This is quite sad, but thankfully it is still fairly easy to just download an APK and install it. This is the primary driver keeping me away from Apple devices. I'll be very sad if Android stops supporting not-from-the-app-store APK files.
Well chances are that Apple will start accepting out of AppStore installs as well. At least in the EU so you don’t have to worry much about Google stopping apps being installed outside of google playstore
Few days ago I bought a modern ceiling lamp with bluetooth control. Connected it to my iphone and that was it.
My relative had an android though.
No playstore option. Downloaded the apk from their site, launched it. Access to your location? Photos? File system? Wifi networks? Etc? ETC? E.T.C.?
The thing is, it asks it every time you tap “connect” or “on” despite everything being disabled in settings. And of course it doesn’t work without permissions (bluetooth was on). Idk which are critical because none of them are acceptable.
That’s basically my average experience with apks. When you guys celebrate wins over apple, I wonder what future will look like and something tells me I’ve already seen it.
either the iphone app already asked for perms and you granted it all, or they didn't try to invade your privacy in iphone land at all (since an app review might scrutinize it).
But an apk might want to extract from you maximally, and there's nothing stopping them. That's why the android version is the way it is.
The problem isn't android itself, but that an open system is more vulnerable to being abused. However, i still prefer that over the closed garden.
they didn't try to invade your privacy in iphone land at all (since an app review might scrutinize it).
Exactly.
I prefer my lights to not know my location and photos, and to not even ask for it. With the fall of apple scrutiny, almost everything will work as described above. Cause it demonstrably does when allowed.
The problem isn't android itself
Android could (1) disallow repeating permissions popups, (2) feed empty or arbitrary data to apks because of the nature of their “habitat”.
F-droid and other non-standard firmware is incompatible with banks, other apps and hardware, so this is out of question.
an open system is more vulnerable to being abused. However, i still prefer that over the closed garden.
I respect your preference. In my case I should explain the situation to my relative and suggest to choose between the two approaches.
But I don’t see mutual respect when reading happy celebrations about destroying the protective garden. Not a thing in our conversation, but I hear it often and dread the results, where there will be nothing to choose from.
>I prefer my lights to not know my location and photos, and to not even ask for it.
deny it then. They want location to help with voice commands. Photos are to label your light profile. If you did either on IOS, you already gave permission. If not, you miss those features. I prefer the explicit choice.
better yet, Andoid can let you grant the permission for a short time then disable it on demand.
>F-droid and other non-standard firmware is incompatible with banks, other apps and hardware
Then make those exceptions or don't use them on your phone. This isn't rocket science. Just because there's choice doesn't mean some apps won't choose to stay stuck on google.
> I don’t see mutual respect when reading happy celebrations about destroying the protective garden.
because that perspecive isn't respectful in and of itself. Your garden isn't damaged, other peple are tilling new land. No one's making you go out of your garden, and if suddenly some killer app isn't in there you have a choice. You're not forever tainted from downloading another store and downloading one more app while 99% are from the App store.
Put it another way: jailbreaking has been a thing since IOS was a thing, there are already homebrew and unofficial apps (e.g. emulators) that you cannot access on IOS because you are in the garden. Nothing will change from then to later except Fortnite will not be in the App store. But if you were fine without Fortnite on IOS for 7 years, you aren't suffering now.
I wouldn't even post this if denying it once was a solution that makes it work. There was no real choice here. The choice of surrendering privacy vs getting tfo-ed is not practical.
Nothing will change from then to later
Jailbreaking is a process an average consumer won't do, so it disincentivizes app makers from making jailbreak-only ios apps. Forced regulation will make sideloading a regular thing which will shift incentives to what happened to my relative (please note: not to me). This directly affects the garden. The logic you're using here is naive at best.
F-Droid isn't "non-standard firmware", it's just an app store like the Play Store is and can in fact exist alongside the Play Store just fine. You don't need to do any fancy trickery to get it working (download APK from their site, install and that's it) and rather notably, due to (good!) changes by Google to comply with EU law, is basically an indistinguishable installation experience from the Play Store when it comes to updates.
As for faking empty/arbitrary data: this is a thing in Android, and has been a thing for several versions now. The unfortunate problem is that for reasons that I'm sure aren't tied to the big G's economic interests, the UI around "granted but not really" is complete dogwater (it's basically only functional for the gallery permission these days).
You can use something like appops[0] to forcibly override these permissions options, but it really should be made more user friendly.
I think the main problem with the closed garden is that it expects Apple to be a fair and unbiased steward of their ecosystem, when it's been proven over and over again that they absolutely aren't. They allowed the app store to be flooded with ad-riddled junk, allow for paid search results that make it harder for people to install government apps[1], press smaller app devs into adding more payment schemes and even on the most basic level demand a continuous resource drain with their licensing schemes that ensures that "just make a good app and sell it once" is eventually an unsustainable business model. And that's just the stuff that ends up hurting the customer; the dev experience from what I've been told is even more miserable.
This isn't to defend Android as being superior (the Play Store also has many of these issues), but at least with Android I can substitute the Play Store for F-Droid when it comes to non-government and non-banking apps. F-Droid at least ensures that I don't wake up one morning to realize that I have to plan a full week of support for relatives because an app decided to start milking it's userbase for money and ruin the experience; when Simple Mobile Tools went to shit, I was able to just spread that stuff out over a couple weeks at my own pace since F-Droid never shipped that version. (And it helped the fork get off the ground too.)
[1]: Probably one of the most frequent requests I got when I did tech stuff for the elderly was just "help me set up the government app to see [some service they were using]"; invariably the App Store would push some healthcare insurance nonsense or other vaguely related thing as the first result, which confused the hell out of them. It's unacceptable and I don't get where the "my low-tech relatives like it" idea comes from.
Oh, I confused f-droid with some firmware I’ve read about then.
Yes, I understand development issues for apple, but at the same time the end result is my lamp
- works on iphone
- sort of does work on android iff I accept the unacceptable
This is probably not a very “tech” case, but in my view it is pretty consumer-average, and it’s not the first app which does that (I had an android for a while). As a developer, I understand and share your concerns. As a consumer, my vote goes to the status quo. I think that developers interesrs shouldn’t go ahead of consumers.
I'm not trying to comment on the average quality of apps available for Android or iPhone. I'll even agree that Apple products tend to be better than their competition for average use. It's more just a personal thing where I feel uncomfortable when I buy a general purpose computer that limits my ability to install and distribute software.
Remote control: While climbing into bed, I notice through the window that the lights in the garage are still on. Not a problem: I can turn them off from where I am.
Automation: I get up, get around, and leave for work. Did I remember to turn the coffee machine off? The light in the kitchen? Did I remember to dial the thermostat back? I don't have to go back home and check because it doesn't matter: Those things were done for me, automatically, by virtue of leaving.
Later, I get home from wherever I went for work today. It's been a long drive, and it's dark outside, and it's dark inside, and my bladder senses the proximity of a familiar toilet and starts screaming at me before I even start to open the door. By the time I set foot inside of my home, the pathway from the back door to the bathroom has become illuminated so I can get there in a hurry without tripping over a cat.
that remote conrol will be like all others. disappear until I need it least.
I just needed to link a google account and permissions are minimal. nearby devices for the bluetooth/NFCand nothing else. other 5 permissions disabled. worth the convinience since I have control over what it can/'t do.
