1. Are you ready for the Galaxy S20? Here is everything we know so far!

Friend told me about apps not allowed to install on SD card on this phone

Discussion in 'Android Devices' started by kenio8185, Feb 17, 2011.

  1. kenio8185

    kenio8185 Member
    Thread Starter

    I was gonna get this phone, and moto locking the bootloader (again) is really annoying, but I can deal with it. Now, my friend texts me and says that they are now allowing apps on the sd card, is this true?

    Also (if this makes a difference), I'm getting the phone from Bell (canadian provider), not AT&T.

    I'm really hoping my friend is wrong.


  2. stoli412

    stoli412 Member

    I think maybe your friend meant you can't load apps FROM the SD card (aka sideloading). AT&T disables this on all its Android phones, but there are relatively easy ways around it.
  3. kenio8185

    kenio8185 Member
    Thread Starter

    Well, like I said, I'm with Bell.

    However, if Bell does it as well, can you link me to one of these methods?
  4. s.m.knipe

    s.m.knipe Android Expert

    Google "Android Central Sideload Wonder Machine" it is the easiest...
    mrvirginia likes this.
  5. kenio8185

    kenio8185 Member
    Thread Starter

    dang, that takes a bit more effort then what I would have wished. I was hoping for something that did it from the phone, so that I wouldn't need a computer.

    Still though, beggers can't be choosers, so if I run into this problem with Bell, I'll have to use this.
  6. mrvirginia

    mrvirginia Android Expert

    thanks for this
  7. Aaronneyer

    Aaronneyer Member

    What would you need Install to SD card for anyways? It has 16 GB of built in memory.
  8. kenio8185

    kenio8185 Member
    Thread Starter

    That is true, but it's still something useful to have.
  9. s.m.knipe

    s.m.knipe Android Expert

    The point is that AT&T wants to make sure that only those who know android well enough to find the official way to sideload (through adb push in the sdk), because they will know enough to not install viruses or problematic apps- theoretically at least.

    I don't disagree with the policy from the problem potential standpoint, but it does bother me at an ideological level.
    cleanermonkey likes this.
  10. kenio8185

    kenio8185 Member
    Thread Starter

    I see your point, but I hate being babied. It's like with the iPhone and not allowing its users to use flash, the reason they give for it is that flash takes a ton of battery to use.

    It should be up to the person who owns the phone to decide if what they are doing is going to use up too much battery, or risk infecting their phone with a virus.

    However, I can see on the point of At&t, it can be used to avoid further issues with people who accidentally got a virus on their phone.
  11. It bothers me at every level. You don't see the millions of Android owners on Verizon,T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.... having problems.
    It's a BS at&t policy.

    As for the OP. Unless you're ordering the ATT version you shouldn't have any problems on Bell.
  12. s.m.knipe

    s.m.knipe Android Expert

    I can't really speak about whether people do on the other carriers or not, but I do know that if you read through any of the keyboard or live wallpaper port threads, and you'll see what I mean. There are plenty of people flashing or applying stuff because it looks cool, then freaking out when it doesn't work. Stuff on XDA is generally kosher, but if they are grabbing it from there, I am sure they are grabbing it from wherever else too... I am not defending it, just saying what their mentality is and that I can see why they would implement a policy such as this.

    This is very true, it is an AT&T only policy as far as I can tell.

  13. Everyone knows that's not why they really do it. They do it to limit what apps can be installed. They removed the ability to install apps that help with Tethering (such as PDANet) even from the Market, and they remove any other way to install Apps so people can't just get it from the internet or sent to them on the phone.

    There's no gracious or benevolent reason for them turning off sideloading. It's purely money-driven, like everything else AT&T does.
  14. youareme7

    youareme7 Well-Known Member

    I agree, they're not out to help the user, they're out to make money. It's the same reason they lock the bootloader, they wouldn't want the consumer to have too much freedom and be able to do whatever they want with their device now would they?

    I don't buy the argument about people bricking their phones and costing the manufacturer's money, you void your warranty if you do that stuff and they would just refuse service. You don't see dell complaining about people installing linux on their computers do you? No, because it's your computer and if you screw it up jacking with the OS or BIOS it's your fault and they won't fix it for free.
  15. Motorola locks the bootloader, not AT&T. Motorola has locked the bootloaders on nearly all of their recent devices (including Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T)

Share This Page