-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Why I'm Reconsidering
- Thread starter puremacgyver
- Start date
Thing with iOS you're placing your trust in Apple that their vetting of apps in the iTunes Store will find anything nefarious, like the possible recording and monitoring of all your phone calls. After all the iTunes Store is the only place you can get apps from unless you jailbreak, but then that's a whole different can of worms.
nickdalzell
Extreme Android User
I was about to say just that--Apple doesn't even tell you what permissions are, and i'm sure it just accepts everything and probably hides a lot of scary stats. people using their App Store are playing the 'ignorance is bliss' game, and just assuming Apple knows best. After all, better to never know at all than to see the scary stuff in front of you, right? Although unless a review is posted mentioning malware, i often bypass and automatically accept permissions like i always hit 'ok' on a Windows 8 UAC dialog. i am not sure why they even ask the question if you must always choose 'accept' to install the app. seems redundant to even bother to give an 'accept' or 'deny' option if only one answer is correct, also, i find it odd how they never give US the option to change app permissions to our liking, i mean, what is presented is always written in stone!
funkylogik
share the love peeps ;)
Kitkat introduced that option mate (or was it 4.3?). Its hidden though so you need an app to access it.
I wouldnt be surprised if most apps just wouldnt work properly if you disabled a permission though.
I read reviews then dont even bother reading the permissions.
The way i use my phone, the worst possible thing that could happen is push ads
I wouldnt be surprised if most apps just wouldnt work properly if you disabled a permission though.
I read reviews then dont even bother reading the permissions.
The way i use my phone, the worst possible thing that could happen is push ads
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious why they ask..... so that you can hit "cancel" if you DON'T agree with the permissions requested.
mrex
Android Enthusiast
Kitkat introduced that option mate (or was it 4.3?). Its hidden though so you need an app to access it.
I wouldnt be surprised if most apps just wouldnt work properly if you disabled a permission though.
I read reviews then dont even bother reading the permissions.
The way i use my phone, the worst possible thing that could happen is push ads
4.3
nickdalzell
Extreme Android User
i think it makes no sense for permissions to be set in stone though. what if i wanted to accept some but not all? why should that fail allowing me to install the blasted thing? it's like an EULA. if only one answer allows the install, why ask the question? it's obviously rhetorical anyway. just like UAC in Windows. you are already asking it to run the program, and then Windows asks the same question twice. you told it to run, now you're telling it to run AGAIN. seems an unnecessary extra step. forcing an all-or-nothing approach to installing, be it permissions, or a EULA, or UAC seems pointless. why not allow the install even if we don't agree with everything? at least make the app work in a limited or trial state, or disable the feature that depends on the part of the EULA or permissions you don't accept? a bit more open mindedness might help development over the old-hat self-righteous all or nothing approach that's as old as Windows 3.0
bjacks12
Android Expert
They took it back out with Kitkat 4.4.2
The way Samsung words it "Accept and install", it sounds very much like a EULA. And if you don't accept it, there's always "Cancel" and you don't download and run that particular app.
Apps will require permissions to run correctly. If you could decline some permissions but not all. Don't be surprised if things didn't work as they're supposed to. e.g. this stupid IM app doesn't work because I declined internet permissions..
...or why do these car racing and football games apparently need to record my phone calls? 
funkylogik
share the love peeps ;)
Pretty sure its still there man. Maybe requires root to access it(?)
SulkyAndroid17
Android Enthusiast
I like that the permissions are set in stone. So things aren't changed. And I don't see an advantage for the user to cherry-pick what permissions to allow. Am I suppose to trust part of an app instead of all of it? How exactly would that be enforced anyway?
A EULA is a contract. Since it's used to protect to the licensor, it's not something a user can just choose parts to accept. It also explains your rights to use the software. It's not pointless.
Isn't the UAC when a windows program wants elevated privileges? I would certainly like to know when a program wants higher privileges. Especially, if it's a program I didn't ask to run.
Because it may prevent the app from working correctly.
UAC is there to enhance security for people who would otherwise "just do it" without pausing for thought. An application can be started by pretty much anyone or anything either on the local machine or remotely, but the UAC dialog needs to be confirmed by you, the user.
For example if I get a UAC pop-up as a result of some automated process I didn't know I had - like the Java updater that I didn't want and had never been asked for permission to install for example - then I can deny it access before looking to disable it.
In any case you can turn off UAC in Windows if you prefer the "ignorance is bliss" approach to security so you should have no complaint there
breadnatty08
pain rustique
Never thought it was a stock Android feature. Thought it was a CM thing.
Nope, the feature was stock. CM provided their own version of the permission manager to access it, but it uses the stock feature.
The difference is that in the most recent Android versions it's been hidden deeper. I believe that the CM interface still works, and my KitKat Sense ROM has the controls built in as well (but stock HTC KitKat does not).
The difference is that in the most recent Android versions it's been hidden deeper. I believe that the CM interface still works, and my KitKat Sense ROM has the controls built in as well (but stock HTC KitKat does not).
mrex
Android Enthusiast
iOS is known to have same bugs for years, like this one "hey lets have look at deleted pics" http://appleinsider.com/articles/13...nails-in-ios-7-photos-app-dates-back-to-ios-5
I was wondering that has anyone found any similarities in Android? (And no, no infosucking computer softwares are allowed which are cabable to get all info from the card, even from cards you never used!)
I was wondering that has anyone found any similarities in Android? (And no, no infosucking computer softwares are allowed which are cabable to get all info from the card, even from cards you never used!
)
nickdalzell
Extreme Android User
Permissions can also be there for no reason. having control over which ones is a handy tool and perfectly suited to open-source software such as Android. let's assume the dev made an app and just enabled permissions that the app doesn't necessarily need, such as a game that has access to location reporting, or the ability to turn your screen on when asleep, i mean, having the option to disable those two won't harm the app or cause it to act all 'wonky'. there ARE many examples of apps in the Play Store that are otherwise legit but have very odd permissions. it wouldn't be enough to make the app bad, or make me unwilling to install it, but i should be able to switch off any permissions i don't think are appropriate. it might also help the dev improve his or her app in the future through an upgrade....We already have the option if rooted--we can deny a root app's root level permissions without being denied the option to install it, such as denying ES File Explorer's root request, similar to a UAC prompt, and just use it as a regular but more capable file explorer, so i don't see why being able to deny other permissions as we see fit can't be done?
Rxpert83
Dr. Feelgood
That's an issue with your apps developer.
Look at it from googles end:
Letting people pick and choose permissions would cause far more headaches for developers who actually code their apps correctly than it would solve by letting you disable a permission you truly don't need because the developer didn't do it right.
If you don't like the permissions, don't install the app.
(There are ways around this, but its not within the scope of this ever-evolving thread)
mrex
Android Enthusiast
And how many of your examples are free apps? Where do you think they get their money? Mostly from ads and that's why they usually ask so many rights. But atleast you know it before installing the apps, and you can always cancel the procedure. If you still want the app, then check the paid version of it. It usually doesnt have those odd permission anymore.
I think that almost all of paid apps I have installed dont have ridiculois rights. Only couple of them had some rights Im not happy and those are related to sharing - that some of people love so much! (but I dont.)
And what have changed, it is the social media. There are plenty of people who likes to share everything even from their scores of games etc. This is also the one reason why so many games have these (stupid?) rights nowadays.
It was while ago, when facabook app came and it needed to access your mic. Then some of people were upset. And why? Because they didnt know that you can leave voice messages too. How on earth are you able to leave voice messages without recording voice? Of course you can always say "but i dont use that!". So should it be Google then who lets you make multiple choices with apps or should it maybe be the app developer who needs to add the possible choices in the app? Like "Access to mic? yes/no" I would like to see that devs add more settings to their apps.
There are too many rights for apps, for sure, and I would like to see getting app ops back in Android or atleast Google lets developers to access it without rooting and let then people decide whether or not to install those app ops -related apps to control other apps.
Nowadays people are more concerned about these permissions and if you check the Amazon app store, plenty of replies are "this apps has too many rights..."
dibblebill
Android Expert
Although some of those on Amazon are very rightly so, as network monitoring revealed it was uploading, not downloading, massive amounts of information in some cases.
if its the same thing Im thinking they added it and in a later revision hid it because they don't want people to "block internet access" and turn off advertisements which can be done anyway with addblock, or just disabling wifi and grps when on the move which is probably recommended for bandwidth and battery anyway?
if you watch the news, you know your calls are being r̶e̶c̶o̶r̶d̶e̶d̶ anyway so ?
dibblebill
Android Expert
Advertisements help put food on the table for some developers. For others, it's just another cent (*coughGAMELOFTcough*)
It would be nice if "full internet access" and "google advertisments" were seperate permissions because I often block internet access (its more about saving power side effect it also rids me of ads) because I have no real objections to running a none intrusive advert to pay the developers.
I was just stating other options exist to block ads if people really want them, google scrapping the permissions manager only made the os less secure. (or at least less advanced and not as secure as it could have been) because they didn't want it to affect their ad revenue services.
I was just stating other options exist to block ads if people really want them, google scrapping the permissions manager only made the os less secure. (or at least less advanced and not as secure as it could have been) because they didn't want it to affect their ad revenue services.
Rxpert83
Dr. Feelgood
Gooogles official stance is that it was never meant to be user facing.
As far as them separating ads and internet access, I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of people would do just the opposite... Block ads and allow internet.
davoid
Android Expert
The vast majority, probably, but personally I don't even notice ads in my apps, whereas the ability to block internet access to apps is the main reason I root my phone. It allows me to use AFWall+ firewall which allows me to turn off internet access to keyboard apps among other things.
You might accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat but I don't like the idea of my keyboard having internet access.