This is part of a broader pattern that's been bugging me. Every year Android devices get a little more locked down, and every year the justification is "security." But removing adb sideload for OTA updates doesn't protect users from malware, it protects Samsung from users who want to control their own update timeline.
I had a Galaxy S21 that got stuck in a boot loop after an OTA went bad. The only fix was adb sideload a known-good firmware. Without that option I would've had to mail it to Samsung or buy a new phone. How is that better for anyone?
The cynical read is that this is about pushing people toward Samsung's own update infrastructure so they can better control the rollout cadence and eventually tie it to Samsung accounts or subscriptions. The optimistic read is that they're simplifying recovery mode for less technical users. Either way the people who actually need these tools are losing them.
Note that this menu item was not used to install Android apps, which is what people often mean by "sideloading", especially with all the discourse around Google's new developer verification requirements. This menu item was used to manually install an OS update from a .zip file and already required that file to be signed by Samsung on locked devices.
On unlocked devices, you can install your own recovery that still has the option. So the removal doesn't prevent too much in practice. That ship sailed when Samsung stopped allowing bootloader unlocking on most of their phones.
This article isn't about the installation of regular apps. The "sideloading" it's referring to is the option to use the "adb sideload <OTA file>" command when booted into recovery mode to install OS updates. The functionality being removed is being able to install a proper OEM-signed OS update from a local file.
Old versions of Android do not comply with OS age-checking regulations in California, Brazil, and elsewhere. Samsung face legal repercussions including fines if residents of such jurisdictions are allowed to run an old OS. Yes, the laws apply to entities outside the borders of the territory.
This is part of a broader pattern that's been bugging me. Every year Android devices get a little more locked down, and every year the justification is "security." But removing adb sideload for OTA updates doesn't protect users from malware, it protects Samsung from users who want to control their own update timeline.
I had a Galaxy S21 that got stuck in a boot loop after an OTA went bad. The only fix was adb sideload a known-good firmware. Without that option I would've had to mail it to Samsung or buy a new phone. How is that better for anyone?
The cynical read is that this is about pushing people toward Samsung's own update infrastructure so they can better control the rollout cadence and eventually tie it to Samsung accounts or subscriptions. The optimistic read is that they're simplifying recovery mode for less technical users. Either way the people who actually need these tools are losing them.
Note that this menu item was not used to install Android apps, which is what people often mean by "sideloading", especially with all the discourse around Google's new developer verification requirements. This menu item was used to manually install an OS update from a .zip file and already required that file to be signed by Samsung on locked devices.
On unlocked devices, you can install your own recovery that still has the option. So the removal doesn't prevent too much in practice. That ship sailed when Samsung stopped allowing bootloader unlocking on most of their phones.
No, not ", including sideloading."
It's ", including installing software". Lets not let the enemy of general purpose computing define the framing of the discussion.
This article isn't about the installation of regular apps. The "sideloading" it's referring to is the option to use the "adb sideload <OTA file>" command when booted into recovery mode to install OS updates. The functionality being removed is being able to install a proper OEM-signed OS update from a local file.
Old versions of Android do not comply with OS age-checking regulations in California, Brazil, and elsewhere. Samsung face legal repercussions including fines if residents of such jurisdictions are allowed to run an old OS. Yes, the laws apply to entities outside the borders of the territory.
GDPR applies to entities outside the borders of the territory, yet most of the world doesn't give a shit.
Because it can't be enforced outside the borders of the territory.