Hacker News Reader

Comment by hellofunk | Hacker News Reader

> Much more transparency about what the phone is doing

This is a curious point, especially considering the recent FB Android app revelations about lots and lots of things the phone was doing that nobody realised, things that cannot happen on iOS due to stricter privacy enforcement.

I suppose no month is complete without an iOS/Android flame war, but hopefully that won't happen here. For what it's worth, smart phones are all pretty darn awesome and if there is one key distinguishing factor that seems to persist across generations of devices, it's privacy and security, of which Apple is far different. If that doesn't matter to you, pick a year, any year, and you will find one or the other platform to offer features that the other lacks.

View on HN

This is the crux of the issue for me:

> it's privacy and security, of which Apple is far different

I simply don't trust Google to act in my interests when it comes to use of very private data by them or how their operating system permits use of that data.

Frankly, I think Android is great. I love myriad things about it:

- Set a default e-mail app

- Set a default browser that isn't Safari (my kingdom to use Firefox Mobile with all of its attendant add-ins on my iPhone)

- Put icons wherever I want, like the author mentions

- A WILDLY better--in my opinion--notification system, again like the author mentions

- Themes, widgets, and other customizations

- Automation with things like Tasker

- Background tasks

I'm gonna stop here because I could keep going for much longer. But the point remains that my iPhone and iPad do 90% of what I want on a day-to-day basis and I'm used to the quirks and, more importantly, Apple has shown a propensity to keep what it knows about me primarily on my own devices or, when actually transmitted to Apple, under much more restrictive policies than Google has.

I'd love it of Apple could do both, the astounding customization of Android with the privacy and security features of iOS. But maybe you don't get one with the other for some inherent reason. I'm not sure, so I stick with the one in which I'm more confident.

>- Background tasks

That's bad

Well, it could be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. It's foolish to argue that background tasks can't be useful. Can they also be privacy-violating battery drainers as well? Sure. I'm sure there's a right tradeoff here, and it doesn't have to be "no background tasks, period". My personal take is that it's much closer to "no background tasks" than "free reign", but your needs may vary.

Yep, an app I want to always be in bg is https://www.thetileapp.com/

Does Tile have any features on Android that is doesn't on iOS?

Background tasks become essential as soon as you need your phone to be a data aggregator for external devices.

As an example, if you monitor biomedical sensors on your body, the app needs a way to reliably run in the background without being shot down.

The sensors should store the information inside themselves and then sync with the mobile when I open the app. No need to have my mobile awake all the time for something like that.

'should'

Someone should redesign them, someone should rewrite OS support for them, and someone should pay for all that?

No, they should've designed it correctly in the first place.

Most sensors do tend to store data for backfill upon reconnect the designers are not idiots and have spent a much longer time thinking about this. Off the top of my head, I can immediately think of several reasons you need to pull the data off regularly:

- Data is needed for real time alerting features for the user (e.g. low blood glucose).

- Data needs to be uploaded to cloud services in real time so carers have access to that data so they can also be alerted.

Both of these requirements require timely access to data. A delay can mean the difference between no real impact and "this user is now in hospital".

I find it interesting how you can't expand your horizon to see that these features are useful to somebody that's not you.

>>especially considering the recent FB Android app revelations about lots and lots of things the phone was doing that nobody realised,

No lots of people realized them, and lots of people have been talking about them for years just no one really payed attention until now.

When you install FB or any other app you get a nice list of things the App is allowed to do, if you do not want the app to do those things you should not install the app.

The problem is most people simply ignore this list and click "install" with out questioning why a Flashlight app would need access to your call history...

With Android the user is in control, Some/Most people can not handle that responsibility.

For a person that is concerned about privacy, Using facebook at all seems counter intuitive...

For me while I do supports Apple's take on user privacy, I do not support their Business Practices of being rabidly anti-repair, anti-ownership, and anti-consumer. It is my device not Apple's, the the fact that Apple wants completely control over a device have I bought from them for about $1,000 is a non-starter for me, I can control my privacy in other ways I do not need my phone OS to do that for me.

> When you install FB or any other app you get a nice list of things the App is allowed to do, if you do not want the app to do those things you should not install the app.

This is actually a fairly recent change to Android. It did not used to provide you with these choices. It demonstrates that user privacy is a bit of an afterthought with Android.

For Apple, these kinds of user choices have been there since the start.

I've been using Android since 2.x and I sell to remember it has always been like this. The recent change iirc is being able to decline a certain privilege and still use the app.

Yeah, they'd show you a list of a dozen things that the app was going to use and you basically just tapped the "accept" button because you wanted the app to have access to your photos except now it has access to your contacts, location history, notification center, and firstborn child. Android Marshmallow brought improvements in this area, though.

Yes an a responsible person that downloaded a photo app that requested access to "your contacts, location history, notification center, and firstborn child" would choose not to install it.

If you continue to install those apps you only have yourself to blame IMO

But on Android pretty much any app does this. Just look at what Google Photos needs: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...

Using a Core Android App developed by Google, that used to be a part of ASOP, and it required to be installed on all Play Store Eligible Android Devices is not a good example of "Pretty much any app does this"

I have all kinds of apps that do not do this, only asking for permissions they need

Which is exactly what the comment was talking about.

No, only Android 6 and later has provided proper user permissions [0] :

> You declare that your app needs a permission by listing the permission in the app manifest and then requesting that the user approve each permission at runtime (on Android 6.0 and higher).

> Beginning with Android 6.0 (API level 23), users can revoke permissions from any app at any time

[0] https://developer.android.com/training/permissions/requestin...

It got better in Android 6.0 but it was as described long before that.

>>This is actually a fairly recent change to Android

if by "recent" you mean "almost since the beginning" then sure.

The app permissions system has gotten better over time, more fine grained, ability to deny permissions while still install the app, and other features, but the basic list of "if you install this app it gets X access" has been there for a long long time, v2 or v3 if I remember correctly

The ability of accepting/rejecting specific permissions is from Android 6.

Yes but my comment was "Displays a list of permissions" not allow you to pick which permissions

I do not believe the first version if iOS has the ability to reject specific permissions either.

The first version of iOS didn't have apps, so this wasn't an issue…

> This is a curious point, especially considering the recent FB Android app revelations about lots and lots of things the phone was doing that nobody realised, things that cannot happen on iOS due to stricter privacy enforcement. . .

Yep, I'm definitely being careful. E.g., not installing Facebook or Messenger. I guess I _do_ have more confidence in Apple's dedication to privacy and security. Even with their recent security lapses in MacOS.

My experience with Chromebooks gave me a lot of confidence in Google's understanding of security and privacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com