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

21–30 of 296 posts

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

#21

Post by thebeardisred »

AlexandrB wrote: post #16

With the exception of Signal, I never give apps access to my contacts. If you think that's paranoid, remember how apps like LinkedIn used this kind of information in the past[1]. Thankfully on iOS apps almost always work without contact access (is this mandated by App Store rules?). It's not clear from the article if the app just asks for access to contacts or requires it, but if you can't make your Voip app work wit…

While I don't doubt that you never give apps access to your contacts, how many apps do you use as _dialers_?

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

#22

Post by grishka »

charcircuit wrote: post #12
webmobdev wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I bought a Mac, an iPad and an iPhone to do mobile development for ios. And then I realised how screwed up and exploitive the whole Apple ecosystem is for developers - they not only want us to pay them annually for the "privilege" of developing on their platform (even though we add value to their platform by creating software for it), but they also want to charge us a commission on each sale (with the bar that…

iOS allows sideloading too. Also just because Apple gains value from developers, the developers also gain value. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

It is not real sideloading though. Any app that iOS installs needs to be signed with an Apple-issued certificate. You can't install an app on your iOS device without Apple involvement.

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

#23

Post by exprez135 »

ziddoap wrote: post #7

I'm not familiar with mobile app review process, would any change in code require a re-review/re-submit? If Google approved it as-is, could the developers add a few lines as an "update" and skip over the full review process? Seems like the ruling is being made on what can be done with the current permissions, rather than what is being done. If that's the case, I sympathize with the devs but I think I support the posi…

Re: the off-topic comment: Same here, but I noticed that Firefox's reader button was still appearing. I was able to read with that without loading the scripts after all.

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

#24

Post by dspillett »

grishka wrote: post #20
webmobdev wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I bought a Mac, an iPad and an iPhone to do mobile development for ios. And then I realised how screwed up and exploitive the whole Apple ecosystem is for developers - they not only want us to pay them annually for the "privilege" of developing on their platform (even though we add value to their platform by creating software for it), but they also want to charge us a commission on each sale (with the bar that…

Android is not Google.

They do control the default app repository, so from the PoV of many users, at least with respect to apps, the two are pretty much equivalent.

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

#25

Post by MaxikCZ »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #10

> Analytics cookies are installed on this website to enhance your browsing experience. Such cookies are only used to optimise this website’s performance and enhance user experience. It is not possible to disable analytics cookies on this website. Now that's just a lie and you know it. Is this legal?

IIRC: At least in Europe, they needn't ask for essential cookies. They need to ask for cookies used for tracking, profiling, fingerprinting and consent to share collected info with third parties.

The rules also state that the path to reject those cookies must be as easy as it is to accept them, so if they have "accept all" button, they are required to also provide "reject all" button, that has similar visibility and accessibility to the "accept" button.

IIRC At least in EU, what they do is illegal and dark pattern, and hence personally I have no reason to believe their side of story on any topic.

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

#26

Post by TheNorthman »

jsnell wrote: post #13
ziddoap wrote: post #7

I'm not familiar with mobile app review process, would any change in code require a re-review/re-submit? If Google approved it as-is, could the developers add a few lines as an "update" and skip over the full review process? Seems like the ruling is being made on what can be done with the current permissions, rather than what is being done. If that's the case, I sympathize with the devs but I think I support the posi…

It does sound like they're batch-copying the entire contact book into their app at startup, rather than using the Android contact picker. The static analysis problem of determining whether there is / isn't a batch import seems a lot easier than determining with certainty what happens with the contacts after they were saved to disk. Though the article doesn't actually show any screenshots from the review emails, but j…

This could, of course, be an explanation. Except for the _stated fact_ that after they removed the batch import, they were still rejected.

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

#27

Post by dspillett »

pedro2 wrote: post #6
webmobdev wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I bought a Mac, an iPad and an iPhone to do mobile development for ios. And then I realised how screwed up and exploitive the whole Apple ecosystem is for developers - they not only want us to pay them annually for the "privilege" of developing on their platform (even though we add value to their platform by creating software for it), but they also want to charge us a commission on each sale (with the bar that…

Never? Unless you give up on NFC, banking apps and all those goodies.

> Never?

As the post you directly responded to never said the word never, I'm thinking you where actually responding to the previous comment. In which case: yes, never.

> Unless you give up on

I don't refuse to install apps, I have apps for both my primary banking organisations on my phone, I don't intend to write apps, I don't intend to provide extra fodder for their platforms and claims of their size. Most apps don't need the things that not being a native app means they can not support. NFC there might be uses for, but not that are irreplaceable that I can immediately think of, and you can access things like the phone's camera so other features like NFC might happen in that realm too.

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

#29

Post by Andrex »

squarefoot wrote: post #9

The mobile ecosystem has been built with the sole intent of milking users through targeted advertising, media consumption and unnecessary services subscription, so I find normal that corporations behind the OSes fight hard to maintain the platform as closed as possible (proprietary or seemingly open OSes, closed drivers, locked bootloaders etc). Their deepest fear is seeing their ecosystem conquered by Open Source, o…

Oh man, you should have seen the mobile sphere before Android...

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

#30

Post by jefftk »

TheNorthman wrote: post #26
jsnell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does sound like they're batch-copying the entire contact book into their app at startup, rather than using the Android contact picker. The static analysis problem of determining whether there is / isn't a batch import seems a lot easier than determining with certainty what happens with the contacts after they were saved to disk. Though the article doesn't actually show any screenshots from the review emails, but j…

This could, of course, be an explanation. Except for the _stated fact_ that after they removed the batch import, they were still rejected.

I don't see where they say they removed batch import? Just that they removed caching. I don't think they're using the default contact picker?
Post reply on HN