Consumer Rights Wiki

Deceptive language frequently used against consumers: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Beanie Bo (talk | contribs)
confirmed, Administrators
511 edits
meant to remove this section earlier after the more concise re-written opening paragraph. still needs more work
Beanie Bo (talk | contribs)
confirmed, Administrators
511 edits
Removed low quality content
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ToneWarning}}{{Incomplete}}
Deceptive language used by companies to impede the rights of consumers comes in many forms. Many of them can be boiled down to a few principles.
Deceptive language used by companies to impede the rights of consumers comes in many forms. Many of them can be boiled down to a few principles.


Line 15: Line 16:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ref>[https://www.phonearena.com/news/Google-will-make-sideloading-apps-way-more-difficult-from-next-year_id173542 Google will make sideloading apps way more difficult from next year - PhoneArena]</ref>
<ref>[https://www.phonearena.com/news/Google-will-make-sideloading-apps-way-more-difficult-from-next-year_id173542 Google will make sideloading apps way more difficult from next year - PhoneArena]</ref>
This is a poor comparison because an airplane is the property of the airline while your smartphone is your property as the person who paid for it. What Google is doing is closer to them putting an airport security station at your doorstep.


===Storage access restrictions in Android===
===Storage access restrictions in Android===
Line 25: Line 24:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>


The only "security" storage access framework actually gives the user is that it prevents them from granting access to the root directory of the external storage (not to be confused with "root access" which gives you superuser privileges). So an imaginary app that does "bad stuff" can still do it inside the directory picked by the user.
The only "security" storage access framework actually gives the user is that it prevents them from granting access to the root directory of the external storage (not to be confused with "root access" which gives you superuser privileges).
 
These restrictions prevent legitimate apps such as file managers from functioning properly. If the user does not trust an app with access to the entire USB stick or SD card, perhaps one should not use that app at all. At the very least, users should have been given the option to grant exceptions to apps which use this access for legitimate purposes, such as file managers.
 
Storage Access Framework is no replacement for legacy storage access given its slowness from its large processing overhead. It is a soydev{{Citation needed}} technology. The performance loss may be concealed to some extent from the fast hardware smartphones have nowadays, but even then, it increases battery usage.<ref>[https://www.xda-developers.com/android-q-storage-access-framework-scoped-storage/ The Storage Access Framework is the only way for apps to work with all your files in Android Q. And it's terrible.] - XDA developers</ref><ref>[https://archive.today/2025.08.23-201715/https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/65dn8x/horrible_access_storage_framework_performance/ Horrible access storage framework performance] -  androiddev - Reddit</ref>


Google has a conflict of interest as a provider of cloud storage. Imagine SanDisk owned Android and blocked Google Drive. Everyone would recognize the obvious conflict of interest. And when Android restrictions break applications like file managers, end users complain to the app developers even though it is not their fault. So these restrictions also caused headaches to innocent app developers.
Storage Access Framework is no replacement for legacy storage access given its slowness from its large processing overhead. The performance loss may be concealed to some extent from the fast hardware smartphones have nowadays, but even then, it increases battery usage.<ref>[https://www.xda-developers.com/android-q-storage-access-framework-scoped-storage/ The Storage Access Framework is the only way for apps to work with all your files in Android Q. And it's terrible.] - XDA developers</ref><ref>[https://archive.today/2025.08.23-201715/https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/65dn8x/horrible_access_storage_framework_performance/ Horrible access storage framework performance] -  androiddev - Reddit</ref>


===Non-replaceable batteries since the Samsung Galaxy S6===
===Non-replaceable batteries since the Samsung Galaxy S6===
Samsung couldn't just switch to non-replaceable batteries without losing a word about it, so these words at the keynote by Justin Denison, Samsung's public relations person, filled that gap:
Justin Denison, Samsung's public relations person, said:


<blockquote>We refused to do this for some time. That's because we didn't want to have a built-in battery, until we were absolutely sure that users would feel confident about charging their phones. </blockquote>
<blockquote>We refused to do this for some time. That's because we didn't want to have a built-in battery, until we were absolutely sure that users would feel confident about charging their phones. </blockquote>
<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mfEud8n4c Samsung Galaxy Unpacked 2015 - Livestream (Replay] ([https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211117/U8mfEud8n4c archive]) at 27:37</ref>
<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mfEud8n4c Samsung Galaxy Unpacked 2015 - Livestream (Replay] ([https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211117/U8mfEud8n4c archive]) at 27:37</ref>
These are the words Samsung used to excuse making the shortest-living part of the smartphone not replaceable, removing one of the long-standing selling points of Samsung smartphones at that time.
Mr. Denison is implying that the anticipation of not being able to replace a dead battery, at least not without great difficulty, is supposed to make the user "confident" about charging their phone. However, replaceable batteries provide the peace of mind that one is able to replace it at any time when (not if) it expires.


===OnePlus "encrypted" batteries===
===OnePlus "encrypted" batteries===
Line 64: Line 55:
Despite using benevolent-seeming phrases such as "enhance our service" and " offer additional content", the actual aim of the change was to place large and obtrusive adverts in users' homes.
Despite using benevolent-seeming phrases such as "enhance our service" and " offer additional content", the actual aim of the change was to place large and obtrusive adverts in users' homes.


==Removing practicality and usefulness to "clean" up or "streamline" the experience==
=="To streamline the experience"==
===Fewer ports on modern laptops===
===Fewer ports on modern laptops===
In the 2000s and early 2010s, three or four USB ports built into laptops were not uncommon. Modern laptops in contrast usually feature one or two USB-A ports and might feature an USB-C port, in addition to less modular and less upgradeable parts. In reality, this has the opposite effect: due to fewer built-in ports on their laptops, the user is forced to carry hubs and adapters to be able to use the same functionality as before, which outweighs any portability benefit that the thinness might have afforded. Netbooks already existed as the category of laptops for people primarily interested in thinness.<ref>[https://archive.today/2022.12.17-000103/https://www.easydongle.com/why-do-new-laptops-have-less-ports/ Why are so many laptops having less ports?] - easydongle: "Companies like Dell, Lenovo, HP, and Microsoft have all been making their products thinner and streamlined. We get less ports from them because we want everything light and wirelessly connected. If you are on a laptop, you will most likely be missing out on the ports that you need for your peripherals. These days, we have to carry around a power brick, an Ethernet cable, a USB-C cable, and a micro USB cable, just to connect to the internet."</ref>
In the 2000s and early 2010s, three or four USB ports built into laptops were not uncommon. Modern laptops in contrast usually feature one or two USB-A ports and might feature an USB-C port, in addition to less modular and less upgradeable parts. In reality, this has the opposite effect: due to fewer built-in ports on their laptops, the user is forced to carry hubs and adapters to be able to use the same functionality as before, which outweighs any portability benefit that the thinness might have afforded. Netbooks already existed as the category of laptops for people primarily interested in thinness.<ref>[https://archive.today/2022.12.17-000103/https://www.easydongle.com/why-do-new-laptops-have-less-ports/ Why are so many laptops having less ports?] </ref>


===Google wants to help cleaning up MicroSD cards by denying normal write access===
===Google wants to help cleaning up MicroSD cards by denying normal write access===
Line 80: Line 71:




*If this was the actual goal, they would have done the same on internal storage. How come they initially only applied these restrictions to MicroSD, not internal storage? This was in 2014, where 32 GB were considered an average amount of internal storage, while MicroSD cards could be much larger, so the same files would have taken a lower percentage of the space.
*If an app leaves unwanted files, the user would simply uninstall the app and not use it again.
*Google is assuming judgement over which files are to be considered "junk". This is a decision of the device owner. If the device owner wants to remove "junk", they could already use the delete button in their file manager. Google is assuming that third-party apps leave unwanted files by default.
*There are valid reasons not to delete files left behind by an uninstalled app. What if you used a third-party camera app or text editor? Should all files you created with these apps be deleted if you uninstall the app? Of course not.
*MicroSD cards were one of the major selling points of Android smartphones over iPhones. Google attacked one of the main reasons people bought Android smartphones in the first place.
*If the device owner doesn't trust an app with access to the entire MicroSD card, perhaps they should not be using that app in the first place. Why would a user trust the same app with normal write access to internal storage but not the MicroSD card?
*In any case, the device owner should have been given the final say. A simple toggle in the storage options would have done the job. The device owner must be able to decide if they want so-called "protections" that are muzzles, not shields.
With this, Google created a much bigger problem than they solved. Those supposed "junk files" aren't nearly as bad as losing normal write access to the MicroSD card and external USB OTG, which were among Android smartphones' biggest selling points. It's like attacking a fly using a tank.
Keep in mind, this was at a time when stock Android didn't even have a built-in file manager. Some vendors like Samsung included a file manager, but on stock Android, there was no way you could manage your files on the MicroSD card without root access or from an external device.


Google quickly realized that removing MicroSD write access almost completely was perhaps no good idea, so they brought it back with Android 5.0, however only through Google's Storage Access Framework, which is extremely slow as already discussed earlier in the article, and broke compatibility with all the existing apps developed over the years.
So they brought it back with Android 5.0, however only through Google's Storage Access Framework.


==References==
==References==
<references />
<references />
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Deceptive_language_frequently_used_against_consumers"