5 ms·

I completely disagree with the title. The fact that "telephony" can be an app on the phone is a WONDERFUL thing. It means that the author of this article has a

by mcherm 9y ago

I completely disagree with the title. The fact that "telephony" can be an app on the phone is a WONDERFUL thing. It means that the author of this article has a choice, as opposed to NOT having a choice.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago
So, out of curiosity, at this point what are his choices?
- freeone3000 9y ago
  https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.dialer&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and... . This is the "Google Dialer". This is one example; there are dozens more.
  - muppetman 9y ago
    The Google Dialer only works on Stock Android. Which is a shame.
    - bostand 9y ago
      This could be fixed if Google considers this a problem. Remember when they added Google calendar to Play to fight Samsungs BS?
      - djsumdog 9y ago
        To be fair, the "Samsung BS" was them trying to setup a separate ecosystem that was just as good in case they needed to break from Google. I really hope Samsung does this at some point too. I feel there are enough people that don't want eyeProducts that we'd finally see some innovation in 3rd party markets ... or everyone would just install Samsung/Google/Amazon stores ..
    - PascLeRasc 9y ago
      Only from the Play Store. The APK can be installed on any device with the same architecture as it's built for. I have it on my LG G4.
      - muppetman 9y ago
        Ahh, good point, I forgot about sideloading.
  - jamiethehutt 9y ago
    >This app is incompatible with all of your devices. My device is a Wiley Fox Swift.
andybak 9y ago
I'll be Mr. Reasonable Compromise. It's both a wonderful thing and a risk. Which of those two it becomes depends on the entire ecosystem around installable apps, trust and verification. I've never had a problem with 3rd party dialers on Android. But I can smell a scam and I'm technically literate. To the best of my knowledge there's never been a major dialler related security mishap. In fact much of the panic about Android's "malware ridden ecosystem" seems overblown. Nobody I know has ever had an issue to the best of my knowledge. But it's definitely a possibility and it's highly probable that eventually something bad will happen on a large scale without some better controls - albeit hopefully not the type that Apple imposes. Cost vs benefit and all that.
- wmeredith 9y ago
  > Nobody I know has ever had an issue to the best of my knowledge. Well, pack it in, fellas. We're done here. :D
- proto-n 9y ago
  More choice always means more responsibility. You could argue against democracy with the same idea - what happens if the voters choose someone not worthy? A lunatic or someone downright malicious?
naasking 9y ago
Every choice induces stress. Sometimes we really need to be able to make that choice, but requiring choice or having too much choice overwhelms people.
- criley2 9y ago
  Which would be an issue if Android came without any defaults and gave you a debilitating number of setup options. But it doesn't, and the stress of choice is only undergone voluntarily when someone volunteers to choose. Otherwise, defaults are king.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
The problem is that it was switched to a 3rd-party app that collects and shares data without the user's knowledge or permission, and is rather difficult to switch back.
eh78ssxv2f 9y ago
I agree. There could be a lot of improvements that can be done to telephone. Of course, they might have tradeoffs (privacy vs. convenience). That's where providing multiple options to the user comes handy. Some of the improvements (just top of my mind): crowd-sourced list of scammers, telemarketers. For outgoing calls: automapping phone numbers to business/user names, automatically using the best way to route the call based on call rates (WiFi vs cellular vs. multipath TCP) etc.
kome 9y ago
But if you read the article, it's all about not having a choice. Gosh, HN can be so ideological...
- i_cant_speel 9y ago
  I would have loved to read the article but it's currently down.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    The tl;dr is the manufacturer of OP's phone just used some random app as the dialer. The app was stealing all of OPs data and selling it to who knows who. They admit to doing this in the privacy policy of the app. But as it was installed by default, OP never agreed to it. And he had a lot of trouble removing it from his phone and finding a replacement. This is the problem with choice. All your choices are secretly malicious and have incentives to violate your privacy. Remember those flashlight apps that ran in the background consuming CPU/data and stole users' personal information? It's just generally a bad idea to rely on untrusted third parties for core functionality.
    - derefr 9y ago
      Part of the requirement for the contract made by a sale of goods to be valid is a meeting of the minds: that both parties share the same concept of what is being transferred by each party to the other. I would argue that, if you really want to talk about people "having a choice", you need a similar concept: that you are "free to choose" if-and-only-if your choices are indeed what you understand them to be. Which means some form of regulation or curation needs to happen to enforce that. Of course, this doesn't have to be at all the same thing as the sort of "curation for quality" that the iOS App Store gets up to. Instead, more like FDA labelling requirements on drugs: list your active ingredients or get out. Consider a hypothetical policy: "whatever misapprehensions a consumer has, due to your marketing, are your fault; a complaint about misapprehensions about your software that cites your own marketing, and which we ascertain as being valid, will result in a ban of all your apps from the store." Can you make the "I Am Rich" app? Sure; it does what it says on the tin—proves you're rich with a $10k IAP. Can you make a Flashlight app that asks for your contact info? Nope; customers weren't expecting the app to ask. Banned. Even if you never send that info anywhere.
s73ver 9y ago
They can't uninstall the app that comes, and it was forced on them through an update. That's a terrible thing, no matter how you try and spin it.
- fpgeek 9y ago
  So when Google updated the Nexus dialer to include search-based "Caller ID" that was a bad thing? Or when Google upgraded Messenger to include RCS support?
  - xg15 9y ago
    The author explicitly chose to avoid Google because for him, the data protection was insufficient. So I'd say, yes, for privacy-conscious users, it was a bad thing.
  - __jal 9y ago
    It is worth noting how we got here: - Someone said having multiple options for a phone dialer is a wonderful thing. - Someone else pointed out that the article isn't about a choice, the dialer was forced on the user. - The parent asks if it is bad that Google updates apps in a tone that strongly hints that they can't imagine how the answer could be yes. Far too many conversations go like this here. To (try to) get back on topic, of course the Google can update their apps. I'm pretty sure the number of people here who would answer this negatively at a rounding error away from zero. But that is entirely beside the point. The point is the author of the article doesn't want a dialer that surveils them and spews their private conversation details (along with everything else of note stored on the phone) to the "trusted partners" of the surveillance firm who wrote it. And yet it was forced on him. This is ironic and sad to anyone who considers phones to be things that one might have private conversations on. (Insert opportunity to talk about how old-school talking on phones is.) And again, it is just another reason to be very, very careful with whom you "do business" (which includes third-party private-surveillance firms, the names of which you may not have a way of determining before purchase). For me, this dictates I won't use consumer software from a large number of current producers. Google included. Not everyone has my requirements, I get that, and that's fine. But there is exactly nothing wrong with wanting a phone that doesn't spy on you.
xg15 9y ago
How about the choice to use the default phone app that doesn't phone (sorry) home?

by mcherm 9y ago

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

So, out of curiosity, at this point what are his choices?

freeone3000 9y ago
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.dialer&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and... . This is the "Google Dialer". This is one example; there are dozens more.
- muppetman 9y ago
  The Google Dialer only works on Stock Android. Which is a shame.
  - bostand 9y ago
    This could be fixed if Google considers this a problem. Remember when they added Google calendar to Play to fight Samsungs BS?
    - djsumdog 9y ago
      To be fair, the "Samsung BS" was them trying to setup a separate ecosystem that was just as good in case they needed to break from Google. I really hope Samsung does this at some point too. I feel there are enough people that don't want eyeProducts that we'd finally see some innovation in 3rd party markets ... or everyone would just install Samsung/Google/Amazon stores ..
  - PascLeRasc 9y ago
    Only from the Play Store. The APK can be installed on any device with the same architecture as it's built for. I have it on my LG G4.
    - muppetman 9y ago
      Ahh, good point, I forgot about sideloading.
- jamiethehutt 9y ago
  >This app is incompatible with all of your devices. My device is a Wiley Fox Swift.

andybak 9y ago

I'll be Mr. Reasonable Compromise. It's both a wonderful thing and a risk. Which of those two it becomes depends on the entire ecosystem around installable apps, trust and verification. I've never had a problem with 3rd party dialers on Android. But I can smell a scam and I'm technically literate. To the best of my knowledge there's never been a major dialler related security mishap. In fact much of the panic about Android's "malware ridden ecosystem" seems overblown. Nobody I know has ever had an issue to the best of my knowledge. But it's definitely a possibility and it's highly probable that eventually something bad will happen on a large scale without some better controls - albeit hopefully not the type that Apple imposes. Cost vs benefit and all that.

wmeredith 9y ago
> Nobody I know has ever had an issue to the best of my knowledge. Well, pack it in, fellas. We're done here. :D
proto-n 9y ago
More choice always means more responsibility. You could argue against democracy with the same idea - what happens if the voters choose someone not worthy? A lunatic or someone downright malicious?

naasking 9y ago

Every choice induces stress. Sometimes we really need to be able to make that choice, but requiring choice or having too much choice overwhelms people.

criley2 9y ago
Which would be an issue if Android came without any defaults and gave you a debilitating number of setup options. But it doesn't, and the stress of choice is only undergone voluntarily when someone volunteers to choose. Otherwise, defaults are king.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

The problem is that it was switched to a 3rd-party app that collects and shares data without the user's knowledge or permission, and is rather difficult to switch back.

eh78ssxv2f 9y ago

I agree. There could be a lot of improvements that can be done to telephone. Of course, they might have tradeoffs (privacy vs. convenience). That's where providing multiple options to the user comes handy. Some of the improvements (just top of my mind): crowd-sourced list of scammers, telemarketers. For outgoing calls: automapping phone numbers to business/user names, automatically using the best way to route the call based on call rates (WiFi vs cellular vs. multipath TCP) etc.

kome 9y ago

But if you read the article, it's all about not having a choice. Gosh, HN can be so ideological...

i_cant_speel 9y ago
I would have loved to read the article but it's currently down.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  The tl;dr is the manufacturer of OP's phone just used some random app as the dialer. The app was stealing all of OPs data and selling it to who knows who. They admit to doing this in the privacy policy of the app. But as it was installed by default, OP never agreed to it. And he had a lot of trouble removing it from his phone and finding a replacement. This is the problem with choice. All your choices are secretly malicious and have incentives to violate your privacy. Remember those flashlight apps that ran in the background consuming CPU/data and stole users' personal information? It's just generally a bad idea to rely on untrusted third parties for core functionality.
  - derefr 9y ago
    Part of the requirement for the contract made by a sale of goods to be valid is a meeting of the minds: that both parties share the same concept of what is being transferred by each party to the other. I would argue that, if you really want to talk about people "having a choice", you need a similar concept: that you are "free to choose" if-and-only-if your choices are indeed what you understand them to be. Which means some form of regulation or curation needs to happen to enforce that. Of course, this doesn't have to be at all the same thing as the sort of "curation for quality" that the iOS App Store gets up to. Instead, more like FDA labelling requirements on drugs: list your active ingredients or get out. Consider a hypothetical policy: "whatever misapprehensions a consumer has, due to your marketing, are your fault; a complaint about misapprehensions about your software that cites your own marketing, and which we ascertain as being valid, will result in a ban of all your apps from the store." Can you make the "I Am Rich" app? Sure; it does what it says on the tin—proves you're rich with a $10k IAP. Can you make a Flashlight app that asks for your contact info? Nope; customers weren't expecting the app to ask. Banned. Even if you never send that info anywhere.

s73ver 9y ago

They can't uninstall the app that comes, and it was forced on them through an update. That's a terrible thing, no matter how you try and spin it.

fpgeek 9y ago
So when Google updated the Nexus dialer to include search-based "Caller ID" that was a bad thing? Or when Google upgraded Messenger to include RCS support?
- xg15 9y ago
  The author explicitly chose to avoid Google because for him, the data protection was insufficient. So I'd say, yes, for privacy-conscious users, it was a bad thing.
- __jal 9y ago
  It is worth noting how we got here: - Someone said having multiple options for a phone dialer is a wonderful thing. - Someone else pointed out that the article isn't about a choice, the dialer was forced on the user. - The parent asks if it is bad that Google updates apps in a tone that strongly hints that they can't imagine how the answer could be yes. Far too many conversations go like this here. To (try to) get back on topic, of course the Google can update their apps. I'm pretty sure the number of people here who would answer this negatively at a rounding error away from zero. But that is entirely beside the point. The point is the author of the article doesn't want a dialer that surveils them and spews their private conversation details (along with everything else of note stored on the phone) to the "trusted partners" of the surveillance firm who wrote it. And yet it was forced on him. This is ironic and sad to anyone who considers phones to be things that one might have private conversations on. (Insert opportunity to talk about how old-school talking on phones is.) And again, it is just another reason to be very, very careful with whom you "do business" (which includes third-party private-surveillance firms, the names of which you may not have a way of determining before purchase). For me, this dictates I won't use consumer software from a large number of current producers. Google included. Not everyone has my requirements, I get that, and that's fine. But there is exactly nothing wrong with wanting a phone that doesn't spy on you.

xg15 9y ago

How about the choice to use the default phone app that doesn't phone (sorry) home?