3 ms·

Some of those apps are things I want to phone home, like the system I have that is supposed to dial my thermostat back automatically (as well as back up again).

by ssl-3 2y ago

Some of those apps are things I want to phone home, like the system I have that is supposed to dial my thermostat back automatically (as well as back up again). When these are the tasks that are killed, it costs me more than whatever precious bodily fluids that some ad/tracking/analytics stuff may sap: It costs me real money.

gruez 2y ago
The problem is less with phoning home per se, and more about doing it in a way that's against user expectations. I already acknowledged that there are legitimate use cases out there, but for the overwhelming majority of users, their phone is primarily a communication and media consumption device, which doesn't need 24/7 background access. Yes, it's tragic that the handful of people are being harmed by this, but it's hardly because of "spite" as OP suggested.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  The problem is that I'm only theoretically harmed by things that unexpectedly succeed in phoning home, while I'm absolutely harmed by things failing to phone home when I need them to do so. Dollars I have lost due to things phoning home against my expectations: Close to zero -- if not literally zero. (And close to zero time spent managing that.) Dollars I have lost due to things failing to phone home when I want them to do so: More than zero. (And hours and hours of time spent trying to make them work more reliably.)
  - gruez 2y ago
    If you really want to get into a game of theoretically vs practically, for most users: they're only theoretically harmed by not being able to disable background activity, because all they're doing is texting (worst case, there's GCM which is whitelisted) and watching tiktok. Meanwhile they're practically harmed because the one-of-a-dozen e-commerce app has some misbehaving background service that's trying to send telemetry 24/7. People also have terrible battery discipline, and if you're out and about a dead phone has actual costs (eg. having to rent a power bank, or having to take a cab rather than uber). None of this invalidates your use case, but given the rarity of your use case compared to the more common use case, I hope you understand why companies are implementing it not purely out of "spite".
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ssl-3 2y ago
      Spite? A thing can be abhorrent and disdainful and motivated by the best and most pure of intentions, all at the same time. These are not in any way mutually-exclusive constructs. Rarity? Perhaps the best way to make sure a thing remains rare or unusual is to neuter it straight out of the gate. In the past few days here we've seen SSH servers and Docker containers on Android, with the repeated caveat of "Yeah, but the task killer won't let that really work." And that's absolutely true: It won't.

by ssl-3 2y ago

gruez 2y ago

The problem is less with phoning home per se, and more about doing it in a way that's against user expectations. I already acknowledged that there are legitimate use cases out there, but for the overwhelming majority of users, their phone is primarily a communication and media consumption device, which doesn't need 24/7 background access. Yes, it's tragic that the handful of people are being harmed by this, but it's hardly because of "spite" as OP suggested.

ssl-3 2y ago
The problem is that I'm only theoretically harmed by things that unexpectedly succeed in phoning home, while I'm absolutely harmed by things failing to phone home when I need them to do so. Dollars I have lost due to things phoning home against my expectations: Close to zero -- if not literally zero. (And close to zero time spent managing that.) Dollars I have lost due to things failing to phone home when I want them to do so: More than zero. (And hours and hours of time spent trying to make them work more reliably.)
- gruez 2y ago
  If you really want to get into a game of theoretically vs practically, for most users: they're only theoretically harmed by not being able to disable background activity, because all they're doing is texting (worst case, there's GCM which is whitelisted) and watching tiktok. Meanwhile they're practically harmed because the one-of-a-dozen e-commerce app has some misbehaving background service that's trying to send telemetry 24/7. People also have terrible battery discipline, and if you're out and about a dead phone has actual costs (eg. having to rent a power bank, or having to take a cab rather than uber). None of this invalidates your use case, but given the rarity of your use case compared to the more common use case, I hope you understand why companies are implementing it not purely out of "spite".
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    Spite? A thing can be abhorrent and disdainful and motivated by the best and most pure of intentions, all at the same time. These are not in any way mutually-exclusive constructs. Rarity? Perhaps the best way to make sure a thing remains rare or unusual is to neuter it straight out of the gate. In the past few days here we've seen SSH servers and Docker containers on Android, with the repeated caveat of "Yeah, but the task killer won't let that really work." And that's absolutely true: It won't.