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

Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

androidcentral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#11

Post by ben1040 »

rbritton wrote: post #4

This sounds similar to something on iOS 4.2. If you use any part of the asset library framework, which includes something as benign as building a photo chooser for the media library, the device prompts the user to allow access to location services because the photos might have GPS information in them. There is no way to prevent it because the permissions are not fine-grained enough. In the case of the article, the pr…

There are other permission granularity problems on Android, too. I wrote a streaming media player and want to listen for when the phone rings or goes off hook so I can pause. In order to this I need to access a permission that lets me read IMEI, carrier info, phone number, etc.

That's too much info, and it makes my app look skeezy to be requesting access to that when all I want to do is not have music playing down the speaker while the user is on a call.

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#12

Post by Lyote »

It'd be nice if the Android Market had a place to explain why certain rights are needed by the developer so this kind of thing doesn't cause such an uproar. You'd still have to take the developers word for it, but at least they'd have a chance to defend themselves before the public gets to worked up about it.

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#13

Post by jkaljundi »

dtwwtd wrote: post #5

I find it interesting that Rovio is choosing to build its own payment system rather than use the options that Google is integrating into the Android platform. I don't have a problem with granting these permissions to an app that I use that comes from a well known, trusted developer. Also, the features that require the permissions aren't used unless you actually make the decision to use them. So while the developers r…

For one thing, Google in app payments via carrier billing are not available yet. When it will be, I would not bet too many of the world's ~200 countries will be supported, just a few key markets. Same with Android Market itself, it works in just a tiny mnumber of countries: http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=13829...

Compare that to mobile payment operators, who's key job is to work on carrier agreements across the world. That's why the likes of Rovio choose companies like Fortumo: http://www.socialtimes.com/2010/06/fortumo-launches-internat...

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#14

Post by yardie »

dtwwtd wrote: post #5

I find it interesting that Rovio is choosing to build its own payment system rather than use the options that Google is integrating into the Android platform. I don't have a problem with granting these permissions to an app that I use that comes from a well known, trusted developer. Also, the features that require the permissions aren't used unless you actually make the decision to use them. So while the developers r…

Probably because the Google payment options are woefully inadequate. I'm sorry it really is.

There are few developers that have the resources to roll their own payment systems and Rovio just happens to be one of them.

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#15

Post by SoftwareMaven »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #9
tomjen3 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Android is sometimes used on tablets that can't send SMSs, or you could be out of range or even in airplane mode. Just return the same error code you would if there was a physical problem and continue.

Um no... the application would not just receive the same error code unless Google specifically set it up just for that permission, and that strategy wouldn't work for any other permissions. Think about it, the manifest specifies that the application will have access to whatever it asks for... the application would just crash when the VM/kernel denies it access to other applications data or some system permission beca…

I think there is a middle ground. Certainly, there are going to be some permissions an app can't function without (e.g. you can't have a phone dialer work that doesn't have access to the phone). On the other hand, there are permissions that are purely optional to an application (such as the afore-mentioned SMS).

It would be better to specify "required permissions" and "enhanced feature permissions". I require the phone permission to run. I can use the SMS feature to make your experience better.

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#16

Post by drivebyacct2 »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #15
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um no... the application would not just receive the same error code unless Google specifically set it up just for that permission, and that strategy wouldn't work for any other permissions. Think about it, the manifest specifies that the application will have access to whatever it asks for... the application would just crash when the VM/kernel denies it access to other applications data or some system permission beca…

I think there is a middle ground. Certainly, there are going to be some permissions an app can't function without (e.g. you can't have a phone dialer work that doesn't have access to the phone). On the other hand, there are permissions that are purely optional to an application (such as the afore-mentioned SMS). It would be better to specify "required permissions" and "enhanced feature permissions". I require the pho…

I'm not saying it is a bad idea. I really like it in fact. I really don't think it will work as smoothly as (apparently everyone) seems to think. Android wasn't built to have this feature... and I'm not sure that even this middle ground could be done in a way that doesn't break many existing applications.

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#17

Post by wzdd »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #16
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a middle ground. Certainly, there are going to be some permissions an app can't function without (e.g. you can't have a phone dialer work that doesn't have access to the phone). On the other hand, there are permissions that are purely optional to an application (such as the afore-mentioned SMS). It would be better to specify "required permissions" and "enhanced feature permissions". I require the pho…

I'm not saying it is a bad idea. I really like it in fact. I really don't think it will work as smoothly as (apparently everyone) seems to think. Android wasn't built to have this feature... and I'm not sure that even this middle ground could be done in a way that doesn't break many existing applications.

I don't think it would work either. Take an app that needs, say, wake locks, Internet access, and SMS access. Say further than none of them is strictly required.

Now imagine that users can deny this access on a per-permission basis. Now instead of having one app to test, you have 2 ^ 3. It's not as easy as using existing error codes, because some of these things normally don't break -- in which case it would be excusable to have fairly basic error handling. Displaying a message and allowing the user to restart the app is a fair distance (in terms of app complexity) from being required to produce an app that not only keeps running but does "the right thing" for all possible degradations of required permissions.

EDIT: I don't meant to sound pessimistic. I do really like the idea, but it seems like it would make the dev / test cycle a lot longer.

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#18

Post by msl »

dtwwtd wrote: post #5

I find it interesting that Rovio is choosing to build its own payment system rather than use the options that Google is integrating into the Android platform. I don't have a problem with granting these permissions to an app that I use that comes from a well known, trusted developer. Also, the features that require the permissions aren't used unless you actually make the decision to use them. So while the developers r…

It's not very surprising that they decided to do this, especially since it was first (and so far only) launched in Finland. I don't know about the rest of the world, but Finns are quite used to paying for things with their mobile phones. Giving your credit card number for a smart phone app or an online store does, however, not seem like a very safe thing to do for a lot of people not used to deal with these things. I'm not sure if those people use Android phones very much, but I am quite sure this will make it much more appealing for many to pay for the extra content.

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#19

Post by JonnieCache »

rbritton wrote: post #4

This sounds similar to something on iOS 4.2. If you use any part of the asset library framework, which includes something as benign as building a photo chooser for the media library, the device prompts the user to allow access to location services because the photos might have GPS information in them. There is no way to prevent it because the permissions are not fine-grained enough. In the case of the article, the pr…

There is no separation between operator billing and SMS as I understand it. An "operator billing" payment is simply a very expensive SMS. The differentiation all happens at the provider's end.

This makes it a very flexible system, it has been in use pretty much since SMS became popular.

How do you think those kids were paying for all those ringtones a few years ago? (before you could just put any mp3 on your phone easily)

Re: Rovio explains why Angry Birds update needs SMS permission

#20

Post by eli »

Lyote wrote: post #12

It'd be nice if the Android Market had a place to explain why certain rights are needed by the developer so this kind of thing doesn't cause such an uproar. You'd still have to take the developers word for it, but at least they'd have a chance to defend themselves before the public gets to worked up about it.

The Android Market is practically hostile to dialogue between developer and user. It's really a shame.
Post reply on HN