ꓤɔᴉʇɐʇS"sideloading" is a stupid made up term invented to delegitimize installing software.
Heres a bunch of other things I'm doing while "sidestepping" some supposed central authority:
- sideshopping (buying stuff from a store that isn't amazon)
- sidedining (eating or making food that isn't from mcdonalds)
- sidethinking (using my own brain instead of asking chatgpt)
- sidelistening (to my own music instead of on spotify)
- sidechatting (irl instead of online)
lia@StaticR Eh, the analogy doesn't quite work. When you cook a homemade dinner, you're not interacting with McDonald's at all, but when you "sideload" an app onto your Android phone, it's still Android.
A more accurate analogy would be "bringing homemade food into a McDonald's", which... well, would be banned too.
However, adding your local music library to Spotify, and adding your own local video games to Steam, both are a thing.
The real question is whether Android is a service Google provides to you similar to a McDonald's restaurant (which by sideloading you're illegitimately changing) or a tool similar to a file manager, which can be used however you please.
I'm also on your side obviously. It was just a bad analogy I think.
Leeloo
Jacob@leeloo @lianna @StaticR uh, actually the correct analogy would be licensing a franchise of a McDonald’s in a building that you own, and then breaking the rules of that franchise agreement by selling or eating food outside the dining standards. don’t license the franchise, i.e., don’t run software you don’t agree with, even if you need it for technical reasons.
@lianna @leeloo @StaticR it’s not, though. just in the sense that you do not own the order of the words of a book you purchase, you do not own the cleverness of the OS. you own the ink the renders the words, and you own the electrons that represent a copy of that cleverness. The cleverness is licensed to you, not sold.
@jazaval @lianna @leeloo This was actually the point I was gonna get to earlier when I said I'll post something "in a bit".
The difference is a McDonalds franchisee works for McDonalds and represents their brand and sells stuff under their banner, so they have to uphold the expectation what a McDonalds is.
A private person using the android OS themselves does not work for google, does not represent their brand to others so they shouldnt need to uphold the brand's expectations.
@leeloo @StaticR @lianna you don’t need to use that software to use the phone though, the EULA has nothing to do with the *phone*. you accept terms to use *software*.
if you disagree, you’re more than capable of just pulling a Terry Davis and writing your own bootloader, kernel, OS, etc. in order to utilize that hardware you now own if you disagree with those terms the software creators set.
@leeloo @StaticR @lianna that’s weird, cause you can completely replace it with all new software without physically modifying the phone at all.
software is just someone’s interpretation of the best way to arrange electrons in a way that represents your intentions. it’s intellectual property, not physical, and is subject to different ownership rules.
@leeloo @StaticR @lianna again, take the example of George Hotz, who in high school back in 2007 “siMply waNTEd TO modifY SoFtWARe thaT He ownED On hIS IPhonE” and then oops!
somehow a multi-billion exclusivity deal that AT&T paid for with real money lost tons of value.
yea boo hoo, I get it. nothing of real value lost.