It's sad that Tuta has fallen for Big Tech newspeak. Once upon a time, we installed stuff on our devices. Calling it side-something makes it seem frowned upon, which plays right into Google's hand.
Got any citations for that? The first time I personally ever encountered the term "sideload" was at a Microsoft developer demo for the upcoming Windows Phone around 2010, and another audience member raised his hand to ask what that term meant.
And also the phones people had in the early to mid 90's were analog bricks, with serious batteries. The smaller phones like nokias came 97 onward and were smaller.
That is untrue. It's called "installing" or just "running". Sideloading makes no sense if you describe normal installing that way. The side load is the app store.
Sideloading is a type of installing defined by the source of the file(s) being installed. Google will still allow installing from the Play store. The distinction is valid.
You can acknowledge that different concepts exist and would be better served by having different words, rather than trying to force others (via downvoting) into not using a given word. Whether you support google's restrictions or not, they only apply to a subset of apps, so having a word to refer to the specific subset of apps is helpful.
Regardless of your position on whether Android should care whether an app came from the play store downloaded elsewhere, it's worth distinguishing them for the purposes of discussing what's happening.
I think your example is stilted in exactly the direction that the anti-sideloading-as-a-term crowd fears is increasingly becoming normalized.
In fact, I think it's actually a perfect demonstration of how incredibly subtle and pernicious even small changes in the language we use can be, especially over a period of years to decades. Those changes are capable of reframing public perceptions in ways that inhibit our ability to recognize what would otherwise be obvious attacks on our expectations of rights and individual agency (were they couched in the existing terminology instead).
I would propose a modified counter-example to illustrate my point:
"Google is banning installation of apps they don't approve!"
vs
"Google is banning sideloading!"
This makes it clear what's actually happening: ownership of a Google device is no longer truly ownership. You are only allowed to install apps Google deems acceptable, and are denied the agency to install apps that are not. The device is fundamentally Google's to control; you're merely a user.
>In fact, I think it's actually a perfect demonstration of how incredibly subtle and pernicious even small changes in the language we use can be, especially over a period of years to decades. Those changes are capable of reframing public perceptions in ways that inhibit our ability to recognize what would otherwise be obvious attacks on our expectations of rights and individual agency (were they couched in the existing terminology instead).
>I would propose a modified counter-example to illustrate my point: ...
Which just turns into endless fight over wording, where each side tries to get the maximally sympathetic wording they can get away with, and decry the other side's attempts at rewording as "doublespeak" or whatever. eg. are they "illegal immigrants" (implying they did something illegal) or merely "undocumented" (implying they lost their documents or whatever)?
> Which just turns into endless fight over wording
Sure. One side benefits the users and the other benefits a monopoly. I don't work for that monopoly but I do use a smartphone that is locked to the monopolist OS.
> You can acknowledge that different concepts exist and would be better served by having different words, rather than trying to force others (via downvoting)
Bold of you to assume that downvoting was accompanied by words.
On that note, the gain of creating doublespeak is usually in the favor of those who create it. Added unnecessary complexity will only serve to create fear, uncertainty and doubt, while the original meaning and intent was well established with words.
We have existing words and works of art to establish a link to the intents, purposes and end goals to what Google has done here.
I am not sure about that. Windows, Linux based devices were like that but for a lot of things like gaming consoles etc. you were locked into the ecosystem and 'side loading" was indeed something.
I do understand developer mindset but I would be pretty unhappy if my mother's phone could just install stuff. A lot of people get harmed and lose their life's saving over wrongly installed crap.
A good middle ground for the Big Tech is to let folks pay $$, a money that is high enough and has sufficient friction.
That isn't even true about gaming consoles. They were completely open in the 90s and before. The consoles even lost lawsuits keeping it open. For newer consoles, a modchip doesn't side load, it enables normal loading without the drm check.
Bypassing/disabling drm would not be called sideloading.
If anything, the app store would be the sideload because they are loading the installer via a middleman instead of downloading the installer and running it yourself like normal.
I remember when sideloading referred to running `adb sideload` for installing applications from a remote host. The Android modding community has been scattered to the winds of time, it seems.
There's an `adb sideload` command for installing an app on your phone from your PC, with the file on your PC, it's like a remote install. For some reason some people also use the term to refer to installing stuff via apks in general, but if you download an apk from your phone's browser and then open it and install it, that is not sideloading AFAIK.
Nobody says "I'm downloading and installing an app from the official store for the platform". It's "installed an app" at best. And yes, Android phones had "an official" stores besides Play Market.
Eh, but you can just install apks now you don't need to say where it's from when you talk about it, or if I did I might say "install SillyOpenSourceApp" from Fdroid.
There is no such thing as an official store for anything. You can use any app store you want. But normal installing without an app store is called normal. The app store is the side show.
If an OS locks you to their brand's app store and blocks normal installation, that is not legal since its a monopoly action.
> There is no such thing as an official store for anything.
This goes beyond advocacy into straight up... well I won't yet call it lying but it's intentionally using words in a way that will mislead people using words the normal way.
That we should just call things installing, yeah I see where you're coming from. But in your other comment where you go so far as to conclude that "The side load is the app store"? That's just wrong.
US law should never have allowed it. That is without passing anything new.
The OS controlling the software that can run on it is absolutely illegal. So you don't get to call something an "official app store" when the notion is illegal. Regulators may not regulate, but we don't change how we describe things factually.
Just look at the poor security record of these "official" app stores. They are not official anything.
> The OS controlling the software that can run on it is absolutely illegal.
But that is a different thing from having an official app store. App stores and package managers are the same thing, and Linux distros with total freedom have official package managers and repositories.
Guess it's a good thing that Android can't install updates via Ethernet, but I only connect my phone via Ethernet. My next phone is going to be a Linux phone, though, I guess.
(warning dumb question incoming): since android apps are java, is it possible for a third contender to create a jvm for their platform and some hooks for android api’s and run anything that was made for them?
Yes. The main issue is hardware attestation, e.g. the bank's backend refusing to allow you to log in unless you can prove cryptographically that you are running a Google-certified device and operating system.
Doesnt look like it's still maintained, but it shows it is possible.
I completely forgot about waydroid due to Wayland not being ready for general use.
(Aside from accessibility stuff mentioned on hn numerous times, still doesn't allow keepass to type passwords last I checked. Admittedly, I check Wayland about as often as I check Hurd.)
Except there were websites requiring you to install ActiveX and proprietary plugins to do anything meaningful as soon as 1995? Also banks requiring proprietary security modules to access your account, they were pretty ubiquitous in the early 2000s where I lived.
The difference now is that accessing services through the internet is a necessity rather than a luxury. I guess passing laws could fix this, but it's exceptionally hard to get anything done through the barrage of big tech lobbying.
I almost never use dedicated apps. I am able to access all my bank and other financial accounts through their websites on mobile, no problem. (Vanadium browser on GrapheneOS)
I am going to either buy a CommodoreOS phone (Jolla) or a Linux phone (TBD) at this point for any such purchases;
I currently have old phones who do not have this restriction, but if Google Play did this, I'd already be ready with Aptoid and ready to disable Play Store if I need to.
EU regulations do not require that, that's bullshit. Otherwise Microsoft and Apple would do the same and completely restrict what one can install on their laptop (Microsoft tried to force people to go through their store on Windows Family versions though, I'm glad they failed).
Note that this mechanism IS ALREADY IN android phones, with currently play store services accepting side loading, but once that app upgrades (independent of even android upgrades) and so this is not like "your next phone restricts side loading", side loading will suddenly fail on your current phone.
I despise everything about google, from surveillance and user hostility to monopoloy and genocide enablement, but I can understand this change everytime I look at my grandparents app menus, for me, it feels patronizing to have to wait 24hrs to enable basic functionality, but I can understand where does this come from.
Anyways, it is a good thread to remind people that Motorola partnered with GrapheneOS and will release GrapheneOS compatible devices next year.
I still don't understand whether this affects me if I have Google Play Store disabled and Google Play Protect disabled, will still affect me if I have Google Play Services enabled or do I have to disable them, install what I want and then reenable them? Sounds like quite stupid workflow, though not too worrysome.
The only reason I chose Android was being able to install my own "native" apps without Google having a say. If that function is gone, I simply have no reason to use Android, I actually like IOS better in terms of UI, so I'll just move to Apple's ecosystem...
While using alternative OS on older Android devices.
You can still install your own apps and in my case your own operating system (graphene). The 24 hour wait to activate sideloads indefinitely seems like a non-issue to me.
How is this not mentioned in the article anywhere? I've seen similar articles and keep thinking: is this about the 24 delay or something else. It just leads to confusing messaging.
It's sad that Tuta has fallen for Big Tech newspeak. Once upon a time, we installed stuff on our devices. Calling it side-something makes it seem frowned upon, which plays right into Google's hand.
It's a blue-bubblification, something which tricks the mind.
It's not newspeak, we've been calling it sideloading since the 90s
Got any citations for that? The first time I personally ever encountered the term "sideload" was at a Microsoft developer demo for the upcoming Windows Phone around 2010, and another audience member raised his hand to ask what that term meant.
right but sideloading means installing outside the official channel. last i checked playstore was an option, not android official.
> sideloading means installing outside the official channel
On VMS ? Or plan9 ?
Not for apps and games on most phones.
I made these and we installed them as JARs or Whatever Symbian used.
No, we called it installing software.
And also the phones people had in the early to mid 90's were analog bricks, with serious batteries. The smaller phones like nokias came 97 onward and were smaller.
That is untrue. It's called "installing" or just "running". Sideloading makes no sense if you describe normal installing that way. The side load is the app store.
Lol, no.
Sideloading is a type of installing defined by the source of the file(s) being installed. Google will still allow installing from the Play store. The distinction is valid.
> Sideloading is a type of installing defined by the source of the file(s) being installed
Installing is the action of the owner of the device, to add functionality to that device by adding compiled executable code, regardless of the source.
You can acknowledge that different concepts exist and would be better served by having different words, rather than trying to force others (via downvoting) into not using a given word. Whether you support google's restrictions or not, they only apply to a subset of apps, so having a word to refer to the specific subset of apps is helpful.
Helpful to whom? Google banning installing apps outside of play store is the correct story.
Helpful for the purposes of discussion. Consider:
"Google is banning installing apps!"
vs
"Google is banning sideloading!"
Regardless of your position on whether Android should care whether an app came from the play store downloaded elsewhere, it's worth distinguishing them for the purposes of discussing what's happening.
I think your example is stilted in exactly the direction that the anti-sideloading-as-a-term crowd fears is increasingly becoming normalized.
In fact, I think it's actually a perfect demonstration of how incredibly subtle and pernicious even small changes in the language we use can be, especially over a period of years to decades. Those changes are capable of reframing public perceptions in ways that inhibit our ability to recognize what would otherwise be obvious attacks on our expectations of rights and individual agency (were they couched in the existing terminology instead).
I would propose a modified counter-example to illustrate my point:
"Google is banning installation of apps they don't approve!"
vs
"Google is banning sideloading!"
This makes it clear what's actually happening: ownership of a Google device is no longer truly ownership. You are only allowed to install apps Google deems acceptable, and are denied the agency to install apps that are not. The device is fundamentally Google's to control; you're merely a user.
>In fact, I think it's actually a perfect demonstration of how incredibly subtle and pernicious even small changes in the language we use can be, especially over a period of years to decades. Those changes are capable of reframing public perceptions in ways that inhibit our ability to recognize what would otherwise be obvious attacks on our expectations of rights and individual agency (were they couched in the existing terminology instead).
>I would propose a modified counter-example to illustrate my point: ...
Which just turns into endless fight over wording, where each side tries to get the maximally sympathetic wording they can get away with, and decry the other side's attempts at rewording as "doublespeak" or whatever. eg. are they "illegal immigrants" (implying they did something illegal) or merely "undocumented" (implying they lost their documents or whatever)?
> Which just turns into endless fight over wording
Sure. One side benefits the users and the other benefits a monopoly. I don't work for that monopoly but I do use a smartphone that is locked to the monopolist OS.
> You can acknowledge that different concepts exist and would be better served by having different words, rather than trying to force others (via downvoting)
Bold of you to assume that downvoting was accompanied by words.
On that note, the gain of creating doublespeak is usually in the favor of those who create it. Added unnecessary complexity will only serve to create fear, uncertainty and doubt, while the original meaning and intent was well established with words.
We have existing words and works of art to establish a link to the intents, purposes and end goals to what Google has done here.
> we installed stuff on our devices
I am not sure about that. Windows, Linux based devices were like that but for a lot of things like gaming consoles etc. you were locked into the ecosystem and 'side loading" was indeed something.
I do understand developer mindset but I would be pretty unhappy if my mother's phone could just install stuff. A lot of people get harmed and lose their life's saving over wrongly installed crap.
A good middle ground for the Big Tech is to let folks pay $$, a money that is high enough and has sufficient friction.
That isn't even true about gaming consoles. They were completely open in the 90s and before. The consoles even lost lawsuits keeping it open. For newer consoles, a modchip doesn't side load, it enables normal loading without the drm check.
Bypassing/disabling drm would not be called sideloading.
If anything, the app store would be the sideload because they are loading the installer via a middleman instead of downloading the installer and running it yourself like normal.
I remember when sideloading referred to running `adb sideload` for installing applications from a remote host. The Android modding community has been scattered to the winds of time, it seems.
We should stop calling it "side-loading" and start calling it "front-loading." App store primacy in the users' minds is a cancer.
Why is it called side-loading here? Isn't that just downloading?
There's an `adb sideload` command for installing an app on your phone from your PC, with the file on your PC, it's like a remote install. For some reason some people also use the term to refer to installing stuff via apks in general, but if you download an apk from your phone's browser and then open it and install it, that is not sideloading AFAIK.
It's installing, not just downloading.
Downloading and installing an app from a source other than the official store included with the OS.
Because that is a mouthful people named it "sideloading".
Just call it "installing".
I don't "sideload" spotify on my windows machine, i installed it.
Nobody says "I'm downloading and installing an app from the official store for the platform". It's "installed an app" at best. And yes, Android phones had "an official" stores besides Play Market.
Eh, but you can just install apks now you don't need to say where it's from when you talk about it, or if I did I might say "install SillyOpenSourceApp" from Fdroid.
"Direct app installation"
There is no such thing as an official store for anything. You can use any app store you want. But normal installing without an app store is called normal. The app store is the side show. If an OS locks you to their brand's app store and blocks normal installation, that is not legal since its a monopoly action.
> There is no such thing as an official store for anything.
This goes beyond advocacy into straight up... well I won't yet call it lying but it's intentionally using words in a way that will mislead people using words the normal way.
That we should just call things installing, yeah I see where you're coming from. But in your other comment where you go so far as to conclude that "The side load is the app store"? That's just wrong.
US law should never have allowed it. That is without passing anything new.
The OS controlling the software that can run on it is absolutely illegal. So you don't get to call something an "official app store" when the notion is illegal. Regulators may not regulate, but we don't change how we describe things factually.
Just look at the poor security record of these "official" app stores. They are not official anything.
> The OS controlling the software that can run on it is absolutely illegal.
But that is a different thing from having an official app store. App stores and package managers are the same thing, and Linux distros with total freedom have official package managers and repositories.
Guess it's a good thing that Android can't install updates via Ethernet, but I only connect my phone via Ethernet. My next phone is going to be a Linux phone, though, I guess.
I am not a fan of Apple or Google, but there is no other option that works with my everyday essential apps (e.g banking)?
(warning dumb question incoming): since android apps are java, is it possible for a third contender to create a jvm for their platform and some hooks for android api’s and run anything that was made for them?
Yes. The main issue is hardware attestation, e.g. the bank's backend refusing to allow you to log in unless you can prove cryptographically that you are running a Google-certified device and operating system.
Anbox let's you run android apps on Linux. I'd assume it could also work on Mobian or something similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anbox
Is Anbox still maintained? I remember using Anbox a long time ago, then I tried waydroid.
https://waydro.id/
Doesnt look like it's still maintained, but it shows it is possible.
I completely forgot about waydroid due to Wayland not being ready for general use.
(Aside from accessibility stuff mentioned on hn numerous times, still doesn't allow keepass to type passwords last I checked. Admittedly, I check Wayland about as often as I check Hurd.)
GraphenOS?
I miss when websites made it possible to do essential things in my daily life without requiring I install something on my device.
Except there were websites requiring you to install ActiveX and proprietary plugins to do anything meaningful as soon as 1995? Also banks requiring proprietary security modules to access your account, they were pretty ubiquitous in the early 2000s where I lived.
The difference now is that accessing services through the internet is a necessity rather than a luxury. I guess passing laws could fix this, but it's exceptionally hard to get anything done through the barrage of big tech lobbying.
Oh god I just had Microsoft Silverlight flashbacks
I almost never use dedicated apps. I am able to access all my bank and other financial accounts through their websites on mobile, no problem. (Vanadium browser on GrapheneOS)
I am going to either buy a CommodoreOS phone (Jolla) or a Linux phone (TBD) at this point for any such purchases;
I currently have old phones who do not have this restriction, but if Google Play did this, I'd already be ready with Aptoid and ready to disable Play Store if I need to.
https://keepandroidopen.org/
Petitions never do anything. Reverse engineering does.
Walled garden models I guess
Best part is the justification that eu regulations require this
EU regulations do not require that, that's bullshit. Otherwise Microsoft and Apple would do the same and completely restrict what one can install on their laptop (Microsoft tried to force people to go through their store on Windows Family versions though, I'm glad they failed).
Too late now. Anyone could see this coming since they added a whitelist for bluetooth obex in 2009. Nobody said anything.
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Blue...
Note that this mechanism IS ALREADY IN android phones, with currently play store services accepting side loading, but once that app upgrades (independent of even android upgrades) and so this is not like "your next phone restricts side loading", side loading will suddenly fail on your current phone.
I despise everything about google, from surveillance and user hostility to monopoloy and genocide enablement, but I can understand this change everytime I look at my grandparents app menus, for me, it feels patronizing to have to wait 24hrs to enable basic functionality, but I can understand where does this come from.
Anyways, it is a good thread to remind people that Motorola partnered with GrapheneOS and will release GrapheneOS compatible devices next year.
genocide enablement? i know that meta played a "determining role" in a genocide in Myanmar[0], but i wasn't aware of google doing similar things?
[0]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
Google is contracting with the US government in ways that advance the destruction of Palestine.
very interesting, im intrigued to learn more. citation?
I still don't understand whether this affects me if I have Google Play Store disabled and Google Play Protect disabled, will still affect me if I have Google Play Services enabled or do I have to disable them, install what I want and then reenable them? Sounds like quite stupid workflow, though not too worrysome.
The war has already been declared. It's just another battle.
The only reason I chose Android was being able to install my own "native" apps without Google having a say. If that function is gone, I simply have no reason to use Android, I actually like IOS better in terms of UI, so I'll just move to Apple's ecosystem...
While using alternative OS on older Android devices.
You can still install your own apps and in my case your own operating system (graphene). The 24 hour wait to activate sideloads indefinitely seems like a non-issue to me.
https://support.google.com/android/answer/17588095
How is this not mentioned in the article anywhere? I've seen similar articles and keep thinking: is this about the 24 delay or something else. It just leads to confusing messaging.
There was no issue before.
So what the point of changing stuff and hope it does not create any issues ?
Sundar Pichai is violating anti-trust law for fun and profit.