Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware • Hacker News Board

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#231

Post by vunie » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 1:56 PM UTC

thiagomgd wrote: post #176

EastSmith wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of you make the point that we should be able to uninstall - not just disable - anything that is not OS. (for the record I've disabled a lot of stuff on my Galaxy)

YES. But with samsung is worse. I can't disable the calendar app, or not add my google accounts there. Your account is added, and the only thing you can do is de-select the calendar to not sync/display notifications...

That's why I never use my real google account with my phone. Android phones offer too little control over what is perhaps one of the most important digital asset I own: my google account.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#232

Post by iggldiggl » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 2:02 PM UTC

sprayk wrote: post #201

saagarjha wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're still on your phone taking up space, though.

for better or worse, they are on the read-only partition, meaning removing them would change the checksum and result in the system partition failing signature validation at boot. Disabling is the best we will get as long as this practice continues.

And even ignoring any potential checksum issues, uninstalling that kind of apps consequently only frees up space on the system partition, where it is of little value to the average user.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#233

Post by Awelton » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

I'd like to petition 9to5google.com to not make me have to hit back 5 times to exit the page I just loaded on mobile.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#234

Post by MiracleUser » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #180

MiracleUser wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the experience would be the same if all the apps were disabled by default - and ONLY when the user goes to install them they are able to just enable it instead

No, it wouldn't. The user expects a fully functional phone out of the box, complete with web browser and mail client.

i meant the user who isnt expecting the phone to have what they want gets the experience.

otherwise why allocate disk space to be read only and have apps on it people might not want? (as far as user experience is concerned)

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#235

Post by paulie_a » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 3:27 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #138

wpietri wrote: post #116

Does anybody understand the economic point of making apps nonremovable? From the point of view of a vendor paying for access, presumably their goal is to spark interest and shift default choices. So I get why LinkedIn would pay to be on the phone when it leaves the factory. But if somebody doesn't want it, what do they gain by preventing removal? To me it seems kinda like DRM: I'm sure some executives get woodies at…

Most likely its so you can't just buy a subsidized device for cheap and wipe it clean.

Google and apple manage to do it.

I don't want a subsidized phone not does the average person. The frustrations I have to help people with when they go into that shitty version is always met with "why do they do they, why do I have two contact apps?"

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#236

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

MiracleUser wrote: post #234

lern_too_spel wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it wouldn't. The user expects a fully functional phone out of the box, complete with web browser and mail client.

i meant the user who isnt expecting the phone to have what they want gets the experience. otherwise why allocate disk space to be read only and have apps on it people might not want? (as far as user experience is concerned)

You said, "the experience would be the same." For the vast majority of users who expect the device to be productive out of the box, the experience would be significantly degraded.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#237

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

eitland wrote: post #222

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Nokia 6.1 camera app phones back to Facebook on every startup even if you don't have any account with them. Other than not being rootable, it's a reasonable device.

I tried to find out more about the issue where it phones back to Facebook but wasn't able to in a reasonable time. Do you have pointers?

Install NoRootFirewall. You'll see the camera app making Facebook requests on startup.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#238

Post by MiracleUser » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #236

MiracleUser wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i meant the user who isnt expecting the phone to have what they want gets the experience. otherwise why allocate disk space to be read only and have apps on it people might not want? (as far as user experience is concerned)

You said, "the experience would be the same." For the vast majority of users who expect the device to be productive out of the box, the experience would be significantly degraded.

ah yeah i did not articulate that fully. i see the implication i was making now

i meant they can maintain an app store experience without the bottlneck of downloading expected apps on day 1. instead of downloading and using data an wasting time, it would enable the app. so its the same "opt-in" experience as downloading but with benefits

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#239

Post by ehsankia » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #165

ehsankia wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're downvoted. If I, as an average consumer, bought a phone that didn't come with a browser, maps and music software, I'd think there was something wrong with it and would return it. There may be an argument to make about allowing the user to pick their browser during onboarding, but calling the browser "bloatware" is completely ridiculous. You may not want Chrome, but 99% of people buying a Pixel…

But that is the definition of bloatware. Software that you don't want on your device. Might not be bloatware for you, but it is for me and the op.

For every app that comes with a device, there's at least 1 person out there who doesn't want that app. So by your definition, phones should come with 0 apps pre-installed?

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#240

Post by MiddleEndian » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 11:56 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #221

MiddleEndian wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to dictate it any more than Microsoft does (since they allow PC manufacturers to install all sorts of horrific nonsense). They just have to make the OS such that you can uninstall any application. If this is impossible to do with non-proprietary software, then that's a point for proprietary software.

The OEMs will just add the uninstallable flag functionality back because Android is open source. The only way to prevent OEMs from doing that is to tie it to the Google Play Services agreement which will, again, open Google up to yet another antitrust suit.

If this is the case legally, then it seems in the world of phones, an OSS operating system puts users at the mercy of more organizations (OS developer and phone manufacturer) rather than giving them more control.