Yeah, if Google kills ReVanced, I may as well get an iPhone. What's the difference at this point. You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones.
However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.
The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
It's not side loading. It is just installing and running. I swear all this 'for your benefit' crap is going to relegate all of our computing hardware to the status of dumb terminal before long.
Note how the term 'side loading' is already weighted against you doing it, it is supposed to make you feel you're doing something that is borderline illegal even if it is still possible and that you are bypassing safeguards that would stop you from doing this stupid thing if you only took the proper route.
With phones becoming our main computing platform, I wonder why do we look at it any different from our personal computers?
On my computer, I can choose to containerize applications I run with something like docker, flatpak or snaps; run them in a VM, under a separate user, in a chroot... or, not! I can get them from the Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/... archive or... not! Or I might compile it from source and run it directly or... not!
Based on source of the app I decide how much I trust it and thus decide on the encapsulation strategy for it (sometimes, none).
Yes, I understand having full control of your system has some minor downsides (you can mess things up more easily), but you can usually do that anyway (just fill up your phone storage with photos and see how your phone behaves).
Not that Google needs any more cash, but ReVanced has to be the absolute worst defense for maintaining openness on Android. As in, you could have cited the thousands of legitimate apps that have nothing to do with circumventing a pretty reasonable subscription (compared to other media subscriptions out there) for Google's own app.
Why is it weird? You install software on your computer. You install software from your app repository. You install software with your package manager. You install software on your server. You install software on the computers you administrate. "Sideload" was always the weird, Orwellian term.
(editted to add repository and package manager points)
Same here, being able to enjoy YouTube without ads is the only thing really blocking me from switching to ios. Silver lining is, maybe if using YouTube is made painful again it'll help me cure my last remaining internet addiction.
> You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones.
Can you not do this on Samsung phones? I was considering buying a used s22 ultra as an iPhone user to explore more freedom and pirate apps, etc. Is andoid really this locked down now? I have heard that quite a bit, but can't you sideload or install any apps you want on Android? Why do you need to unlock the bootloader?
>The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
Disagree entirely. Google Play refused to download some app on my phone because it thought the specs weren't good enough for whatever reason even though it worked fine on my previous weaker phone.
I found the APK, I downloaded it, and just installed it. Why would I want to first download some other middle-man to deal with any of this shit? Ideally there would be no "store" at all on my phone.
> However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.
Wait, let me take out my word 97 CDs to read the "sideloading instructions" booklet. Oh wait, what was considered a normal install Same on mobile phone in symbian era. It's not "sideloading", it's a "normal install".
Android phones still have a huge price advantage on iphone: the least expensive iphone is 800€, the least expensive Google pixel is 550€ (which is much higher that 2 years ago), and the least expensive Samsung is 300€.
The government isn't going to save us, they love it and are in bed with these corporations; the more control, the better. Locked down computing, no anonymity online, the threat of losing banking/credit accounts, and authorities showing up to arrest you if you challenge the current dogma too strongly. We're so cooked.
Our politicians are bought and owned, and it's hard to expect anything else after Citizens United. If we want a government to serve and protect us we must ensure that our politicians actually represent us.
We are not cooked. You only need to recognize that covid policies were theater and enabled them to rapidly advance in this direction and that the typical cultural left/right bullshit is a distraction.
If people stop the bullshit it's not that hard to effectively oppose
I think it's time for us to go back to having mobile phones (texting, virtual credit cards, tethered wifi hotspots etc). separate from mobile storage and compute (mp3 players, cameras etc.).
The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.
The ratio between nerds and "normal" consumers is pretty high, and being a nerd does not automatically mean you care about having a "mobile unix workstation" (what unix-worthy work can you actually do on a phone?), and even if you have one it doesn't mean you'll actually find a use for it. It's safe to say that the market is irrelevant, and, unlike things like woodworking, boutique manyfacturers can't really exist in this space
1. Presents a mobile hotspot, and
2. Supports CardDAV so I can actually sync my contacts
3. Records calls
There were none the last time I tried, about three years ago. And that even ignores the issue of trying to dial a number from a link on a web page or in a document.
I never left. Well, my flip phones have had cameras in them, but. On the other hand, "virtual credit card"? What?? And what good is proper "mobile storage and compute" if I don't at least have a laptop-sized screen and a proper physical input device?
Especially since the mobile phone part legally can never be owned or controlled by the human person. Only corporations can own and use the baseband computer/modem because only they have bought the spectrum license rights and built out the infrastructure to justify it to the FCC. Similar situations exist in other countries.
This legal reality is showing itself more and more in the practicalities of actual using "smartphones". The only real solution is what op said, make the modem completely separate from the computing device.
Or, and hear me out this is going to sound crazy: we finally stop pretending that we're using phones. When was the last time anyone actually used their "mobile phone" for actual real phone calls to a phone number that wasn't "phone support because the company involved is so ancient or dark patterned that they only offer phone support"? Or voluntarily initiated sending a text message, rather than using email or messenger software?
So how about we just stop making "mobile phones" and just sell what they are: pocket computers. And that name immediately tells legislators what's appropriate hardware control, namely: none. If you buy a pocket computer, you can now do with that computer whatever you want, and the company that makes the hardware has no say over that, and the company that makes the OS has no legal basis for locking you out of anything. And if those are the same company, then the EU can finally go "how about no, you get to break up or you will never sell anything in our market again".
I'm kind of surprised by this. Google is already under a lot of heat, especially in Europe. All sorts of lawsuits everywhere because of they monopoly abuse. And they decide to pull this move?
Maybe it's time for the legal requirement that every computing device or microchip more powerful than 1 MIPS and having writable storage, must support reprogramming, to prevent creating digital waste.
This doesn't stop with handheld computers. If Google will be able to get away with it on phones (which is FAR from guaranteed atm), they will do it on Chromebooks. Microsoft will do it on Windows. Apple will do it on Macs. Then the hardware manufacturers will only allow "trusted" developers via TPM.
Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.
The community could work around this problem by creating an open source general purpose app runtime for Android.
A user would install the runtime, signed by a developer who shared their government ID with Google, and then use the runtime to launch whatever app they want. It's probably infeasible to launch an APK from another APK, so the runtime could be based on WASIX+WebView or something.
We could call it "General Computation". Google could start a cat and mouse game of banning developers who sign the app, but at least this "war on general computation" would be obvious and ironic.
The smartphone is not a mere commodity but a part of an entire social system of production between banks, telcos, software houses. Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China and their HarmonyOS, which happily enough is banned in the US.
Or any sufficiently hard-boiled alternative from the inside. IMO things like custom ROMs lack sufficient vertical organization and that is why they're not so relevant (but at that point, you're basically constructing something much like a corporation once again, if not an entire society stemming out of it).
What I want is a law requiring support for facilitating owners of programmable computers be able to install their own programs independently. If it's not gate-keeped, there's nothing to do. But if you choose to gatekeep because "security", you've signed up for some work to comply with the law.
If there's something like a Play Store with OS-level integration preventing unsigned applications from installing and running, FINE, that's an arguably useful security feature for regular users who have no interest in writing their own apps or consuming software outside the Play Store.
This doesn't preclude allowing the user (with admin rights) adding signing keys of their choosing.
If I want to trust Lennart Poettering's or Jonathan Blow's binaries to install/run on my computer/phone, let me install their public keys, a one-time addition gated by admin rights.
If you're not enabling me to potentially put bits of my choosing on my computer, its software better be in ROMs getting physically swapped out for "updates".
He says one thing that isn't true. He blames Apple for standardizing the concept of not being able to install applications on your "computer" (phone).
This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse!
Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.
I'm a little bit unclear about this, will Google's changes here also affect other android distributions like LineageOS, OxygenOS, etc? If not, then I could see that Google locking down their Android Distributions like this could breath a lot of life into some alternative distribution(s). If yes, then perhaps forks of Android or even competitors to android altogether.
So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always.
However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware.
The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software.
So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it.
Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer.
So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.
It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers and which require the same consumer protections. Just because you are carrying it around all the time doesn't make it any less a computer.
Both Apple and Google should just bite the fucking bullet and let people install whatever they want.
Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway.
This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately?
The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too.
I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.
So I paid $1000 for a Pixel 9 Pro 1TB, then Syncthing wasn't able to keep maintaining their android app because of Google, and now Google wants to block me from using F-Droid. Google, you've fucked me in the ass for the last goddamn time, I'm completely de-Googling over this. I refuse to subsidize the surveillance state any longer. Fucking fascists.
[+] [-] blfr|6 months ago|reply
However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.
The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
[+] [-] jacquesm|6 months ago|reply
Note how the term 'side loading' is already weighted against you doing it, it is supposed to make you feel you're doing something that is borderline illegal even if it is still possible and that you are bypassing safeguards that would stop you from doing this stupid thing if you only took the proper route.
[+] [-] necovek|6 months ago|reply
On my computer, I can choose to containerize applications I run with something like docker, flatpak or snaps; run them in a VM, under a separate user, in a chroot... or, not! I can get them from the Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/... archive or... not! Or I might compile it from source and run it directly or... not!
Based on source of the app I decide how much I trust it and thus decide on the encapsulation strategy for it (sometimes, none).
Yes, I understand having full control of your system has some minor downsides (you can mess things up more easily), but you can usually do that anyway (just fill up your phone storage with photos and see how your phone behaves).
[+] [-] blehn|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] pharrington|6 months ago|reply
(editted to add repository and package manager points)
[+] [-] fluidcruft|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] thrance|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] gdulli|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] wand3r|6 months ago|reply
Can you not do this on Samsung phones? I was considering buying a used s22 ultra as an iPhone user to explore more freedom and pirate apps, etc. Is andoid really this locked down now? I have heard that quite a bit, but can't you sideload or install any apps you want on Android? Why do you need to unlock the bootloader?
[+] [-] wolfi1|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] MiddleEndian|6 months ago|reply
Disagree entirely. Google Play refused to download some app on my phone because it thought the specs weren't good enough for whatever reason even though it worked fine on my previous weaker phone.
I found the APK, I downloaded it, and just installed it. Why would I want to first download some other middle-man to deal with any of this shit? Ideally there would be no "store" at all on my phone.
Editing to add this from the front page of HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45082595 (F-Droid site certificate expired)
[+] [-] ajsnigrutin|6 months ago|reply
Wait, let me take out my word 97 CDs to read the "sideloading instructions" booklet. Oh wait, what was considered a normal install Same on mobile phone in symbian era. It's not "sideloading", it's a "normal install".
[+] [-] EchoReflection|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] poulpy123|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] nosioptar|6 months ago|reply
Dont get me wrong, im not accusing Pixels of being "quality". In my experience, they're not quite as good as a free phone from a MetroPCS store.
[+] [-] 93po|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] akarki15|6 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] quantummagic|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] solid_fuel|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tetris11|6 months ago|reply
Now? I feel like I'm sitting on gold by keeping these cheap dumb devices around.
[+] [-] isaacremuant|6 months ago|reply
If people stop the bullshit it's not that hard to effectively oppose
[+] [-] cyanydeez|6 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fidotron|6 months ago|reply
The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.
[+] [-] Almondsetat|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dotancohen|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway106382|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bapak|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zahlman|6 months ago|reply
I never left. Well, my flip phones have had cameras in them, but. On the other hand, "virtual credit card"? What?? And what good is proper "mobile storage and compute" if I don't at least have a laptop-sized screen and a proper physical input device?
[+] [-] butz|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] superkuh|6 months ago|reply
This legal reality is showing itself more and more in the practicalities of actual using "smartphones". The only real solution is what op said, make the modem completely separate from the computing device.
[+] [-] TheRealPomax|6 months ago|reply
So how about we just stop making "mobile phones" and just sell what they are: pocket computers. And that name immediately tells legislators what's appropriate hardware control, namely: none. If you buy a pocket computer, you can now do with that computer whatever you want, and the company that makes the hardware has no say over that, and the company that makes the OS has no legal basis for locking you out of anything. And if those are the same company, then the EU can finally go "how about no, you get to break up or you will never sell anything in our market again".
[+] [-] rafram|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tananaev|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bobajeff|6 months ago|reply
1. Termination of WIPO Copyright Treaty (prerequisite for #2)
2. Repeal of DMCA. (primarily because of Section 1201)
3. Enact and enforce, Right to ownership, Right to repair laws.
4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies.
[+] [-] codedokode|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] pharrington|6 months ago|reply
Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.
[+] [-] p1mrx|6 months ago|reply
A user would install the runtime, signed by a developer who shared their government ID with Google, and then use the runtime to launch whatever app they want. It's probably infeasible to launch an APK from another APK, so the runtime could be based on WASIX+WebView or something.
We could call it "General Computation". Google could start a cat and mouse game of banning developers who sign the app, but at least this "war on general computation" would be obvious and ironic.
[+] [-] aeblyve|6 months ago|reply
Or any sufficiently hard-boiled alternative from the inside. IMO things like custom ROMs lack sufficient vertical organization and that is why they're not so relevant (but at that point, you're basically constructing something much like a corporation once again, if not an entire society stemming out of it).
[+] [-] pengaru|6 months ago|reply
If there's something like a Play Store with OS-level integration preventing unsigned applications from installing and running, FINE, that's an arguably useful security feature for regular users who have no interest in writing their own apps or consuming software outside the Play Store.
This doesn't preclude allowing the user (with admin rights) adding signing keys of their choosing.
If I want to trust Lennart Poettering's or Jonathan Blow's binaries to install/run on my computer/phone, let me install their public keys, a one-time addition gated by admin rights.
If you're not enabling me to potentially put bits of my choosing on my computer, its software better be in ROMs getting physically swapped out for "updates".
[+] [-] latchkey|6 months ago|reply
This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse!
Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.
[+] [-] joshlemer|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] whywhywhywhy|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] freefaler|6 months ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always.
However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware.
The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software.
So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it.
Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer.
So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.
[+] [-] kamranjon|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] loloquwowndueo|6 months ago|reply
You could install a free os on the phone instead and own the whole thing.
[+] [-] pkphilip|6 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Fire-Dragon-DoL|6 months ago|reply
I can still put metal in my microwave and set my home on fire, but I cannot sideload apps.
[+] [-] ayaros|6 months ago|reply
Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway.
This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately?
The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too.
I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.
[+] [-] hungmung|6 months ago|reply