8 ms·

I don’t see the authors point, battery life is important. A phone is not a Unix server or a desktop PC. This is the same reason iOS doesn’t allow apps to have a

I don’t see the authors point, battery life is important. A phone is not a Unix server or a desktop PC. This is the same reason iOS doesn’t allow apps to have arbitrary background execution time. And phones know your location virtually 100% of the time because of cell tower triangulation. That’s part of being a phone, not a google hypocrisy.

swiley 6y ago
You can leave a socket open in the background (although you do need a periodic keep alive but the period can be pretty long.) to receive push messages without draining the battery (as long as the server doesn’t spam it.). The real problem is pushing everyone towards unconfigurable closed software that would otherwise abuse full access to the device. Because people can’t trust what they run on their phones the apps can’t be given any more privileges than a random web page.
- oneplane 6y ago
  People can't trust it anyway because most people are not developers, programmers or able to read code, debug binaries or even have a concept of hardware and software.
  - swiley 6y ago
    The solution on more open OSes is to require apps to publish their source code and engage with the developer community before making them easily installable. (Ex: most Linux distributions)
    - oneplane 6y ago
      Solution to 'what' exactly? Unless you require all users to also be software engineers before they are allowed to buy a device that's not really solving anything, is it? Shifting the point of trust around changes nothing, and you can't shift it to the users because they are users, not developers.
      - freehunter 6y ago
        The answer (even as politically unpopular as it may be) is regulation. Either the industry should come up with their own regulations (like the ESRB for video games) or the government should come up with regulations (like GDPR). That’s how every industry levels the playing field for consumers who can’t actually be as informed as they need to be (or don’t have a choice even if they’re informed). Unless everyone is a software engineer and can read the code of all the software they’re running and where their data is going, “open source” isn’t going to fix the problem. And expecting everyone who uses a phone or computer to know the details of its software implementation is highly unrealistic (even as a software engineer, do you know how your doctor’s medical billing and coding software works? Unless you work at Epic, probably not). So there needs to be some regulatory body who actually is informed and can certify that software companies are following the rules.
        valuearb 6y ago
        I trust Apple more than I trust a regulator. Apple has to respond to customer preferences, a regulator can force them to make the user experience worse for things the customer doesn’t value. Now do I trust Google more than a regulator? That’s a much closer question.
      - swiley 6y ago
        1) if a class of users can’t be trusted to evaluate software in even the most basic ways then they shouldn’t be allowed to install native apps at all. At this point PWAs and smartphone apps have equivalent access (except on iOS.) 2) I was arguing for shifting the point of trust to volunteers from the community. In particular I was thinking of the Debian project but there are other examples.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > You can leave a socket open in the background (although you do need a periodic keep alive but the period can be pretty long.) to receive push messages without draining the battery (as long as the server doesn’t spam it.). This only works on a platform where apps can run in the background indefinitely. Small memory, limited CPU, and battery life means apps have short life-spans on phones. This is why there is a push notification service for mobile platforms.
  - swiley 6y ago
    Modern phones have as much memory as most people’s laptops. The reason apps have to have short lifetimes on people’s phones is because they’re encouraged to install untrusted software as native apps.
rbecker 6y ago
> A phone is not a Unix server or a desktop PC. Why, because Google says so? I am ever so grateful they make those decisions for me. > And phones know your location virtually 100% of the time because of cell tower triangulation. Well if the cell service provider knows your location, what's the harm in letting Google in on it as well, right?
- valuearb 6y ago
  The author was complaining about Google running a daemon in the background to track current device location, which is a necessary part of it being a phone. What Google does with that info is an entirely separate issue. And please let me know when Google or Apple starts advertising their phones as Unix servers and tout the ease of installing HTTP servers on them. They are sold as phones and that makes security and battery life critically important.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    I'm afraid the location daemon must have went a bit over my head. What part of such a daemon is necessary for a phone? Did Nokia 3310 also have such a daemon? "What Google does with that info" - does this daemon send data back to Google? > And please let me know when Google or Apple starts advertising their phones as [..] Circular logic. They chose to lock-down and hobble phones, and because their advertising doesn't include user freedom, you think that makes them justified in infringing on that freedom? Especially when they pulled every anti-competitive trick in the book, and invented a few new ones, to kill any competing phone OSs?
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Yes, every cell phone has something like this daemon. Google “cellular phone” to learn how cell phones need to triangulate nearby cell towers to determine which offers best service, and when to switch to a new one. Please let me know when a phone manufacturer starts advertising the benefits of user freedom such as rampant malware stealing your personal information, dropping calls and bricking your phone. The first iPhone didn’t allow apps at all. When it was introduced the expectation for phones were they were safe and secure. If the iPhone wasn’t it would have failed. It’s like you are arguing automobile manufacturers don’t advertise that their cars are safe to drive, so obviously it isn’t a feature important to customers. And anyone can compete with a phone OS. You can fork Android for gods sake.

swiley 6y ago

You can leave a socket open in the background (although you do need a periodic keep alive but the period can be pretty long.) to receive push messages without draining the battery (as long as the server doesn’t spam it.). The real problem is pushing everyone towards unconfigurable closed software that would otherwise abuse full access to the device. Because people can’t trust what they run on their phones the apps can’t be given any more privileges than a random web page.

oneplane 6y ago
People can't trust it anyway because most people are not developers, programmers or able to read code, debug binaries or even have a concept of hardware and software.
- swiley 6y ago
  The solution on more open OSes is to require apps to publish their source code and engage with the developer community before making them easily installable. (Ex: most Linux distributions)
  - oneplane 6y ago
    Solution to 'what' exactly? Unless you require all users to also be software engineers before they are allowed to buy a device that's not really solving anything, is it? Shifting the point of trust around changes nothing, and you can't shift it to the users because they are users, not developers.
    - freehunter 6y ago
      The answer (even as politically unpopular as it may be) is regulation. Either the industry should come up with their own regulations (like the ESRB for video games) or the government should come up with regulations (like GDPR). That’s how every industry levels the playing field for consumers who can’t actually be as informed as they need to be (or don’t have a choice even if they’re informed). Unless everyone is a software engineer and can read the code of all the software they’re running and where their data is going, “open source” isn’t going to fix the problem. And expecting everyone who uses a phone or computer to know the details of its software implementation is highly unrealistic (even as a software engineer, do you know how your doctor’s medical billing and coding software works? Unless you work at Epic, probably not). So there needs to be some regulatory body who actually is informed and can certify that software companies are following the rules.
      - valuearb 6y ago
        I trust Apple more than I trust a regulator. Apple has to respond to customer preferences, a regulator can force them to make the user experience worse for things the customer doesn’t value. Now do I trust Google more than a regulator? That’s a much closer question.
    - swiley 6y ago
      1) if a class of users can’t be trusted to evaluate software in even the most basic ways then they shouldn’t be allowed to install native apps at all. At this point PWAs and smartphone apps have equivalent access (except on iOS.) 2) I was arguing for shifting the point of trust to volunteers from the community. In particular I was thinking of the Debian project but there are other examples.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> You can leave a socket open in the background (although you do need a periodic keep alive but the period can be pretty long.) to receive push messages without draining the battery (as long as the server doesn’t spam it.). This only works on a platform where apps can run in the background indefinitely. Small memory, limited CPU, and battery life means apps have short life-spans on phones. This is why there is a push notification service for mobile platforms.
- swiley 6y ago
  Modern phones have as much memory as most people’s laptops. The reason apps have to have short lifetimes on people’s phones is because they’re encouraged to install untrusted software as native apps.

rbecker 6y ago

> A phone is not a Unix server or a desktop PC. Why, because Google says so? I am ever so grateful they make those decisions for me. > And phones know your location virtually 100% of the time because of cell tower triangulation. Well if the cell service provider knows your location, what's the harm in letting Google in on it as well, right?

valuearb 6y ago
The author was complaining about Google running a daemon in the background to track current device location, which is a necessary part of it being a phone. What Google does with that info is an entirely separate issue. And please let me know when Google or Apple starts advertising their phones as Unix servers and tout the ease of installing HTTP servers on them. They are sold as phones and that makes security and battery life critically important.
- rbecker 6y ago
  I'm afraid the location daemon must have went a bit over my head. What part of such a daemon is necessary for a phone? Did Nokia 3310 also have such a daemon? "What Google does with that info" - does this daemon send data back to Google? > And please let me know when Google or Apple starts advertising their phones as [..] Circular logic. They chose to lock-down and hobble phones, and because their advertising doesn't include user freedom, you think that makes them justified in infringing on that freedom? Especially when they pulled every anti-competitive trick in the book, and invented a few new ones, to kill any competing phone OSs?
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Yes, every cell phone has something like this daemon. Google “cellular phone” to learn how cell phones need to triangulate nearby cell towers to determine which offers best service, and when to switch to a new one. Please let me know when a phone manufacturer starts advertising the benefits of user freedom such as rampant malware stealing your personal information, dropping calls and bricking your phone. The first iPhone didn’t allow apps at all. When it was introduced the expectation for phones were they were safe and secure. If the iPhone wasn’t it would have failed. It’s like you are arguing automobile manufacturers don’t advertise that their cars are safe to drive, so obviously it isn’t a feature important to customers. And anyone can compete with a phone OS. You can fork Android for gods sake.