←back to thread

397 points opengears | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jasonjayr ◴[] No.41896030[source]
From the (current) final comment at https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing-android/issues/2064

> Nothing came of the discussions with google. Demands by Google for changes to get the permission granted were vague, which makes it both arduous to figure out how to address them and very unclear if whatever I do will actually lead to success. Then more unrelated work to stay on play came up (dev. verification, target API level), which among other influences finally made me realize I don't have the motivation or time anymore to play this game.

replies(1): >>41896431 #
izacus ◴[] No.41896431[source]
I don't think Google was ever buy a "I don't want to use file APIs because writing the code would be hard." excuse for a security issue. I don't know what kind of exact "discussions" were possible here for "give me access to all user data, photos and everything because I don't think I want to use SAF APIs". It's like that dude in your company that will have a meltdown in PRs over his better way instead of fixing the comments and having code submitted.

Apple won't let you write into random directories past their APIs either, just because it would be too hard to use ObjC/Swift.

replies(8): >>41896508 #>>41897183 #>>41897242 #>>41897307 #>>41897422 #>>41898178 #>>41899343 #>>41900928 #
homebrewer ◴[] No.41896508[source]
Put a lot of scary warnings around it then. It's for the user to decide if they want to take the risk or not. Google took something that solved real problems better than any alternative could, did so for many years, and destroyed it for no real reason other than to further tighten control they have of the supposedly "open" platform.
replies(4): >>41896583 #>>41896829 #>>41897279 #>>41897419 #
izacus ◴[] No.41896583[source]
They did, the upstading app developers like this one just forced people to give them full access to all data in the app (or the app wouldn't run) and ended up not implementing scoped storage - something HNers outright demanded several times and exposed as a good upside of iOS.

So stick had to come out. The full filesystem access is now reserved for apps that manage full filesystem (e.g. file explorers) and that's it. Scoped storage APIs were introduced in 2013, 11 years ago and Play started enforcing them in 2020, so the experiment with scary warnings was running for 7 years and developers refused to give up on that sweet full private file access.

Granted, SAF is quite a shitty API.

replies(4): >>41896622 #>>41896917 #>>41897111 #>>41898012 #
smashed ◴[] No.41896917{3}[source]
It's my phone. It's my data. It's my choice to install the app. It's my choice to grant the permissions to all files. Because guess what, I'm using the app to sync all my files.

I really can't agree with Google in this particular case.

replies(6): >>41896988 #>>41897081 #>>41897176 #>>41897744 #>>41898751 #>>41899325 #
1. izacus ◴[] No.41896988{4}[source]
And yet you'll blame Android when some app steals a lot of data just like it always happens on this site.
replies(1): >>41897460 #
2. swatcoder ◴[] No.41897460[source]
Have you considered that it's a plural "you" that you're choosing to pit yourself against, with different people each weighing different complaints?

Almost by definition, the people who argue strongly for free use of their hardware and software are almost never the same people who argue strongly for safety and security restrictions. You seem to be frustrated by a contradiction or inconsistency that doesn't exist.

It's true that Google can't win the hearts of both sides, but they surely know that -- you don't need to get so personally frustrated on their behalf. It's just a company with a product in a market, and the market is never going to be uniform.