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

Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

voys.co.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 296 posts

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#131

Post by int_19h »

derefr wrote: post #118
int_19h wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Android and iOS, the dominant smartphone/PDA platforms were Windows Mobile and Symbian. And whatever their usability issues were, I don't recall there being a problem with downloading (or even buying boxed) third-party software directly from the authors and installing it directly.

Before Android and iOS, no third-party developer cared about smartphones/PDAs, because they were a tiny sliver of the market and so you couldn't make money targeting them. Bigcorps like Microsoft/Facebook/Twitter might make free apps for these, just to cover them (since their own employees used them); but no ISV cared. If you were an ISV developing paid "apps" for "mobile" at all, you were developing J2ME apps for fe…

That's plainly not true. Sure, there weren't "millions of apps" in the store, but like I mentioned above, there was actual boxed software sold for those platforms.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#132

Post by mplewis »

forgetbook wrote: post #129
bakugo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not just remove the Contacts API entirely then? If it exists, "shady operators" can misuse it. Oh and, camera apps made by "shady operators" could be sending your pictures to questionable places so why not remove the Camera API as well? And we can't forget that "shady operators" could be snooping through your files so let's remove the filesystem API too. Actually now that I think about it, any app could be mal…

Slippery slope--There's a reasonable middle ground between "disallow all api access" and "allow all api access"

Sure, but the entire problem is that Google does not seem to be able to manage the middle ground and proper use of it.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#133

Post by savy91 »

We develop a banking app for families (parents and kids). 2 weeks ago we had to remove the possibility to pick phone contacts to invite other family members because Google claimed we were uploading contacts to our servers (which we did not).

We appealed and it did not work.

We then complied with their request and added to the privacy policy they we have access to the contacts and we might process them, and yet Google still rejected our app.

In the end we just decided to completely remove every code from the app that would allow us to read the contacts on the phone.

This has now made our app UX worse for the 60% of users who used this feature.

Also, mind that we of course offered the option to never grant this permission so nobody was ever forced to give access to their address book.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#135

Post by derefr »

int_19h wrote: post #131
derefr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Android and iOS, no third-party developer cared about smartphones/PDAs, because they were a tiny sliver of the market and so you couldn't make money targeting them. Bigcorps like Microsoft/Facebook/Twitter might make free apps for these, just to cover them (since their own employees used them); but no ISV cared. If you were an ISV developing paid "apps" for "mobile" at all, you were developing J2ME apps for fe…

That's plainly not true. Sure, there weren't "millions of apps" in the store, but like I mentioned above, there was actual boxed software sold for those platforms.

My point is that no ISV ever bootstrapped or got VC-funded in the 1995-2007 period by making a bet on selling "apps" for the PDA software market; the revenue would be too low to keep the company going, and the TAM would be too low for even longer-term-minded VCs to be interested.

What probably did happen, a bit, was that ISVs that made software for other markets, may have ported their software to PDAs, and sold that. (E.g. "WinZip for Windows CE", things like that.) But that doesn't mean that these companies were surviving off of this. These were effectively "halo products" (products that don't sell many units, which are made instead to increase the brand perception of key influencers who happen to have such niche interests, and thus influence their [influential] opinion of the rest of the product range through the halo effect.)

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#136

Post by mixedCase »

betwixthewires wrote: post #124
mixedCase wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware. I'm one of them. Unfortunately us "lots of people" are still probably <0.1% of Android users.

But that's not "discouraged by the system UX" and what better way to get people to use f-droid than offering incentives to use it? Like your favorite app having better features when installed from there?

Sorry, but if you do not believe getting security warnings, having to go into the settings and mangle with configuration, just to be able to install a store downloaded from a website, sometimes go through additional configuration depending on your phone's modifications (looking at you Xiaomi) to then install the actual program you wanted is not "discouraged by the system UX", despite the real world experiences of companies who have tried even simpler things and failed, I'm not sure we can agree on what's viable or not.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#137

Post by orangecat »

Nextgrid wrote: post #128
gunapologist99 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lack of enforcement is definitely not the problem. Stated as the inverse, what would more enforcement solve? And, even if it was a solution, what would this additional enforcement actually enforce? A poorly written law, apparently designed to introduce additional friction into simple web browsing, with porous and easily-evaded definitions and vague goals that only apply to a tiny fraction of planetary inhabitants?…

More enforcement will force businesses to remove obnoxious consent flows as those are already in breach of the regulation and it just needs enforcement. Consent should be explicitly opt-in, you can't force it with annoyances, dark patterns or denying the service. Some shitty businesses who outright can't be profitable without stalking will fold which is a good thing (less spyware in the world), most will adapt just f…

Its objective is not to introduce friction, it's to outlaw spyware

Then why not just outlaw the spyware? Why go through the theater of "you can use spyware, but you have to get the user to 'agree' to it first, and you're not allowed to offer them anything in exchange"? That's just asking for the dark patterns and malicious compliance/non-compliance that we've gotten.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#138

Post by getcrunk »

secretsatan wrote: post #40

I kinda sorta see google’s side. There are just too many shady operators out there who will swear blind they’re completely honest, and maybe they are, but they also employed a third party to write code or maybe just imported a 3rd party lib (i am in no way saying this is the case) As to, why don’t they look at the code? bugger that being standard practise, i’m not handing over my code to google or apple. Even if they…

I don't know how it is in all cases, but at least when using java back in the day, the source of a binary was trivial to look at?

And now many apps are written in js

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#139

Post by danuker »

godshatter wrote: post #67

Can they put it on f-droid and point their users there? Downside is that users don't know what f-droid is and have to install it, upside is they find a new "app store" that has some new techy things on it. Not sure if f-droid gets around having to tell your phone it can run third-party apps, but if it does that would be a win as well. I didn't see in the post if they sell this or give it away.

Completely open source means no place for supposedly secret Firebase Messaging credentials, which requires developers to bend over backwards, if they want reasonably quick notifications:

https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-android/issues/82

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#140

Post by _djo_ »

maxboone wrote: post #120
TheCapeGreek wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give the benefit of the doubt, knowing nothing else about this company: This is clearly a South African based company. GDPR and cookie may be important compliance but it's not top of the totem pole - the local South African equivalent law (POPI) is more about data processing than cookies. Plenty of sites have not updated their cookie UX for the newer regulations. I've even noticed some sites serve different forms…

It's not, it's a Dutch company

No it’s not, why would you claim it was? The domain TLD is South African (.co.za), the phone number listed is in Cape Town, and it’s a South African registered company.

> Voys Telecom SA (Pty) Ltd A company with limited liability duly incorporated in terms of the Companies Act of South Africa, 71 of 2008, with registration number: 2013/114285/07, hereinafter referred to as “the Service Provider”;

Post reply on HN