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

271–280 of 296 posts

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

#271

Post by grishka »

bdcravens wrote: post #168
grishka wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? One example: everyone did sideload Pokemon Go in 2016 because its availability on Google Play was very limited for a very long time.

So all they need is 20 years to build up a fanbase in a product universe worth tens of billions of dollars and everyone will be clamoring to sideload their app as well.

But this does contradict your point that "nobody installs apps from outside of Google Play". And, if they're installing something like a loyalty app, they won't care very much whether that QR code leads to Google Play or to an apk. The process is really no different than running an .exe you downloaded on your computer.

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

#272

Post by LtWorf »

duxup wrote: post #122
LtWorf wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if you want to pay or not. These companies need to make more money than they did the previous quarter. So they need to always find new way to exploit continuously.

Plenty of apps and services are happy to take money and have no advertising and etc.

Sure. But what will be their model in 5-10 years?

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

#273

Post by Too »

One possibility is that Google Play runs the app in a sandbox, monkey test it by clicking on everything, trace the outgoing connections and sees that one request contains PII from the sandboxed contacts. It could be a third party library that does it.

Play is surprisingly sophisticated, and with Google focusing only on automation, i wouldn't be surprised to see them have this level of testing. This particular test wouldn't even be hard to write.

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

#274

Post by mcfedr »

pydry wrote: post #141
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…

They could just make the contacts API use an inbuilt contact picker than just supplies to the app the contact the user selects each time they make a call. I assume they want google apps to have access to the whole phonebook without looking too suss though.

This is a horrible user experience, ends up like iOS where there are great apple apps, and everything else is second class. The great thing of android is that you can choose a different dialer or different sms app, and it can be as good as the preinstalled one

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

#275

Post by pydry »

mcfedr wrote: post #274
pydry wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could just make the contacts API use an inbuilt contact picker than just supplies to the app the contact the user selects each time they make a call. I assume they want google apps to have access to the whole phonebook without looking too suss though.

This is a horrible user experience, ends up like iOS where there are great apple apps, and everything else is second class. The great thing of android is that you can choose a different dialer or different sms app, and it can be as good as the preinstalled one

Being able to install an anime themed dialer that will exfiltrate your address book isnt making android better.

Neither are the slew of apps that simply fucking break if they dont get access to every last one of your contacts.

Granular permissions intelligently designed do not make for a worse experience they make for a better one.

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

#276

Post by aruggirello »

fragmede wrote: post #266
sgc wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be fair if one were to conclude that I don't like iOS. But my comment made a few different points, including about google's app quality, not only forcing default apps but also disallowing user choice where it should exist in a pervasive, hard to see way (for the end user), and invasive tracking. Frankly, over the last week I have been looking into whether there is a relatively straightforward way to write an…

We have the technology for virtual machines, and phones are pretty beefy these days. where's my Linux phone hypervisor with android guest?

Did you know about Waydroid? It's still at a relatively early stage, but it rocks!

https://waydro.id/

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

#277

Post by franga2000 »

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…

Google's stance seems to be "even if you don't upload contacts, you need to say you upload contacts because we can't prove you don't". They are equating your technical ability to do something with you doing it. How is that in any way reasonable? I own a knife, does that mean I stab people? Should I have to say "I stab people" when I enter a kitchen so people know they might be in danger because there's nothing technically preventing me from going on a murder rampage?

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

#278

Post by franga2000 »

londons_explore wrote: post #34
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…

The code review is done 'black box' - ie. the reviewer doesn't have access to the code. All the reviewer can see is what permissions the app has. They see internet permission and contacts permission, and have to assume that evil code might be uploading the contacts to the internet. There isn't really any other way to do it - even a thorough code audit (a process that would take months for just a single app) would be…

> There isn't really any other way to do it

There is, it's called balancing the probabilities. What's more likely - that someone started a company, developed a full-featured VoIP app, set up all the infrastructure to provide their service, made the app open source and established themselves in the market, all just to secretly harvest people's contact lists.......or are they telling the truth and no data is being uploaded? These are all things Google can verify, they just don't want to.

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

#279

Post by franga2000 »

ziddoap wrote: post #258
GordonS wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 position Google is taking there. Not sure if I'm missing something here, but the "access contacts" permission exists for a reason, and plenty of apps use it - how can it be justified that Google will arbitrarily ban this app, b…

I'm not arguing that it's justified here but not elsewhere . Selective enforcement of rules is one of my biggest gripes with companies. I'm also not arguing that applications shouldn't be able to use contact permissions, obviously some applications will need it. But I do think that if you need X permission, you should be evaluated against everything that the permission grants and not just "we promise not to use Y par…

This isn't a case of "not using every part of the permission" (like it often is with the location permission, which you need to scan wifi an bluetooth). It's a case of asserting that an app does something just because it technically could, refusing to listen to any evidence to the contrary and demanding they put this nonexistent anti-feature in the description.

It's like demanding a folder encryption app rebrand itself as ransomware because it links against crypto libraries and has the file access permission, or a navigation app as "24/7 tracking app for stalkers" because it has a both GPS location and Internet access.

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

#280

Post by BlueTemplar »

sangnoir wrote: post #261
BlueTemplar wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you meant to say can run Android ?

I realized my comment could the interpreted the way you did as I was writing it, and left it ambiguous (because that too is a good thing enabled by Android's openness) However, my main point was that outside of niche devices[1] that are rounding errors for smartphone consumer market share: the vast majority of devices sold with unlockable bootloaders already run Android: I'd guestimate > 95%. Looking at the list of d…

Today yes, but as Google has been tightening the screws on Android, and as Google becomes ever less welcome outside of USA, I expect this trend to reverse...
Post reply on HN