I am in the camp that there is a benefit to the managed store. Since moving family members to iOS devices the number of times they have loaded malware or asked me for help installing ANYTHING dropped to zero.
Should techies be able to side load if they want? Sure, should that be a primary install method? No.
All bootloaders should be able to be unlocked and able to install the OS of your choice. Also you should be able to choose whatever app store you want. It is your hardware, you payed for it.
If manufacturers had their way, there wouldn’t be any phones for one side.
There’s nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don’t suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven’t blessed as one’s main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that’s about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google’s apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds. If that sounds like an attempt to use market power to exclude competitors in violation of fair trading laws in a multitude of jurisdictions, you might be on to something.
There’s nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don’t suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
Some manufacturers have stopped allowing unlocking their bootloaders, some bootloaders have been hacked by the community. It’s not like this is a static system.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven’t blessed as one’s main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that’s about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google’s apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds.
No, Google is also trying to stop hobbyists running custom builds from accessing services built on their software (the aforementioned SafetyNet). Hackers keep finding ways around this, but Google keeps trying to lock them out.
No, Google is also trying to stop hobbyists running custom builds from accessing services built on their software (the aforementioned SafetyNet). Hackers keep finding ways around this, but Google keeps trying to lock them out.
That’s a side effect. If Google really wanted to interfere with hobbyists, they would mandate hardware-based attestation and all the current workarounds would be broken. It would be much harder to create workarounds for that.
It appears phones as old as the Android 8 era can support this and phones that shipped with Android 13 or newer always do. I had the impression it had been universal a little longer.
All bootloaders should be able to be unlocked and able to install the OS of your choice. Also you should be able to choose whatever app store you want. It is your hardware, you payed for it.
App stores are just one part of the puzzle. Unless consumers actually have rights, manufacturers will keep trying to limit their options.
The reason I don’t use Android phones in China is because every company uses its own, separate version of what’s basically microG (notifications, location…) and update checking, and so my RAM is gone before I know it and everything’s super laggy. And on my grandma’s Android tablet these desktop-style notifications pop up overwhelmingly because of certain apps that bundle adware. This is what happens when sanctions took away a default option. Customization is no doubt something great for hobbyists and an option that should exist but there is a benefit to having a default monopoly (though, again, there should be an opt-out).
Sure, but Google is trying to take away that opt-out! So we’ll be left with a monopoly and nothing else. That’s strictly worse than not having a default monopoly.
I agree with you, but my point from the start here (which I should’ve said more clearly) was that this doesn’t mean Apple must open up in response (and by default), which would leave us with no good centralized, minimalistic option either.
Nope. No reason that you should pay $1000 for a device and not, at the very least, be able to install compatible software from other sources.
We wouldn’t accept this from Microsoft. Could you imagine if this was the norm for DOS or Windows?
Should side loading be discouraged and warned about? Yes. Should it be impossible? Maybe through “parental” controls or MDM, but absolutely not out-of-the-box.
This is a sane take, though I personally do generally tend towards understanding and even valuing the walled garden to some degree. But this is what I’ve always felt underneath it, you found the words.
There is a benefit. And you can continue using the first-party store if you want. There’s no benefit to not being able to use 3rd-party ones to anyone but Apple and their investors.
I can see benefits of such limitations for say a company-owned devices with cyber-security in mind. When we talk about open market of devices in an increasingly “digital” world I am against limitations with profit in mind. It’s like many things in life. When you want to do or use something you have to learn to use it, often by getting burned or otherwise making a mistake. You having to fix family devices has nothing to do with it. Anyway I have no stake in this, I would never buy an Apple device. Companies pushing for “infinite growth” with such policies will be left in the dust imo, but the billionares will just move on after milking everything dry.
I am in the camp that there is a benefit to the managed store. Since moving family members to iOS devices the number of times they have loaded malware or asked me for help installing ANYTHING dropped to zero.
Should techies be able to side load if they want? Sure, should that be a primary install method? No.
There’s a lot of very techy people who’ve never had to do family tech support on this platform.
Yes, the fact that Mum can’t accidentally install a shitty browser toolbar is a feature.
All bootloaders should be able to be unlocked and able to install the OS of your choice. Also you should be able to choose whatever app store you want. It is your hardware, you payed for it.
ICE has been notified, nice try, domestic terrorist
Good thing i’m Canadian then, lol.
If you want a customizable phone, yes. If you want a secured phone, no.
There are already existing products for both sides. No point in forcing them to do something else at this point.
Except Google is trying to limit this on Android phones as well (e.g. with SafetyNet).
If manufacturers had their way, there wouldn’t be any phones for one side.
There’s nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don’t suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven’t blessed as one’s main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that’s about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google’s apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds. If that sounds like an attempt to use market power to exclude competitors in violation of fair trading laws in a multitude of jurisdictions, you might be on to something.
Some manufacturers have stopped allowing unlocking their bootloaders, some bootloaders have been hacked by the community. It’s not like this is a static system.
No, Google is also trying to stop hobbyists running custom builds from accessing services built on their software (the aforementioned SafetyNet). Hackers keep finding ways around this, but Google keeps trying to lock them out.
That’s a side effect. If Google really wanted to interfere with hobbyists, they would mandate hardware-based attestation and all the current workarounds would be broken. It would be much harder to create workarounds for that.
And also all current phones would be broken, which they can’t do.
It appears phones as old as the Android 8 era can support this and phones that shipped with Android 13 or newer always do. I had the impression it had been universal a little longer.
I mean that’s something that’d happen regardless of whether you may install other App Stores on an iPhone easily, no?
GP wrote:
App stores are just one part of the puzzle. Unless consumers actually have rights, manufacturers will keep trying to limit their options.
The reason I don’t use Android phones in China is because every company uses its own, separate version of what’s basically microG (notifications, location…) and update checking, and so my RAM is gone before I know it and everything’s super laggy. And on my grandma’s Android tablet these desktop-style notifications pop up overwhelmingly because of certain apps that bundle adware. This is what happens when sanctions took away a default option. Customization is no doubt something great for hobbyists and an option that should exist but there is a benefit to having a default monopoly (though, again, there should be an opt-out).
Sure, but Google is trying to take away that opt-out! So we’ll be left with a monopoly and nothing else. That’s strictly worse than not having a default monopoly.
I agree with you, but my point from the start here (which I should’ve said more clearly) was that this doesn’t mean Apple must open up in response (and by default), which would leave us with no good centralized, minimalistic option either.
Apple’s software is malware
How so?
Nope. No reason that you should pay $1000 for a device and not, at the very least, be able to install compatible software from other sources.
We wouldn’t accept this from Microsoft. Could you imagine if this was the norm for DOS or Windows?
Should side loading be discouraged and warned about? Yes. Should it be impossible? Maybe through “parental” controls or MDM, but absolutely not out-of-the-box.
This is a sane take, though I personally do generally tend towards understanding and even valuing the walled garden to some degree. But this is what I’ve always felt underneath it, you found the words.
A walled garden without an exit is just a pretty prison.
There is a benefit. And you can continue using the first-party store if you want. There’s no benefit to not being able to use 3rd-party ones to anyone but Apple and their investors.
“I frequently interface with idiots, so I don’t feel it would be safe for you to have full control over the hardware you own.”
Monopolies and trusts are never beneficial to anyone save those who control them.
I can see benefits of such limitations for say a company-owned devices with cyber-security in mind. When we talk about open market of devices in an increasingly “digital” world I am against limitations with profit in mind. It’s like many things in life. When you want to do or use something you have to learn to use it, often by getting burned or otherwise making a mistake. You having to fix family devices has nothing to do with it. Anyway I have no stake in this, I would never buy an Apple device. Companies pushing for “infinite growth” with such policies will be left in the dust imo, but the billionares will just move on after milking everything dry.