521
Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users
(www.androidauthority.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
521 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
74924 readers
3205 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
why can google not just code something like this into android:
allow apps from:
( ) All sources (how it is now; allow each app to install apps from external sources)
( ) Just Google Play
( ) Apps which have been verified by Google Developer Program
I can see it already:
() Just Google Play (safe)
() Verified apps (not recommended)
Advanced settings
click on Advanced settings
() All sources (Unsafe. Will probably kill your cat and burn down your house)
tick the box
Are you sure?
click yes
ARE YOU SURE?
click yes again
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE?
wait for the 30 seconds timer to count down
click yes
( ) I do not love my cat and want him to die.
tick the box
( ) I accept the very real risk of my house burning down
tick the box
Please wait 24 hours for the change to apply. You can reverse it at any time from this menu.
get spammed every hour for the next 24 hours with notifications asking me to fix my security settings
get a bigass ⚠️ every time I turn on the phone
every once in a while the change just straight up reverses and I have to do it all over again
Because they want to stop people from using ad blockers.
That would give users choice, and corporations want as many people as possible to be incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Option 1 is a potential cause of "lost" revenue.
Late stage capitalism absolutely forbids anything that could cause that, even if the cost of implementation outweighs any potential gain.
Because it's Google
bing! thy turkey's done
Taking Google at their word for a moment, it's far too easy to scam the clueless masses into selecting the first one. Might work okay if it's strictly an ADB command, tho.
And why should we do that?
I'm inclined to think that's not the job of an OS vendor to prevent. Sure, put a warning label on it, but it's the user's device; once they say they know what they're doing, that should be that.
The implication here is, if they implement this, is that they volunteer to assume liability, should e.g., your bank account be drained despite undergoing their forced strict lockdown on paid and owned devices.
Fat chance, because laws are meaningless to crime syndicates
It might be a reasonable trade for users to make if Google assumed liability. In fact, that would be an interesting way to implement laws to discourage practices like these.
If someone can be socially engineered into disabling security mechanisms, then that should just be their fate. There's no sense in fucking everyone else in order to protect them.
but they could make it be google play or samsung store only as the default as a compromise
That would just continue to ensure lock-in, and at least the EU would never go for that (& neither would I). Sideloading should still be allowed.
Google's Play Store security has never been all that stellar, anyway.