6 ms·

A solution to all apps having all permissions on Android

40 points by willvarfar 15y ago

sumukh1 15y ago
It's an interesting solution but the problems as you mentioned are pretty significant. It's like Apple banning third party analytics and advertising and forcing devs to use iAds for security reasons.That would not sit well with developers. What if programs grab screenshots, and then upload them. There are many different security issues in mobile, and creative solutions that require the least effort will win out. The way Android prompts me for permissions is annoying (too many prompts/permissions needed to use the app). iOS isn't much better either.
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  Really? Android prompts once for permissions, per app, and that's it. iOS does a per-capability request of the user, at run-time. To some degree I like that; sometimes an app needs a permission (say, reading the crash log) in 1% or less of runs. It would be nice to be able to dynamically request a permission. If every ad network could push their own (signed!) ad-serving app, then it wouldn't be TOO bad. The system is in place on Android to ask for another app to handle a service, after all, so it's just the "auto-install dependencies" feature that's missing. And that feature is needed by some existing apps already as well. I also grab an announcement message when my games start, though, so I can push out announcements when appropriate. And soon I'm likely to be downloading new levels in my games. So I wouldn't be able to get rid of INTERNET permission. The PROBLEM, of course, is that now you've got users downloading an AD app, so if it wasn't explicit before that it's the ad provider that's tracking your position, your contacts, etc., then now it is. This would give a huge advantage to the dominant ad providers, and raise barrier-of-entry to newer providers, because if a provider is already installed on 85% of phones, then it's lower-friction to install the app that uses that provider.
  - sumukh1 15y ago
    > Android prompts once for permissions, per app, and that's it. That's the problem I have with it, I should have been clearer. If I have an app that I install, and on launch prompts me to give it access to 4 different things, the only thing I can do is close the app. I can't selectively enable it. What could be interesting is Google/Apple being brokers of ads from different networks. (Not in their best intrest to do that, so it won't happen). Perhaps a verification system to verify the code as a certified ad framework that doesn't track you.
    - SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
      What I was trying to say is that it asks you prior to install, not on first run, though I guess that's not really important. I heard recently that AdMob was going to be serving ads from competing ad networks, to increase its fill rate; it certainly can be in their best interests if they take a cut, right? :)
- lucaspiller 15y ago
  > It's like Apple banning third party analytics and advertising and forcing devs to use iAds for security reasons. Off-topic, but I could actually see Apple doing that :) It makes perfect sense from a business point of view and the control as much as we can of the experience point of view. I have no doubts some developers wouldn't be happy (I would imagine mainly those that run the other ad networks), but most wouldn't bat an eyelid. It is in exactly the same boat as the digital media subscription fiasco.
X-Istence 15y ago
This is an interesting proposition, and I like the idea of being able to get data to be displayed but not give the application access to that data, but I can also see examples where that would cause everything to look out of place. What if the app doing the replacement uses one font with a certain font size, and the app itself uses another font with a certain font size, it will look out of place. This could make for a jarring user experience.
- nknight 15y ago
  > What if the app doing the replacement uses one font with a certain font size, and the app itself uses another font with a certain font size There's no reason the platform can't allow passing of styling parameters to the second process. Restricting information flow is a means to an end (safety), not the end itself, and doesn't have to be an absolute.
- willvarfar 15y ago
  Android uis are made from widgets with standardised look and feel. The app developer would have a good idea what it would look like. Our framework at uiq had rather more theming etc than android, but still we were happy with the outcome
tomjen3 15y ago
The problem with Android is that the permissions are too coarse (want to store a couple hundred megabytes? You need access to the entire card) and there is no way to select which permits the app gets.
scotty79 15y ago
On semirelated note: I don't want to grant app access to my actual camera or actual location but I'd like to install it and feed it with fake data and see how it behaves. Same with facebook apps and their permissions. While installing an app where you are presented with permissions required by the app you should have ability to fake some of them and install the app.

40 points by willvarfar 15y ago

It's an interesting solution but the problems as you mentioned are pretty significant. It's like Apple banning third party analytics and advertising and forcing devs to use iAds for security reasons.That would not sit well with developers. What if programs grab screenshots, and then upload them. There are many different security issues in mobile, and creative solutions that require the least effort will win out. The way Android prompts me for permissions is annoying (too many prompts/permissions needed to use the app). iOS isn't much better either.

SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
Really? Android prompts once for permissions, per app, and that's it. iOS does a per-capability request of the user, at run-time. To some degree I like that; sometimes an app needs a permission (say, reading the crash log) in 1% or less of runs. It would be nice to be able to dynamically request a permission. If every ad network could push their own (signed!) ad-serving app, then it wouldn't be TOO bad. The system is in place on Android to ask for another app to handle a service, after all, so it's just the "auto-install dependencies" feature that's missing. And that feature is needed by some existing apps already as well. I also grab an announcement message when my games start, though, so I can push out announcements when appropriate. And soon I'm likely to be downloading new levels in my games. So I wouldn't be able to get rid of INTERNET permission. The PROBLEM, of course, is that now you've got users downloading an AD app, so if it wasn't explicit before that it's the ad provider that's tracking your position, your contacts, etc., then now it is. This would give a huge advantage to the dominant ad providers, and raise barrier-of-entry to newer providers, because if a provider is already installed on 85% of phones, then it's lower-friction to install the app that uses that provider.
- sumukh1 15y ago
  > Android prompts once for permissions, per app, and that's it. That's the problem I have with it, I should have been clearer. If I have an app that I install, and on launch prompts me to give it access to 4 different things, the only thing I can do is close the app. I can't selectively enable it. What could be interesting is Google/Apple being brokers of ads from different networks. (Not in their best intrest to do that, so it won't happen). Perhaps a verification system to verify the code as a certified ad framework that doesn't track you.
  - SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
    What I was trying to say is that it asks you prior to install, not on first run, though I guess that's not really important. I heard recently that AdMob was going to be serving ads from competing ad networks, to increase its fill rate; it certainly can be in their best interests if they take a cut, right? :)
lucaspiller 15y ago
> It's like Apple banning third party analytics and advertising and forcing devs to use iAds for security reasons. Off-topic, but I could actually see Apple doing that :) It makes perfect sense from a business point of view and the control as much as we can of the experience point of view. I have no doubts some developers wouldn't be happy (I would imagine mainly those that run the other ad networks), but most wouldn't bat an eyelid. It is in exactly the same boat as the digital media subscription fiasco.

X-Istence 15y ago

This is an interesting proposition, and I like the idea of being able to get data to be displayed but not give the application access to that data, but I can also see examples where that would cause everything to look out of place. What if the app doing the replacement uses one font with a certain font size, and the app itself uses another font with a certain font size, it will look out of place. This could make for a jarring user experience.

nknight 15y ago
> What if the app doing the replacement uses one font with a certain font size, and the app itself uses another font with a certain font size There's no reason the platform can't allow passing of styling parameters to the second process. Restricting information flow is a means to an end (safety), not the end itself, and doesn't have to be an absolute.
willvarfar 15y ago
Android uis are made from widgets with standardised look and feel. The app developer would have a good idea what it would look like. Our framework at uiq had rather more theming etc than android, but still we were happy with the outcome

tomjen3 15y ago

The problem with Android is that the permissions are too coarse (want to store a couple hundred megabytes? You need access to the entire card) and there is no way to select which permits the app gets.

scotty79 15y ago

On semirelated note: I don't want to grant app access to my actual camera or actual location but I'd like to install it and feed it with fake data and see how it behaves. Same with facebook apps and their permissions. While installing an app where you are presented with permissions required by the app you should have ability to fake some of them and install the app.