* * *

Yes, I think quibbling over the origin of the term and attempts to coin an alternative are a useless distraction. The term emerged organically for good reasons, and doesn't have any negative connotations as far as I'm concerned. Trying to talk about "direct loading" instead is confusing and doesn't even make sense because alternative app stores like F-Droid don't count as "direct loading" under their own definition.

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.

▲

secstate 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

While I wont argue about it feeling like a conspiracy theory, I will argue that pretty much no one knows sideloading as a term with regards to what i-drive meant by it.

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.

▲

SquareWheel 9 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Why on Earth would be arguing in favor of Google locking down how I can install software on my device.

They didn't argue for that anywhere in their comment.

▲

sojsurf 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I bought an iphone knowing that Apple has a review process and that I'm limited to apps sold in their store. Similarly, when I had an Android device I knew what I was getting in to.

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.

▲

Y_Y 9 days ago | parent [-]

> I completely back Apple's right to control what runs on the OS they developed.

Praytell, what right is this?

	▲	sojsurf 9 days ago \| parent [-]
		hah, thanks. It's a bit more nuanced than that. Let me try again. 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.