Look there is a point where this was taken as an insult and I didn't mean that. I simply meant Apple, a company who is notorious for a good user experience all around, even has dialogs prompting users for extra permissions. Yes I don't agree with their model of the wild west. However if an app makes use of the optional permission so much that a user is constantly bombarded with dialogs then that app will probably not be voted up as highly as others. Isn't that the point of the market is to let users decide via votes and ratings, which apps are good and which aren't? Having only the wall of permissions and a market based solely on user feedback, is not a great long term distribution model. It just becomes spam at that point.
"I saw this permission and this app must suck" : 1 star. A user has every right to publish this, however it's a problem that cannot be addressed since they can't even validate their assumption because of fear to install the app in the first place. It's not a credible review however since reviews come in so fast, is it really the job of the developer to police the downfalls of it's distributor (yes and no). I am not going to split up my application into multiple APKs as I find many end users don't understand that distribution mechanic and frankly sometimes even as a developer it's annoying. I am starting to highly doubt the future of this product if the approach being taken by the dev team is, "Well it's not something we would like to address" for things that are obviously a point of contention for both developers (threads like this) and end users (read the market reviews of apps in general). You don't have many apps that have all those permissions on their manifest stated because it would never get installed, however you probably won't find that many creative apps either because of it. Is the target of android phones devs or non techie consumers ... the carrier marketing would say consumers, however through the development network it seems like we are back in school debating fundamentals of security instead of addressing a problem and building a product. On Aug 28, 1:13 pm, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Greg Giacovelli <[email protected]>wrote: > > > So I am not saying use a dialog everywhere. I am saying on a per > > application basis. The problem with Windows Vista was that it was > > everywhere. I am saying in addition to a small wall of permissions > > representing the what permissions are needed for the core > > functionality of the application, you also allow a upgrade > > permissions. A user should not be scared to install an application > > because of optional features of an application that compliment, a core > > functionality. Apple, a company that basically gives all developers > > access to frightenly everything, still prompts users on a per > > application basis for location, notifications, etc. > > I can guarantee you that if this facilities exists, apps will use it > extensively. We'd have a design that encourages it: showing an app's > permissions up-front before installing is a strong barrier where the user is > most inclined to decide the scope of what the app is doing is not worth > their desire for it and reject it; asking permission later is when the user > is just trying to do things and much more inclined to just say "yes" instead > of canceling or uninstalling the app. > > So if I am an app developer... of course I will declare no permissions at > install, and request them all as needed. I have a huge incentive to that. > > I will say specifically about location -- we should have some additional > facilities to control that, showing the user which apps are using it and > individually turning it off. But location is a special case (note it is the > only thing that there is a global setting to turn off as well). > > And of course we don't have or need a permission for notifications. A > design that doesn't require a permission but is still safe and secure is of > course best. That is why I say I'd like us to introduce more ways for apps > to interact with contact data without needing a permission. To me that is a > much better way to spend time. > > I am not trying to be difficult I am just basing this on being an > > > iPhone user previously. This platform has more potential I think but > > the focus on tech more so than user experience is what prevents this > > platform's growth. > > I will claim pretty strongly that our security is much better than the > iPhone, and is actually a user-centric design without relying on implying to > the user things it is not (such as reviewing apps providing much security). > There are certainly things about Android UX that can be improved in > relation to others, but we aren't trailing here. > > -- > Dianne Hackborn > Android framework engineer > [email protected] > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to > provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such > questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and > answer them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
