In fact we should not even call it "sideloading", as if we are sneaking anything in "from the side". It is simply installing something I like on a device that I own.
My device can warn me about security consequences and let me be the one who decides what to do (with my device).
"Android sideloading should be the same: download an APK, verify the signature, install."
Download source code from mirror, verify signature, compile, install
If the target OS is under the control of a giant surveillance and online advertising services company, then what is the probability of the company allowing mobile hardware buyers to control their hardware using software of their own choosing. Is it non-zero
The entire debate around "Android" already concedes that mobile hardware requires an OS controlled by a giant surveillance and online advertising services company
There is additional irony in that the people who started the giant surveillance and online advertising services company in the 1990s relied on OS projects^1 that allowed users to download source code, compile it, install it and run it, all for free, without restriction aside from "copyleft" provisions. The company's "search engine" ran on open, permissively-licensed software
In other words, they did not need permission from a corporation that controlled the software
The other company whose name behins with "A" that provides a corporate-controlled mobile OS also relied on source code that they could download, compile, install, run and distribute for free, without restriction (aside from attribution provisions)^2 in order to create a mobile OS in the 2000s
1. Linux
2. FreeBSD, NetBSD
Also, the surveillance and ad services company used NetBSD libc when creating Android
I have literally never thought about it like this, but I think you are right. In my mind mobile phones were always separate from other devices, kinda like consoles.
Google has been clear that installing apps through sideloading and from other app stores will continue to work as long as the developer went through the verification process to get their app signed.
Yes, the entire point is that requiring Google's permission to sideload anything is very bad.
The linked post by F-droid additionally points out that even that very bad case is not certain. We shouldn't trust that Google will even allow sideloading at all based on their words on their own blog.
Media has a responsibility to report that there is no evidence that Google will even allow anyone to sideload at this point.
App stores may reduce many of my freedoms, but they also provide me with some other freedoms by limiting the power of big tech companies over me, and the tradeoffs are different for my phone compared to a PC. For example Apple uses their big stick to ensure that apps can't simply refuse to work if you enable privacy setting that limit them. If Facebook refuses to work until you give it full access to your photos and exact location even when the app isn't running the realistic outcome will be that everyone will just give them what they want rather than not using the service. I remember years ago on Android that Google Maps would refuse to work if I didn't allow it to access my location when it wasn't running, and I never want to go back to that world.
> For example Apple uses their big stick to ensure that apps can't simply refuse to work if you enable privacy setting that limit them. If Facebook refuses to work until you give it full access to your photos and exact location even when the app isn't running the realistic outcome will be that everyone will just give them what they want rather than not using the service
Apple also stops you from installing third-party apps for the service that circumvent those and other limitations. In an open system you can intercept the app's requests and feed it fake responses, spoof your photo album, GPS, whatever. They can try to detect spoofing, but at the cost of making their services flaky for normal users. This is a cat-and-mouse game that the mice (that's you) win. Except you can't play it on an iPhone, because it breaks the service's (probably illegal) Terms of Service, and Apple will use their Big Stick to ensure nobody can commit acts that risk their partners' business models.
linuxhansl|9 days ago
In fact we should not even call it "sideloading", as if we are sneaking anything in "from the side". It is simply installing something I like on a device that I own.
My device can warn me about security consequences and let me be the one who decides what to do (with my device).
1vuio0pswjnm7|9 days ago
Download source code from mirror, verify signature, compile, install
If the target OS is under the control of a giant surveillance and online advertising services company, then what is the probability of the company allowing mobile hardware buyers to control their hardware using software of their own choosing. Is it non-zero
The entire debate around "Android" already concedes that mobile hardware requires an OS controlled by a giant surveillance and online advertising services company
1vuio0pswjnm7|9 days ago
In other words, they did not need permission from a corporation that controlled the software
The other company whose name behins with "A" that provides a corporate-controlled mobile OS also relied on source code that they could download, compile, install, run and distribute for free, without restriction (aside from attribution provisions)^2 in order to create a mobile OS in the 2000s
1. Linux
2. FreeBSD, NetBSD
Also, the surveillance and ad services company used NetBSD libc when creating Android
limagnolia|9 days ago
Hrun0|9 days ago
trekz|9 days ago
fsflover|9 days ago
tschumacher|9 days ago
Source: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...
miggol|9 days ago
The linked post by F-droid additionally points out that even that very bad case is not certain. We shouldn't trust that Google will even allow sideloading at all based on their words on their own blog.
Media has a responsibility to report that there is no evidence that Google will even allow anyone to sideload at this point.
curt15|8 days ago
paulddraper|8 days ago
ThrowawayTestr|9 days ago
TexanFeller|9 days ago
idle_zealot|9 days ago
Apple also stops you from installing third-party apps for the service that circumvent those and other limitations. In an open system you can intercept the app's requests and feed it fake responses, spoof your photo album, GPS, whatever. They can try to detect spoofing, but at the cost of making their services flaky for normal users. This is a cat-and-mouse game that the mice (that's you) win. Except you can't play it on an iPhone, because it breaks the service's (probably illegal) Terms of Service, and Apple will use their Big Stick to ensure nobody can commit acts that risk their partners' business models.
realusername|9 days ago
unknown|9 days ago
[deleted]
ece|9 days ago