Deceptive language frequently used against consumers: Difference between revisions
→Examples: Galaxy S6 planned obsolescence |
improved wording, mentioned SAF is slow |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Examples == | == Examples == | ||
=== Google | === Google comparing APK restrictions to airport security === | ||
For many years, one of the primary selling points of Android smartphones was that no big corporation could gatekeep what the user can run on their phones. But starting with Android 17 in 2026, only developers manually approved by Google can create APKs that install on Android. | For many years, one of the primary selling points of Android smartphones was that no big corporation could gatekeep what the user can run on their phones. But starting with Android 17 in 2026, only developers manually approved by Google can create APKs that install on Android. | ||
Developers applying for approval are required to violate their privacy by disclosing their real-life identity to Google. | Developers applying for approval are required to violate their privacy by disclosing their real-life identity to Google. | ||
Google used false benevolence to excuse this | Google used false benevolence to excuse this restriction: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<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 | 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 25: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
The only " | 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. | ||
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. | 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 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. | 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. | ||