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

Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

gultsch.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 184 posts

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#131

Post by addandsubtract »

alias_neo wrote: post #72

They did the same thing to our messaging app where I work. Claimed we were uploading contacts and removed our app; we definitely don't upload contacts, that's a fact; the infra is also self-hosted so where would we be uploading them to? They only way we got them to allow it back was to add a privacy-policy notice to say that we upload contacts and why, despite the fact we actually don't...

> the infra is also self-hosted so where would we be uploading them to?

...? How does self-hosted make a difference in this scenario? Uploading means it's leaving the phone, regardless of the destination. It could be going to your server or AWS or anywhere else, and I would consider it being "uploaded".

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#132

Post by alias_neo »

echelon wrote: post #127
alias_neo wrote: post #72

They did the same thing to our messaging app where I work. Claimed we were uploading contacts and removed our app; we definitely don't upload contacts, that's a fact; the infra is also self-hosted so where would we be uploading them to? They only way we got them to allow it back was to add a privacy-policy notice to say that we upload contacts and why, despite the fact we actually don't...

Google and Apple need to be regulated and have their "oversight" of what software can be deployed to mobile devices removed. Google and Apple's role is to defend users. This nanny state solution is not the only way to accomplish that, and in fact, they only do this to extract as much value as possible from the marketplace.

I fear that battle is lost; as we can see with Apple's response to EU regulation, it'll be all malicious-compliance, and even without that, the sheer scale of the status-quo means the chances of any alternative gaining traction is all but lost.

An alternative app store gripping the mass-market is unlikely; a new entrant into the Android-iOS duopoly is unlikely, Google/Apple actually giving a shit about the apps and developers making the software to rake in cash for them is _unlikely_.

Having been in the mobile-app-development space since the beginning of Android and iOS, I've given up. I don't use my personal developer accounts any more, and I don't do "mobile" at work any more.

I'm just too jaded to care how wrong it all now.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#133

Post by iamleppert »

How long before Google just completely locks all third party developers out? That seems like a likely outcome at this point. It’s only a matter of time before they start rent seeking on their developers, like Twitter and other tech companies in decline.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#134

Post by ndr »

ryandrake wrote: post #129
ndr wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know none of your sdk/deps doesn't either?

Yours is a good question, and probably one of the places I'd look first. It doesn't deserve to be downvoted. Too many developers just yeet rando dependencies into their app without even remotely vetting/auditing them.

It's a sad truth, and extremely hard for small devs.

Google and Apple are well positioned to help everyone do better here, but the game-theory doesn't make being transparent any easier.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#135

Post by russelg »

addandsubtract wrote: post #131
alias_neo wrote: post #72

They did the same thing to our messaging app where I work. Claimed we were uploading contacts and removed our app; we definitely don't upload contacts, that's a fact; the infra is also self-hosted so where would we be uploading them to? They only way we got them to allow it back was to add a privacy-policy notice to say that we upload contacts and why, despite the fact we actually don't...

> the infra is also self-hosted so where would we be uploading them to? ...? How does self-hosted make a difference in this scenario? Uploading means it's leaving the phone, regardless of the destination. It could be going to your server or AWS or anywhere else, and I would consider it being "uploaded".

In this context, self-hosted probably means that the user/org hosts the service that the app connects to. i.e. Element connecting to your own matrix home server, or something like next/ownCloud.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#136

Post by alias_neo »

russelg wrote: post #135
addandsubtract wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the infra is also self-hosted so where would we be uploading them to? ...? How does self-hosted make a difference in this scenario? Uploading means it's leaving the phone, regardless of the destination. It could be going to your server or AWS or anywhere else, and I would consider it being "uploaded".

In this context, self-hosted probably means that the user/org hosts the service that the app connects to. i.e. Element connecting to your own matrix home server, or something like next/ownCloud.

Correct, this is what I meant. The customer hosts their own infra, wherever they wish.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#137

Post by giancarlostoro »

Roark66 wrote: post #100
cma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google doesn't know that its GET request doesn't get orders from a botnet and leaks sensitive data the app has access to. And yet the only reason Google won't add internet access as a revocable permission is their ad business. Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click…

>Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click fraud. If you have media or backup drives it just constantly adds wear to them. Is this true? Chrome is open source so someone should be able to point out the code that is doing that. What is the source of this info if not the…

When I realized that Microsoft Defender sends sample files for further inspection without keeping a history of the files I opted to just install Linux and move on. This alone gives me more reason to just only use Firefox exclusively like I always have been.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#138

Post by dylan604 »

ensignavenger wrote: post #130
clucas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting, I didn't know Chrome did this. But it doesn't back up the claim that "[i]f you have media or backup drives [Chrome] just constantly adds wear to them." Does anyone have anything on that?

As pointed out above, Chrome no longer does this... but adding wear is a natural consequence of any hard drive scanning process. SSDs are rated for a certain number of read/write cycles, and every time a block is read, it adds wear. Even spinning rust wears out eventually. Not knowing any details about how often Chrome did this, it is hard to say just how significant this wear would be compared to other normal uses o…

Not only does it add wear, it slows down other processes. People notice this after OS updates where the system re-indexes the volume after the update completes. It's also why most indexing processes do it late night or while the system is idle. For an app like a browser to do it is just rude.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#139

Post by alias_neo »

ndr wrote: post #96
alias_neo wrote: post #72

They did the same thing to our messaging app where I work. Claimed we were uploading contacts and removed our app; we definitely don't upload contacts, that's a fact; the infra is also self-hosted so where would we be uploading them to? They only way we got them to allow it back was to add a privacy-policy notice to say that we upload contacts and why, despite the fact we actually don't...

How do you know none of your sdk/deps doesn't either?

I work for the kind of employer, who has the kind of customers who won't allow us to leave this sort of thing up to chance.

I can't be more specific, as I'm not authorised to speak on behalf of, or represent my employer; my words/opinions are my own etc.

We know, because we have to know.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#140

Post by butz »

What is most infuriating, that when you actually want to remove app from app store - you cannot do it easily from Google Play Console. As far as I read you have to contact support and jump through other hoops. It's probably easiest way to add malware and hope Google removes your app much faster.
Post reply on HN