8 ms·
It worries me that one day Google is just going to decide to remove that feature from a future version of Android for "security". 99 percent of users won't noti
by Causality1 6y ago
It worries me that one day Google is just going to decide to remove that feature from a future version of Android for "security". 99 percent of users won't notice or care.
- izacus 6y agoI keep being told on HackerNews that Apple's model of total control is so much better for all the users and it helps not ever having to care about software quality. So that would then be a good thing, right? RIGHT?
- Causality1 6y agoI don't know, I'm still applying ointment from when Google decided nobody using Android 9 could ever need an app to scan for wifi more often than once every thirty seconds. Not like they operate their own fleet of wardriving vehicles that continuously scan and map access points.
- ylyn 6y agoIsn't this an option in the developer settings?
- Causality1 6y agoThe option to turn rate limiting off was added in Android 10.
- iggldiggl 6y agoThe problem is they're fixing one thing and breaking another. While Android 10 might have sort of "fixed" the Wifi scanning issue, it started enforcing the half-baked Scoped Storage implementation, which creates its own share of problems. I think things have become a bit more saner with Android 11 in that regard (though there might still be some pain points left), but instead the next random thing Google has broken is that you can no longer replace the default camera app - unless whatever random app you might be using specifically whitelists your favourite third-party camera app, you can no longer use it other than in standalone mode (i.e. if I understood things correctly, the same hare-brained situation you were in until very recently on iOS with regards to the default browser or other default apps).
- Causality1 6y agoFor God's sake just split android into Home and Pro editions already. Feels like every year they have a lower and lower opinion of their users.
- Findeton 6y agoI can say Apple's model is not better for me and that's why I use Android. If Android didn't let me basically control my own phone, I would switch to a libre phone even if it was shit.
- RamRodification 6y agoYes, according to people who prefer Apple's model it would probably be a good thing. Opinions differ on this you know. Don't be that guy.
- izacus 6y agoWell, most of the tech media and people commenting on this site are "those guys" who always publicly and loudly criticize Android for being different from iOS. Repeatedly.
- derefr 6y agoApple’s model is better for Apple users; Android’s model is better for Android users. That’s, presumably, (part of) the reason they use what they use.
- junipertea 6y agoIt's a good thing as long as there is a viable alternative to it.
- marcosdumay 6y agoSo, you are replaying to somebody concerned that Android may become like iOS on the future by claiming that the concern means iOS is better?
- dantheman 6y agoYou can have different choices - one that's closed and one that's open -- both have advantages and disadvantages. I like the android ecosystem but I understand the apple one too. I can choose which one I'd like to be in.
- pjmlp 6y agoActually yes, the only apps I sideload on Android are the ones I develop.
- ragnese 6y agoIt's the same crowd that keeps telling us that we shouldn't want root on our phones. It's better that some corporation somewhere has root to your phone, but not you.
- grawprog 6y agoJust the way the functionality's in there now shows it's treated as a second class feature. It's buried down in the special access settings labelled as 'install unknown apps and granted or removed on a per app basis. Notably, the google play store is not on this list. The whole setup makes installing apps from other sources obtuse and 'scary' to the average user. I'm not sure how say an app from f-droid is more 'unknown' than an app from the play store myself. Then of course, just to install f-droid, I have to download it, allow installing apps from my file manager, which comes with some scary popups, then I have to again enable the setting for f-droid, again after some scary popups. The goal really does seem to be do make the idea of installing software one acquires outside the 'official garden of known apps' to be something terrible and scary nobody should ever want to do.
- lima 6y ago> The whole setup makes installing apps from other sources obtuse and 'scary' to the average user. ...yes? It's not a bug, it's a feature. For the average Android user, it SHOULD be obtuse and scary to install apps from a third party source. Power users can still use a third party app store.
- VRay 6y agoyeah, I want to believe in the fundamental competence of humanity, but then I think back to all the browser toolbars I used to see on random people's computers..
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- grawprog 6y agoHow is it any more 'scary' installing an app from a website than the play store? There's plenty of malware on the play store. I'd actually be willing to bet you're more likely to install some malware from the play store than from an apk you get off a website or alternative store. It's a tradeoff for freedom vs a false sense of security. On android at least, the walled garden approach hasn't seemed to stop malware, the majority of which, comes from the play store. All it's done is teach users to blindly trust apps just because they come from a supposedly trustworthy source. If anything it's taught people to think less about security and the kinds of apps they install. It's on the play store right? Must be ok.
- haunter 6y agoBut then you should just fork it and add it back? Isn't that the point of the whole custom ROM scene (Lineage, Mokee, AOSP etc.)? Adding features and support for phones.
- mrastro 6y agoThey won't. Allowing APKs is useful from a legal point of view because it allows competitors to theoretically distribute their own apps (unlike Apple). It's why Google has a stronger defense in the Epic Games' case than Apple imo.