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

81–90 of 414 posts

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#81

Post by kkarakk »

seszett wrote: post #66
perlgeek wrote: post #63

https://dontkillmyapp.com/samsung > Yes, even Samsung - a dominant vendor in the Android market - is using nasty battery saving technique which may kill background processes and render alarm clocks useless. See below for workarounds. Wait, do you really need a background task for alarms? (why) isn't there a system-level service to notify and wake up your app at a pre-defined time or interval?

No, you don't need a background task for alarms. There is a JobScheduler API for that. The aggressive battery settings of most vendors only interfere with badly coded apps to begin with, apps that use background tasks when they should be using more appropriate APIs.

what the jobscheduler api is supposed to be used for isn't clear in the docs so people tend to default to creating services(the old way of doing background activities) instead.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#83

Post by Nursie »

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…

> 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?

I don't think this is true in the later releases is it? I get a lot more ad-hoc permission requests these days, and there's much more control in the application settings (the android app settings, not the settings the app presents).

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#84

Post by Nursie »

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…

> but its open nature would allow users to remove unwanted stuff

They would find a way, because money.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#85

Post by nbzklr »

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…

This isn't about protecting the user from badly written and battery draining apps. Almost all of the mentioned manufacturers ship their devices with a long list of pre-installed and whitelisted services, including Facebook and other spyware.

As a developer myself, it is just annoying do deal with and just not scalable if you have to explain each user individually how to turn of these "optimizations" (if that's even possible).

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#86

Post by epaga »

I have had SO many problems with my Android version of a background-running app I made. I've even made a PDF guide just like this page for my customers. Glad to see it's "not just me" - hopefully the vendors will start waking up.

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#87

Post by londons_explore »

The solution to this should be user experience billing.

If your app wants to run a background service which degrades the users battery, you are degrading the user experience for that user, and all the other apps they use.

Another app on the same phone which is very power efficient will still not get used if the battery is dead!

App developers who use up the phone battery should be required to compensate those who use it sparingly.

Google could set up a market for 'milliamp-hours', where each mAh used up by an app is worth $0.00001c. Apps will put money in the pot (subtracted from ad revenue) proportional to how much power they use, and be handed out to all apps based on app usage (how many hours in the foreground for example).

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#88

Post by xfer »

simonh wrote: post #72
squarefoot wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> only a closed system with a single gatekeeper that can avoid this problem at scale

I guess you are hinting at Apple phones but this works only because the gatekeeper is acting in good faith. Then again why do you need a single gatekeeper?

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#89

Post by kkarakk »

android needs to stop being treated as garbage by google. take the reins, full control - monetarily fine OEMs who make their own garbage modifications to the underlying OS and actively harm the user experience. no timely updates? fine. garbage ux reported by vast majority of users? fine. basically re-implement nintendo's seal of approval for games but with the help of crowd-sourced reviews. we have the technology.

but no instead we'll probably get fuschia and android will be deprecated lmao

Re: Android vendors, don’t kill my app

#90

Post by xyzal »

To be honest, as a user I really like the implementation of battery saving features of my Sony phone:

1. They are not enabled by default

2. Their settings screen explicitly states what the modes do

3. They can extend battery life significantly

The most aggressive mode is called Ultra Stamina, and it works by basically turning the phone into dumbphone mode -- complete without any internet connectivity, calls, SMS and alarm clock only -- and the phone has no problem lasting a week.

I use these modes extensively when going backpacking for several days, as I do not have to carry any power banks, which saves precious gramms :)

edit: punctuation, grammar

Post reply on HN