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

No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

tommorris.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–222 of 222 posts

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#221

Post by andrewaylett »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #106
andrewaylett wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's not answering your actual point, but I'll answer your specific questions. No, it can't record audio, or make phone calls on your behalf -- both require specific permissions that aren't listed here. It can't access your contacts at all, either, as that requires a specific permission. Pictures are stored on the SD card, so the app could read all your pictures, upload them, then delete them. Newer devices ha…

Thanks for the info. I agree that knowing what an app can't do would be very useful. And I think there should be a notion of "secure/private/encrypted storage". So when I tell an app to store some item there, I can be absolutely certain that no other app will ever be able to access it, regardless of any permissions.

Every app has its own protected storage space, but that's historically often been quite restricted in size. This is where things like SQLite databases are usually stored. It's also (pretty much by definition) not accessible using a file manager and it's much more difficult to share data from it, so it's not appropriate for music or pictures.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#222

Post by Gormo »

lutusp wrote: post #215
Gormo wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be one of the manifest effects, but it's arguable as to whether that effect is actually the primary intention of driving users away from web content and toward standalone clients. I doubt that most of the media sources that are pushing native apps are even thinking about it in these terms; most of it is probably bandwaggoning, and the originators of the phenomena probably just wanted a way of keeping their…

> but it's arguable as to whether that effect is actually the primary intention of driving users away from web content and toward standalone clients. To the degree that people use dedicated apps, it is to that same degree that they're not using browsers and open media. The motive for creating dedicated apps should seem obvious -- it turns a public forum into a series of competing private experiences, each with a loya…

> To the degree that people use dedicated apps, it is to that same degree that they're not using browsers and open media.

True enough, but I'm not convinced that the latter effect is intended ore merely a side effect. This distinction is certainly key in assessing what alternatives those pushing native apps would be willing to consider.

> it turns a public forum into a series of competing private experiences

Again, this is a precipitate effect, but it's not clear that this is the intended effect that reveals the underlying motivation. I do think that motivation is present among some - Facebook, certainly, though they seem less interested in driving people away from the web than in hijacking the web and turning it into their own proprietary platform - but, again, I think that the native-app trend is largely bandwagonning initially motivated by smaller websites' management desiring to have their brand in readers' view for more often and for longer. If the UI for iOS worked differently, and RSS feeds could be accessed via a method indistinguishable from accessing native apps, I think we'd see far fewer native apps.

> and Facebook would fail

It may yet.

Post reply on HN