I agree, the existing permissions mechanism could really use a revamp. Particularly the Internet permission. As it stands, I tend to avoid ad servicing networks if my app does not need the Internet, simply to avoid requiring the permission.
The optional permissions idea has cropped up numerous times on this list, and if executed correctly might be a powerful feature. Have you starred the bug report for it? http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=6266 - At the moment it has only been voted by 6 people, which suggests it is not the most highly anticipated feature on the platform (By comparison: installing apps on the SD card has 2047 votes). On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Kiall Mac Innes <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to agree with everything you said, > > But - I do feel Android should introduce the idea of "optional" permissions, > a developer can then ask for permissions without actually requiring the user > to grant them... > > Background services would be a good example for this, If I dont want to give > an app BG service permissions, I can choose not to if the developer marked > the permission as optional... The app can then handle this lack of > permission internally.. > > And ... I *really really really really really really really* want to see the > "Internet Access" permission changed. I would really like to see a "Internet > Access to www.admob.com, ads.admob.com" etc. > > I hate giving apps "Internet Access" and knowing that they could be doing > anything they want with it! What is stopping a developer slipping in some > code to have your phone participate in a DDOS? I've also seen apps that use > AdMob and continue requesting ads when their backgrounded! > > Really - I'd like to see AdMob etc release a "library app" that you give > internet access to, and other apps interact with that rather than requiring > internet access themselves.. Obviousally market would then need to support > the idea of dependencies.. > > </rant> > > Thanks, > Kiall > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Sean Hodges <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:59 PM, CB <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The balance between use and misuse is very tricky (highlighted in >> > permissions, where users question what an app uses each permission >> > for). Overall, while power to the developer is important, I would >> > suggest the following to put the power back in the user`s hand: >> >> The power was never in the user's hand in the first place, if anything >> the advent of smart phones and Android has been the drive to push more >> power to the user without losing the convenience factor of the mobile >> device. >> >> > Overall, there needs to be better Application Management. By this I >> > mean no just installing and uninstalling, but the ability to control >> > apps on a more granular level. For example, some applications need to >> > run on start up, and that is a valuable feature. However, some apps >> > misuse this feature and make the powering on of my device much slower >> > than need be. >> >> Then those apps should be uninstalled, and you should email the >> developer and leave a comment on the market so others know to watch >> out for the same problem. >> >> A badly developed app can be patched up with third-party tweaking apps >> - there are several on the market that can control which apps start on >> boot for example. But this should not be built into the core platform, >> otherwise the end users will fall into the murky waters of system >> maintenance that is so prominent in Microsoft Windows. Developers will >> think less carefully about how their app interacts with its >> environment, bundling in feature-after-feature bloat with the get out >> of jail free card that the user can choose to disable them in the >> system settings if they so wish (and know how). >> >> > Also, background processing is a huge feature (multitasking), but it >> > also is often abused. The ability to specify the apps that are >> > allowed to run in the background (use CPU & resources), apps that only >> > persist state (stay in memory) and apps that are not allowed to >> > persist at all. This would give tremendous power and overall improve >> > the Android landscape. >> >> What happens to apps that need to run in the background to function, >> but are denied this capability by the user? I think the more elegant >> solution again is to uninstall apps that you don't want to run in the >> background (and that don't allow you to turn its background service >> off). Anything more complex is going to drive users away from the >> platform, as they will need to "configure" all their apps instead of >> relying on convention. >> >> As a proof of concept: Install a few badly behaving apps on your >> phone, a third-party tool for configuring the start-up apps and >> another for process management (one that allows you to block >> background services from user-defined apps). Then offer your phone to >> a non-technical friend or family member and ask them to "make the app >> use less resources"... >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en.
