61–70 of 121 posts
This is similar to either the Microsoft Store or Apple App Store (can't recall). You used to be able to see what in-app purchases were available, to determine if you weren't ripped off downloading this app. Now you can't.
Apple's App Store still shows a list of in-app purchases, not sure about the Microsoft Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a related note, I don't understand why apps are permitted to require you to enable certain permissions or refuse to run. What is the point of giving users control of their privacy if large popular apps are a able to essentially opt out of the optional part. I'm looking at you Kakao.
Agreed for optional permissions, but not sure what you'd expect a browser to do that doesn't have internet access or a camera app that is not allowed to access the camera
What I always found very confusing is that apps on Android can either read all of the SD drive or nothing. Wouldn't the normal approach to gate applications from each other be to give each one the right to access a single directory? The way it is, all apps want to "READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE" so they all can read all the data I save.
Does anyone know of a workaround for this that doesn't require you to install/update the app in question first?
The dynamic permissions are not a replacement. Some users would never even install apps that asked for too many static permissions on the Play page. But now, if an app seems to meet their needs and they aren't sure, some of them will go ahead and install it just to try it out. How much can one run hurt after all? Due to unresolved questions or sunk cost dilemmas, they may even grant dynamic permissions. How much can…
On a related note, I don't understand why apps are permitted to require you to enable certain permissions or refuse to run. What is the point of giving users control of their privacy if large popular apps are a able to essentially opt out of the optional part. I'm looking at you Kakao.
I publish both Android and iOS apps regularly, this is just Google getting to feature parity with Apple. Apple had data safety, Google now has it. Apple didn't show permissions, now Google also doesn't. Presumably most people don't really care about permissions anymore.
I had Instagram for a while as an example, because I liked to look at miniature painters, but Instagram never had access to my contacts, images, location data and so on. It would ask for permission of course and I would decline.
Does Google do something similar or are permissions on per default? I mean, the info is still a nice feature in the App Store to help people make better choices, but the real protection for people like me is the “This app would like to access your pictures, will you let it?” box that pop ups when you run the app.
What they really need to do is to simulate data for permissions that are rejected. For example, if I reject location permissions, then play back a random GPS trail in a randomly selected city on the planet, complete with simulated error and drift. If I reject Wi-Fi scanning, then show a constantly changing set of fake access points. If I reject camera, then play back some cartoons or deepfaked video as a camera devic…
The dynamic permissions are not a replacement. Some users would never even install apps that asked for too many static permissions on the Play page. But now, if an app seems to meet their needs and they aren't sure, some of them will go ahead and install it just to try it out. How much can one run hurt after all? Due to unresolved questions or sunk cost dilemmas, they may even grant dynamic permissions. How much can…
> Some users would never even install apps that asked for too many static permissions on the Play page. This, so much! Like 90% of the apps on Play ask for an insanely excessive amount of permissions. It was the #1 indicator for sorting out garbage apps. Example: Some time ago I needed a kitchen timer app (stock one had some issue). The great majority of them wanted permissions like contacts, access to my files, GPS…
What they really need to do is to simulate data for permissions that are rejected. For example, if I reject location permissions, then play back a random GPS trail in a randomly selected city on the planet, complete with simulated error and drift. If I reject Wi-Fi scanning, then show a constantly changing set of fake access points. If I reject camera, then play back some cartoons or deepfaked video as a camera devic…
This would be trivial to detect by the app and they would just block you anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the example of Kakao, it lists the contacts permission as optional and the app will install and open without it. But it won't let you past a nag screen without it first verifying that you have given it access to your contacts. Really anything involving personal data should be up to the user. Especially something like your contacts.
As much as I have a problem with Apple’s monopolistic control over the App Store, one benefit is that behaviour like this doesn’t make it past review. I’d love to see a button on the contacts permission window to give the app a list of AI generated fake contacts. (And fake GPS coordinates, and so on). Philosophically, your phone should be your user agent. It should act on your behalf, not on behalf of some tech compa…