Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android vendors, don’t kill my app

dontkillmyapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 414 posts

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#71

Post by simonh »

raxxorrax wrote: post #62
sudhirj wrote: post #58

This is the Android multitasking lead finally coming fully circle. Android had multi tasking much earlier and in a more powerful way by allowing apps to start their own serivices and do pretty much whatever they wanted, but this is the unfortunate logical result - apps that agressively kill other apps, installed by the handset manufacturers, to protect users from badly written apps that drain the battery in the servi…

I think the locked environments we have on phones is the reason we see a lot of trash apps. You don't have this development on more open platforms. At least no to that degree. So both, Apple and Google are at fault here. It is not the API, it is not threading capabilities. Just shitty and locked environments. So define as many additional rules as you like. Won't change much.

The point is trash apps don't have to be a problem as long as the platform is managed properly. Anyway your trash app is probably someone else's fun entertainment.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#72

Post by simonh »

squarefoot wrote: post #70
raxxorrax wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the locked environments we have on phones is the reason we see a lot of trash apps. You don't have this development on more open platforms. At least no to that degree. So both, Apple and Google are at fault here. It is not the API, it is not threading capabilities. Just shitty and locked environments. So define as many additional rules as you like. Won't change much.

The locked environment may prevent users from removing branded crapware installed by vendors, but it's not its cause. Popularity is. If Gentoo Linux (just to name one we wouldn't expect Joe User to know) became popular as Android on cellphones, we would see in no time vendors trying to cram their crapware into every platform running Gentoo as well, but its open nature would allow users to remove unwanted stuff, so ve…

Right, so 'open' Gentoo would get forked into a hundred locked down, obfuscated, proprietary flavours with all the same problems. In fact it's only a closed system with a single gatekeeper that can avoid this problem at scale, because it's the only way to maintain clear lines of responsibility.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#73

Post by simias »

sudhirj wrote: post #58

This is the Android multitasking lead finally coming fully circle. Android had multi tasking much earlier and in a more powerful way by allowing apps to start their own serivices and do pretty much whatever they wanted, but this is the unfortunate logical result - apps that agressively kill other apps, installed by the handset manufacturers, to protect users from badly written apps that drain the battery in the servi…

Isn't it also the consequence of taking the control away from the user? Why can't I whitelist which applications I want to allow to run in the background? Why do I still have to grant an application all the permissions it requests when I install it instead of being able to turn them on or off individually?

By dumbing things down that way Google created this situation IMO, it's bad from a quality, usability and privacy perspective. Of course Google considers that you leaking your personal info is a feature so that part probably won't change, but they should at least care about the two other points.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#75

Post by sudhirj »

simias wrote: post #73
sudhirj wrote: post #58

This is the Android multitasking lead finally coming fully circle. Android had multi tasking much earlier and in a more powerful way by allowing apps to start their own serivices and do pretty much whatever they wanted, but this is the unfortunate logical result - apps that agressively kill other apps, installed by the handset manufacturers, to protect users from badly written apps that drain the battery in the servi…

Isn't it also the consequence of taking the control away from the user? Why can't I whitelist which applications I want to allow to run in the background? Why do I still have to grant an application all the permissions it requests when I install it instead of being able to turn them on or off individually? By dumbing things down that way Google created this situation IMO, it's bad from a quality, usability and privac…

Should also see if the killer apps are phoning home every time they kill anything, along with info about which app is killed on whose phone at what time. Becuase, you know, analytics.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#76

Post by detaro »

kkkaizer wrote: post #74

I dont get it? This is the best thing for me. Iam fed up of the notification loop of apps that I have to eventually delete. Thank god for telling me to buy a Nokia next time.

(assuming the claims on the site are correct, since I have no first-hand data on it) You really don't get that some people think apps like alarm clocks, sleep tracking, GPS logging, ... are useful and should be allowed to run if the user chooses them? To me, a phone that can't reliably run an application for a few hours is fairly useless.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#77

Post by sudhirj »

simias wrote: post #73
sudhirj wrote: post #58

This is the Android multitasking lead finally coming fully circle. Android had multi tasking much earlier and in a more powerful way by allowing apps to start their own serivices and do pretty much whatever they wanted, but this is the unfortunate logical result - apps that agressively kill other apps, installed by the handset manufacturers, to protect users from badly written apps that drain the battery in the servi…

Isn't it also the consequence of taking the control away from the user? Why can't I whitelist which applications I want to allow to run in the background? Why do I still have to grant an application all the permissions it requests when I install it instead of being able to turn them on or off individually? By dumbing things down that way Google created this situation IMO, it's bad from a quality, usability and privac…

And yeah, the permissions model in Android vs Apple is different, but multi tasking in particular feels the same. i.e. Apple has fine grained permissions on demand for contacts, microphone, camera, location, etc, and requires that all apps gracefully degrade when permissions is denied.

But for multitasking there isn’t really any fine grained permissions - as long as the app is doing a whitelisted task in the background, no user permission is required. I think Apple does check that background APIs are not misused as part of the review process, though - I don’t think you could implement a tracking socket masquerading as a background download, for instace.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#78

Post by simonh »

traspler wrote: post #45

For me this problem is very real. For example I got my mother a Pocofone F1 (by Xiaomi). Everything works fine, WhatsApp notifications arrive but there are some apps which just get crushed by Xiaomi's battery saver. Audible's lock-screen widget for example just does not show up unless you enable/disable 2-3 battery saving and notification settings after installing the app. I think this incantation can't be expected e…

If they didn't do this sort of aggressive system management, I'm wondering what the negative effects would be for them as a brand. I doubt it would be about benchmarks, those are generally done on clean systems at least for review purposes. Likewise Marketing is mainly about features.

I suppose it must be genuinely about the user experience and brand perception by device owners. If the phone slows down and the battery drains fast users will blame the phone manufacturer, while if apps crash or app features don't work users will blame the app vendor even though the reality in both cases would be the other way around.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#79

Post by blensor »

maxmunzel wrote: post #29

I don’t see their problem with Sony’s stamina mode: The UI makes it very clear if you have it enabled, it explicitly tells you what it does and I never missed anything because of it. If you keep your phone on silent you don’t care if it delays fetching messages until you actually turn on your screen anyway...

If your phone is silent it still blinks the message indicator led when something has arrived.

My phone is almost always silent because of our dogs, but I have it lying on my desk and see when something has arrived due to the blinking indicator.

Post reply on HN