Most active commenters
  • yndoendo(3)

←back to thread

The recently lost file upload feature in the Nextcloud app for Android

(nextcloud.com)
410 points morsch | 13 comments | 14 May 25 05:38 UTC | HN request time: 2.712s | source | bottom
Show context
AmazingTurtle ◴[14 May 25 11:06 UTC] No.43983064[source]▶
We feel your pain at Nextcloud. Our team at Everfind (unified search across Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, etc.) has spent the past year fighting for the *drive.readonly* scope simply so we can download files, run OCR, and index their full-text for users. Google keeps telling us to make do with *drive.file* + *drive.metadata.readonly*, which breaks continuous discovery and cripples search results for any new or updated document.

Bottom line: Googles "least-privilege" rhetoric sounds noble, but in practice it gives Big Tech first-party apps privileged access while forcing independent vendors to ship half-working products - or get kicked out of the Play Store. The result is users lose features and choices, and small devs burn countless hours arguing with a copy-paste policy bot.

replies(6): >>43983826 #>>43984105 #>>43984961 #>>43985478 #>>43986485 #>>43987706 #
theodric ◴[14 May 25 12:42 UTC] No.43983826[source]▶
Sounds like it's time for an(other) antitrust lawsuit. At least Nextcloud is based in Europe, which has recently shown an appetite to stand up to tech giants on some things.
replies(1): >>43984053 #
1. HPsquared ◴[14 May 25 13:04 UTC] No.43984053[source]▶
The question to ask is: do Google apps have an advantage here over others?
replies(4): >>43984476 #>>43984560 #>>43984632 #>>43987069 #
2. em-bee ◴[14 May 25 13:45 UTC] No.43984476[source]▶
they have the advantage that they can shape the API to their needs. yes, you can argue that google apps have the same limitations as other apps. but google defines the limitations. just because google doesn't need a feature, it doesn't mean that no one else needs or should have that feature. so google is able to define features that fit their business model, and they prevent anyone else from offering a different feature set. they own the platform and compete in it. that in itself is an advantage. to not have an advantage either google must not compete with apps on the platform and or they should relinquish their ownership of the platform.
replies(1): >>43985973 #
3. brigandish ◴[14 May 25 13:52 UTC] No.43984560[source]▶
According to the article, and according to many of the comments here, yes they do.
replies(1): >>43984923 #
4. donatzsky ◴[14 May 25 13:58 UTC] No.43984632[source]▶
I'd be surprised if they have to go through the same review process as everyone else. And even if they do, the reviewers are likely to give them a pass because it's Google.
5. observationist ◴[14 May 25 14:23 UTC] No.43984923[source]▶
And unicorns shit rainbows, and we're all going to win the lottery tomorrow.

Nothing google does is in good faith. They're a corporation - a bundle of regulations, laws, rules, and incentives executed on a mixed substrate of human brains and digital computers, beyond the control and sensibilities that govern individual rationality, seeking to maximize profit. If it's not illegal, they'll do it, and if it is illegal, they'll still do it if the penalty is less than the profit.

We have to stop pretending corporations are people. We have to stop pretending like CEOs can affect what these companies do - the only way to restrain them is laws with teeth. If you want CEOs to behave, enforce laws that come with jail time and lost fortunes. Otherwise, this is what we live with.

replies(1): >>44001343 #
6. monegator ◴[14 May 25 15:50 UTC] No.43985973[source]▶
Or simply put the implementation behind a permission that they will give to themselves and practically never give to you.

I second the fighting against a copy-paste bot. It took a couple of weeks of multiple daily requests before we got to exchange emails with some sort of human being, which was almost as useless until we gave in and abandoned

7. yndoendo ◴[14 May 25 17:25 UTC] No.43987069[source]▶
I will go with yes for $500.

From an Pixel 5a perspective. The camera application provided by Google will only open Google's gallery application and will not open the one the end user sets as system default. User must exit the camera application and manually open the gallery application they really want to use.

One of the reasons I am looking forward for a company that provides a quality Linux base phone. That is the only way to get the system configuration and application select the end user really wants. Google and Apple are for profit prison Wardens with their mobile OSes.

PS. Has anyone ever studied the economic, resource, and power waste of system bloat-ware?

replies(2): >>43988797 #>>43991349 #
8. spookie ◴[14 May 25 20:24 UTC] No.43988797[source]▶
Man, Linux phones are a mess, you do well to wait. I'm eyeing Sailfish but even then I'm hesitant, anything else is a big no no (from experience).
9. codethief ◴[15 May 25 02:47 UTC] No.43991349[source]▶
> One of the reasons I am looking forward for a company that provides a quality Linux base phone.

What exactly is that going to change with respect to the camera app? I'm as annoyed by Google Camera's behavior as you are but already today we can download FOSS camera apps for Android that will open the gallery app of our choice just fine. It's just that those apps are not quite as good as Google's app. Exchanging the underlying Android layer for regular Linux is not going to change anything about that.

replies(1): >>43996364 #
10. yndoendo ◴[15 May 25 15:57 UTC] No.43996364{3}[source]▶
I did just that for the longest time, replaced the camera app so it would use the gallery application set to default on the system.

This is just one example of why I disdain Google and Apple.

There is now way to improve the security of your device. End user should have the ability to block network connects to and from select networks, infrastructures, and applications. Example an application like ZoneAlarm or Open Snitch.

The internals of SMS on Android are wrapped in an API where a simple SQLite database would work and allow quick easy backup. Nope, need to use a 3rd party program instead of just copying files.

I also support the idea of Convergence to allow the device to be used a standard computer by connecting and external monitor, keyboard, and mouse.

Being able to reclaim the storage you bought and remove the bloat-ware. There should be zero reason I must retain your email client when I will never use it.

Until Apple and Google back track down their locked in path, Linux or BSD phone is the only way to take back the "Smart" in SmartPhone.

replies(1): >>43996844 #
11. nolist_policy ◴[15 May 25 16:47 UTC] No.43996844{4}[source]▶
> End user should have the ability to block network connects to and from select networks, infrastructures, and applications. Example an application like ZoneAlarm or Open Snitch.

You can do that on Android with NetGuard.

replies(1): >>44008330 #
12. brigandish ◴[16 May 25 02:34 UTC] No.44001343{3}[source]▶
Are you sure you were supposed to reply to my comment?
13. yndoendo ◴[16 May 25 18:13 UTC] No.44008330{5}[source]▶
NetGuard has the same inherent flaw that Android forces onto a solution. From their own FAQ:

(2) Can I use another VPN application while using NetGuard

If the VPN application is using the VPN service, then no, because NetGuard needs to use this service. Android allows only one application at a time to use this service.

* My understanding this that OS layer has the ability to circumvent Firewall that uses the VPN work-around.