I made these and we installed them as JARs or Whatever Symbian used.
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.
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.
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.
Because that is a mouthful people named it "sideloading".
I don't "sideload" spotify on my windows machine, i installed it.
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 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://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Blue...
Anyways, it is a good thread to remind people that Motorola partnered with GrapheneOS and will release GrapheneOS compatible devices next year.
[0]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
While using alternative OS on older Android devices.
So what the point of changing stuff and hope it does not create any issues ?
I don't remember calling it side loading when I had some of those earlier mp3 players but my experience wasn't universal.
On VMS ? Or plan9 ?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
>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)?
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.