It's bypassing the usual channel for app installations, so the term is technically fitting and the loaded meaning is also appropriate since it's mostly used by nerds (maybe too strong a word) and bad actors.
There are legitimate uses of sideloading for regular users, for example if you have solar panels that work with a Huawei app, they can't put it on the Play store because of US sanctions. But that's not Google's fault, and that does mean the app is more risky since it's not monitored by Google.
(I'm not saying sideloading is otherwise illegitimate, it's an important feature but it's not something I'd normally recommend to a non-technical user that already chose to use a phone with Google's system.)
> that does mean the app is more risky since it's not monitored by Google.
Why is Google the arbitrator of risk here ?
As a user I'm capable of assessing the risk directly or indirectly by delegating that responsibility to another store or another program a.k.a anti-virus programs, its my choice in the end.
I want Google to build software like Windows Defender and allow others to build similar software. I want the ability to chose my security provider or not have one. I don't want Google to play nanny.
Because they do the monitoring and take some responsibility? I'm just comparing "install from the Play store" with "install some apk from wherever". If you bring additional context/knowledge of course it makes a difference.
Risk and responsibility are different. Monitoring, responsibility, those are just silly words with semantic games since Google's store is full of malware while F-Droid is not. Google's store is the risky one, and the words on their compliance statements are irrelevant to that fact.
I don't feel like I'm the one playing semantic games here, I'm just arguing that the term "sideloading" is a useful distinction vs "installing through the main channel" (whatever that is: could be the Play store, or F-Droid, or Huawei App Gallery).
Google's store has malware, but the point is there would be even more if Google was not monitoring the apps there. The store is less risky than getting apks from the wild web, TikTok, etc.
Sure F-Droid is safer (as you would expect from a curated store of a few thousand open source apps compared to a store with literally millions of apps). But I wouldn't call that sideloading either when it's your regular channel to get apps.
Just because its the channel that google would prefer you use doesn't mean its "the usual channel". What counts as "usual" is user specific. I don't even have google play installed on my Android phone.
Sure, but if we want to chip away at that majority, we need to encourage them to think of using the play store as a choice they have. Implicitly assuming that "install" means "install from the play store" is counterproductive.
I'm curious what's your actual opinion in absence of hard data. If your grandma tells you a website gives her instructions for sideloading Candy Crush, you'd say yeah fine or advise her to go through the Play store?
Exactly. Let's invent a word for "installing from play store". Playstoring?
So we can rewrite the story to something like: Google wants to prohibit app installation on Android phones. The only way to get an app would be through playstoring.
I can install on my Fedora laptop through dnf. I've never felt like I needed a new word to describe downloading and running an AppImage. Why would phones be different?
`adb sideload` existed as a command for installing an apk from your PC on to your phone. Sideloading was not meant to refer to installing an apk on the phone from the phone.
That actually sounds like a good idea, the situation is similar with an official channel of "trusted" software for which the distributor takes some responsibility, versus whatever file you downloaded yourself. It's certainly more risky on a Debian system to install a .deb from some random website, or an AppImage, compared to a .deb from the official repositories. I guess it's the same for Fedora.
The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want.
The point of the above comment is that Google intentionally introduced the word "sideload" to make "installing an app on your own device which Google did not curate" sound more risky and sinister than it is, and I'm inclined to agree.
I "make" coffee on my keurig. If Keurig decides that making any single-serve coffe pods that aren't owned by the Keurig brand is now called "off-brewing," I'd dismiss it as ridiculous and continue calling it "making coffee."
We should use the language that makes sense, not the language that happens be good PR for google.
>The whole selling point of Android up until now was that it allowed you to install any app you want.
Could've fooled me. Maybe it was a thing a decade ago when android just launched, but none of the marketing pages for vaguely recent phones has that as a selling point. At best it's a meme that android proponents repeat on hn or reddit.
We're not talking about phones, we're talking about an operating system. If those companies could port IOS to their phone, they probably would. Since the OS will be mostly the same across devices, it makes sense to market a phone based on hardware differences -- like having a higher quality camera.
I've never met or talked to an android user that truly believes android is better technology or a better user experience. They all use it because of flexibility.
You've changed the subject. We were discussing whether one ought to use Google's term for it, or the term that's been used to describe this action since (I assume) the beginning of personal computing. Not whether Google is legally allowed to make the change.
My reason for bringing up the "selling point" was to bring attention to the language -- "You can install any app you want" has always been the common refrain when I see friends get into a debate about IOS vs Android. People are already using the term because it makes the most sense.
Calling something a right is an assertion about morality; it implies that a law to the contrary would be a violation of that right.
I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition.
"I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition."
but its not illegal and wrong tho???? if this is probihited then xbox,playstation,nintendo,ios etc would be fined already
unironically android is still more "open" than all of its competitor even after all of this
It might be illegal in the EU under the DMA. As I understand it, litigation involving Apple's equivalent is in progress, and the outcome may not be known for years.
Wrong in this context is an assertion about morality. I do think it's wrong in the context of consumer products for a vendor to attempt to override the wishes of the owner of the product outside of a few narrow exceptions. I would absolutely apply that to iOS, and I think the DMA didn't go far enough; Apple should have no ability to enforce notarization or charge fees to app developers if the device owner chooses otherwise.
I feel less strongly about game consoles because they're not as important as smartphones; they don't touch most aspects of life in modern society, and there are viable alternatives for their primary function, such as gaming on PCs. I don't like their business model and I don't own one.
all of big tech doing it for 20+ years and suddenly google isnt allowed to do "industry standard", like what we talking about here????
I know its bad for pro-sumer which is minority but consumer would get more protection which is majority so I dismiss HN audience because they are biases vs normal people
They all should be? I've never understood why gamers just accept constant blatant anti-competitive practices, going so far as to act as if "exclusives" via DRM are a good thing rather than monopolistic product tying. e.g. it's been demonstrated that a Steam Deck is technically capable of running Switch games better than a Switch, and yet you are forced to buy a Switch in order to buy the games.
It's no longer 30 years ago when hardware was unique and quirky and programs were written in assembly specifically for the hardware. It's all the same commodity parts along with what is supposed to be illegal business practices. In a reasonable world, something like Ryujinx would be just as front-and-center as Proton as part of Valve's product features, and courts would fine companies for trying to stop their software from working on other platforms.
Antitrust law exists exactly to prevent companies from making their own ecosystem/walled garden that competitors cannot sell into. Product tying (forcing you to buy product B in order to buy product A) falls under that umbrella. Game console are not magical in this regard.
Lots of us have a problem with all of those things, and would like the government to enforce the law. I've never bought an Apple product, and the last game console I owned was a PS2 when I was a child.
I don't see how that's related (e.g. Android is FOSS but can use attestation for monopolization), but I do think we ought to make the law require products that contain software come with source as a consumer protection measure.
I do not get this use of the word "reality"? The reality is Ted Bundy's currently-at-large successor has the ability to shoot me with a gun. And that fact is about as relevant as what you said.
What you're doing here is resigning from a game just because of the fact there is a game, and then being condescending to other people for trying to win the game instead, as if what you're doing is something superior. This would already be very odd behaviour if this were only Monopoly or Risk, but is downright dangerous propaganda when the game is capitalism and the future of free computing is at stake.
I'm not too familiar with macOS... How normal/expected is it now to install through the App Store? As mentioned in another comment, for a Linux distribution like Debian there are highly trusted official repositories, and I think using "sideloading" for other sources would make some sense.
On macos I assume most apps are installed outside of the Store, straight from the developper's site. Which would make the Store a "sideloading" channel by that token ?
On Linux you have the default package sources, but for instance adding third party sources will still integrate the same with the system, I also never heard someone call installing Go or Java "side loading", though you're getting an installer from the site you need to run on your own. Same way for building from source.
IMHO "sideloading" would not apply to any system open enough, where adding stuff from multiple sources is expected from the start.
> Which would make the Store a "sideloading" channel by that token ?
I don't think so, it's still an official channel offered by the OS maker.
> adding third party sources will still integrate the same with the system
but obviously with a higher risk of breakage since it was not tested while the official release was cooking (at least for Debian the official set of packages in stable is expected to have virtually no conflict issues, but as soon as you add third-party sources all bets are off).
> I also never heard someone call installing Go or Java "side loading"
neither have I, but I can imagine that in some contexts it could be a useful term. Like "did you sideload Go?" (implicitly asking if you got the third-party release vs installing from the official distribution repository). I'm not saying people say that, but that the term might also make sense in the Linux world.
> IMHO "sideloading" would not apply to any system open enough, where adding stuff from multiple sources is expected from the start.
Yeah if there's no sense of "main" channels that are more trusted or more stable the term doesn't make sense.
