4 ms·

Then installing/deploying these apps on a read-only partition doesn't make much sense in the first place.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
Why? As far as the user is concerned, the end result is the same. The app doesn't appear in the app drawer, and none of its entry points are exposed to the OS. The user who just bought a phone gets a fully functional phone right out of the box instead of having to wait for downloads. A factory reset to get back to the initial state is as simple as wiping all writable partitions.
- rhizome 7y ago
  Presumably the person you're replying to is a user too, so apparently the end result isn't the same for all of the people you're thinking of.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    The person I'm responding to hasn't given any reason why the end result is meaningfully different. As far as we can tell, they just don't like the word "disable." If Android replaced the word with "uninstall," they would presumably be happy, which sounds like a minor complaint.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      They take up space.
      - throw_14JAS 7y ago
        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?
        ajnin 7y ago
        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.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Then you couldn't factory reset without access to a network, as I pointed out.
- MiracleUser 7y ago
  the experience would be the same if all the apps were disabled by default - and ONLY when the user goes to install them they are able to just enable it instead
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    No, it wouldn't. The user expects a fully functional phone out of the box, complete with web browser and mail client.
    - MiracleUser 7y ago
      i meant the user who isnt expecting the phone to have what they want gets the experience. otherwise why allocate disk space to be read only and have apps on it people might not want? (as far as user experience is concerned)
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        You said, "the experience would be the same." For the vast majority of users who expect the device to be productive out of the box, the experience would be significantly degraded.
        MiracleUser 7y ago
        ah yeah i did not articulate that fully. i see the implication i was making now i meant they can maintain an app store experience without the bottlneck of downloading expected apps on day 1. instead of downloading and using data an wasting time, it would enable the app. so its the same "opt-in" experience as downloading but with benefits
kelnos 7y ago
The idea is that they should survive a factory reset, so the read-only partition is the right place for them. Obviously many of us would be fine if they didn't survive, but that's not really the point.

Why? As far as the user is concerned, the end result is the same. The app doesn't appear in the app drawer, and none of its entry points are exposed to the OS. The user who just bought a phone gets a fully functional phone right out of the box instead of having to wait for downloads. A factory reset to get back to the initial state is as simple as wiping all writable partitions.

rhizome 7y ago
Presumably the person you're replying to is a user too, so apparently the end result isn't the same for all of the people you're thinking of.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  The person I'm responding to hasn't given any reason why the end result is meaningfully different. As far as we can tell, they just don't like the word "disable." If Android replaced the word with "uninstall," they would presumably be happy, which sounds like a minor complaint.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    They take up space.
    - throw_14JAS 7y ago
      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?
      - ajnin 7y ago
        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.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Then you couldn't factory reset without access to a network, as I pointed out.
MiracleUser 7y ago
the experience would be the same if all the apps were disabled by default - and ONLY when the user goes to install them they are able to just enable it instead
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  No, it wouldn't. The user expects a fully functional phone out of the box, complete with web browser and mail client.
  - MiracleUser 7y ago
    i meant the user who isnt expecting the phone to have what they want gets the experience. otherwise why allocate disk space to be read only and have apps on it people might not want? (as far as user experience is concerned)
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      You said, "the experience would be the same." For the vast majority of users who expect the device to be productive out of the box, the experience would be significantly degraded.
      - MiracleUser 7y ago
        ah yeah i did not articulate that fully. i see the implication i was making now i meant they can maintain an app store experience without the bottlneck of downloading expected apps on day 1. instead of downloading and using data an wasting time, it would enable the app. so its the same "opt-in" experience as downloading but with benefits

kelnos 7y ago

The idea is that they should survive a factory reset, so the read-only partition is the right place for them. Obviously many of us would be fine if they didn't survive, but that's not really the point.