  > and "installing" doesn't work because that doesn't distinguish from installing from the Play Store

I'm not choosing sides, but why do you need a term to distinguish from installing from the Play Store? On my Debian machine I install git from apt (officially supported) but also install Anki from a tarball I downloaded from a website. Same term `install`.

▲ otabdeveloper4 9 days ago | parent | next [-]

> why do you need a term to distinguish from installing from the Play Store?

Because the Play Store is a proprietary ecosystem that's being often used as a political tool.

If Google starts to ban alternative stores then Android will fragment and much of the world will move to Chinese alternative OS's.

▲ kragen 9 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just "sideloading".

▲

Imustaskforhelp 9 days ago | parent | next [-]

This comment is funny because you have defined these words to be as such

You have defined installing to be specifically from play store and sideloading as everything except it.

Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just sideloading works in this sentence because of what you have already defined but you are using this sentence in defense of that....

As OP stated, installing can mean on debian as an example, installing from both apt or either tarballs. Both are valid installations

So it is the same for google/android as well yet google is trying to actively prevent one part of the installing or make it really extremely hard to do so.

It is a dangerous precedent. And I would say that it severely limits what you mean by installing.

I got an PC, and I got internet connection, usually it isn't trying to prevent what I install if I am on linux.

Yet I am on android and earlier it used to do the same but now its a slippery slope where it either requires me to use adb or keep another device at me at all times if I ever want to install software on it.

Not because its not that these phones can't do it, In fact that they already do but they are removing it, simply because they can.

▲

kragen 9 days ago | parent [-]

No, that is not the definition I was using. "Sideloading" is a subset of installing, not disjoint from it. If Google were to prevent installing, it would prevent sideloading, but it would also prevent installing from the Play Store, which clearly they don't want.

It's a very dangerous precedent, but one that's difficult to discuss without having a name for the kind of installing that Google is trying to prevent.

▲

necovek 9 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is why this specific definition is problematic: both "sideloading" and "install from Play store" are subsets of "installing".

If one limited the ability to "install from Play store", while keeping the ability to "sideload", would you say it's fair to say "installing is restricted"?

	▲	kragen 9 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, just as if one limited the ability to "sideload", one would be restricting installing.

▲

catlifeonmars 9 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Install from play store” vs the unspecific “install”, obviously.

▲

kragen 9 days ago | parent [-]

Neither of those is a name for the kind of installing that Google is trying to prevent.

	▲	catlifeonmars 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		Google is actively trying to make installing (not from the play store) harder. Motivation not withstanding I don’t think this is a controversial take.

▲

Imustaskforhelp 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I feel like although sideloading could be correct term maybe but at the same time as the author stated, people might refer something shady to something which is a genuinely normal part, maybe even more safer when you download from f-droid compared to play-store

I feel like you are having this discussion in good faith which is really nice but I just feel like saying that google is oppressing other open source appstores or just using the word installing and later clarifying can make the people feel about how dangerous it really is.

Let me be really clear. If Google can prevent sideloading and the only feasable way for 99% users is their play store which uses their policy terms which can be ever changing, chances are, that they can also prevent people from downloading your app, and can remove your app etc. as well so they can very definitely prevent installing in general as well

The only escape hatch is maybe adb but please, for the 99% of use cases, I doubt how many people would operate a computer open up the terminal and try to use adb or other scenarios, but in all ways, I think that speaking of it as an installing itself isn't so bad after all.

If Google can genuinely go ahead and do this, it would definitely prevent installation of certain app in and in of itself because play store is also controlled by google and they can also remove/prevent apps installs from there too.

I would still recommend to you / the community to say it as an installation as earlier I was also used to saying sideloading but it was only while writing this comment when I realized of how google can actually prevent installation from play store as well since they own it, its an effective lock/restriction in installation itself for all purposes.

Have a nice day.

	▲	kragen 9 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ultimately the only escape hatch is to build hardware that isn't dependent on Google, then stop being dependent on Android, which is what Huawei has done. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45721022 goes into more detail.

▲

realusername 9 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If anything, it's the playstore which is a side channel and the website of the software producer the main one.

	▲	kragen 9 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's a good point.

▲

benlivengood 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I hereby name the thing that Google wants to allow "supplicating an app(lication)". Installing puts software on a device. Supplicating asks Google for an app, and maybe it gets installed.

▲ Ajedi32 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know, why do we need a term to distinguish brown from dark orange? The term emerged organically because the built-in app store is the most common way to install apps on mobile phones (and the only way on iOS), but on Android you can also install apps from other sources without needing Google's permission so people came up with a catchy name for that.

It's convenient because now we can say "Google is killing sideloading" as a very succinct way to describe what's happening when we're arguing against it. "Blocking users from installing apps not approved by Google" works equally well but is a bit more wordy. I personally prefer the latter because I think it's a little more precise, but trying to imply people have to phrase things that way or they're part of some conspiracy does nothing but alienate your supporters and distract from the real issue.