Yes, but littering used to be a legitimately big problem to. Like the hole in the ozone, now that it’s “solved”/ the norm for it to be getting better the focus should shift to other things.
It is, because it’s actually the term that defines the process of transferring files not from an external networked device - downloading - or to an external networked device - uploading - but between two local devices - sideloading.
It’s over two decades old, you downloaded an mp3 from kazaa, and then sideloaded it to your player.
For android apps, I believe the term originates from the method of using ADB to directly write the app to the phone memory, the command of which is “adb sideload filename”
And companies ofted do it. Thay recoined jaywalking to put the blaim of the accidents to pedestrians and take away the road from them. They change what littering means in attrmpt to delute the responsibility for polution… We are better than that this time, right?
I assume you’re unaware of the concerted advertising campaigns by auto manufacturers to take public streets away from pedestrians, including things like
The industry hired actors dressed in old-fashioned clothing to illegally cross streets, making the behavior seem outdated
“Jay” had started as a word for drivers driving on the wrong side of the road
jaywalker was pre-dated by jay-driver – a driver of a horse-drawn carriage or automobile that refused to abide by the traffic laws by driving on the wrong side of the road
It’s extremely on topic for the thread you responded to.
Google has a concerted effort to make “sideloading” bad, so they can remove it without public backlash
The next comment in the chain mentioned how auto manufacturers did the same thing, villainizing people using public spaces by calling it “jaywalking” until it became illegal to walk on public roads
That was done to take public spaces away from pedestrians and give it to cars
This is being done to take software outside of Google Play away and give the only profit to google
I see your confusion. You are assessing it from the reality when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
But before the campaing, the streets actually belonged to the people and cars was the dafoult expectation. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generate the bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a basic premise “car accidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim”.
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
In what way is installing from the play store fundamentally different? Just because it was preloaded on your phone? What if F droid was preloaded on your phone instead? Is it still sideloading? Google’s logic breaks down pretty quickly when you think about it
Installing software from outside the play store should be called installing software. It’s installing software from the play store what should have a special name, like “gatedloading” for example.
The issue people have with making the distinction is that Google is trying to spin the narrative and make side loading seem like a dangerous and bad thing to the average user base who don’t know any better.
They’re taking umbrage with you agreeing that quantitative usage of a storefront makes something simply installing vs side loading a program. Because it helps Google’s narrative in a way.
I understand exactly what people think the issue is. I don’t understand or agree with any of the logic. Google did not invent the term. Apple did not invent the term. There’s nothing in the term itself to imply anything nefarious. It’s nothing but a word used to describe apps installed from outside the default store. When 99-100% of users are all installing exclusively from the default store, it makes sense to have a term that describes that instead of saying “installing apps from outside the default app store” every time.
Google is twisting the word to justify their purpose of preventing people from installing anything that isn’t from their walled garden. So anything that sounds even close to support for that motive is going to be met with pushback, even if it is a word that existed before Google’s use of it. Google’s implicitly saying that installing something from anywhere other than their store is something nefarious or otherwise bad/risky. Google is trying to perform the same kind of security theatre as the US with the NSA at airports.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me where you install an app from because you’re simply installing it. Whether that’s from Google’s storefront, Apple’s, or somewhere else, you’re installing an app. The circumstances where I’d need a term to specifically say that I’m installing an app from outside the default app store would also be covered by simply saying “I got it from GitHub (or wherever).” It takes the same energy to answer the question of where you got it from regardless of whether you say that you installed it or you side loaded it.
By justifying getting rid of it as “security concerns”. This is the first time the average user will have heard the term, so it will be linked in their head to this and therefore as risky/dangerous and they won’t question why Google would want to make it harder, if not impossible, for people to install apps or other software without Google’s explicit permission.
The walls around the garden get taller, and those inside won’t question why there aren’t any doors.
When you install a ‘.exe’ file in Windows, you don’t call it ‘sideloading’, you call it ‘downloading and installing’.
This is the exact same thing. I download from sites, F-Droid, Obtainium, etc., and install the software that is the file I downloaded. I’m effectively NOT side-anything.
The point is, there shouldn’t be a distinction. To make one is to support prejudice against installing software from elsewhere.
If you use “installing” for stuff from the Google store but any other word for stuff from other sources, you are aiding and abetting Google’s anti-property-rights propaganda.
There has to be. When 99% of installs come from one location, there needs to be a way to describe that other than “Installing apps from outside the default app store”.
To make one is to support prejudice against installing software from elsewhere.
Okay, I understand your position. Android’s play store has market dominance, so the a term to distinguish between 99% of play store installs vs others, makes sense.
Now, that is a tangent to the main issue, just arguing semantics. The issue is control versus
openness, not about the term sideloading.
Is Google’s plan to restrict app sideloading a good thing in your eyes, or no?
The words for distinguishing between apps that come from one trusted location vs others is usually untrusted or unverified apps versus trusted or verified ones. “Installing apps from outside the default app store” converts to, “Installing an untrusted app”.
Installing an app is not the same thing as installing an app? What difference does it make where it came from? Why do you need two different words for installing an app? Why does the distinction of where it came from matter when the outcome is no different?
When I install software from the Arch User Repository I still just call it installing, even though it isn’t through the standard path. Everywhere else, you don’t make the distinction. For some reason on phones we’ve come to call it sideloading, even though the software is just software —it doesn’t care where it came from.
even within android, if you attempt to install an apk directly, it doesn’t say “would you like to sideload this application?”, but instead says, “Do you want to install this app?”.
Even Google’s own OS doesn’t use made up language.
Again, when I install something from the AUR (which is not where most software comes from —99+% are from official repositories) it isn’t given a special term. It’s the exact same situation as “sideloading” but we just call it installing. Can you explain what the difference is between them?
The same word that I use to when I get software that’s not on the Microsoft Store, the Mac App Store, or whatever distro’s Software GUI when I am using my desktop…
Why? That’s a perfect example. There is no qualitative difrence between Microsoft Store and Play Store. Why quantitative difference in the market share would make any distinction in the terminology we use around the process?
So when I install an app from Fdroid, it’s only “installing” if lots of other people do it? But if other people don’t use it as much it’s “sideloading”?
Don’t forget “side effects”, when really, medications only have “effects”. Whether the effects are intended or not doesn’t change the fact that they happen.
Wait, so now I have to talk to a doctor before installing from F-Droid? Well, shit.
For all intents and purposes, your comment actually invalidates the premise of using ‘sideloading’ as a term for installing from outside the ‘official’ method.
You buy cough syrup because you’re coughing, not because you want to be drowsy (I would hope that’s the case). In the same way, you install Spotify to listen to music, not to get all your data extracted and sold. Getting drowsy is an inconvenient side effect of the medication, the same way that data grab and ads are an inconvenient side effect of the app.
You are the master of your body, the person who decides ultimately what goes in and out of your body, No doctor can force you to take anything. That’s what I mean, The play store aka the doctor wants to become the master that decides what apps go in or out of your phone, instead of the user. My comment doesn’t invalidate the premise of the use of the term sideloading, because I don’t agree with the term to begin with.
Whether the effect is ideal or not does not change what is chemically happening in the body. The body can’t tell apart side effects from the main ones, so this distinction exists because humans deemed it so, just like the distinction between play store sanctioned apps, and everything else. It’s a distinction that Google is now abusing for it’s own monetary benefit.
Cough medicine can induce drowsiness, but you probably shouldn’t be taking it as a sleep aid. The distinction between intended vs unintended effects is an important distinction to make, in my opinion, to prevent drugs from being unintentionally misused.
While that is true, it does not invalidate the poster’s point. All of the effects of drugs are just “effects”. They could just as easily market cough syrup as a sleep aid with the “side effect” that it suppresses coughing.
The difference in definition in this context is simply that “drug uses” is the list of its effects that they were going for, and “side effects” are a list of effects that they were not. Its entirely a man made distinction. Extend that reasoning to the “installing” vs. “side loading” discussion to see the poster’s point.
I believe him to be suggesting that “side loading” is a very different word for “installing” that can be loaded by PR people to shift public opinion against the practice. Whether or not they are doing that I can’t say myself, but that appears to be the point being made.
They could just as easily have coined it “direct installing” or “USB installing”, but they didn’t even though those terms are more descriptive. Draw from that whatever you will.
Talking to the wrong guy here, I’ve taken many a medications against their intended purpose: I am a curious guy.
But that sounds like saying, in the context of Google’s intention of disabling app sideloading, that warning users that it poses a security risk because it’s their intended purpose for android, is fine because the authority on android is Google.
Don’t just take the word of authority at face value, when they prioritize profit and mindshare over personal freedom.
Like “Jaywalking”, suddenly, walking is no longer the norm, but the car is preferred. The victims are seen as perpetrators.
FTFY, at least here in a certain country…
And “littering” is the “real” culprit why we all drawn in uneccesey plastic. We should blame consumers not the polluters.
Corporations do it all the time.
Yes, but littering used to be a legitimately big problem to. Like the hole in the ozone, now that it’s “solved”/ the norm for it to be getting better the focus should shift to other things.
For sure. That’s why it worked so well. You take a valid problem and abuse it for your corporate gains.
It is, because it’s actually the term that defines the process of transferring files not from an external networked device - downloading - or to an external networked device - uploading - but between two local devices - sideloading.
It’s over two decades old, you downloaded an mp3 from kazaa, and then sideloaded it to your player.
For android apps, I believe the term originates from the method of using ADB to directly write the app to the phone memory, the command of which is “adb sideload filename”
And companies ofted do it. Thay recoined jaywalking to put the blaim of the accidents to pedestrians and take away the road from them. They change what littering means in attrmpt to delute the responsibility for polution… We are better than that this time, right?
How do you suppose that works, exactly?
I assume you’re unaware of the concerted advertising campaigns by auto manufacturers to take public streets away from pedestrians, including things like
https://missedhistory.com/1800/lobbying-trick-blamed-pedestrians-inventing-jaywalking/
“Jay” had started as a word for drivers driving on the wrong side of the road
https://debrabernier.com/the-history-of-jaywalking-in-the-u-s/
Maybe try to stay on topic?
So jay-walker seems appropriate, does it not?
How is that offtopic? It’s direct answer to the question that was asked.
https://youtu.be/vxopfjXkArM
How is it not off-topic? It has nothing to do with the suggestion that the word is used to blame pedestrians as a whole.
It’s extremely on topic for the thread you responded to.
Google has a concerted effort to make “sideloading” bad, so they can remove it without public backlash
The next comment in the chain mentioned how auto manufacturers did the same thing, villainizing people using public spaces by calling it “jaywalking” until it became illegal to walk on public roads
That was done to take public spaces away from pedestrians and give it to cars
This is being done to take software outside of Google Play away and give the only profit to google
The topic was how the existence of the term “jaywalking” “blames pedestrians” when they’re not actually to blame.
I see your confusion. You are assessing it from the reality when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
But before the campaing, the streets actually belonged to the people and cars was the dafoult expectation. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generate the bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a basic premise “car accidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim”.
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
Which is why I linked two articles discussing the history of the term “jay” and how and why it was used to essentially mean “a stupid person”
Then I even took a quote out for you explaining that car companies paid people to do it trying to vilify it
What would you call it?
“installing” as in “installing software”
Okay but it’s specifically software from outside the Play Store?
In what way is installing from the play store fundamentally different? Just because it was preloaded on your phone? What if F droid was preloaded on your phone instead? Is it still sideloading? Google’s logic breaks down pretty quickly when you think about it
Installing software from outside the play store should be called installing software. It’s installing software from the play store what should have a special name, like “gatedloading” for example.
Good news. It is!
Make it hap’n Cap’n. You’re still not invalidating the term of “sideloading”.
The issue people have with making the distinction is that Google is trying to spin the narrative and make side loading seem like a dangerous and bad thing to the average user base who don’t know any better.
They’re taking umbrage with you agreeing that quantitative usage of a storefront makes something simply installing vs side loading a program. Because it helps Google’s narrative in a way.
I understand exactly what people think the issue is. I don’t understand or agree with any of the logic. Google did not invent the term. Apple did not invent the term. There’s nothing in the term itself to imply anything nefarious. It’s nothing but a word used to describe apps installed from outside the default store. When 99-100% of users are all installing exclusively from the default store, it makes sense to have a term that describes that instead of saying “installing apps from outside the default app store” every time.
Installing software without a store was just called installing software.
Sideloading is when you download from the side, e.g. downloading software from a separate device instead of from the internet or physical media.
It isn’t.
Why do you think it’s not?
Google is twisting the word to justify their purpose of preventing people from installing anything that isn’t from their walled garden. So anything that sounds even close to support for that motive is going to be met with pushback, even if it is a word that existed before Google’s use of it. Google’s implicitly saying that installing something from anywhere other than their store is something nefarious or otherwise bad/risky. Google is trying to perform the same kind of security theatre as the US with the NSA at airports.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me where you install an app from because you’re simply installing it. Whether that’s from Google’s storefront, Apple’s, or somewhere else, you’re installing an app. The circumstances where I’d need a term to specifically say that I’m installing an app from outside the default app store would also be covered by simply saying “I got it from GitHub (or wherever).” It takes the same energy to answer the question of where you got it from regardless of whether you say that you installed it or you side loaded it.
How is it being twisted? They’re using it in exactly the way it is intended to be used?
By justifying getting rid of it as “security concerns”. This is the first time the average user will have heard the term, so it will be linked in their head to this and therefore as risky/dangerous and they won’t question why Google would want to make it harder, if not impossible, for people to install apps or other software without Google’s explicit permission.
The walls around the garden get taller, and those inside won’t question why there aren’t any doors.
When you install a ‘.exe’ file in Windows, you don’t call it ‘sideloading’, you call it ‘downloading and installing’.
This is the exact same thing. I download from sites, F-Droid, Obtainium, etc., and install the software that is the file I downloaded. I’m effectively NOT side-anything.
You might call it that if 99% of software was installed from MS store.
0% of my android software is installed through Google Play. Then what?
I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. We’re not talking about you.
Removed by mod
The point is, there shouldn’t be a distinction. To make one is to support prejudice against installing software from elsewhere.
If you use “installing” for stuff from the Google store but any other word for stuff from other sources, you are aiding and abetting Google’s anti-property-rights propaganda.
There has to be. When 99% of installs come from one location, there needs to be a way to describe that other than “Installing apps from outside the default app store”.
No? It isn’t.
The majority of PC game sales happen via steam but we don’t call games purchased from GOG “sideloaded.”
There is no necessary reason to make the distinction
There is and I’ve already given it. MS app store doesn’t make up 99% of installations.
Okay, I understand your position. Android’s play store has market dominance, so the a term to distinguish between 99% of play store installs vs others, makes sense.
Now, that is a tangent to the main issue, just arguing semantics. The issue is control versus openness, not about the term sideloading.
Is Google’s plan to restrict app sideloading a good thing in your eyes, or no?
The words for distinguishing between apps that come from one trusted location vs others is usually untrusted or unverified apps versus trusted or verified ones. “Installing apps from outside the default app store” converts to, “Installing an untrusted app”.
It’s not that complicated.
It doesn’t. It’s not that complicated.
Y tho. What difference does it make? Its the same thing.
It’s simply not the same thing and if you can’t understand how that makes it different, I don’t know how to help you.
Installing an app is not the same thing as installing an app? What difference does it make where it came from? Why do you need two different words for installing an app? Why does the distinction of where it came from matter when the outcome is no different?
When I install software from the Arch User Repository I still just call it installing, even though it isn’t through the standard path. Everywhere else, you don’t make the distinction. For some reason on phones we’ve come to call it sideloading, even though the software is just software —it doesn’t care where it came from.
Because 99% of people are getting it from the same place…
even within android, if you attempt to install an apk directly, it doesn’t say “would you like to sideload this application?”, but instead says, “Do you want to install this app?”.
Even Google’s own OS doesn’t use made up language.
I don’t know what that’s supposed to prove. Use of the word is not mandatory.
Again, when I install something from the AUR (which is not where most software comes from —99+% are from official repositories) it isn’t given a special term. It’s the exact same situation as “sideloading” but we just call it installing. Can you explain what the difference is between them?
LOL you just lumped every other repository into one and then excepted the AUR for…reasons?
Because the AUR is by users. The others aren’t.
I know you just can’t explain the difference though so wrote this instead.
The same word that I use to when I get software that’s not on the Microsoft Store, the Mac App Store, or whatever distro’s Software GUI when I am using my desktop…
If the MS Store and Mac App store made up 99% of installs, that might make sense.
Why? That’s a perfect example. There is no qualitative difrence between Microsoft Store and Play Store. Why quantitative difference in the market share would make any distinction in the terminology we use around the process?
I’ve already explained why. I don’t know what more there is to say. If you don’t get it, that’s okay.
So when I install an app from Fdroid, it’s only “installing” if lots of other people do it? But if other people don’t use it as much it’s “sideloading”?
“lots of other people” was not the words I used.
It can be both “installing” and “sideloading”. One is just more specific.
If you need to be that specific, “installing” as in “installing software from outside the play store”
We have words for things for a reason. We don’t call doctors “guys who heal people”.
Yet we call people who hold a doctorate “doctors”, and if we need to specify we use terms like “medical doctors” or “doctors in philosophy”.
Doctor can mean different things to different people.
deleted by creator
Yes, so what do you call it when referring specifically to those apps?
Don’t forget “side effects”, when really, medications only have “effects”. Whether the effects are intended or not doesn’t change the fact that they happen.
Wait, so now I have to talk to a doctor before installing from F-Droid? Well, shit.
For all intents and purposes, your comment actually invalidates the premise of using ‘sideloading’ as a term for installing from outside the ‘official’ method.
You buy cough syrup because you’re coughing, not because you want to be drowsy (I would hope that’s the case). In the same way, you install Spotify to listen to music, not to get all your data extracted and sold. Getting drowsy is an inconvenient side effect of the medication, the same way that data grab and ads are an inconvenient side effect of the app.
You’re not ‘side-medicating’.
You are the master of your body, the person who decides ultimately what goes in and out of your body, No doctor can force you to take anything. That’s what I mean, The play store aka the doctor wants to become the master that decides what apps go in or out of your phone, instead of the user. My comment doesn’t invalidate the premise of the use of the term sideloading, because I don’t agree with the term to begin with.
Whether the effect is ideal or not does not change what is chemically happening in the body. The body can’t tell apart side effects from the main ones, so this distinction exists because humans deemed it so, just like the distinction between play store sanctioned apps, and everything else. It’s a distinction that Google is now abusing for it’s own monetary benefit.
It’s a bad comparison because some people do take the medicine to get the side effects. For example taking benadryl to fall asleep.
Cough medicine can induce drowsiness, but you probably shouldn’t be taking it as a sleep aid. The distinction between intended vs unintended effects is an important distinction to make, in my opinion, to prevent drugs from being unintentionally misused.
While that is true, it does not invalidate the poster’s point. All of the effects of drugs are just “effects”. They could just as easily market cough syrup as a sleep aid with the “side effect” that it suppresses coughing.
The difference in definition in this context is simply that “drug uses” is the list of its effects that they were going for, and “side effects” are a list of effects that they were not. Its entirely a man made distinction. Extend that reasoning to the “installing” vs. “side loading” discussion to see the poster’s point.
I believe him to be suggesting that “side loading” is a very different word for “installing” that can be loaded by PR people to shift public opinion against the practice. Whether or not they are doing that I can’t say myself, but that appears to be the point being made.
They could just as easily have coined it “direct installing” or “USB installing”, but they didn’t even though those terms are more descriptive. Draw from that whatever you will.
you shouldnt be taking medication not for his intended purpose, it has many warnings.
Talking to the wrong guy here, I’ve taken many a medications against their intended purpose: I am a curious guy.
But that sounds like saying, in the context of Google’s intention of disabling app sideloading, that warning users that it poses a security risk because it’s their intended purpose for android, is fine because the authority on android is Google.
Don’t just take the word of authority at face value, when they prioritize profit and mindshare over personal freedom.