[lucideer]

> Can you corroborate this?

I don't think this is so much a question of sources & corroboration as it is of language.

Regardless of the origins of the term "sideload", the language implies a non-standard practice. The prefix "side-" may be used in some software contexts to describe normal, non-deviant software, but only in cases where the software in question is considered auxiliary. In general, anything described as "side-*" is connoted to be surplus / additional / non-primary at best - adding that to the term "load" & the loading action itself is surplus/additional/non-primary. It's automatically considered non-standard.

> those devices don't have first party stores

This only supports the argument. If somebody felt an alternative term was required on Android because the first-party store was the primary source of software, the only reason they could have for needing such an alternative term would be to explicitly differentiate that alternative source as unofficial/non-standard.

[gruez]

>Regardless of the origins of the term "sideload", the language implies a non-standard practice.

Because it is non-standard. Like it or not, the intended experience is that you get apps from the play/app store, and for most people that's exactly what they do. This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. Accepting it doesn't imply you oppose the freedom to run whatever code you want. The language of "sideload" or whatever is directly downstream of this. Just because google is using language that reflects the current state of affairs, doesn't mean they're engaging in some sort of sinister psyop with their word choice, as the OP is trying to imply.

[tavavex]

> This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one.

It's both. It's not like "sideloading" is a part of natural language that just happened to evolve this way to describe the practice. The terminology was consciously chosen by the same people who designed the OS to describe it. The people who argue against using this term aren't doing it in some accusatory way, like "you use this term, therefore you're an evil brainwashed minion of the enemy", but rather by using language to not set up their argument on the enemy's terms, no matter how insignificant.

It's like how "jaywalking/jay walking" was popularized - the term itself was pretty crass for the time, the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel. Back when car infrastructure was still in its infancy, how would you argue that cars shouldn't dominate all streets and cities when the government- and industry-approved name for your action was literally "stupid walking"?

[gruez]

>It's like how "jaywalking/jay walking" was popularized - the term itself was pretty crass for the time, the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel. Back when car infrastructure was still in its infancy, how would you argue that cars shouldn't dominate all streets and cities when the government- and industry-approved name for your action was literally "stupid walking"?

That makes sense because as you said, "the word "jay" conjuring thoughts of some kind of drooling, unintelligent yokel". The same can't be said for "side", aside from vague accusations that it's not "official" therefore normies think it's bad, but I can't see how you can get away from that accusation without using meaningless phrases like "type 2 install" or whatever (though I'm certain that would get similar amounts of ire for being "second class citizens" or whatever).

[tavavex]

Well, yeah, it's not nearly as extreme, companies have become much better at PR. Still, the insinuations of something being unofficial, unrecognized, unsecured, really half-unintended still paint a picture of how Google wants its software to be seen. Like, I have no doubts that if Microsoft decided to start locking down Windows PCs to the Microsoft Store (the "intended experience" that they probably already imagine for their model customers), the temporary bypass will be accompanied with a prompt like "DANGEROUS: Are you sure you want to enable Unsecured Mode? (Y/N)"

[squeaky-clean]

Do you sideload packages on a Linux computer? Do you sideload a game you purchased on GOG?

[lucideer]

> the intended experience is that you get apps from the play/app store

Once again, this is the point.

> it doesn't imply you oppose the freedom to run whatever code you want

But it does.

Let's first look at what's good about "intended experience" & possible legitimate reasons to have a differentiation between "vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps & non-"vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps.

The connotation of an "intended experience" is that the experience is supported by the OS vendor. If you have issues with your experience, these are issues that can be reported & the OS vendor will endeavor to fix. Leaving aside the fact that Google has no user support to speak of, even if they did, this isn't something they would every offer for 3rd-party Play Store apps regardless. So 3rd-party Play Store apps are not doing anything for users to provide them with an "intended experience" that isn't equally available sideloading.

The only other legitimate reason to have a differentiation would be to ensure the user doesn't install malware. Play Protect currently does this with sideloaded apps, so once again there is no difference in the "intended experience" from the user's perspective.

If there are no legitimate reasons to differentiate the experiences, the only reasonable conclusion remaining is that they're differentiates to dissuade user freedom.

[gruez]

>Let's first look at what's good about "intended experience" & possible legitimate reasons to have a differentiation between "vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps & non-"vendor-approved" 3rd-party apps.

It's pretty obvious that they think the distinction is worth having because they can vet apps they signed, rather than random apks from the internet. You might think that's a flimsy justification, but that's not a reason to reject such a distinction exists at all.

>The only other legitimate reason to have a differentiation would be to ensure the user doesn't install malware. Play Protect currently does this with sideloaded apps, so once again there is no difference in the "intended experience" from the user's perspective.

That's purely reactive (you can't scan for stuff that you don't know about), and doesn't ensure identity validation. Again, you can argue how good those reasons are, but there's at least a plausible justification for it.

>The connotation of an "intended experience" is that the experience is supported by the OS vendor. If you have issues with your experience, these are issues that can be reported & the OS vendor will endeavor to fix.

When was the last time anyone got "support" for Android/iOS from Google/Apple? At best you have random forums that google/apple staff check once in a blue moon, if you're lucky.

[lucideer]

> It's pretty obvious that they think the distinction is worth having because they can vet apps they signed

This is an assumption made in exceptionally generous good faith. It's certainly possible, but I would argue this is far from obvious, & there's enough circumstantial evidence to support this being completely untrue.

Sure, Google can vet apps they sign. Whether having this ability is their primary motivation for having a distinction (or whether they will actually vet apps they sign) is a very different question.

[eipi10_hn]

I'm using Android built-in Package Installer. That's not non-standard.