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

271–280 of 284 posts

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

#271

Post by Bud »

pas wrote: post #143
Bud wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Um, there has been ONE new iPhone port design. One. Lightning. Which I already mentioned. As for MagSafe, that's a strength, and there have been a grand total of TWO versions of that. Compare to the 900 trillion different PC charging sockets during that time.

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

#272

Post by evilDagmar »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #120
deogeo wrote: post #18

Perhaps it is time to treat Google as the enemy, because that is how it is treating us.

Google still lets you use your own push notification service. It will just be correctly reported as using more battery. The evil thing is not providing a GPL-compatible library for connecting to that service, but I'd be surprised if that isn't remedied.

Not quite. Apps have always been held to accounting for the amount of battery and clockcycles they use. The only change here is that a notification is now required for an app to deploy a persistent service. If you request the absolute lowest priority for your notification, your app winds up in the list of apps which are "running" in the background (mainly because the stuff way down at the bottom is too easily missed). If you don't request the lowest priority notification, then your notification text says whatever you'd like it to say and your app doesn't feature in the default notification.

...and there are plenty of good reasons to explicitly register as a foreground service.

I agree with you that someone's bound to crank out a GPL-compatible lib for interfacing with FCM sooner or later.

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

#273

Post by evilDagmar »

kartan wrote: post #26

> Problem: The Firebase Android client library is proprietary, meaning FOSS apps can not use it. Apps that do not comply are reported to the user as "using too much battery". This is a standard on the industry. From 1999: https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_i... 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 th…

> Problem: The Firebase Android client library is proprietary, meaning FOSS apps can not use it. Apps that do not comply are reported to the user as "using too much battery".

This is simply not true. These two points don't even make a coherent argument, as it's plainly discernible that lots of apps don't use the Firebase Android client library but aren't "reported to the user".

Furthermore, "using too much battery" is not what the notification says. It simply says "is using battery", and even this is avoidable.

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

#274

Post by evilDagmar »

black_puppydog wrote: post #224
kllrnohj wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There exists a happy medium, where power users get all the freedom they want but apps are still by default beholden to certain restrictions. And this is orthogonal to a proprietary API. Is this not the happy medium Google is trying to hit? Power users can unlock their bootloader and do whatever they want. This is still officially supported, with vendor blobs officially provided. By default things are restricted to…

For completeness' sake: even power users cannot really do with their devices as they please, if they don't happen to be kernel hackers with a few months' worth of time to spare. If google was trying to hit some sweet spot (I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here any longer) then they would not spout such obviously wrong BS to scare users into submission. Conversations and telegram both put the work…

Then it's a real shame they haven't paid attention to the documentation for NotificationBuilder, because there's a straightforward solution to the problem they're complaining about.

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

#275

Post by [deleted] »

kllrnohj wrote: post #178
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…

> There exists a happy medium, where power users get all the freedom they want but apps are still by default beholden to certain restrictions. And this is orthogonal to a proprietary API. Is this not the happy medium Google is trying to hit? Power users can unlock their bootloader and do whatever they want. This is still officially supported, with vendor blobs officially provided. By default things are restricted to…

[deleted]

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

#276

Post by soulofmischief »

kllrnohj wrote: post #243
rjzzleep wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I thought when I bought my Sony phone. Except when you unlock it you run a crippled version of the phone. Huawei recently stopped allowing bootloader unlocks. Unlocking the bootloader is becoming increasingly rare. To be honest, ignoring the back and forth between the discussions here, am the only one that doesn't get WHY the firebase library isn't open source? It could just be GPL right? Most of the inte…

> Unlocking the bootloader is becoming increasingly rare. This is a bit of "you get what you buy" territory. Google's devices have official bootloader unlock capability and always have, with instructions here: https://source.android.com/setup/build/running - already updated for the Pixel 3a & 3a XL even. You take your risks when you buy something that doesn't advertise that. > Most of the interesting stuff happens in…

I just bought a new Pixel 3a only to find out that my cell provider locks the bootloader until I've paid for 3-4 months service with the phone, despite previously having an account with them.

This was not mentioned at any time during the purchase and they would not take my phone back.

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

#277

Post by soulofmischief »

pseudalopex wrote: post #241
soulofmischief wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 GP…

The App Store came after the GPL. Also, Apple could let developers opt out of the restrictions.

But they don't, and that's what this conversation is about.

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

#278

Post by soulofmischief »

avar wrote: post #155
soulofmischief wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 GP…

They haven't been removing GPL code actively, they decided not to take the risk of using GPL version 3 software, so they've let the respective versions of bash, rsync etc. linger at their last released GPL version 2 releases. E.g. Git is on GPL version 2 still (and probably forever), and Apple continues to update that in a relatively timely fashion.

Apple just switched to zsh, which is not GPL other than a few optional shell functions. Expect this trend to continue.

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

#279

Post by soulofmischief »

scarface74 wrote: post #256
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…

I don't know of anyone personally who is happy that Apple disallows GPL code. And this is what you call a geek bubble. In the grand scheme of things most people don’t know what the GPL is and out of those, only a minority care about it running on their phone.

Most of my friends are not "geeks", and do not exist in the technological space that I do. I'm not speaking from within a bubble.

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

#280

Post by officeplant »

soulofmischief wrote: post #276
kllrnohj wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unlocking the bootloader is becoming increasingly rare. This is a bit of "you get what you buy" territory. Google's devices have official bootloader unlock capability and always have, with instructions here: https://source.android.com/setup/build/running - already updated for the Pixel 3a & 3a XL even. You take your risks when you buy something that doesn't advertise that. > Most of the interesting stuff happens in…

I just bought a new Pixel 3a only to find out that my cell provider locks the bootloader until I've paid for 3-4 months service with the phone, despite previously having an account with them. This was not mentioned at any time during the purchase and they would not take my phone back.

Unfortunately that's the problem with getting any phone via a cell provider. You are typically beholden to them in some fashion for a few months.

Buying unlocked phones from the start can be an expensive downside, but being free from contracts and carrier bullshit can be a huge upside.

Post reply on HN