7 ms·

So it's the functionality/"security" dichotomy again, but in a slightly different place from iOS. Google won't let an app access all your files, but what if you

by pjc50 2y ago

So it's the functionality/"security" dichotomy again, but in a slightly different place from iOS. Google won't let an app access all your files, but what if you the user specifically want this app to access all your files because it is, say, a file manager or sync tool? The escape hatch is to use the FDroid version rather than the Play Store version.

zb3 2y ago
No, they just use the "security" argument in bad faith, so third party apps can't compete with builtin ones made by Google.
- troyvit 2y ago
  That's my take. And even if they aren't using the security argument in bad faith this time, they have so often in the past that now they can reap the rewards of using that argument in bad faith.
- izacus 2y ago
  Right, because y'all didn't scream when Android games could upload all private photos to their servers because they got this blanket permission to download their game files. Get outta here.
  - zb3 2y ago
    I don't care about games I don't download. I don't see a problem with the fact that if I download and execute a binary file on linux without explicit sandbox, it can mess up my system, that's my responsibility. Google pretends to care about my security, but they actually care about cementing their monopoly.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  The builtin app is using the more privacy-friendly framework that Nextcloud claims they cannot use.
tarruda 2y ago
> The escape hatch is to use the FDroid version rather than the Play Store version. As long as Google doesn't remove the ability to sideload apps, Android users are fine.
- the_third_wave 2y ago
  If they ever do that they'll get a hefty fine from the EU and the order to restore such functionality or be banned from the market.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    Why? Apple does that. You cannot install an app to IOS without both apple review and paying apple money per install. That review still enforces apple policies (famously the "no non-apple-gets-30%-payments" policy which is now ironically suspended on the US side. Ironically and temporarily)
    - theandrewbailey 2y ago
      > Apple does that. You cannot install an app to IOS without both apple review and paying apple money per install Not really in the EU? https://support.apple.com/en-us/118110 https://support.apple.com/en-us/118110
      - spwa4 2y ago
        App "notarization" requires apple review, as can be read on the link you pasted. And distributing apps like that requires paying an annual per-install fee: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ So yes, IOS apps in the EU require both Apple review and a recurring per-install fee.
        benoau 2y ago
        And, Apple was recently fined €500 million and ordered to comply with the DMA law. > The DMA requires that app developers should be able to inform customers of alternative purchasing options outside of the App Store, and direct customers to those alternative payment options, free of charge. Apple’s rules currently do not allow for this … (plus: criminal contempt referrals for "willfully" violating court order to stop doing that in the US too and lying to the judge and trying to cover it up!) > Separately, the commission has taken a preliminary view that Apple has not complied with its obligation to allow for the distribution of apps outside of the App Store, i.e. its support for third-party app marketplaces in the European Union is not good enough. The commission says developers are disincentivized from doing so due to the required agreement of alternative business terms, which includes the Core Technology Fee. It also says Apple has purposely made the process of using alternative app marketplaces too difficult and burdensome on end users. https://9to5mac.com/2025/04/23/apple-fined-500-million-euros-digital-markets-act/ https://9to5mac.com/2025/04/23/apple-fined-500-million-euros...
llm_nerd 2y ago
Google specifically allows the use of the permission[1] if the app falls in a set that truly require it to function. File managers Backup and restore apps Anti-virus apps Document management apps On-device file search Disk and file encryption Device-to-device data migration This Nextcloud app seems to be an app that mirrors your Nextcloud storage to your device, and I cannot understand why it would need all access to any other data stored on the external device -- with the enormous risk that entails -- much less that can't be selectively picked by the user. It isn't a file manager, it isn't a backup utility, it's a cloud provider with local mirroring. I get why Google told them to do things otherwise. Another comment mentions this is "bad faith" security and that's just overly cynical. Android and iOS both suffered from basically trusting app developers, and both were burned for it. Hardening down and making apps only request precisely what they actually need seems to be a massive user positive. [1] - https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/manage-all-files?authuser=1 https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/manage-a... - the exclusions can be found at the bottom.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Depends how you use it: I suspect people want their entire photo folders mirrored into Nextcloud from the device, which would fit under the "backup utility" category. > what they actually need seems to be a massive user positive So positive for the user that they filed a bug report about it?
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    It is a long-standing policy, not a "bug"[1]. Further it isn't the users complaining, it's a company of a fringe "cloud" product. I'm going to be gentle here and say their app looks incredibly shitty, and I suspect they saw an opportunity to get some free press on the "Google the monopolist" angle. >I suspect people want their entire photo folders mirrored into Nextcloud from the device That isn't remotely the contention, nor do photos even qualify for this as they use a different API. Further, the reason this company gives for refusing to use the obviously more suitable structured storage API is that they don't want their files -- presumably mirrored from the cloud storage -- visible to other apps. Their complaint is technical nonsense and doesn't pass an ounce of scrutiny. The argument by this company is nonsensical, and their argument seems to be "we did it this way before and we don't want to change". Firstly they can have their own app storage without granting access to any other app, and they can go through a system UI process to get access to additional folders (for instance "I want to back up my WhatsApp folder to this cloud provider"). They argue against the latter because they seem to think it somehow reveals the former, but that isn't the case whatsoever. [1] - Well it's a bug in the Nextcloud product where they seem to just ignore that the instance lacks a permission
sirdvd 2y ago
> The escape hatch is to use the FDroid version rather than the Play Store version. And perhaps using GrapheneOS while at it.
- palata 2y ago
  Which unfortunately requires... a Google phone
  - thecrash 2y ago
    Unlike Apple, Google's main business isn't selling hardware, nor do they use hardware as the chokepoint for controlling their ecosystem. It could change in future devices, but currently there's not much stopping you from doing whatever you want with your Pixel's software.
    - palata 2y ago
      Sure, I think Pixels are great devices! The two brands I would consider are FairPhone and Pixel, to be honest. I just find it ironic that I mostly deGoogled my tools, but still I would consider a Pixel with GrapheneOS :-).
- absqueued 2y ago
  Ah yeah but my sony xperia isn't supported!
izacus 2y ago
File managers are explicitly allowed to have this permission. File sync tools need to go through scoped storage where you as a user select directories which they sync and then they can read them at will as well.
- Zak 2y ago
  As I recall from a similar issue with Syncthing, using scoped storage for this has significant performance limitations.
  - apitman 2y ago
    Yes and it doesn't work with native code, so you have to implement an entire filesystem abstraction using Kotlin or Java.
  - izacus 2y ago
    The issue with Syncthing was that the author didn't want to call out to scoped storage APIs in Java and wanted to use only Go at any cost. The performance is a bit worse but for background syncing it's not material.
    - magicalhippo 2y ago
      Not a Java dev... How would one use the Java APIs from a Go application? I'm used to the reverse, Java calling external library.
      - izacus 2y ago
        The same way, just with the native side of JNI API. Usually you'd make a Java/Kotlin/Whatever class that does the JVM code (e.g. calls out to Android, retrieves the list of files, processes that and prepares the most reasonable subset of data to be passed into Go world) and then use JNI APIs to instantiate it and call it. (Alternatively, you can instantiate such a proxy class at app startup and pass it into Go world when you call into it for the first time.)
jeroenhd 2y ago
This permission has been a security issue since its introduction. Random apps have been caught iterating over used media to extract geolocation history based on EXIF information and other such metadata (for no good reason, data collection for data traders), so Google did the right thing and made file access permission-first. Almost no apps need this permission, so being skeptical makes a lot of sense. File managers and other such apps are routinely permitted to use this permission, so it's not like Google is locking out utility apps or anything. The current state of Google Play is the result of years of Google being too permissive by default and trying to patch things later while desperately trying to remain backwards compatible. Give advertisers a finger and they take the whole hand. Your average Android phone's internal storage used to be full of dotfiles, hidden directories, not-so-hidden directories, all full of identifiers and cross-identifiers to break the cross-app tracking boundary enforced by the normal API. As far as I know, Google has made an API available for picking a directory to sync with. I'm not sure why NextCloud needs to see every file on my SD card when it can ask for folders to sync into and can use a normal file picker to upload new files without going through a file manager, but there's probably a feature somewhere hidden in their app that necessitates this permission. The policy itself makes a lot of sense and I'd argue is beneficial for Google Play's user base. NextCloud's problem seems to be that Google isn't letting a human with common sense review their upload. Because of Google being Google, outcry is the only way to get attention from an actual human being when it comes to app stores (Apple has had very similar issues, though they claim their reviews are all done by humans). EDIT: NextCloud states "SAF cannot be used, as it is for sharing/exposing our files to other apps, so the reviewer clearly misunderstood our app workflow." as a reason for not being able to use the better APIs, but I'm not sure if that's true. SAF has a dedicated API for maintaining access to a folder (https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/documents-files#perform-operations https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/d...). I think NextCloud misinterpreted Google here.
- hedora 2y ago
  Google broke backup, so the only way to get an e2e setup is with nextcloud. Obviously, a nightly backup of the phone can’t rely on user intervention.

by pjc50 2y ago

zb3 2y ago

No, they just use the "security" argument in bad faith, so third party apps can't compete with builtin ones made by Google.

troyvit 2y ago
That's my take. And even if they aren't using the security argument in bad faith this time, they have so often in the past that now they can reap the rewards of using that argument in bad faith.
izacus 2y ago
Right, because y'all didn't scream when Android games could upload all private photos to their servers because they got this blanket permission to download their game files. Get outta here.
- zb3 2y ago
  I don't care about games I don't download. I don't see a problem with the fact that if I download and execute a binary file on linux without explicit sandbox, it can mess up my system, that's my responsibility. Google pretends to care about my security, but they actually care about cementing their monopoly.
UncleMeat 2y ago
The builtin app is using the more privacy-friendly framework that Nextcloud claims they cannot use.

tarruda 2y ago

> The escape hatch is to use the FDroid version rather than the Play Store version. As long as Google doesn't remove the ability to sideload apps, Android users are fine.

the_third_wave 2y ago
If they ever do that they'll get a hefty fine from the EU and the order to restore such functionality or be banned from the market.
- spwa4 2y ago
  Why? Apple does that. You cannot install an app to IOS without both apple review and paying apple money per install. That review still enforces apple policies (famously the "no non-apple-gets-30%-payments" policy which is now ironically suspended on the US side. Ironically and temporarily)
  - theandrewbailey 2y ago
    > Apple does that. You cannot install an app to IOS without both apple review and paying apple money per install Not really in the EU? https://support.apple.com/en-us/118110 https://support.apple.com/en-us/118110
    - spwa4 2y ago
      App "notarization" requires apple review, as can be read on the link you pasted. And distributing apps like that requires paying an annual per-install fee: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ So yes, IOS apps in the EU require both Apple review and a recurring per-install fee.
      - benoau 2y ago
        And, Apple was recently fined €500 million and ordered to comply with the DMA law. > The DMA requires that app developers should be able to inform customers of alternative purchasing options outside of the App Store, and direct customers to those alternative payment options, free of charge. Apple’s rules currently do not allow for this … (plus: criminal contempt referrals for "willfully" violating court order to stop doing that in the US too and lying to the judge and trying to cover it up!) > Separately, the commission has taken a preliminary view that Apple has not complied with its obligation to allow for the distribution of apps outside of the App Store, i.e. its support for third-party app marketplaces in the European Union is not good enough. The commission says developers are disincentivized from doing so due to the required agreement of alternative business terms, which includes the Core Technology Fee. It also says Apple has purposely made the process of using alternative app marketplaces too difficult and burdensome on end users. https://9to5mac.com/2025/04/23/apple-fined-500-million-euros-digital-markets-act/ https://9to5mac.com/2025/04/23/apple-fined-500-million-euros...

llm_nerd 2y ago

Google specifically allows the use of the permission[1] if the app falls in a set that truly require it to function. File managers Backup and restore apps Anti-virus apps Document management apps On-device file search Disk and file encryption Device-to-device data migration This Nextcloud app seems to be an app that mirrors your Nextcloud storage to your device, and I cannot understand why it would need all access to any other data stored on the external device -- with the enormous risk that entails -- much less that can't be selectively picked by the user. It isn't a file manager, it isn't a backup utility, it's a cloud provider with local mirroring. I get why Google told them to do things otherwise. Another comment mentions this is "bad faith" security and that's just overly cynical. Android and iOS both suffered from basically trusting app developers, and both were burned for it. Hardening down and making apps only request precisely what they actually need seems to be a massive user positive. [1] - https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/manage-all-files?authuser=1 https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/manage-a... - the exclusions can be found at the bottom.

pjc50 2y ago
Depends how you use it: I suspect people want their entire photo folders mirrored into Nextcloud from the device, which would fit under the "backup utility" category. > what they actually need seems to be a massive user positive So positive for the user that they filed a bug report about it?
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  It is a long-standing policy, not a "bug"[1]. Further it isn't the users complaining, it's a company of a fringe "cloud" product. I'm going to be gentle here and say their app looks incredibly shitty, and I suspect they saw an opportunity to get some free press on the "Google the monopolist" angle. >I suspect people want their entire photo folders mirrored into Nextcloud from the device That isn't remotely the contention, nor do photos even qualify for this as they use a different API. Further, the reason this company gives for refusing to use the obviously more suitable structured storage API is that they don't want their files -- presumably mirrored from the cloud storage -- visible to other apps. Their complaint is technical nonsense and doesn't pass an ounce of scrutiny. The argument by this company is nonsensical, and their argument seems to be "we did it this way before and we don't want to change". Firstly they can have their own app storage without granting access to any other app, and they can go through a system UI process to get access to additional folders (for instance "I want to back up my WhatsApp folder to this cloud provider"). They argue against the latter because they seem to think it somehow reveals the former, but that isn't the case whatsoever. [1] - Well it's a bug in the Nextcloud product where they seem to just ignore that the instance lacks a permission

sirdvd 2y ago

> The escape hatch is to use the FDroid version rather than the Play Store version. And perhaps using GrapheneOS while at it.

palata 2y ago
Which unfortunately requires... a Google phone
- thecrash 2y ago
  Unlike Apple, Google's main business isn't selling hardware, nor do they use hardware as the chokepoint for controlling their ecosystem. It could change in future devices, but currently there's not much stopping you from doing whatever you want with your Pixel's software.
  - palata 2y ago
    Sure, I think Pixels are great devices! The two brands I would consider are FairPhone and Pixel, to be honest. I just find it ironic that I mostly deGoogled my tools, but still I would consider a Pixel with GrapheneOS :-).
absqueued 2y ago
Ah yeah but my sony xperia isn't supported!

izacus 2y ago

File managers are explicitly allowed to have this permission. File sync tools need to go through scoped storage where you as a user select directories which they sync and then they can read them at will as well.

Zak 2y ago
As I recall from a similar issue with Syncthing, using scoped storage for this has significant performance limitations.
- apitman 2y ago
  Yes and it doesn't work with native code, so you have to implement an entire filesystem abstraction using Kotlin or Java.
- izacus 2y ago
  The issue with Syncthing was that the author didn't want to call out to scoped storage APIs in Java and wanted to use only Go at any cost. The performance is a bit worse but for background syncing it's not material.
  - magicalhippo 2y ago
    Not a Java dev... How would one use the Java APIs from a Go application? I'm used to the reverse, Java calling external library.
    - izacus 2y ago
      The same way, just with the native side of JNI API. Usually you'd make a Java/Kotlin/Whatever class that does the JVM code (e.g. calls out to Android, retrieves the list of files, processes that and prepares the most reasonable subset of data to be passed into Go world) and then use JNI APIs to instantiate it and call it. (Alternatively, you can instantiate such a proxy class at app startup and pass it into Go world when you call into it for the first time.)

jeroenhd 2y ago

This permission has been a security issue since its introduction. Random apps have been caught iterating over used media to extract geolocation history based on EXIF information and other such metadata (for no good reason, data collection for data traders), so Google did the right thing and made file access permission-first. Almost no apps need this permission, so being skeptical makes a lot of sense. File managers and other such apps are routinely permitted to use this permission, so it's not like Google is locking out utility apps or anything. The current state of Google Play is the result of years of Google being too permissive by default and trying to patch things later while desperately trying to remain backwards compatible. Give advertisers a finger and they take the whole hand. Your average Android phone's internal storage used to be full of dotfiles, hidden directories, not-so-hidden directories, all full of identifiers and cross-identifiers to break the cross-app tracking boundary enforced by the normal API. As far as I know, Google has made an API available for picking a directory to sync with. I'm not sure why NextCloud needs to see every file on my SD card when it can ask for folders to sync into and can use a normal file picker to upload new files without going through a file manager, but there's probably a feature somewhere hidden in their app that necessitates this permission. The policy itself makes a lot of sense and I'd argue is beneficial for Google Play's user base. NextCloud's problem seems to be that Google isn't letting a human with common sense review their upload. Because of Google being Google, outcry is the only way to get attention from an actual human being when it comes to app stores (Apple has had very similar issues, though they claim their reviews are all done by humans). EDIT: NextCloud states "SAF cannot be used, as it is for sharing/exposing our files to other apps, so the reviewer clearly misunderstood our app workflow." as a reason for not being able to use the better APIs, but I'm not sure if that's true. SAF has a dedicated API for maintaining access to a folder (https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/documents-files#perform-operations https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/d...). I think NextCloud misinterpreted Google here.

hedora 2y ago
Google broke backup, so the only way to get an e2e setup is with nextcloud. Obviously, a nightly backup of the phone can’t rely on user intervention.