> Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary reason I decided to go with Android

You still can do that with PWAs in Android. Let's see for how long.

You can still install apps outside the play store, but the developer does need to verify their signing information. Effectively this means that any app you install must have a paper trail to the originating developer, even if its not on the app store. On one hand, I can see the need for this to track down virus creators, but on the other, it provides Google transparency and control over side loaded app. It IS a concerning move, but currently this is far from 'killing' non-appstore apps for most of the market.

Same, I'm tempted to call android just a shittier iPhone now

And in the EU you can install apps outside of the AppStore on your iPhone!

Then you'd be rewarding the company that pioneered and normalized taking away these rights. The next rights you'll lose will probably originate on Apple again years before Google takes them away too.

I like the term "direct install" which someone suggested in one of the previous threads.

indeed, but they're not talking about your phone, they're talking about android, which is something you don't buy nor own, you buy a license to use it on the provider's terms.

linux phones can't come soon enough ...

your point about the termn "sideloading" is spot on, though. perverting the language is the first step of manipulation: installing software is "sideloading", sharing files is "piracy", legitimate resistance is "terrorism", genocide is "right to defend oneself" ...

I wonder where the term started?

Android itself calls it "install" when you open an APK file, there's not mention of "sideload" in Android at all as far as I can tell.

I call "running unsigned binaries"

>The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky

"side" refers to the fact that it's not going through the first party app store, and doesn't have any negative connotations beyond that. Maybe if it was called "backloading" you'd have a point, but this whole language thing feels like a kerfuffle over nothing.

> when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever

You do realise that's been changing right? Slowly of course, there's no single villain that James Bond could take down, or that a charistmatic leader could get elected could change. The oil tanker has been moving in that direction for decades. There are legions defending the right to run your own software, but it's a continual war of attrition.

The vast majority of people on this site (especially those who entered the industry post dot-com crash) ridicule Stallman.

"Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that."

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

If Google provides a permanent mechanism to disable this in developer settings, then this devolves to an inconvenience.

The setting to allow unsigned apps could be per appstore tracked by an on-device sqlite database, so a badly-behaving app will be known by its installer.

Mandatory googleloading.

GrapheneOS on a Pixel

You don't really have a choice: it's either Android or Apple iOS.

Don't know how the Google's actions with affect AOSP. There are few options depending on location / country with base band frequencies.

Murena with e/OS/ [0], Purism with PureOS [1], Volla with Volla OS or Ubuntu Touch [2], and Furei Labs with FuriOS [3].

Those are the companies actually trying to sell a phone versus Pin64 selling a device to tinker with.

Alternative is checking personally managed OSes like postmarketOS [4] and Ubuntu Touch [5].

[0] https://murena.com/ [1] https://puri.sm/ [2] https://volla.online/en/ [3] https://furilabs.com/ [4] https://postmarketos.org/ [5] https://www.ubuntu-touch.io/

There needs to be a mandatory override for any lock down put in place by a manufacturer. I understand the need for security, but it should be illegal to prevent me from bypassing security if I decide to on my own device. Make it take multiple clicks and show me scary warnings, that's fine.

Technically Android still allows installation of anything if you use the debugging tool. Maybe that is where we have to draw the line, I'm not sure.

>The ID check at the airport has zero to do with safety or security and everything to do with the airlines' business model (no secondary market for tickets), enforced by government.

If it's really about protecting "airlines' business model", why did TSA recently start requiring REAL ID to board flights? Were airlines really losing substantial amounts of money through forged drivers licenses that they felt they needed to crack down?

There is a world of difference between "the OS throws up a bunch of warnings" and "the OS won't let you run unsigned software"

I dunno man, it doesn't feel like a "huge safety win" that my computer has to check with a singular US tech company before it will let me use any software on it.

I'd be fine if it was just any old code "it" downloads. The problem is that it's any old code "I" download too.

I'm okay with overridable warnings, having to open system settings to override the verification, etc. It's a "huge safety win" for the 80% of users who don't really know what they're doing, security wise. But not for me.

I won't be using any OS that doesn't allow me to step outside its walled garden, if I have any alternatives at all. With macOS it's quite simple - the second they won't allow apps from unverified/unsigned developers, I'm switching to Linux. On mobile, I might as well switch to iOS, since I'm not really sure what else Android offers anymore that's so compelling, other than being able to install apps directly. And then I'll just wait for a Linux phone or something.

> I just dont see a future where being able to create and publish an app anonymously is going to be supported.

This is strongly needed if surveillance laws like Chat Control are not to be trivially bypassed. This way applications that don't offer governments the required surveillance features can be banned and the developpers can be sued. Not looking forward to that.

> eliminating the ability of our devices from running any old code it downloads and runs is a huge safety win

No, this is just false. There's numerous, well-documented instances of malware making it past gatekeepers security checks. This move is exclusively about Google asserting control over users and developers and has nothing to do with security or safety.

The only "huge safety win" comes from designing more secure execution models (capabilities, sandboxing, virtual machines) that are a property of the operating system, not manual inspection by some megacorp (or other human organization).