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

Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

ww.9to5google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 242 posts

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#221

Post by bduerst »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #188
bduerst wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows is proprietary though. If Google starts dictating too much of what you can and cannot install on Android then they'll get dinged with another anti-trust suit.

They don't have to dictate it any more than Microsoft does (since they allow PC manufacturers to install all sorts of horrific nonsense). They just have to make the OS such that you can uninstall any application. If this is impossible to do with non-proprietary software, then that's a point for proprietary software.

The OEMs will just add the uninstallable flag functionality back because Android is open source.

The only way to prevent OEMs from doing that is to tie it to the Google Play Services agreement which will, again, open Google up to yet another antitrust suit.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#222

Post by eitland »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #185
eitland wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Nokia Android One had only a support app (visibly) installed. It was still slow and updates took longer than I wanted to arrive. I bought the cheapest new iPhone I could get last black Friday (around $600) and for the first time since my Galaxy SII in 2011 I got a phone that I have actually enjoyed. FTR, phones I have not enjoyed: - Samsung SIII (two, one was terrible, probably a defect part, luckily it bricked it…

The Nokia 6.1 camera app phones back to Facebook on every startup even if you don't have any account with them. Other than not being rootable, it's a reasonable device.

I tried to find out more about the issue where it phones back to Facebook but wasn't able to in a reasonable time. Do you have pointers?

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#223

Post by [deleted] »

hadrien01 wrote: post #64
true_religion wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think calling Chrome bloatware is a bit much. Is Safari bloateare on an iPhone? Is the Play store bloatware? How would you even get anything on your phone the first time without the Play store or Chrome being installed?

Chrome is bloatware when Samsung Internet is a much better browser included with my phone. The Play Store is not bloatware. The Play _stores_ are bloatware (books, games, movies, etc.)

[deleted]

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#224

Post by lern_too_spel »

ajnin wrote: post #209
throw_14JAS wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it in a read-only partition, where, by definition, you wouldn't be able to reuse the space? Wouldn't it only be users at their storage capacity who would be affected?

The fact they they are installed in a read-only partition is what makes them non-removable, if they were installed in the regular partition then the "system" partition wouldn't need to be so big, they would be removable and you could reclaim the space.

Then you couldn't factory reset without access to a network, as I pointed out.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#225

Post by lern_too_spel »

ajnin wrote: post #208
lern_too_spel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can disable them, which is the same thing as far as the user is concerned. Uninstalling from a read-only partition doesn't make sense.

They still take up significant space, and they often are re-enabled automatically whenever the device gets updated.

> They still take up significant space

Not usable space.

> they often are re-enabled automatically whenever the device gets updated

This has never happened for me.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#226

Post by retpirato »

kelnos wrote: post #213
wpietri wrote: post #116

Does anybody understand the economic point of making apps nonremovable? From the point of view of a vendor paying for access, presumably their goal is to spark interest and shift default choices. So I get why LinkedIn would pay to be on the phone when it leaves the factory. But if somebody doesn't want it, what do they gain by preventing removal? To me it seems kinda like DRM: I'm sure some executives get woodies at…

IIRC it's actually a technical limitation. Pre-installed apps are installed on the system partition, which is read-only. If they installed them on the user partition, they wouldn't survive a later factory reset. That's why you can remove them if you root the phone. They could of course fix this limitation, but I guess the incentive isn't there for them to do so.

That's a win win as far as I'm concerned. When I uninstall it, it's gone. If I have to factory reset, I don't have worry about uninstalling it again. I don't know or care why bloat gets preinstalled & can't be removed. I care that there's something on my phone that doesn't need to be there & I don't want it there.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#227

Post by Tempest1981 »

Polylactic_acid wrote: post #210
asveikau wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not at all fixing the problem. The problem is disk space. There are cost conscious markets (the same places where a microSD slot is mandatory -- so Google has already decided they are not relevant for its devices) that care a lot about disk space. Huge numbers of users in those markets.

Thats why I say mostly. I totally understand wanting them entirely gone but for most users you can do the next best thing and the space is not a huge issue.

There are a lot of 8GB phones out there, where space certainly is a huge issue. (Or have things improved since Oreo?)

Even with a microSD card, not all apps support being "moved" to SD.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#228

Post by londons_explore »

Zarel wrote: post #211
asveikau wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not at all fixing the problem. The problem is disk space. There are cost conscious markets (the same places where a microSD slot is mandatory -- so Google has already decided they are not relevant for its devices) that care a lot about disk space. Huge numbers of users in those markets.

Hm, if a phone is to support a factory reset feature at all, everything it's bundled with needs to be there somewhere in read-only memory. And everything I've read says that disabling an app and removing updates removes it from everywhere _except_ read-only memory. I don't think there's any other way to do this at all, unless you want to give up on having a factory reset feature entirely. I think the only problem is…

One option is to require an internet connection for the factory reset process.

One could imagine a setup where the system is rebooted into some kind of safe mode where only manufacturer-signed packages are executed, all other packages are deleted, and then any uninstalled original packages are re-downloaded from a manufacturer designated server, or even peer-to-peer to save internet bandwidth.

Considering the rare use of the factory reset process, and the large cost associated with exabytes of flash memory across all devices worldwide, this seems a worthy tradeoff.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#229

Post by londons_explore »

saagarjha wrote: post #202
sprayk wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for better or worse, they are on the read-only partition, meaning removing them would change the checksum and result in the system partition failing signature validation at boot. Disabling is the best we will get as long as this practice continues.

I can see this working if checksums are calculated per-item instead of as a group.

They are calculated both ways.

Re: Google pushed to take action against Android bloatware

#230

Post by krageon »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #137
wpietri wrote: post #116

Does anybody understand the economic point of making apps nonremovable? From the point of view of a vendor paying for access, presumably their goal is to spark interest and shift default choices. So I get why LinkedIn would pay to be on the phone when it leaves the factory. But if somebody doesn't want it, what do they gain by preventing removal? To me it seems kinda like DRM: I'm sure some executives get woodies at…

The interesting thing I always found with Windows phones was how easy it was to remove any and all bloatware on their phones. Don't the One Plus and Android One phones come pretty clean with only a few Google apps on them?

> One Plus and Android One phones come pretty clean

OnePlus came with malware not too long ago, so I'm going to answer that with an emphatic no. They are better than some HTC phones I've seen, but that's not a high bar to meet.

Post reply on HN