291–300 of 413 posts
Using top down regulation by app stores seems like a better way to deal with the issue of apps refusing to work without a permission that don't really need. Imagine the amount of needless support requests that will be triggered by people accidentally pressing the wrong thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For microphone access: ```Turn off Microphone access? All apps will be blocked from using the microphone Apps will still work, but they won't be able to access any sounds from the microphone. For example, you can still make and receive calls, but the other person won't be able to hear you.```
All apps seems like not very useful
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…
Apps don't want to give users a good experience. Apps want to milk users for all the data they posses. Denying permissions remains an option, but some digital trash will refuse to work unless you give them your address book and location history. Those apps deserve to be fed fake data. Clicking the "feed fake data" button is an explicit alternative to denying permissions, it's not a replacement.
No, they don't. Please go and actually talk to app developers for their motivations. Look at the mission statements of the companies making the apps.
>Those apps deserve to be fed fake data.
Or you can just not use the app if the experience it offers is not something you want.
>Clicking the "feed fake data" button is an explicit alternative to denying permissions, it's not a replacement.
It's a worse alternative because apps can not properly handle this case unless they detect the data being fed in is fake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
else not be allowed in the App Store, a stick apple is more than happy to wield
It should be illegal for a device manufacturer to retain any kind of control over devices after sale. Some governments are finally realizing this. So no, this is not a viable solution in the long run. Besides, Android is a thing. I personally have never used an iPhone as my real phone precisely because of this — I can't install modded apps, I can't install pirated apps, etc etc. It's not okay to have to jailbreak the…
Am opinion so naive it's harmful. Google will NEVER harm itself by supporting fake data feeds. The only reason G exists at all is because they can exploit the data they harvest from you. If you're given the power to poison that data Google implodes and the whole Android platform becomes extremely unattractive to other massive companies that live off of leeching your private data one way or another. Yes, an OS built f…
Maybe it needs a rough location like within 100km of my real location. Android could feed it a fake location and say its exact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is forcing you to install anything you don't want to. The only thing I want is having the ability to install anything I want to. If you don't want to install those things the solution is simple: Don't. You don't need Apple to make that decision for you.
While I wish I lived in a world of perfect competition, I also realize that I don't. System-wide rules against bad behavior are a lot more efficient. > You don't need Apple to make that decision for you. I also don't need an app making the decision of whether I need an account. Apple preserves that choice for users. And they're not making any decisions for the user about installing. Effectively zero apps will leave t…
I don't want Apple making many system-wide rules on behavior, even on Apple's own systems (which they share with their users.)
That being said, they're very right about this. Making the distinction between, on one side, apps that are useless without accounts (like banking apps) or apps that are made to help with already existing accounts, and on the other side apps that are just forcing accounts to capture and control the users, is a smart and thoughtful move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would not be a better solution because it would entail either “solid” rules that are actually always fluctuating and/or people having prior assessments overturned after the fact. As opposed to… humans working through a specific situation for a specific solution?
It would at least strive for equality, instead of letting the big boys do whatever the hell they want while punishing everyone else (and making it impossible to compete). There's also the ethical concern about how apple (or their reviewer) can bully you specifically which means there is no other way to delivery our software to your users, other than complying with a bully.
Sure, the world is rife with ethical concerns.
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…
How that works with banking apps? What can they do without an account? Maybe a web view to the home page of the bank.
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…
It's been the same since runtime permissions on Android, which was like Marshmallow i believe
https://developer.android.com/training/permissions/requestin...