Q&A highlight
Posted2 months ago
Key Takeaways
From the post:
> Regardless, the term “sideload” was coined to insinuate that there is something dark and sinister about the process, as if the user were making an end-run around safeguards that are designed to keep you protected and secure. But if we reluctantly accept that “sideloading” is a term that has wriggled its way into common parlance, then we should at least use a consistent definition for it. Wikipedia’s summary definition is:
> the transfer of apps from web sources that are not vendor-approved
The opening two sentences of the linked-to Wikipedia page on sideloading:
> Sideloading is the process of transferring files between two local devices, in particular between a personal computer and a mobile device such as a mobile phone, smartphone, PDA, tablet, portable media player or e-reader.
> Sideloading typically refers to media file transfer to a mobile device via USB, Bluetooth, WiFi or by writing to a memory card for insertion into the mobile device, but also applies to the transfer of apps from web sources that are not vendor-approved.
The phrase after the "but" in the second sentence isn't the "summary definition". It's the part of the definition that best supports your argument. Cutting the Wikipedia definition down to that part is deceptive.
Also in the post:
> Regardless, the term “sideload” was coined to insinuate that there is something dark and sinister about the process, as if the user were making an end-run around safeguards that are designed to keep you protected and secure.
Immediately later in the same Wikipedia page is a paragraph that is literally about how the word was coined:
> The term "sideload" was coined in the late 1990s by online storage service i-drive as an alternative means of transferring and storing computer files virtually instead of physically. In 2000, i-drive applied for a trademark on the term. Rather than initiating a traditional file "download" from a website or FTP site to their computer, a user could perform a "sideload" and have the file transferred directly into their personal storage area on the service.
That's funny. The history of how the word was coined and the post's claim about how it was coined aren't similar at all. Weird.
But that isn’t the point people are angry about. The point is that sideload was a misnomer. Correctly Android users were able to install packages and now cannot. This is anti consumer and breaks the social contract.
Anyway this is so disingenuous that I think it’s astroturf. Here’s the meme we should’ve spreading: Chrome and Android should be broken off from Google. Apple should be forced to allow sideloading, at a minimum, same as any other computer. Phones and tablets should be valid targets for custom OS.
Not only has nothing happened yet, but this is also untrue.
That is not nice.
Wat?
Everything after the "but" is what Google means when they use the term sideload and is the only important part of the definition for f-droid's purposes. The other definition is completely irrelevant and, I would argue, hardly ever used anymore.
Per the original definition, how exactly am I "side loading" if I go to the epic games store and download and install their epic game store APK?
And the fact that `adb sideload` is where the concept originated does nothing to dispel the way the term is frequently used in a derogatory fashion these days. It's wielded as a bogey man to make people afraid of unsigned applications. Despite the fact that many perfectly signed applications are full of malware and dark patterns.
Also, FFS, this is hacker news. Why on Earth would be arguing in favor of Google locking down how I can install software on my device.
I appreciate the fairly high level of review that apps get and I completely back Apple's right to control what runs on the OS they developed. Similarly, if _you_ want to run an OS you got from XDA on your Android device and install random stuff, I'll be the last person to stop you.
Hacker news readers are part of the small circle of people who have probably developed a decent intuition for whether software we download is clean or not. Most folks I know do not have this intuition, and many will not bat an eyelash when their new app asks for access to their contacts, etc. Sideload should absolutely continue to be a term that discourages the average person from doing it.
Praytell, what right is this?
I completely support Apple's right to publish software that makes it difficult for unapproved software to run on it.
Similarly, I support your right to try running something else on it.
Just like my neighbor has the right to publish a browser that makes it difficult to run extensions in it, and I have the right to use a different browser.
Some people would like the phone OS to be regulated like a public utility. I do not support that, and if we _had_ to have it that way, it would be important to have the same standards for everyone and regulate _all_ phone OSes equally. I don't like the thought of what that would do to the chances of any "open" offering.
They didn't argue for that anywhere in their comment.
I think defining sideloading as "the transfer of apps from web sources that are not vendor-approved" is a good definition, because "not vendor-approved" is precisely the part I care about. The owner being able to install stuff without Google or anyone else's approval is a good and important capability for every computing device to have.
In any case, I fully agree with the substantive portions of this article. What Google is doing here is a terrible attack on consumer freedom.
I think users should be able to install whatever software they want, without any charge or other external permissions, but at the same time device and OS makers should be able to make it difficult to do so, within reason. Apparently scam apps are more common in some countries than others and is actually a problem in some countries, although I'm not sure.[1] Google did cite that as the reason for the change.[2] However, combined with the way Google has been locking down Android APIs more and more, (eg. the file system, but other APIs as well) it is concerning. At the same time those changes were also about security. I think every phone should be able to have full root permissions if you go through enough hoops without having to install another ROM. That seems to solve most of the issues here.
[0] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-...
[1] see eg. https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/07/google-starts-blocking-use... at the end of the article for some examples
[2] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...
There's also the problem of some banking apps refusing to work if developer tools are enabled.
Your email client from F-Droid has an RCE? Too bad - better hope you update manually!
I did own a Treo and loved it up to the OG iPhone - I repaired the eff out of it in the hope that something worthy would come along. I kidded myself I would write apps for it. I'd previously played with Simbian tech (and met a very bitter Simbian team dev in London one "eXtreme Tuesday Club" meetup in 2003). I had a Psion Organizer way back and Palm pilot. I thought Palm's WebOS stood a chance. I still own a Ubuntu Phone that I don't use - single script QML apps would have been the killer, but all that's passed now.
You mean Microsoft? No backwards-compatibility with Windows Mobile to begin with (so companies can't reuse their existing investment into line-of-business apps on actually nice modern devices either), then they reset the ecosystem 2 times (once during the WP7->WP8 transition, another time during the Windows 10 transition).
Microsoft UWP only Microsoft Store. Microsoft backtracked their walled garden Windows plans for a while as result of Windows Phone fiasco.
Yes, we are.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4229029/can-you-install-...
At least we got 10+ years of real sideloading on consumer devices thanks to WP7's death.
The UK petition link appears to be broken:
* https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
Feedback: Closed Consultation period 17 July 2025 - 24 October 2025 (midnight Brussels time)
What is needed is: Once I have purchased a device, the transaction is over. I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control.
Most of the time, software updates remove features, change things around for no good reason (breaking our workflows), or add unwanted features.
We really should separate pure bugfix updates (which include security updates) from feature updates. We nearly always want the former, but not necessarily the latter.
My computing devices are tools I use to do my job and run my life. I don't want those tools changing without my consent.
Except in cases like Debian (or Ubuntu LTS main collection, Redhat distribution...) which assumes the burden of backporting security fixes to a stable collection of software.
Android, in particular, is a finished product. It doesn't need yearly updates. It may need an occasional update to patch a vulnerability, but this whole "we changed the notification shade UI for tenth time because we're so out of ideas" thing has to stop.
> Unironically, I want finished software.
But I'd definitely love to not be shipped alpha or beta software. MVPs are great when hacking, but why are we shipping hacked together stuff. "It works" doesn't mean it actually works...
Back when it came on physical media, it was very much finished. Needing an update to fix a critical bug or a UX issue was a very costly problem to have, both in money and in reputation. Users had to be convinced to buy and install major updates, instead of being strong-armed into it. Staying on an older version was easier, and in case of operating systems, much more widely accepted.
Many video games fall into that category even today. Sure, the "we can always release an update" mentality did infest game developers as well, but, unlike apps and OSes, most games do have a finite scope and stop being developed once that scope has been realized.
> Back when it came on physical media, it was very much finished.
It's a great situation when a bug is discovered and it is hard to patch.
You're fantasizing about a time that never existed. Software isn't "ever finished" because we are not omniscient writers who can foresee all problems, fix all bugs, and write software that is unhackable. That's the mindset that "all tests pass" or "it works for me" means the software "works."
We can't address the problems, as discussed in the article and that I mentioned in my comment, if we're going to retcon history and redirect ourselves to a worse environment. That doesn't fix anything.
We'll never be omniscient, sorry. The world changes. Hardware changes. Software rots. Time marches on. These do not change and we have to operate in a world where we acknowledge these basic facts of reality. We'll never make decent software if we can't acknowledge reality first.
Did you live at a time where Internet was not a thing?
I remember very clearly buying software on physical media and never, ever "receiving" a single patch. I don't even know how that would have looked... "buy this floppy disk, it's a patch for a bug in the other floppy disk you bought recently"?
I remember being able to buy "the next version", though. But the expectation was that I was buying a "finished" version, not something unfinished that required me to buy all the next versions.
You must be relatively young. Software existed before the widespread adoption of the Internet.
> I remember very clearly buying software on physical media and never, ever "receiving" a single patch.
You had to take action to receive them. They weren’t automatic updates like they are today.
> I don't even know how that would have looked... "buy this floppy disk, it's a patch for a bug in the other floppy disk you bought recently"?
That’s exactly what it looked like. That’s still the process today for some systems —- avionics updates for Boeing 747s are provided on 3.5” floppies.
Did you read my comment at all? :-)
> You had to take action to receive them. They weren’t automatic updates like they are today.
Are you saying I was doing it wrong?
> updates for Boeing 747s
Oh I get it. Maybe we just weren't playing with the same toys :D
> Did you read my comment at all? :-)
Everything @mechanicalpulse said was accurate.
To answer @grishka's question (because it seems you also don't know)
> What did that look like?
>>> Back when software came on physical media we still had patches.
We had patches that came through the internet AND WE HAD PATCHES THAT CAME THROUGH PHYSICAL MEDIA.
THE ***LATTER*** MAKING IT ***HARDER TO PATCH.***
If you are going to accuse someone of not reading your comment you damn well better be reading the comments you're responding to.
> Oh I get it. Maybe we just weren't playing with the same toys
But again, I already addressed that in my original comment, so I'm not going to repeat myself again...
What did that look like? Remember, back then, developers and users often had no after-sale communications at all. It was a technical impossibility more than anything. There was paper mail. There were telephone networks. That's about it.
I suppose you could occasionally call the developers of every software product you're using to ask if there is an update. I doubt anyone ever did that.
They often had no pre-sale communications either, indeed no communication of any kind. It was just like buying a spatula or a pair of shoes. You went to a retail outlet and bought the software; the developer wasn't involved in the transaction at all. It was just the consumer and the retailer.
Sometimes there was a postcard you could send to "register" your purchase with the developer, and they'd send you mail about new versions or the like, but many people never registered.
We can come close to that in all other areas of engineering, but somehow not software? We can build buildings and bridges and be certain that they won't collapse. We can engineer machines that work reliably and safely. But for some reason we can't do the same for software? I call bullshit.
> Hardware changes.
And operating systems do need to be updated for that sometimes, sure. They would even sometimes need to expose new APIs to apps, so the apps could make use of new hardware capabilities. However, there isn't much reason to update an OS on existing hardware. Especially when all that update does is bring a new stupider UI design that no one asked for.
> Software rots.
What the heck do you even mean by that? Software is a sequence of CPU instructions. It can't "rot". It's the runtime environments that rot for no good reason.
> We can come close to that in all other areas of engineering, but somehow not software?
Look, March of *THIS YEAR* (2025) SpaceX had a rocket *EXPLODE*[0].
Rapid unscheduled disassembly[1] does not indicate we can "foresee all problems and fix all bugs". In fact, it indicates the *exact opposite*.
There is absolutely no field where we've become omniscient. To think we are is just laughable! But if you want to know why physical engineering tends to be more robust, you might want to take an engineering class. You'll find that the way they do things is... a bit different... There's a lot more verification and testing.
>> Software rots.
> What the heck do you even mean by that?
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj92wgeyvzzo
[1] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10022/who-coined-t...
It's a Starship. It's still in development. It's not a finished product like Falcon. And it's not an unexpected outcome either — after all, SpaceX is doing something that no one has done before, so there does not exist any prior knowledge about the behavior of rockets this huge, and especially reusable. They aren't failing, they are making this knowledge so they could build a rocket that does not explode.
But then again, comparing rockets to software is unfair. Rockets have a finite scope. They go up to safely put things or people into space. In case of SpaceX, they also preferably come back down in one piece to be reused. The more specific requirements only change as a response to new discoveries in the development and testing process — not because some manager has nothing to do, or infinite exponential growth needs to be shown, or investors are demanding AI to be shoehorned into every product, or some designer is desperate for promotion.
> no changes were made, but now the program doesn't work
Some changes for sure were made, because otherwise that would violate the core principle of computer science that the same algorithm executed with the same inputs will always yield the same exact result.
> But then again, comparing rockets to software is unfair. Rockets have a finite scope.
I promise you, your years of expertise in software makes you an expert in software, distinguishing you significantly from other experts. But I also promise you that this is true for any profession. Being an expert in physics doesn't make one automatically an expert in software. But the same is true in the other direction. You need to get your ego checked if you think differently.
Obviously saying "Apple shouldn't be allowed to touch my device after I purchase it" as well as "Apple should be compelled to provide security updates" is nuts.
But I think saying, "Apple shouldn't be allowed to touch my device after I purchase it" as well as "I should be able to provide my own security updates, if Apple doesn't want to" is totally reasonable.
But Apple would never allow that. So allowing sideloading seems like a reasonable amount of pain Apple should be forced to put up with...
wild that you seem to think this is a gotcha question. yes, all the software I want on my devices, and only software I want on my devices
The bare minimum so that I can use the device I bought as I wish, even if the manufacturer later decides to "alter the deal".
Security Updates - They should be considered as in warranty servicing of faulty software.
Software Updates - These are turning out to be a scam in some ways. The decision to regularly introduce new APIs and forcefully obsolete old APIs/features is theirs. Consumers don't have to pay for it with the control. The cost of it should be baked into the initial purchase cost. A new feature that restricts access is an anti-feature.
You should be able to set auto update, auto update with confirmation, manual update only, for any or all apps.
What someone does with that, and why, isnt something anyone should have to explain or excuse.
It could be as simple as not wanting any new features beyond but what an original version of an app has. Or not wanting an update that takes user data surveillance to another level.
Um, yes? Constant push-updates are one of the worst tech trends of the last 10-20 years.
> Thanks to DMCA 1201, the creator of an app and a person who wants to use that app on a device that they own cannot transact without Apple's approval. [...] a penalty of a five year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine for a first criminal offense, even if those tools are used to allow rightsholders to share works with their audiences.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/human-rights-and-tpms-...
_____________
In some ways, I think this is even more important than attempting to bar companies from putting in the anti-consumer digital locks in the first place: It's easier to morally justify, easier to legally formulate, and more likely to politically pass. The average person won't be totally stuck lobbing the government to enforce anti-lock rules for them, consumers can act independently to develop lockpicks.
Plus it removes the corporations' ability to bully people using your tax-dollars and government lawyers.
But what's the point of defining these standards now? Is the world where this is the reality still feasible? It seems nearly impossible, unless you're an extremely wealthy and influential individual. What I'm seeing is that we never will move to a world where a device that you bought is truly "yours" anymore. Instead, we'll be renting one of the approved devices, ran by one of the tech megacorporations and overseen by your government. They will give no real way to execute any random code that you want, unless you're also licensed and vetted as a developer. They will be tightly surveilled, all information will be saved, every interaction between these devices will be controlled for the sake of security. It will be an entire web of trust, defined by the powers that be. We're seeing early attempts at it now, but we still haven't hit full centralization. But once we do, what happens then?
So to answer your question: Ubuntu will let you access the next web, and Android probably won't.
If you're talking about developing some brand new means of worldwide communications, this seems extremely improbable if done by the 1% of the rest of us (basically, hobbyists and techy people). The internet required tens of billions of dollars worth of development and infrastructure to get to this point, how will it ever happen without the sponsorship of large centralized entities?
If you're talking about leeching off the existing internet infrastructure to communicate with some brand new protocols over them, who's going to let you do that? Both companies and governments would have incentive to put a stop to this in any way possible, because it drives away customers from the manufacturers and signers of all "secure" devices and lessens the amount/value of surveilled data. It may be allowed at a small scale, but I'm not seeing how anything long-term could be established that could threaten the existing powers in any way.
There was a time when "pamphlets" were an edgy new social medium, now its just a certain kind of ad. Same thing happened with radio. And now it has happened to the web also.
Why should this be the last time?
As for threatening the existing powers... I don't see what power they have if all they're guarding is a pile of stuff that nobody wants anymore.
It may be a bit inconvenient, but if you really need a device with radios that you can run arbitrary code on, you can get one for something like $4 and you can use your existing phone to drive it over something generic like http (There are plenty of people on meshtastic doing this).
I don't have the answers re: next steps but I know that its far more difficult to prevent people from communicating in novel ways than it is to come up with novel ways to communicate. I figure we've been playing this cat and mouse game with authority for millennia: they always win eventually and we always find a new way to make that victory irrelevant.
We lost. OK. What's left to do but invent the next battleground? We're hackers, its what we do.
It feels like the last time because the pace of world-changing innovations is slowing. Printing and radio are simple from a physics point of view, the internet was built at the basis of what was known technology at the time (computers in general). To me it seems that we're butting against the limits of simple stuff, and that the pace of rapid monumental innovations has slowed drastically. A new, revolutionary type of communications probably isn't impossible, but it would likely require inventing a whole new kind of communicating between people, or a new type of computing (I'm assuming you're taking the 'new kind of tech' choice from my previous comment - just reforming the internet on its infrastructure probably won't work). And neither of those seem like things that we're remotely close to. It may take decades if not more.
> As for threatening the existing powers... I don't see what power they have if all they're guarding is a pile of stuff that nobody wants anymore.
It's not about what you want, it's about what you need. Do you ever access your government's services? Do banking, pay people with anything but cash, or invest into anything? Hold a job or are looking for one? Learn remotely? If you need to do any of those things, you will be obligated to use the future internet. That's where the power is. Uprooting all this will be difficult if not impossible, barring some catastrophic internet-wide event.
Fixing that problem might turn out to be cheaper for competitors by making their platforms more open and avoiding the full responsibility as a vendor.
Basically, combine current and future legislation about electronic waste, cybersecurity of IoT and connected devices, and the carve-outs for free software and open source platforms, and suddenly it becomes much cheaper to ship a product that will run for 20 years (say a washing machine) if you as a vendor can guarantee some of this for the warranty period (1-5 years), and open up the platform to consumers and shift the responsibility at that point. Also imagine the case of a vendor going under which needs to be covered too (this would make subscriptions infeasible too).
If legislation demands this (imagine no insecure devices for 20 years), markets will do the rest.
But isn't this also exactly how the pitch will sound for what I proposed? You know, "The internet is too important and random people are allowed to upload and run random dangerous code within it with no oversight, this has to be stopped." The manufacturers will never bear the consequences of their choices, the consumers will. There might be a push to make the internet watertight by requiring all major websites and services to only allow access to "secure" devices and block all other traffic. After all, why spend money on cybersecurity when everyone can only use the (important parts of the) internet with their real names, and developers are de-anonymized?
Will this actually improve security? It seems very unlikely. But despite it, this move seems like exactly the kind of thing that's coming, because it massively benefits both companies and governments.
At the moment, laws are disjoint even in EU, and not strict about what happens when you stop fixing security bugs.
the problem is transaction not done once you own the device, you must use the ecosystem
Google and Apple create this ecosystem and they own it, so even if you have 100% control of your device but you cant live without their ecosystem
OS is just "half the battle", if its so easy Microsoft would not let windows mobile died
but Open Ecosystem/Platform
which is likely never happen tbh, since the amount of resources that required is a lot and would need monetization which would end up like at position like this
You mean, GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone?
not yet to diminish them who is build these Amazing tools/devices but I need to see it yet in real life
hell even if you want to buy them, they literally often stock out in certain areas
and we not counting technical expertise to operate the devices
if there are alternative that magically better than Google/Apple ecosystem. people would instantly switch
You don't need told people to switch, just need to prove it
Are they, though? I don’t think I’m the most demanding user [1], but a $2000 phone with 4 & 128 GB, a 720×1440 TFT, and no NFC? I guess I don't want my freedom that much. (Although USB 3.0 w/ DP is a very nice addition.) That’s not to mention the general bulkiness and the fact that, afaiu, the software doesn't support either Bluetooth or GPS — which are the most important functions my phone provides.
P.S.: writing this whine, I've realised Purism is not far off from the point where I'd make a happy switch — if they offered something smaller [2, 3] with an OLED display of at least 300 PPI [4], I’d buy it asap.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44590665
[2]: 5–5.5 inches diagonal and up to 10 mm thick.
[3]: I understand why the current models are so bulky, but personally I don't really care for modularity and hardware switches. I'd gladly trade those for optimised dimensions and weight of the device — compare how often I have to repair the device vs. how often I do handle it.
[4]: My current iPhone 12 mini is almost 500 PPI, and it's gorgeous, but I admit that's probably overkill.
It's called "installing apps".
If i send a golang binary to someone with a mac via signal or other mediums, apple simply displays a dialog that the app is damaged and can't be run.
You need to use chmod to manually remove the quarantine flag to run it.
That for me is something that should be fined ad infinitum, because it is clearly designed to disallow non technical people to run custom apps.
On your point about security, this kind of aggressivity from the platform owner tend to backfire.
The user was already convinced to open that mail, download that file, and try to run it. Pushing the process to the terminal just means your clueless users now run the provided incantations in the shell instead, and the attack vector now becomes huge (the initial program doesn't even need to be malware)
That wouldn't be perfect, but at least the user could be prompted for a concrete action instead of a vague "this script is scary" warning.
Has this changed? I thought it failed to launch, but if you go to Privacy & Security in Settings it would give you the option to allow it to run?
Though yes, macOS doesn't prompt you to do that, you have to know where to find it.
I think it is mostly about expectations, macOS trained people that it is relatively safe to install signed apps. If your app is unsigned, Gatekeeper will refuse to run it.
but macOS lets you override any system determination, iOS does not, and Google is proposing the iOS flavor.
Because it's obscenely profitable for the platform holder to have complete control over app distribution.
Can we stop pretending it's about anything else than that? Just imagine if Microsoft got a 30% commission on every PC software purchase in the world...
But I don't think they're going to do that, ultimately users who actually care about this are an absolute tiny percentage of the market.
And weirdos like us can always just import a Chinese phone that doesn't have mandatory Google verification crap.
I don't feel like giving Google a large amount of my personal information just so I can distribute free games. Why do they need a copy of my lease ?
We would miss out a lot of creative people making software.
What I am saying is:
There is still a few points of course like being able to modify the base system. Just being able to say, kill the built in facebook is a quality of life improvement.
But it just feels like the benefits of a self owned phone os are going away even when you have it, because everything else changes around it and out from under it, so you don't get the functional benefit from it any more even when you have it.
You give up the use of things like tap to pay (would have been nice a couple times when I forgot my wallet) and drm content, hell, I can't use the stupid LG app that controls an air conditioner, and (increasingly) don't get something else important in return.
Today, there is still some benefit, because this latest change is only just now happening. I can use say, open source password manager and totp apps instead of google authenticator, and can use a pandora client that Pandora absolutely does not approve of, because the author doesn't need anyone's approval to produce the app and there is no choke point that Pandora can petition to block it. Hell why am I even talking about Pandora instead of Youtube and Newpipe? In what universe does Google EVER ratify the developer of Newpipe? (Wait, for that matter, what developer? what if there's an ever-changing fuzzy cloud of 20?) Or full-fat ublock origin...or countless other things whos sole purpose and value is to thwart some will of Googles? Or like the game emulator apps that Nintendo shuts down so aggressively, etc. Those ICE tracking or merely documenting apps. Countless...
Will those various authors still bother putting in the time and effort it takes to make these apps so good when only about 18 people will be able to use them?
I imported a Sony phone to the US because they don't sell it here, and no one else sells a current flagship with a headphone jack and removable sd card and high end cameras.
I successfully found and imported the phone, and got it working on a US carrier. Yay me. It's even rootable! Yay me. Yet I still can't run Lineage on it, because there is probably not a dozen other people like me to be an audience for Lineage on this hardware, and it's too much work to do for no audience.
The fact that today most phones are unrootable means that even if you somehow get around that, you still don't get the benefit because you're such a small audience that no one is producing say LineageOS for example for you.
My individual success bucking the system still did not result in me getting what I want.
No, we can't. One of the first countries with that mandatory Google verification is Brazil, and we can't import phones which are not certified by ANATEL, they will be rejected by customs in transit.
Do you know if the Brazilian gov or regulators asked for this first from Google or something?
^: It's less spooky than it sounds, any phone in Chile needs to be compatible with the natural disaster alert system.
If you are asking why the change is happening in Brazil first, the banks cartel met with google and decided to rely on that, for security.
Obviously they'll eventually remove this because Google is hostile to things like ReVanced / some spook wants this power.
I'm definitely not 100% sure about that though, so someone please correct me if not.
- The pairing process is kinda awkward, you need to split screen Termux and the Wireless debugging submenu, if you change windows the pairing IP and code are changed.
- The pair survives a reboot and WiFi change. You can disable the 7day revocation, so the pairing process is a one time thing.
- After a pair you still need to connect (adb connect localhost:port) and the port changes after a WiFi change or disconnect. I searched for solutions and apparently it's simple as running nmap twice¹
- It obviously doesn't work without a WiFi connection (unless is there some dark magic to connect your phone to its own hotspot).
So a wrapper seems viable if you are ok only installing apps on trusted networks.
[0]: I'm on GrapheneOS but I believe the dev menu is the same.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/tasker/comments/1dqm8tq/project_sim...
thank you for the testing and details!
EDIT: Even more googling, the whole setup already exists in Obtainium (i.e. F-Droid but with Github Releases) apparently so apps show up as being installed via Play Store and subsequently be usable in Android Auto⁵.
So hypothetically you can install stuff day one on a stock phone after this atrocity is turned on.
[2]: https://shizuku.rikka.app/
[3]: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aefyr.sai.fdroid/
[4]: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/io.github.samolego.canta/
* Search for "Smartphone-1 to Smartphone-2" "adb tcpip 5555" in "Motorola moto g play 2024 smartphone, Termux, termux-usb, usbredirect, QEMU running under Termux, and Alpine Linux: Disks with Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) Partition Table (GPT) partitioning": https://old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1j2g5gz/motorola_mot... (old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1j2g5gz/motorola_moto_g_play_2024_smartphone_termux/)
* Search for "termux-adb" in "Motorola moto g play 2024 Smartphone, Android 14 Operating System, Termux, And cryptsetup: Linux Unified Key Setup (LUKS) Encryption/Decryption And The ext4 Filesystem Without Using root Access, Without Using proot-distro, And Without Using QEMU": https://old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1jkl0f8/motorola_mot... (old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1jkl0f8/motorola_moto_g_play_2024_smartphone_android_14/)
You have the right to install whatever you want on your computer, regardless of whether that computer is on your desk or in your pocket. That's a hill I'll die on. I'm dismayed to see that this sentiment is not more widespread in this of all communities.
That is not a fact, that is your opinion. Lots of people say "sideload" without trying to convey such negative meanings. For better or for worse, the term has entered the common lexicon and I very rarely see it used with negative connotations attached to it.
Sure, but they effectively do even if they're not trying to. It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said: deviant.
What specific acts are referring to? Is it just their recent plans to restrict sideloading? This feels circular. "Google is evil because they're trying to restrict sideloading. They're also extra evil because trying to demonize sideloading. How? By restricting sideloading!"
>It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said: deviant.
Yes, but only insofar as if you're not taking the primary route, you're taking the "side" route. Or you're "deviating" from the intended route. None of that actually implies you're a "deviant" for doing so, any more than a driver taking side streets to shave 30s is a "deviant".
I also recall a time in the nascent era of web file hosts, like Rapidshare.de and Mega upload, and some others that came and went so quick that I don't even remember their names, some services offered the option to "sideload" (as opposed to download) straight to their file server.
469 more comments available on Hacker News
Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.