3 ms·
I've wanted something like this to be part of the OS, although it causes a bunch of hassles in BlackBerry (from a developer's perspective). There was a discuss
by ydant 15y ago
I've wanted something like this to be part of the OS, although it causes a bunch of hassles in BlackBerry (from a developer's perspective).
There was a discussion on Android-Developers about this (as a core OS feature), in which (I think) Dianne Hackborn (one of the Android developers) came out strongly against the idea of allowing users to choose which permissions to allow/disallow for an individual application. (Edit: I think this is what I was remembering: http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/eae545087448b1b1/9833ebc8a343674b http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thr...)
I think it's a good feature to have in some cases. Some applications, for example, the Yelp application, request features I'd rather not give, but I'd still like to use the application in general. It's not that I feel the applications are openly hostile - I would never trust the permissions library in that case, but I have no desire to give my contacts list to the Yelp app. This is just one example - I'm sure a lot of people would try to disable Internet on apps that use Internet solely to show ads, for example.
- rhizome 15y agoI would love it if this was combined with the UX of NoScript so that I could greenfield my perms and allow them selectively, granularly, and optionally permanently. At any rate, hopefully this is the beginning of the end of the PII giveaway.
- wzdd 15y agoI remember that interaction. It seems like a feature that will work really well 95% of the time and give confusing errors the other 5% of the time -- a good trade-off for techies, but would result in many confused users if it were a core OS feature ("I just thought I'd see what it did...").