You can also install through the Play store. Sideloading is more specific.
Let's just call it alternate install.
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.)
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.
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.
This implies the play store isn't hosting tonnes of malware right now
It gets tricky with alternative stores like F-Droid. I guess if you use F-Droid as a trusted source then it shouldn't be called sideloading.
it's google's monopolized install that needs to be called by a long name
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.
Installing an APK directly through your phone is in fact NOT sideloading.
google has control on their android ecosystem behave, same reason why its not allowed in playstation or xbox or ios
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.
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.
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.
we can debate whether this is bad thing or good thing, it would have no ends
what matters is reality, the reality is google have the right to change it.
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.
the asnwer is not anymore
sideload is illegal
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
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
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.
I know, I know everything can be a "PC" if you look close enough but hear me
people can create their own ecosystem of walled garden whenever they want
game console has been doing it for 20+ years and they are fine, apple has doing it for 10+ years and they are fine
Google wants doing it???? they are fine to do that. if you have problem then you are hypocrite
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.
that is what AOSP are, android remain "free"
the ecosystem around android??? remain google rights and rightfully so since google fund and develop most of it
same like apple does, microsoft does, nintendo does. nothing wrong againts that
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.
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.