the CEO of target decides he really doesn’t like a popular shirt and is able to force everyone to only shop at target, then he can come a lot closer to snuffing out the existence of that shirt.
Some apps let you watch YouTube without being a YouTube app.
They never specified who’s security…
Whose*
Who’s = who + is
Whose = an indication of possession
I will always remember this grammar rule thanks to the show “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” because I would see that title every morning before school.
The question is still valid, even if the meaning changes.
Their revenue probably felt very threatened.
This is actually worse than integration in Play Protect which can be disabled very easily. Now you can only install unsigned apps via ADB which means just developers can do it.
And very annoying too since some government apps don’t like it when you have developer mode on.
Not only government. I can’t see my daughter’s insulin pump status if I don’t disable developer mode.
I believe I got a notification that it disables NFC payments when developer mode is enabled. Which I know not as many people use it in the U.S. but some do.
Shit, I’ve disabled developer mode and still can’t access my bank app
Or anyone with a computer who installs ADB. You don’t have to be a developer.
.
Nah you can’t realistically distribute your app with adb requirement. No one will bother to go through such friction.
Although you are correct, you still don’t have to be a developer to find use in ADB. I’ve used it and I’ve never been interested enough in developing for Android to do more than install the SDK for it once.
Knowing what an SDK is already puts you in the 1% most knowledgeable users
Leaving ADB open to unverified apps is more than I was expecting. ADB is reasonably straightforward to use even without actually being an Android developer.
There was never any way they’d integrate it to play protect and still allow play protect to be disabled. I prefer this to being required to use play protect personally, though the services do seem somewhat redundant. Presumably the whole point of doing this is to create an Apple style walled garden (which is of course very profitable). Google likely doesn’t want to fully lock it down and risk legal trouble, they just need to make it difficult enough that the masses don’t bother installing unapproved apps that may not act in Google’s interests.
I still hope the EU takes legal action against this anyway.
I don’t think this adds anything tbh as peoppe with adb would always be able to bypass this. The issue is that this kills distribution and thats exactly what Google wants - have full competitive control. Once they don’t like your app they’ll block your account and what do you do with your customer base? Give them adb install instructions? That’s basically a death sentence for any app.
Which means I can make an app for this “Sideloading” by shizuku…
I heard of shizuku before how does it work? Does it need root?
It uses adb
.
So a lot of speculation and we don't know much except 2 paragraphs in the FAQ... I'd like to mention though, they've recently stripped the Pixel devices of their status as developer devices and now push for their emulator for development. Once they follow that kind of logic, there isn't really a reason to keep ADB working as is, at least not on real devices.