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

Google have declared Droidscript is malware

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#91

Post by [deleted] »

arp242 wrote: post #82
eplanit wrote: post #25

It's seriously time to re-embrace the idea of ownership and control of our devices, and reject Android and iOS altogether. Developing for those platforms has become worse and more restrictive over the years, and this kind of crap is now just everyday news. How good are Pinephones[1]? Are there better alternatives? [1] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

The biggest problem with "alternative" platforms is just the lack of app support. I used to have a Nokia N9; great phone. But it didn't support WhatsApp and I was out on the loop on the WhatsApp chat all my other coworkers were in. Then there's things like banking apps, flight check-in apps, food ordering apps, dating apps, etc. etc. Can you do without those? Sure, of course. But if I want to order food where I live…

[deleted]

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#94

Post by pydry »

shadowgovt wrote: post #48
eplanit wrote: post #25

It's seriously time to re-embrace the idea of ownership and control of our devices, and reject Android and iOS altogether. Developing for those platforms has become worse and more restrictive over the years, and this kind of crap is now just everyday news. How good are Pinephones[1]? Are there better alternatives? [1] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

Most users would prefer a mostly safe experience and gladly give up the option to run arbitrary code on their device for that experience (including arbitrary code they've written). In an all-out "this or that" between allowing IDEs on the Play Store in general and giving the average Play Store user what they want, the IDEs would lose. But it does suck if there is no legitimate way to release an IDE targeted to run on…

Most users don't really understand what they're giving up when they give up the option to run arbitrary code

As with privacy (Facebook privacy settings, cookie boxes), it's easy to bamboozle the general public with complexity and then interpret their confusion and (violated) trust as consent.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#95

Post by karlicoss »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #84
Aperocky wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's just time to see phones as what they are - a phone. I don't really care what software is ran in my truck, as long as it works (And that's why I'll not buy a Tesla). It's a phone, use it to call text and guide and browse some internet. That's it.

I envy your chill. We all do need to take a deep breath at times and realize it's truly a first world problem. With that said your truck analogy isn't perfect. Your truck will last as long as you keep it going. That can be 20 years or more. It would be more like having a truck that the doors do not lock anymore after 2 years and you cannot fix that you must buy a new truck if you don't want thieves.

Also I think the analogy doesn't quite work because a truck is a truck. You can do some customization, you might (or not be) able to change some parts, or being a mechanical engineer you might even be able to repair it or enhance. But it will always fundamentally be a truck.

The difference from phones is that a phone is a computer, and as such it has computer's endless potential. For some it can be just a phone, sure. But many people want to use it as an extension of their mind, as knowledge management tool, as a creative tool, etc. The frustrating bit is that is many aspects phones are much nicer and better suited for such tasks than regular desktop computers (think portability, having cameras & sensors etc), yet because of these walled gardens it's much harder for a knowledgeable person to leverage this potential.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#96

Post by badsectoracula »

fmajid wrote: post #80
Aperocky wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's just time to see phones as what they are - a phone. I don't really care what software is ran in my truck, as long as it works (And that's why I'll not buy a Tesla). It's a phone, use it to call text and guide and browse some internet. That's it.

> Maybe it's just time to see phones as what they are - a phone. Maybe it's time to call phones what they really are: pocket computers with a legacy voice call functionality that is increasingly irrelevant to anyone who isn't a Boomer. Now, regarding the locked-down of both iOS and Android ecosystems, I can see both points of view. The majority of ordinary users need to be protected from increasingly sophisticated ma…

> with a legacy voice call functionality that is increasingly irrelevant to anyone who isn't a Boomer.

Sadly this requires mobile Internet prices to at least match voice call prices, which is not the case in many (developed or not) parts of the world.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#97

Post by Aperocky »

fmajid wrote: post #80
Aperocky wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's just time to see phones as what they are - a phone. I don't really care what software is ran in my truck, as long as it works (And that's why I'll not buy a Tesla). It's a phone, use it to call text and guide and browse some internet. That's it.

> Maybe it's just time to see phones as what they are - a phone. Maybe it's time to call phones what they really are: pocket computers with a legacy voice call functionality that is increasingly irrelevant to anyone who isn't a Boomer. Now, regarding the locked-down of both iOS and Android ecosystems, I can see both points of view. The majority of ordinary users need to be protected from increasingly sophisticated ma…

> pocket computers with a legacy voice call functionality

I don't necessarily agree with this, because this is the direction that everything is moving towards.

It is so much cheaper to embed an SOC into everything that needs some form of automated/assisted control. Not necessarily a good thing, but that's what is going to happen regardless.

Your fridge can become a pocket computer with refrigerating capability - but you'll still see it as a fridge. It's really about how you see and utilize these items.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#98

Post by skykooler »

arp242 wrote: post #82
eplanit wrote: post #25

It's seriously time to re-embrace the idea of ownership and control of our devices, and reject Android and iOS altogether. Developing for those platforms has become worse and more restrictive over the years, and this kind of crap is now just everyday news. How good are Pinephones[1]? Are there better alternatives? [1] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

The biggest problem with "alternative" platforms is just the lack of app support. I used to have a Nokia N9; great phone. But it didn't support WhatsApp and I was out on the loop on the WhatsApp chat all my other coworkers were in. Then there's things like banking apps, flight check-in apps, food ordering apps, dating apps, etc. etc. Can you do without those? Sure, of course. But if I want to order food where I live…

I use Sailfish OS and the android compatibility layer is decent, but not perfect. Some apps have issues understanding the network connectivity state, and photos taken with the Sailfish camera app sometimes don't show up in the Android file selector until the compatibility layer is restarted. Other than that, most apps work fine. (I mainly use it for spotify, slack and maps.)

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#99

Post by okaram »

eplanit wrote: post #25

It's seriously time to re-embrace the idea of ownership and control of our devices, and reject Android and iOS altogether. Developing for those platforms has become worse and more restrictive over the years, and this kind of crap is now just everyday news. How good are Pinephones[1]? Are there better alternatives? [1] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

It doesn't much matter how good they are, since you can't buy them (their products are usually out of stock for months at a time; right now, they are in pre-sales etc).

I like what they are doing, but it is definitely not mainstream products.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#100

Post by szopa »

dtx1 wrote: post #39
ajross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, the usual complete lack of communication by google is the actual problem. Uh... Seems like the actual problem (given that scenario) is that adware is being pushed to users, not whether or not Google defended its ban in public. Complaints about customer service (from everyone, not just Google) are a dime a dozen, actual user security is clearly more important, right? Your answer presupposes a frame where Dr…

Banning it first is fine. banning it first, then not giving a reply to the concerns they have is not. Even if they have reasonable believe or proof that droidscript is indeed malware, it looks like at least a chunk of their userbase uses it for legitimate usecases and the devs, who likely invested at least a few hundred hours of work in it, deserve at least some communication.

I used to work at Google, and a friend reached out to me for help – his company's app was in a similar situation, with similar communication from Google. This was a good friend from high school, so I pressed the issue using internal channels. The person handling it on Google's side was very assertive about them violating a policy, and after some back and forth I received a _vague hint_ about what was the supposed violation. I passed the hint along, and after some digging, lo and behold, it turned out one of their people had lifted someone else's images without permission, violating copyright (kudos to Google for figuring it out). My friend apologized profusely to me, to the support rep, his boss, and let the culprit go. They purged the app's assets, changed their processes, and eventually the app was reinstated.

Now, this was a special situation. I had a personal relationship with the developer, and I was happy to vouch for their honesty. Yet it still turned out Google had been right all along. Now, it's a shame Google couldn't let them know what was the issue. However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. And there's a lot of them. If Google gave a detailed explanation to all of them it would mean a ton of additional work – which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale.

Post reply on HN