61–70 of 413 posts
If you want to ruin Facebook, push for legislation. Do it the right way.
I’m all for the “fake data” idea, but also: Apps should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data. I know last time I developed for iOS, it was Apple’s policy that apps cannot punish users or exit() the app in retaliation for them denying a permission. Apps must gracefully handle it and continue running. Also, and this was even longer ago, apps could not require users…
> apps could not require users to have “an account” in order to run There is some big qualification missing or I don't understand what does that even mean. How could a banking app run without an account? An online game? The Twitter app nowadays? Dropbox/Nextcloud/...? Etc. Yeah, I agree that for a lot of apps, requiring a account is just a marketing gimmick, but I don't think such a general rule could work.
For context that would mean that to browse a site like Hacker News, you couldn't require an account, but to post you could. It covers things like Banks or Steam, etc.
Would that be workable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do a lot of people use Google Maps on iOS? I ask because the “feed fake data” option is something I could imagine Apple doing but never in a million years would I believe Google would do it. Apple Maps wouldn’t have this issue. It’s capable of running offline (without a data connection) because it can download maps to the device.
> Apple Maps wouldn’t have this issue. It’s capable of running offline (without a data connection) because it can download maps to the device. Why would that matter? Even if the map data is cached locally, a navigation app obviously needs a GPS location from the phone, which requires it to be granted permissions. And the fake data would be equally disastrous to any navigation app. Or are you suggesting that if Apple…
Unpopular opinion: No, it shouldn’t. That would be unethical. Aggregating cohorts of data to determine what you might or might not like to buy, and vigorously safeguarding that data since you know it will cost your business billions in market cap if it is exposed is far more reasonable. Yours is just a passive aggressive way to “ruin Facebook”. If you want to ruin Facebook, push for legislation. Do it the right way.
As an app developer I do not like this idea. You want to break the contract on what that permission is intended to be. ("Weather the Trip" road trip weather app for the U.S.)
Heck, even the internet access (android.permission.INTERNET) should be a runtime permission. A fakeable one, too.
This will just make app developers angry at your platform. If this is just some hack users are doing apps will increasingly use attestation to make sure you are not feeding them fake data. Apps want to be able to give users a good user experience and if they are given fake data users will get angry that the developer's app is broken and leave 1 star reviews. Denying permissions and letting apps know something is deni…
But if you require gps to make a post, the user does not benefit from it. Unless they have an incentive to share their location, they do not need to give real data. Maybe the dev should give an explanation. If they receive a one star review, the developers should use it as feedback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do a lot of people use Google Maps on iOS? I ask because the “feed fake data” option is something I could imagine Apple doing but never in a million years would I believe Google would do it. Apple Maps wouldn’t have this issue. It’s capable of running offline (without a data connection) because it can download maps to the device.
a lot of people do, for example me. apple maps sucks badly where i live (eu). say, it has no idea my house (built 6 years ago) exists, it builds routes via non-existing roads, is not aware of road works, detours or most of the businesses around apple maps is completely useless here, even though i don’t like using a google app, there’s no alternative
I’m all for the “fake data” idea, but also: Apps should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data. I know last time I developed for iOS, it was Apple’s policy that apps cannot punish users or exit() the app in retaliation for them denying a permission. Apps must gracefully handle it and continue running. Also, and this was even longer ago, apps could not require users…
> apps could not require users to have “an account” in order to run There is some big qualification missing or I don't understand what does that even mean. How could a banking app run without an account? An online game? The Twitter app nowadays? Dropbox/Nextcloud/...? Etc. Yeah, I agree that for a lot of apps, requiring a account is just a marketing gimmick, but I don't think such a general rule could work.
I’m all for the “fake data” idea, but also: Apps should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data. I know last time I developed for iOS, it was Apple’s policy that apps cannot punish users or exit() the app in retaliation for them denying a permission. Apps must gracefully handle it and continue running. Also, and this was even longer ago, apps could not require users…
> Apps should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data Or else? You're suggesting an organizational solution to a technical problem. This can't possibly work. Fake data is the only practical solution to this, such that the app would see the permission as granted when it is not actually granted.