Google Blocks File Manager Total Commander From Allowing Users To Sideload Apps (androidpolice.com) 74
An anonymous reader shares a report: Total Commander has been around since the 90s, eventually expanding into Android after the platform launched over a decade ago. The app has more than 10 million downloads on the Play Store, still supporting OS versions as far back as Android 2.2. With a new update, developer Christian Ghisler has removed the ability to install APK files on Android, blaming Google Play policies in the patch notes for the app. It's a shocking twist for the service and, seemingly, a bad omen of things to come for other mobile file managers. A forum post from Ghisler sheds some more light on what's going on here, as Google sent him a notice warning of his app's removal from the Play Store within a week if the app went unmodified. The company's automated response pointed the developer to the "Device and Network Abuse" policy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody said that.
Everybody has said that they prefer Android over iOS because you could sideload RIGHT NOW. But I don't think anybody with 2 working brain cells is under any delusion that Google doesn't intensely wish to tighten their grip on the Android platform to Apple levels.
Sigh... That's what you get with monopolies: they get to bully everybody around and nobody can do a damn thing about it, since the government won't intervene on We The People's behalf.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought Google knew that lots of people choose Android specifically because they can sideload.
Re:Who was it again who said... (Score:5, Insightful)
That narrative serves their purpose right now. The moment they can lock Android tight and not lose a significant percentage of users, they will. Make no mistake about that.
Re: (Score:1)
That narrative serves their purpose right now. The moment they can lock Android tight and not lose a significant percentage of users, they will. Make no mistake about that.
That's a great view that affects all 100 regular Slashdot posters. The reality though is the overwhelming majority of people don't give a shit about sideloading and they wouldn't remotely lose a "significant percentage of users" if they decided to block sideloading.
Incidentally they can't actually block sideloading due to legal reasons on anything other than their own Pixel lineup. It would be a gross breach of antitrust regulations to tell another company what they can and can't do with a device they sell,
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a gross breach of antitrust regulations
Mmyeeess... Because we all know how well antitrust regulations have been enforced since the Reagan era. I bet Google is quaking in their boots.
Re: Who was it again who said... (Score:1)
Re: Who was it again who said... (Score:3)
Pretty sure more people choose it because it's cheaper than iPhone. Plain and simple. There are many more non tech users than geeks in this world. A very tiny percentage of Android users side load apps. If I had to guess and place a bet I'd say less than 1%. Sure the /. community might be impacted but the general population doesn't give a rats ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Google knew that lots of people choose Android specifically because they can sideload.
That's been part of the Fandroid Propaganda since Apple opened its App Store in 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said that.
Everybody has said that they prefer Android over iOS because you could sideload RIGHT NOW.
Better chase those Goalposts; they're flying away at Warp Speed!
Re: (Score:2)
https://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21341592&cid=62544670 [slashdot.org]
Re:Who was it again who said... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you unable to distinguish the difference between the DEVICE preventing you from doing something (a la IOS) and a STORE setting and enforcing policy on what it will sell?
Re: (Score:2)
Who was it again who said "Don't be evil"...?
What did you expect? (Score:3)
Google wants Apple-level control over your devices. It's like an abusive corporations wet-dream.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the forum thread, it looks like the issue is that it supports downloading plugins.
Downloading executable code is not allowed for Play Store apps, because it circumvents Google's security checks. They can only scan the app uploaded to the Play Store, not extra code modules downloaded from another website.
The developer seems to have realized this and is now looking to make the app compliant while still allowing plugins to work.
There is no threat to side loading, or to alternative app stores. It's fine to install other apps, just but add to your own apps code.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not much better. There are a lot of legitimate reasons a program might want to make use of code downloaded later or from other sources, plugins being just one.
Total Commander Rocks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Total Commander Rocks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Came here to say this. Old-time Norton Commander for DOS user and licensed TC user for over, geez, 30 years?
Between TC, vim, and ahk, I'm able to be terribly efficient with most things I do.
Re: Total Commander Rocks! (Score:2)
Totally agree, Vim should be licensed as a munition
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Xtree gold under dos was better then what you have now built in
Have you never used Midnight Commander?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you never used Midnight Commander?
Reread his post again. He's complaining about Windows Explorer. Justifiably, because it's crap.
Re: (Score:2)
True, they haven't even bothered to implement tabbing and it's 2022
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I used NortonCommander in the 90s, NC3, NC4, etc, under DOS ; then in Windows 3 I started using WindowsCommander, then Christian had to rename it to TotalCommander, I used it in win95, 98, 2k, xp, 7, 8, 10, 11, still using it every day, still using the same shortcut since the 90s, still using it 100% of the time instead of the Windows Explorer, I don't know really how to use Windows Explorer in fact!
I miss the 80s (Score:5, Insightful)
If computers were invented today you'd never be allowed to execute arbitrary code on your own processor, and if the Web were new you'd never be permitted to enter an arbitrary address into the URL bar, which would be replaced with a search engine and bookmarks drop-down only. Both of those things would be considered too harmful, violent, dangerous, and give you access to potentially threatening and offensive content. Or at least that'd be the reason the corporations gave you, and claimed it was to protect you and your data.
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. This is a STORE deciding policy on what they will and won't sell. And that store is not the only way to buy or obtain apps.
As for your general comment, again nonsense. You can still do what you always could: go buy pieces of hardware (whether it is at the chip, motherboard, or 'system' level), install the software YOU want on it, and do whatever you want. What you cannot (and never could) do is buy what is essentially an appliance (like a phone) and expect it to do anything other than what th
Re: (Score:1)
If it's "Just the store" stopping this, the dev should just provide/sell the app from his website as a raw APK. Then it doesn't matter what the Play store thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
One needs to remember that someone needs to write the program in the first place. Writing the program means needing to test it and run it, and needing to do that meant the system you're developing on needs a mechanism for doing so.
Thus, by definition, every system has a way of running arbitrary code. After all, if you want to write hello world, you need to write it and run it. And on systems like iOS where it's locked down, there are mechanisms in place to run code you write.
Now, what may be restricted is t
Re: (Score:2)
"Relax guy, the thing that 95% of all users rely on is pushing people around and changing expectations for what's acceptable or not. But it's not 100%."
Might as well say you can't criticize Microsoft for fucking with privacy, uEFI, and computing interoperability standards because not everyone uses Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you say that? There are new developments all the time, new devices and even vendor specific ones that don't follow your line of reasoning. Less hyperbole please.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes me say that? PCs became popular for being general purpose computers, and the Internet became popular for being an open information system, but each subsequent device that follows in their footsteps is more locked down, more controlled, less free (as in speech), more subscription-based, less ownership-based, etc.
Remember, people were shocked and affronted at the idea of Apple not letting people install arbitrary applications, but now it's just considered normal. Normal to have a walled garden. Nor
Re:Google is clearly in the right (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that it's self evidently not what's happening. Google is bitching about the fact that you can use TC to click on APKs you get elsewhere, and then install them.
Any APK. At all. This is obvious in the fact that when TC was changed to disallow updating itself via APK... google didn't give a single fuck and threatened the dev again.
Why are you trying to lie about what happened?
Re: (Score:2)
If "TC was changed to disallow updating itself via APK", then that means prior to that change, TC COULD update itself which violates their policies. That's my point. There's really no functionality being lost here. You can download an APK via browser and click that downloaded file. You don't need TC to do that, and TC was (at some point) violating Google's policies.
this makes sideloading much much harder (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not reasonable for consumers to have to install android debug bridge and terminal in from their pc to install a rival app store, but this is exactly what Google is pushing. We need regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome has had a "bug" in it for many years that prevents running downloaded apks.
Never heard of it, and what does Chrome have to do with you clicking on a downloaded APK anyway? Citation required.
since you will no longer be able to easily run downloaded APKs
You literally just click on them in your downloads folder. Users who have never used TC (like myself) have never had an issue sideloading APKs.
We need regulation.
We have some. They are called antitrust laws. Google would be in violation of them if they locked down the installation of APKs on any device other than their own Pixel lineup. Hell they got in enough trouble asking vendors to restrict to Google search,
Re: (Score:2)
what does Chrome have to do with you clicking on a downloaded APK anyway?
Clicking on an APK in Android should cause the running app to trigger a call to the installer service. That app has to have permission to install other apps otherwise you get a scary "X is not allowed to sideload apps" dialog with a button to take you to the permission settings instead of the confirm installation dialog. I.e. The running app triggering the install service is how Android detects and blocks "unauthorized" app installations. If you try to open an APK in Chrome, Chrome is the running app attemp
Re: (Score:2)
I think you can always install apks via adb.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet this article is about TC after it was so changed, which Google still claims violates their policies. So no, your justification for Google's behavior has become moot. The mere fact that TC did something different that may have violated Google's policies previously shouldn't mean that Google gets to dictate what the app can do now in supposed compliance with
Re: (Score:3)
For those who may be confused by this gaslighting asshat, the order of events can be checked by clicking links in the OP. It's as follows:
Google threatens the dev because TC can install APKs.
Dev assumes this is about TC being able to update itself from APKs, so he removes TC's ability to do so in an update.
Google threatens the dev because TC can install APKs again.
Dev understands that this isn't about TC being able to update itself from APKs but actually just installing any APKs, and removes this ability in
Re: (Score:2)
XTree Gold FTW (Score:2)
Seriously though, as a security professional, allowing apps to install arbitrary apks is definitely a problem and will result in CVEs and huge headlines also posted on slashdot about Android's lax security, usually written histrionically from sites like CNET.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fucking shit I had to change A-P-K to @-P-K in my comment to pass the lameass filter. What pathetic fucking incompetence. This place is such a sorry shit show.
Anyway, moving on.
You can drive total commander entirely with the keyboard or remote, you don't need a pointer. In fact it has a whole series of keyboard shortcuts for keyboard users. /jokemurder
Seriously though, as a security professional, allowing apps to install arbitrary @PKs is definitely a problem
It does not and never has worked that way. Total Commander can NOT install itself without root, and I don't even know if it does it then. All it does is
Re: (Score:2)
Don't invoke the beast. Just leave those particular initials separated please.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I didn't make Google use that extension for their zip files full of java app
WTF, Google (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't even really sideload apps, in that the OS actually does that. All it does is tell the OS to load the APK. Then you get a popup asking you if you want to install. This is no different than if you loaded the APK from a browser.
This is an extremely worrying development, because why would Google do this unless they were preparing to crack down on sideloading in general? You can still install an APK from any browser right now. And if you put a web server app on your device, you can load that APK from the device itself even if the browser refuses to open a file.
Re: (Score:3)
Google wants any payments made through apps to be made through Google. Thus, apps that bypass Google payments are not allowed in the play store. Now, if someone wanted to distribute an app that bypasses Google's payment system, it would be easy to distribute a free app through the Play Store that merely sideloads the real app which uses a non-Google payment system.
Total Commander got caught up Google blocking
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I get it. Google saw Apple getting away with it and wasn't about to be left out. But Google also made it easier to install and use third party app stores in Android 12 [9to5google.com], by making it so that they could update apps in the background. This formerly required root access, and a root helper, which in turn required an addon framework. App stores can now silently upgrade both themselves and also apps installed through them [xda-developers.com]. It's very strange that they should be making both of these changes at the same time...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's always ADB
Re: (Score:2)
This is an extremely worrying development, because why would Google do this unless they were preparing to crack down on sideloading in general?
Quite simple, the app used APKs to self update outside of Google Play. Google cracked down on them and asked them to remove all functionality to install APKs. Play silly games you get yourself in the crosshairs.
Google couldn't block sideloading even if it wanted to due to antitrust issues, and nothing is more telling that they are going after a single lone 3rd party and yet have done nothing to any of the other file managers, any of the browsers, or even the OS itself. Your theory is non-sequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
My memory, my files, my device - hands off ! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now the EU can go hard and impose monopoly fines, for what is trade restriction.
They have talked about solving this problem there [macrumors.com] but that was the last I heard of it...
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed - but for now there's Solid Explorer which can still do it (along with file management tasks too).
App stores are hostile to developers (Score:1)
Fortunately there is now a new option: PWAs [wikipedia.org]. We've redeveloped our app [goldwave.com] as a PWA. It has almost all of the same functionality as a native app, but without all
Re: (Score:1)
/s
Let's also not forget that by running the "app" A.K.A. website in the cloud, your users never have the ability to use older versions, are completely depen
Re: (Score:1)
Our app runs fine in Firefox and privacy focused versions of Chrome (such as Brave). Once the app is started, it is stored on the device. No cloud or network connection is required, just like a native app. You seem to have a very limited understanding of how a PWA works. Less choice? Vender lock-in? Where are you getting that nonsense?
As a developer, creating a PWA is way more enjoyable and easier than creating native versions of the app, so yes I am basking in the glory of freedom from Google and App
Re: (Score:2)
Google Building higher garden walls! (Score:2)
Makes Sense (Score:2)
The big push to hardware drm... (Score:3)
... and the advent of trusted computing is upon us. The end of general computing is nigh.
The Personal computer as we know it is coming to an end, people are clueless about them turning the computers into a locked down devices like the iphone, they are changing how exe's work in the future for trusted computing, look at this list at crackwatch there's been a war on software ownership to kill local applications for over 23+ years.
See here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Crack... [reddit.com]
This started roughly with the game industry rebranding PC rpg's "MMO's" by stealing their networking code, thereby changing the future of gaming and software ownership completely since there's no reason for any application to be split into two exe's.
For those who don't know: Two or more computers networked together become and behave as as single device, so that means any program can be split into two sets of files or two exe's and run across the network, but that's the same thing as stealing the software, since there is no reason for client-server executables for applications and games unless they were trying to steal them and artificially raise the price of software.
So they got the public to overpay for PC games, and that meant Adobe and microsoft and the rest were jealous of what Garriot and EA accomplished in 1997 with ultima online, See how mmo's killed local apps here:
Ultima 9 (local app) was cancelled for Ultima online (client server app):
https://youtu.be/lnnsDi7Sxq0?t... [youtu.be]
There was no need for that because we had limitless multiplayer with quake 2 in 1997:
https://youtu.be/TfeSMaztDVc?t... [youtu.be]
After that microsoft and the rest have been pushing hard towards trusted computing and signed binaries.
From 1960 to roughly 2000, all exe's were unsigned normal plaintext binaries, aka you want that if you want to run old software since plaintext exe's make it much easier for you to be able to emulate or run old software with some modifications.
Windows 10 is the first client-server os and windows 11 has TPM chip requirement, to enforce signed binaries, they are putting drm into the OS as anti-piracy mechanism and also so they can take over the internet.
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja1... [cam.ac.uk]
Either way the personal computer is at an end because every tom dick and harry sucked up client-server apps onto their pc's over the last 23 years, future computers will be fisher price locked down devices from windows 10/11 onwards.
Benevolent dictators (Score:2)
piachu (Score:1)