zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
This is really bad. I think that most people on HN will agree with that.

The problem is that most normal people (HN is not normal - mostly for the better) don't even understand what sideloading is - let alone actually care.

How can we fix this?

(aside from making people care - apathy enables so many political problems in the current age, but it's such a huge problem that this definitely isn't going to be the impetus to fix it)

>>throw1+oe1
We need another os in the market. A duopoly just isn't competitive enough. Too bad the cost of entry is so high.

>>nabogh+Ye1
I agree with you idealistically, but practically, creating an entirely new mobile OS with market share competitive with the existing two is an unbelievably massive challenge. It'd probably be just about as easy to get people to care about sideloading in the first place.

>>throw1+kf1
Remember how Android used to be an open source project and how we had Google backing AOSP? I think it's time we we maintain the latest fork and just use that instead.

>>Charon+ui1
That only solves the OS side of things, but doesn't give you a good ecosystem. Unfortunately and increasingly bigger number of apps rely on Google services and attestations, meaning you need a Google approved software to run them.

>>SkiFir+Xt1
I wonder if it'll promote having multiple devices, fragmenting into multiple ecosystems. One for the approved walled garden, another for uses that can exist without relying on those services (anything that doesn't need payments?).

Another approach I wonder about is single task specific hardware, like a GPS unit or media player, what tasks have developed over the past ~18 years within the mobile ecosystem and are mature and not rapidly evolving enough that they can be unbundled to their own devices, and desirable enough to stand alone that there's a market for it.

>>keyrin+QS1
that's highly inconvenient, most people won't bother with that. The ~1% though will certainly do that, with black market apps and jailbroken OS will rise.