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

Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 284 posts

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#141

Post by pas »

izacus wrote: post #97
saurik wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "running continuously" makes it sound like they are doing something... but they aren't: they are blocked reading on a socket. The only time they would run is if they receive information, which is exactly when they would run anyway (as they got a notification). The difference in battery usage would essentially be down to subtle effects caused by the private memory of that process (which might be negligible)…

The main issue with what you're mentioning is usually the fact that only Apple and Google servers tend to be whitelisted on telco routers for long polling connections. Trying to keep long-running HTTP connections for everyone else tends to be extremely hard on battery life since telcos can kill of connections even as often as 2 - 5 minutes. Powering up the main core and radio so often will make your phone hardly last…

Is there any real data or other hard evidence of this whitelisting?

Especially in the EU where no favorable treatment is the default (so net neutrality) - as far as I know.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#142

Post by maxaf »

soulofmischief wrote: post #140
izacus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter how much money Google is going to have to pay in the future as a fine for this practice. The amount of money that they will get for kicking out the competition is going to be way higher. That is a learned lesson from Microsoft (and probably others before them). The competition in this case is Apples iOS, for which even HackerNews users love to harp over and over and over again how amazing it is an…

I don't think you're focusing on the entire picture. Some people here like iOS for the reasons you described. However I'm willing to bet, unless you can show me otherwise, that it's a vocal minority. I don't know of anyone personally who is happy that Apple disallows GPL code. Comparing Apple's digital Fort Knox with Google's unsupervised free-for-all is a false dichotomy. There exists a happy medium, where power use…

Please forgive me for being unnecessarily obtuse this early on a Monday morning.

Where does Apple say that GPL code isn’t allowed on the App Store? I ask entirely out of my selfish need to avoid unpleasant surprises later on.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#143

Post by pas »

Bud wrote: post #105
throwayEngineer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google puts 1 restriction, they are the enemy. Apple has created priopritary connectors, closed off systems, paid barriers to entry, and banning apps from their store. Where is Apple and Microsoft on the scale from Friend to Enemy?

What proprietary connectors? There was one significant one. Singular. Lightning. That's it, in the recent history of Apple. And thank God they created it: micro-USB sucks. There was a legitimate engineering need for it. The other things you mention have all been a great service to users, in protecting their security and privacy.

All the chargers, cables, iPhone sockets?

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#144

Post by izacus »

maxaf wrote: post #142
soulofmischief wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're focusing on the entire picture. Some people here like iOS for the reasons you described. However I'm willing to bet, unless you can show me otherwise, that it's a vocal minority. I don't know of anyone personally who is happy that Apple disallows GPL code. Comparing Apple's digital Fort Knox with Google's unsupervised free-for-all is a false dichotomy. There exists a happy medium, where power use…

Please forgive me for being unnecessarily obtuse this early on a Monday morning. Where does Apple say that GPL code isn’t allowed on the App Store? I ask entirely out of my selfish need to avoid unpleasant surprises later on.

Apple doesn't say it directly, but the way how they deliver apps to devices incompatible with GPL licensing terms.

See for example https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/6109/is-it-possibl... .

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#145

Post by ljackman »

maxaf wrote: post #142
soulofmischief wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're focusing on the entire picture. Some people here like iOS for the reasons you described. However I'm willing to bet, unless you can show me otherwise, that it's a vocal minority. I don't know of anyone personally who is happy that Apple disallows GPL code. Comparing Apple's digital Fort Knox with Google's unsupervised free-for-all is a false dichotomy. There exists a happy medium, where power use…

Please forgive me for being unnecessarily obtuse this early on a Monday morning. Where does Apple say that GPL code isn’t allowed on the App Store? I ask entirely out of my selfish need to avoid unpleasant surprises later on.

Apple has been slowly phasing out GPLed software from their own software, such as Catalina's migration from Bash to Z Shell, but even writing third party apps with the GPL has apparently been problematic in the past: https://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/07/18/vlc-for-ios-will-retu...

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#146

Post by izacus »

pas wrote: post #141
izacus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue with what you're mentioning is usually the fact that only Apple and Google servers tend to be whitelisted on telco routers for long polling connections. Trying to keep long-running HTTP connections for everyone else tends to be extremely hard on battery life since telcos can kill of connections even as often as 2 - 5 minutes. Powering up the main core and radio so often will make your phone hardly last…

Is there any real data or other hard evidence of this whitelisting? Especially in the EU where no favorable treatment is the default (so net neutrality) - as far as I know.

Just first hand experience, sorry.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#147

Post by soulofmischief »

maxaf wrote: post #142
soulofmischief wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're focusing on the entire picture. Some people here like iOS for the reasons you described. However I'm willing to bet, unless you can show me otherwise, that it's a vocal minority. I don't know of anyone personally who is happy that Apple disallows GPL code. Comparing Apple's digital Fort Knox with Google's unsupervised free-for-all is a false dichotomy. There exists a happy medium, where power use…

Please forgive me for being unnecessarily obtuse this early on a Monday morning. Where does Apple say that GPL code isn’t allowed on the App Store? I ask entirely out of my selfish need to avoid unpleasant surprises later on.

It's what I've heard rehashed around HN, but afaik the actual policy is more or less as described here:

https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/18922

Essentially it works like it should anywhere else: If you don't publish source code and someone complains, you're out. In an ideal world Google Play would hold itself to the same standards.

However, the App Store does impart restrictions which are incompatible with GPL, so it's not so much that Apple doesn't allow it as it is that GPL doesn't allow it.

Apple has no official statement on this of course, but we know how they feel about GPL code given that they've removed every bit of it from their OS over the last few years.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#148

Post by damnyou »

jakear wrote: post #104
megous wrote: post #35

Can this fall under system library exception? For example if you're building mingw32 based GPL C app, you're linking to all kinds of windows system libraries and there's no need for them to be under GPL. If this notification library is available to anyone on Android and is part of the Android system platform, can it be the same, like some DLL that does notifications on windows?

I think it depends on if the library is distributed with the app or with the system. In this case, the library would be distributed with the app I believe, meaning it would not be exempted.

I think this is true for GPLv2 but not for v3. But IANAL.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#149

Post by jayd16 »

gubbrora wrote: post #135
izacus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter how much money Google is going to have to pay in the future as a fine for this practice. The amount of money that they will get for kicking out the competition is going to be way higher. That is a learned lesson from Microsoft (and probably others before them). The competition in this case is Apples iOS, for which even HackerNews users love to harp over and over and over again how amazing it is an…

An ideal platform would use a foss compatible framework. It would allow the user to configure which server to use to push notifications(one server for all apps, since that is needed for battery reasons). Notifications would be encrypted with the apps key.

>allow the user to configure

This may be an ideal solution for you but its really not for most people.

Re: Android now forces apps to include proprietary code for push notifications

#150

Post by damnyou »

Spivak wrote: post #123
DiseasedBadger wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use a gpl library, what you make with it must be distributed under the gpl. You cannot distribute firebase blobs under the gpl. Ergo, you have used a gpl library to make something not gpl. Which is illegal.

A GPL app can absolutely link to proprietary software and still be covered under the GPL. From the GPLv3 itself. > The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a…

Note the GPLv2 doesn't allow the exception to apply if the library is distributed with the app. GPLv3 doesn't draw a distinction between distributing with the app or linking to something already on the system. But IANAL.
Post reply on HN