this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
637 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

79233 readers
1671 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 102 points 3 days ago (5 children)

I fucking hate that word. It's not 'sideloading' to install on my own device what I want to install, to use the apps I want to use; to not use the apps I don't want to use. I am not 'sideloading' anything when I install programs on my PC. No different on my phone.

Fuck off with all these new bullshit terms that are only used to imply that what we're doing (with our own devices) is somehow outside the norm, to justify the constant enshittifcation and the growing stranglehold these corporations want on our lives. It's infuriating.

[–] su_liam@mas.to 5 points 2 days ago

@wide_eyed_stupid @Gsus4 “You will own nothing, and if you don’t like it you can talk to the security cyberdog that has you in its sights.”

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

It's not a "bullshit new term", it's three decades old and means transferring files locally from one device to another, instead of directly downloading or uploading from/to an external server.

The origin goes back to MP3.com and i-drive in late 90's, but the most common sideloading people did was downloading music to their PC using services like iTunes, and transferring them to their mp3 players. As they did often with early PDA and smartphone apps, where the term for Android comes from - get the .apk on your computer, transfer it to your phone, and install it.
Sideloading.

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Fair, it's not a new term. I was born in the 80'ies, I'm familiar with the concept.

However, it's now being used with new bullshit meaning (i.e. going outside the Google/Apple app and their own offered selection), and media are normalizing this use.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 16 points 3 days ago

Okay, but Google uses it in a way where directly going to the server they host F-Droid.apk, downloading and installing it counts as sideloading.

If anything, using Google Play is sideloading by that definition, since I can't just download a release from the originators' server, they need to first transfer it into a secondary location, Google's servers, and I can only install it from there.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

so you're saying it is the wrong word, because most apks are downloaded from the internet on-device. That is not a local transfer

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It is still the same installation method, directly installing the .apk file, from way back when the term for Android usage was defined. So, kinda, but also kinda not. Also, if you do use ADB to do the install from a PC, the command is "ADB sideload filename" which will do the transfer and installation to the memory directly. Then it truly is sideloading as defined.

Android doesn't use ROMs (Read-only Memory) any more either, because the filesystems are now writable. But Lineage etc are still called custom ROMs, because the end result hasn't changed.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RnDanger@infosec.exchange 9 points 3 days ago

@wide_eyed_stupid @Gsus4
They're "sideloading" our vocabulary

[–] arararagi@ani.social 7 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I'm sure there's something in the EULA about how it's actually their device and we are just licensing it, just like software. I hate this tech feudalism so much.

load more comments (3 replies)

remember when people were actually excited about new android releases because they were weird and consumer friendly?

[–] afk_strats@lemmy.world 245 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This framing still sucks. Google is blocking apps THEY don't approve on YOUR phone.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Balldowern@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Perfect time for the Chinese to setup a shell company in Mexico that sells smartphones & devices with AOSP-android-based OS to the US. It'll sell like hot cakes.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

It’ll sell like hot cakes.

Nope... lot of apps won't run.

Nobody is buying a phone without Google Play Certification.

Not to mention, some carriers like ATT have a weird whitelist thing.

Also, there might be compatibility issues with provisioning the SIM, since I just had an issue with LineageOS breaking data connection, but restoring factory rom fixes it, then I flash Lineage again and it broke again, so yeah... I expect similar issues with a "Non- Google Play Certified" device.

Biggest thing is: Netflix Widewine defaults back to L3 instead of L1 requited for HD stuff

Before you say "just pirate", most people don't know how to do that. Also somethings can't even get pirated since its so niche.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 200 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They won't kill side loading (the fact we even call it side loading instead of simply installing software is a problem). They'll just shoot it in the knees a little. No big deal.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 63 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They'll be able to stop a group of less technically savvy people, who currently are sideloading, from using their phones the way they choose. Apparently that's good enough for Google.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago (10 children)

They already don't let you use Google pay if you don't give them control of your phone. This is just tightening the noose a little bit.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 39 points 4 days ago (11 children)

People shouldn't use google pay in the first place. All of these things being tied together by the same group is a problem in and of itself.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago

Push 3 degrees harder, relent 2 when there's resistance.

Meaning, 3 steps ahead for them if there's no resistance. 1 step ahead if there is.

Wait some time, repeat.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 91 points 3 days ago (20 children)

The company says it is now developing an “advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn’t verified.” This installation flow will include safeguards to protect people who are being coerced into installing a dangerous app, or tricked by a scammer, along with “clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved.”

IIRC we already had to enable a setting and confirm a warning popup. What are they gonna do? Add more popups? A captcha-"puzzle"? Less easy to accept dialogs?

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Probably a captcha puzzle, or some other thing that requires you to connect to them and surrender your data for free for their commercial purposes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Weird that they want to do all the verification themselves and not just allow certificate signing using verified CAs. Oh well it's not weird because we all know Google does this to fight back against third party stores and to get developers back to their shitty one and of course to better track them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Meanwhile the Play Store is full of scams. This isn't about safety, it making sure they get a cut from the scam apps.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

edit: this is an article from November, its not something new...


bullshit! if this is actually what the "new" rule is, the exact same thing was already part of their unacceptable original plans.

To accommodate educational and noncommercial development, Google will introduce a new limited developer account type aimed at students and hobbyists. These accounts will not undergo full identity verification but will instead allow app installations on a restricted number of registered devices.

no to any kind of accounts, to any kind of developer registration, and any kind of install limits! its none of google's business what apps people install outside their store, and so they shouldn't be able to enforce a global installation limit for any apps!

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 100 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So about those linux phones....

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 45 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Aaaaaaany day now..... guys..?

(I have a pinephone and no, it is absolutely nowhere near ready)

[–] Gigasser@lemmy.world 29 points 4 days ago (2 children)

My guess is that any good Linux phone experience would need greater funding from some company or foundation....(Valve please?)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago

I use GrapheneOS (Lineage OS and CyanogenMod before that) and I'm perfectly happy witn alternative software installation sources.

[–] 6nk06@sh.itjust.works 68 points 4 days ago

A "concession" to use your phone, and you need to give your address, phone number, and ID. Fuck off.

[–] Anon764967@lemmy.org 28 points 3 days ago

I'm not worried about sideloading because I use GrapheneOS, but I'm worried that development for various apps might stop...

[–] termaxima@slrpnk.net 33 points 3 days ago (6 children)

"side" loading is just normal loading for me. I have one single app from the google app store. (It's cookie clicker 😂)

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago

Even calling it side loading is an attempt to delegitimise the practice. To make it sound like you're doing something dodgy by the side.

It's just installing an app.

Nobody calls installing an app from outside the Microsoft store on their Windows PC "side loading".

Likewise for Macs regarding their app store, or installing an app from outside your distro's repository on Linux.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 15 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Cool story, goog.

I'm just going to keep waiting for a linux/foss phone so that its features and capabilities are actually predictable year to year.

But maybe I'm just too picky about what features and capabilities I want. I admit I've gotten used to some pretty outlandish stuff like... lemme check my notes here... "the device does the things I tell it to do." Real galaxy-brain shit!

[–] RalfWausE@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago

There is already postmarketOS if you have an old supported phone somewhere in the drawer... it has still some rough edges, but it works and gives a nice glimpse into that ecosystem.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] pantomime@leminal.space 20 points 3 days ago

Billionaires doing what a billionaire does: feign a reason to kneecap a service, force complaints about its ineffectiveness, then use that as an excuse to dismantle it entirely. I am so tired of this.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 38 points 4 days ago

They're not killing sideloading, they're just building the gallows and sharpening the axe.

The outrage doesn't stop anything, it just makes them slow their plans and wait out the public outrage.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 34 points 4 days ago

The company has confirmed that it is developing an "advanced flow" to let experienced users install apps from unverified developers

How about don't change it at all, Google

[–] OscarRobin@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

Boiling the frog

Can anyone verify if this is the "new" update to the process? The article takes 75% of the way to get to this paragraph and isn't even clear if this is Google's proposed concession or an existing separate process:

To accommodate educational and noncommercial development, Google will introduce a new limited developer account type aimed at students and hobbyists. These accounts will not undergo full identity verification but will instead allow app installations on a restricted number of registered devices.

If that is the workaround, it sounds like it's still awful since it requires a Google developer account and really only would work for limited development deployment.

[–] ZeroGravitas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They must really hate ReVanced.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

Fuck all of this tech bros enshittification surveillance bullshit. I'm going to Radio Shack and buy a Heath Kit! /s

[–] PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 days ago

Great, more hoops to jump thr... I mean... an "advanced flow", for gaining the privilege of installing apps of your choosing

load more comments
view more: next ›