On Friday, August 17, 2012 2:52:32 AM UTC+2, Nathan wrote:
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:31:14 PM UTC-7, omoling wrote:
Hi Nathan, thank you for your reply.
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:56:31 PM UTC+2, Nathan wrote:
At least you have listened to one suggestion. Take away the
On 8/17/2012 1:05 PM, omoling wrote:
This information might be useless for you Nathan. This does not imply
that nobody will find it useful, I prefer to let some larger group of
users decide on that.
But the way it's structured, your app spreads FUD about perfectly good
apps, and then
This is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed soon. Before releasing the
app, I thought about this kind of issues and came up with a bunch of possible
solutions, e.g. involving weighted formulas with integration of expert data.
As there will be a relevant amount of data available, I will
On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:36:16 PM UTC-7, omoling wrote:
I didn't expect lots of positive feedback from developers, I rather would
have liked some feedback to make the app accepted also by devs. Instead, I
mostly read comments about how bad it is to show to users what data an app
Hi Nathan, thank you for your reply.
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:56:31 PM UTC+2, Nathan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:36:16 PM UTC-7, omoling wrote:
I didn't expect lots of positive feedback from developers, I rather would
have liked some feedback to make the app accepted also
On Aug 16, 4:31 pm, omoling omol...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't expect lots of positive feedback from developers, I rather would
have liked some feedback to make the app accepted also by devs.
The fundamental problem is that the niche your app fits into is
created by the unworkably broad
On 8/16/2012 2:31 PM, omoling wrote:
Honestly, reading your comments, it seems strange to ask oneself why
an app requires a permission you don't see the purpose of.
The problem is that you're asking yourself why an app requires a
permission, and YOU (or your users) are the ones trying to
Dear Tim, thank you for your reply.
On Friday, August 17, 2012 12:00:31 AM UTC+2, Tim in Boulder wrote:
On 8/16/2012 2:31 PM, omoling wrote:
Honestly, reading your comments, it seems strange to ask oneself why
an app requires a permission you don't see the purpose of.
The problem is that
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:31:14 PM UTC-7, omoling wrote:
Hi Nathan, thank you for your reply.
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:56:31 PM UTC+2, Nathan wrote:
At least you have listened to one suggestion. Take away the Express
doubt about this permission feature, and your app will be
I didn't expect lots of positive feedback from developers, I rather would have
liked some feedback to make the app accepted also by devs. Instead, I mostly
read comments about how bad it is to show to users what data an app has access
to.
I'm still happy since I understood that it might not be
This has been discussed here before, and the advice given was to always
ask for everything that you might ever need, or suffer major negative
consequences when you do need it. People on the list have reported this,
and I've seen it happen to a half dozen apps myself. You can't claim it
On 8/2/2012 11:37 PM, Justin Anderson wrote:
The reason to use a permission that you're not using NOW is that
if you add the permission later, you're likely to get a pile of
negative reviews and uninstalls as people are forced to re-agree
to permissions and freak out when they
Ok, I can agree with that...
Thanks,
Justin Anderson
MagouyaWare Developer
http://sites.google.com/site/magouyaware
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Tim Mensch tim.men...@gmail.com wrote:
You're not actually disagreeing here, but rather you're arguing something
orthogonal: That you should
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 12:16:36 PM UTC-7, omoling wrote:
There is no purpose to create mistrust on other applications. After all, I
strongly believe that the wast majority of developers use private data
carefully.
Do you? Just an observation, Appprivacy does not reflect this belief.
On 8/3/2012 10:16 AM, Nathan wrote:
I simply don't trust apps that require permissions for which I can
not see the purpose.
This belief of yours *is* enshrined in the apprivacy app. Trouble is,
you think that any permissions for which *you* do not see the purpose
should be considered
Sorry for coming back so late on this discussion, I read all comments and I
appreciate the feedback, either positive or negative regarding Aprrivacy.
There is no purpose to create mistrust on other applications. After all, I
strongly believe that the wast majority of developers use private
On 8/2/2012 1:16 PM, omoling wrote:
I really don't see ANY point in requiring permissions that you might
use in the future, but don't use now. if your app requires permission
X (eg reading contacts), I must assume you are using it, the opposite
does not make sense, at all.
The reason to
The reason to use a permission that you're not using NOW is that if you
add the permission later, you're likely to get a pile of negative reviews
and uninstalls as people are forced to re-agree to permissions and freak
out when they realize what it is that you're NOW asking for.
This has
But reading log files is necessary sometimes. And reading contacts is
sometimes necessary. And other permissions are sometimes necessary. I do
feel like Apprivacy is more likely to scare users away from useful and
harmless apps than actually protect them from harmful apps (probably 98%
false
On Thursday, 7 June 2012 01:17:48 UTC+2, Tim in Boulder wrote:
On 6/6/2012 4:43 PM, b0b wrote:
There's no need for the READ_LOGS permission to log only own app's
logging.
Sorry, but there IS a need, if you need to look at the NDK crash dump.
There's no way to grab that info without
On 6/7/2012 5:34 AM, b0b wrote:
It *might* be possible to get that log , overriding the default
signal handlers in your NDK code and taking inspiration from
debuggerd.c which handle the logging of the detail trace (see
function handle_crashing_process):
debuggerd gets crash reports by
On the other end of things, I'm pretty certain that the code that GENERATES
the tombstone file (which is the place my app MIGHT be able to do it as
well) is going to need to use Linux APIs unsupported by the NDK, which is
its own can of worms.
Indeed, very probable.
I think that an
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 7:07:47 PM UTC-7, Tim in Boulder wrote:
While we're at it, though, adding an API for give me ONLY log messages
related to my app that doesn't need a permission at all would solve that
problem completely, at least for me. I apply that filter to the log before
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 18:55:34 UTC+2, Matt Kanninen wrote:
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 7:07:47 PM UTC-7, Tim in Boulder wrote:
While we're at it, though, adding an API for give me ONLY log messages
related to my app that doesn't need a permission at all would solve that
problem
On 6/6/2012 4:43 PM, b0b wrote:
There's no need for the READ_LOGS permission to log only own app's
logging.
Sorry, but there IS a need, if you need to look at the NDK crash dump.
There's no way to grab that info without READ_LOG. Some of us do
cross-platform development where 99% of the code
I have some conflict of interest in helping an app that, if it becomes
popular, means lower sales and higher tech support costs for other innocent
apps. Your business model requires you to build trust for your app by
encouraging mistrust of other apps.
But I will do my best to put you in the
On 6/5/2012 2:44 PM, Nathan wrote:
On Saturday, June 2, 2012 10:32:11 AM UTC-7, omoling wrote:
as some SMS managing app requiring access to log files
Says who? So apps are not allowed to be concerned about diagnosing
problems for their users, letting them send this log to get problems
Hi Johan,
thank you for your feedback. You got one main issue right away. For sure,
Android developers may know if an app requires a given permission or not,
at least in most cases, but expressing a doubt could also be intended just
as a question regarding why the app really needs to do that
Not sure how useful this is for non-techie users right now since it doesn't
really give any more information than the permission request screen that is
shown when installing an app.
What is the point of expressing doubt about a permission?
I see a lot of doubt for permissions for apps where
29 matches
Mail list logo
