5 ms·

Any ideas for a better solution to the problem? (not snarking, genuinely curious to hear your thoughts)

fpgeek 14y ago
Have user-grantable permissions for escaping from the Metro sandbox? (JIT permission being the most obvious, of course) That might devolve into a "de-facto" desktop permission at the start, but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all".
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  History has shown that it never works and the users can be coerced to do anything to make their app work and are incapable of deciding what's malware and what's not.Case in point, declaring app access permissions in Android. Most software seems to have no trouble with user adoptions while requesting every permission available like making phone calls. >but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all". The problem is that with the first breaking change, users will be annoyed and MS will regardless take the blame for it. Also the iPad has proven to be a roaring success with the very same restrictions.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    I'd say plenty of permissions systems have been a success, including the app permissions system in Android. Does it have tons of rough spots and issues? Absolutely. Handling permissions is a hard problem no one has cracked. But Android's system has also unequivocally has provided a net positive value to users and the platform. First, there's the baseline transparency. Android hasn't had Path-style surprises because things like whether or not an app is accessing the address book or your location are out in the open. Second, the permissions system (including negative reviews driven by it) encourages app developers to not just request permissions, but explain why they are needed. Not everyone does that, but plenty of the apps I've used do. Among other things, I can wish that were more integrated and consistent (e.g. a mandatory text string provided along with the request to shift the default), but, even today, this valuable information ends up in the app description where everyone can see it. Third, there's all sorts of potential for tools you can build on top. It's easy to answer questions like: "Which apps access my location and can send SMSes?" There have also been attempts to revoke permissions that users didn't want to give. This doesn't always work well because apps usually don't gracefully handle not getting an expected permission, but most of the technical infrastructure is there, so it is a logical future step. And so on. I'm not saying a permissions system will be wonderful out-of-the-box, but it is a good foundation on which you can make things better in the future, rather than settling for a false choice today.

Have user-grantable permissions for escaping from the Metro sandbox? (JIT permission being the most obvious, of course) That might devolve into a "de-facto" desktop permission at the start, but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all".

recoiledsnake 14y ago
History has shown that it never works and the users can be coerced to do anything to make their app work and are incapable of deciding what's malware and what's not.Case in point, declaring app access permissions in Android. Most software seems to have no trouble with user adoptions while requesting every permission available like making phone calls. >but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all". The problem is that with the first breaking change, users will be annoyed and MS will regardless take the blame for it. Also the iPad has proven to be a roaring success with the very same restrictions.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  I'd say plenty of permissions systems have been a success, including the app permissions system in Android. Does it have tons of rough spots and issues? Absolutely. Handling permissions is a hard problem no one has cracked. But Android's system has also unequivocally has provided a net positive value to users and the platform. First, there's the baseline transparency. Android hasn't had Path-style surprises because things like whether or not an app is accessing the address book or your location are out in the open. Second, the permissions system (including negative reviews driven by it) encourages app developers to not just request permissions, but explain why they are needed. Not everyone does that, but plenty of the apps I've used do. Among other things, I can wish that were more integrated and consistent (e.g. a mandatory text string provided along with the request to shift the default), but, even today, this valuable information ends up in the app description where everyone can see it. Third, there's all sorts of potential for tools you can build on top. It's easy to answer questions like: "Which apps access my location and can send SMSes?" There have also been attempts to revoke permissions that users didn't want to give. This doesn't always work well because apps usually don't gracefully handle not getting an expected permission, but most of the technical infrastructure is there, so it is a logical future step. And so on. I'm not saying a permissions system will be wonderful out-of-the-box, but it is a good foundation on which you can make things better in the future, rather than settling for a false choice today.