On Jan 26, 12:30 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> wrote: > Any such mechanism must include the ability for a developer to say > that a permission their app is requesting is mandatory and can't be > disabled.
i call complete B.S. on this. users have the unquestioned, unequivocal right to make their handset devices perform HOWEVER they wish at ALL times. actually giving the users this power in the Android O/S would allow the users to actually understand what the apps are doing. if i deny "internet connectivity" to, say, a camera app and experience no ill effects, then i'm happy. if i deny that connectivity and the app force-closes every time i take a photo, i am also happy... because then i can start posting on forums that a seemingly innocuous camera app is feverishly trying to access the internet for no damn reason and i can inform others to never use it. giving users increased control over what their computers (and, by extension, their handsets) can do is NEVER a bad thing. personally, if Google had /really/ wanted to be a shining star when they entered into the mobile market, they could have used their clout to say, "all Android phones will come to users fully rooted and with the baseband fully unlocked or else you can partner with someone else." Imagine that. Imagine a company the size of Google (one of the few entities with the market power to actually pull off such a plan) re-making the face of the mobile industry in the interests of the user. yeah, of course, that'll be the day. On Jan 26, 12:32 pm, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > The direct problem is that google (most frequently hackbod) has come out and > said, clearly and repeatedly, that they will not implement it, will not > participate in the creation of a proposal/spec, will not accept patches > (even on a new api rev) etc.. This is because it is Google's policy to absolutely ignore (if not actively piss all over) the power-user and business-user market. Just look at something like Google Calendar, for example. The web implementation as well as the Android implementation are utterly laughable for business users, and yet no degree of crowing at the top of people's lungs will get Google to acknowledge any problems or fix them. It's the same for the Android O/S... Google is interested in being a competitor to the iPhone, not a competitor to BlackBerry. It's a damn shame, too, given that i like the Android platform most of all. But until they want to offer a product that's not geared towards tweens or soccer moms, the power users will have to sit and sulk. On Jan 26, 3:09 pm, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > it allows me to say "I don't want to permit this" and make it stick Exactly. Users should have the power to direct their O/S to do anything they want with respect to permissions. If an app crashes or does not work, then the user is free to uninstall that app. If the app /does/ work with the limited permission set, it becomes more popular and can therefore grow its user-base. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Security Discussions" 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-security-discuss?hl=en.
