4 ms·

Honestly, a "no bells and whistles" OS release is welcome. The less the OS APIs change, the easier it is to build for the OS. As a small developer, constant AP

Honestly, a "no bells and whistles" OS release is welcome. The less the OS APIs change, the easier it is to build for the OS. As a small developer, constant API thrash is a nightmare. For example, the Android storage permissions API whiplash between 9, 10 and 11 was particularly painful. Win32, for all its flaws, is brilliant in that regard. The most disruptive change in 14 is probably the "full screen notifications" permission, which makes me a bit sad. Now, only alarm clocks and VOIP apps are allowed to use full screen notifications. The motivation is good (prevent abuse), however this approach of "only these approved, pre-existing use cases are allowed" is an innovation stifler. This was functionality that made Android a lot more powerful than iOS. There are plenty of valid use cases for a rich full screen, interactive notification-e.g. something that is extremely time sensitive. The policy should be "don't abuse full screen notifs", not "only alarm clocks and voip". The latter ensures that there will be no further innovation in this area, and we'll never know if the limitations were overly strict or not.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
> There are plenty of valid use cases for a rich full screen, interactive notification-e.g. something that is extremely time sensitive. Like ads? Yeah... Is there ever a thing that wasn't abused by ad companies yet?
- iamcalledrob 3y ago
  It's a real problem. There's a huge overlap between "things that can be abused by ads" and "things that allow boundary-pushing products". On Desktop, historically we chose the "buyer beware" route which, for all its 10-IE6-toolbars flaws, led to an environment that felt like it was full of possibilities. On Mobile we are going for a "you get your little sandbox" route, which delegates innovation to the OS vendors only.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    I understand the frustration, but it is a different threat model. Your phone more-or-less knows your exact location at all times (and has to, by design). In my view this calls for a different set of tradeoffs re: application permissions.
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      And not just location, also who you communicate with (contacts and "phone" permissions), are you currently walking/driving/sitting still, who is around you (wifi and location/bluetooth permissions), it can record audio/video (camera, mic permissions), and it's al based on the user knowing enough to allow or disallow those permissions when needed.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        By restricting full-screen, you're punishing the top 85+% of users who are fully capable of understanding what a permission ask for "Is allowed to display full screen while locked" is asking. Generally spekaing, the race to design everything for the bottom 10% of users is resulting is a world of forced conformity, severe artificial limitations, and basically the Simpsons episode where Homer bubble wraps the entire playground, but in a tech sense.
    - iamcalledrob 3y ago
      Right. But there has to be a better model than delegating innovation to Apple and Google. It's a huge conflict of interest too, since they are both Ad companies. We're heading down a path where there are products that only Apple and Google can build, and it's a huge problem for the ecosystem.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        Putting Apple in the same basket as Google in terms of ads is just misleading.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    These are both outgrowths of where they came from. Desktops came along in the 1970s as (relatively) powerful do-anything machines. Phones came along as simple phone (and later SMS)-only devices that have gradually grown more advanced features.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AshamedCaptain 3y ago
And yet, they are precisely dropping binary compatibility for no good reason in this release.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jwells89 3y ago
I think it’s likely a goal of Google’s to automate Play Store app reviews to the maximum possible extent, and “don’t abuse” sorts of policies don’t play well with that since it requires human judgement. It’s much easier to restrict permissions to a couple of app categories and completely rule out abuse.
vivekd 3y ago
I would like this but I don't know how much of a demand there is in the popular market. Eg. There's windows ltsc available but people aren't exactly clamouring over it. Stuff like debian has a limited user base. I think tech for most people is like clothing - part of the excitement of having it is the fact that it's the latest and greatest. Stability is the priority of a minority it seems
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  LTSC on Windows is a crappy experience. For example, instead of shipping with a suitable long-term supported Camera program (either Win32 or UWP, who cares), they just decide not to put any camera program whatsoever, for no apparent reason. Just Google around to find a lot of users complaining about it. Same with every other program which MS claims needs to be updated frequently, which are excluded from the LTSC. Most of these "programs which require frequent updates" are fully local-only programs like the camera or media player. I'm quite sure it'll include Notepad soon, as it is now a UWP program. It's ridiculous. Plus, you get like what, 5 years normally, 10 if you're lucky? Peanuts. We're talking about API stability in much longer terms (which Win32 itself somewhat manages).
- iamcalledrob 3y ago
  I think that developers do care about API stability (who wants to rewrite working code for no good reason?), but the effects of this time wasting are only felt indirectly by normal people. Since consumers have very little choice in their mobile OS, developers just have to put up with the thrash. It is possible to build new OS capabilities whilst maintaining a good deal of stability for existing APIs.
solarkraft 3y ago
Their approach to permissions is mind-bendingly weird. The technology is completely good, what’s weird are the policies of which permissions the user is asked about. I don’t think there’s ever been a permission popup for full-screen notifications, has there? From what I remember that’s how a lot of adware has been able to install itself so easily.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

> There are plenty of valid use cases for a rich full screen, interactive notification-e.g. something that is extremely time sensitive. Like ads? Yeah... Is there ever a thing that wasn't abused by ad companies yet?

iamcalledrob 3y ago
It's a real problem. There's a huge overlap between "things that can be abused by ads" and "things that allow boundary-pushing products". On Desktop, historically we chose the "buyer beware" route which, for all its 10-IE6-toolbars flaws, led to an environment that felt like it was full of possibilities. On Mobile we are going for a "you get your little sandbox" route, which delegates innovation to the OS vendors only.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  I understand the frustration, but it is a different threat model. Your phone more-or-less knows your exact location at all times (and has to, by design). In my view this calls for a different set of tradeoffs re: application permissions.
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    And not just location, also who you communicate with (contacts and "phone" permissions), are you currently walking/driving/sitting still, who is around you (wifi and location/bluetooth permissions), it can record audio/video (camera, mic permissions), and it's al based on the user knowing enough to allow or disallow those permissions when needed.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      By restricting full-screen, you're punishing the top 85+% of users who are fully capable of understanding what a permission ask for "Is allowed to display full screen while locked" is asking. Generally spekaing, the race to design everything for the bottom 10% of users is resulting is a world of forced conformity, severe artificial limitations, and basically the Simpsons episode where Homer bubble wraps the entire playground, but in a tech sense.
  - iamcalledrob 3y ago
    Right. But there has to be a better model than delegating innovation to Apple and Google. It's a huge conflict of interest too, since they are both Ad companies. We're heading down a path where there are products that only Apple and Google can build, and it's a huge problem for the ecosystem.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Putting Apple in the same basket as Google in terms of ads is just misleading.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  These are both outgrowths of where they came from. Desktops came along in the 1970s as (relatively) powerful do-anything machines. Phones came along as simple phone (and later SMS)-only devices that have gradually grown more advanced features.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

And yet, they are precisely dropping binary compatibility for no good reason in this release.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jwells89 3y ago

I think it’s likely a goal of Google’s to automate Play Store app reviews to the maximum possible extent, and “don’t abuse” sorts of policies don’t play well with that since it requires human judgement. It’s much easier to restrict permissions to a couple of app categories and completely rule out abuse.

vivekd 3y ago

I would like this but I don't know how much of a demand there is in the popular market. Eg. There's windows ltsc available but people aren't exactly clamouring over it. Stuff like debian has a limited user base. I think tech for most people is like clothing - part of the excitement of having it is the fact that it's the latest and greatest. Stability is the priority of a minority it seems

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
LTSC on Windows is a crappy experience. For example, instead of shipping with a suitable long-term supported Camera program (either Win32 or UWP, who cares), they just decide not to put any camera program whatsoever, for no apparent reason. Just Google around to find a lot of users complaining about it. Same with every other program which MS claims needs to be updated frequently, which are excluded from the LTSC. Most of these "programs which require frequent updates" are fully local-only programs like the camera or media player. I'm quite sure it'll include Notepad soon, as it is now a UWP program. It's ridiculous. Plus, you get like what, 5 years normally, 10 if you're lucky? Peanuts. We're talking about API stability in much longer terms (which Win32 itself somewhat manages).
iamcalledrob 3y ago
I think that developers do care about API stability (who wants to rewrite working code for no good reason?), but the effects of this time wasting are only felt indirectly by normal people. Since consumers have very little choice in their mobile OS, developers just have to put up with the thrash. It is possible to build new OS capabilities whilst maintaining a good deal of stability for existing APIs.

solarkraft 3y ago

Their approach to permissions is mind-bendingly weird. The technology is completely good, what’s weird are the policies of which permissions the user is asked about. I don’t think there’s ever been a permission popup for full-screen notifications, has there? From what I remember that’s how a lot of adware has been able to install itself so easily.