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

Android 5.0 Lollipop

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Android 5.0 Lollipop

#111

Post by k-mcgrady »

ToastyMallows wrote: post #47
aroman wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a misleading claim, based on their "24-hour battery life" claim, which is in fact 24 hours of cellular talk time, with Wi-Fi off . From http://www.google.com/nexus/6/ Testing was conducted by Google using pre-production Nexus 6 devices and software. Talk time tests used default settings with Wi-Fi off and LTE on. Standby time tests used default settings with LTE on and Wi-Fi on. Wi-Fi internet tests h…

I'm tried of companies doing this, they're all guilty of it. At least be honest about. 1 week battery life!* *In airplane mode, no apps running and the screen was only turned on once a day

>> "they're all guilty of it"

The one company that seems to be honest about battery life is Apple imo. I find that when you use any of their devices the battery life works out to be about what they said.

Re: Android 5.0 Lollipop

#112

Post by woobar »

jastanton wrote: post #13

6 hours of battery life for 15 minutes of charging? Wow.

Both battery claims come with interesting footnote:

Mixed use battery life claims are approximate and based on an average user profile developed and tested by Motorola that includes both usage and standby [1]

It means that there is a chance that your phone will be alive for 6 hours after just 15 minutes of charging (Battery must be substantially depleted [1]), if your usage/standby pattern is same as Motorola's.

[1] http://www.google.com/nexus/6/

Re: Android 5.0 Lollipop

#113

Post by MichaelGG »

lunarcave wrote: post #110
MichaelGG wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome does other tricky stuff that's "evil". When you go to turn on "Do Not Track", they put up a very big warning. Much more than other privacy related features. But then!... They flip the OK and Cancel buttons around. Literally, for that one feature, they intentionally go out of their way to mess up the UI to trick people into keeping DNT disabled. Chrome doesn't do this for any other critical options. The permiss…

Are you sure? I think it's just a flip switch which is tap, on and tap off [0]. [0] http://bit.ly/1u8avx3

http://imgur.com/zaZTRns

Compare to when enabling "OK Google" where OK and Cancel are flipped.

I guess they couldn't fit it in on Android?

Re: Android 5.0 Lollipop

#114

Post by bookwormAT »

fakename wrote: post #48

"Improved network selection logic so that your device connects only if there is a verified internet connection on Wi-Fi" jfc, I can't believe this is just now being fixed. This has to be the most infuriatingly stupid thing about android. I don't have hopes of them adding the ability to intelligently switch from a weak wifi signal to a strong cell signal, but this is a step in the right direction. No more assuming I h…

"I can't believe this is just now being fixed."

I always cringe when I read a complaint like this. Every larger project has a long issue list, and it is perfectly normal that an issue that is super important to some ends up further down on the priority list of the team.

The Android team implemented a lot of issues and features over the last decade. Just because there is an issue that deserves fixing doesn't mean it is the most important task at hand.

Re: Android 5.0 Lollipop

#115

Post by on_and_off »

josho wrote: post #107
MichaelGG wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google does not want people taking over permissions and privacy. This is demonstrated by the deliberate design of the phone state permission. Any app should be able to query "is the user on a voice call", but Google wrapped that up in a "get my device serial, as well as phone numbers I call or call me". Download a flashlight app, then call your cancer or fertility clinic? Awesome, now some random developer has that i…

Just wow. I was considering making a switch from ios, but this reality just put me off until their next release.

I really doubt that it was an intentional 'grab all your info' move, it is just a decision made at the time where engineers were reigning at Google and thought that 'give the user a list of all the permissions required by the app' was a great solution. It kinda work ... except that generations of users have learned to always click yes when there is a warning .. Also, you sometimes have to ask for a permission like SMS, only because you will use it in a very specific case (in this example for SMS payments in that country where it is a popular form of payment). Now that we have been rolling with this system for quite a while, it is very hard to change it. Apple had a couple of issues as well, but mostly got it right from the start.

Re: Android 5.0 Lollipop

#117

Post by josho »

on_and_off wrote: post #115
josho wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wow. I was considering making a switch from ios, but this reality just put me off until their next release.

I really doubt that it was an intentional 'grab all your info' move, it is just a decision made at the time where engineers were reigning at Google and thought that 'give the user a list of all the permissions required by the app' was a great solution. It kinda work ... except that generations of users have learned to always click yes when there is a warning .. Also, you sometimes have to ask for a permission like SM…

I think we know that it's intentional, because after all these years they haven't improved. Take for example, Apple. They've adopted a bunch of Android first innovations. So, what is stopping Google from adopting Apple's security model? Either they are building it and we should see it soon, or Google doesn't want users to be mindful of their privacy because it puts their own business at risk, so the status quo will remain until a forcing function occurs (eg. user revolt due to malware).

Re: Android 5.0 Lollipop

#118

Post by on_and_off »

josho wrote: post #117
on_and_off wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really doubt that it was an intentional 'grab all your info' move, it is just a decision made at the time where engineers were reigning at Google and thought that 'give the user a list of all the permissions required by the app' was a great solution. It kinda work ... except that generations of users have learned to always click yes when there is a warning .. Also, you sometimes have to ask for a permission like SM…

I think we know that it's intentional, because after all these years they haven't improved. Take for example, Apple. They've adopted a bunch of Android first innovations. So, what is stopping Google from adopting Apple's security model? Either they are building it and we should see it soon, or Google doesn't want users to be mindful of their privacy because it puts their own business at risk, so the status quo will r…

permission, not security. Security is a broader issue by a very big margin.

I am all for moving to Apple's model, but making this move while staying back-compatible is not trivial at all.

Post reply on HN