On a side note, who decided that removing the gps toggle was a good idea? Now i have to go into settings to enable 'high presicion' location when using navigation software , and have to disable it again when i finish because if i use the location toggle it turns location off instead of switching to battery saving mode.
Sometimes google makes such stupid decisions.....
Hmm, youve just encroached on a subject which has been troubling me for quite some time. You see, to me its not so much of an act of stupidity, but more of a clever deliberate maneuver by Google imo to slowly wrestle user control away in selective areas via restrictive API policy changes. Google is not only closing up shop to the detriment of AOSP, but is also slowly enforcing changes via updates in very clever ways that favors them at the expense of the user.
Just look at what theyve done over the years. First closing GPS API, then airplane mode, and now with Lollipoop, mobile data. Whats the motivation behind Googles diligence to erode user flexibility in these selective areas? No doubt the cronies in their camp would be peddling the excuse that its done out of concern for users. But you dont need to be genius to see through the inconsistencies. Look, if Google is serious about tackling user security, then tell me why are they continuing to obfuscate and dance around the issue of permissions control instead of urgent emphasis and immediate action? This is a critical area of security/privacy, so why dilly dally around this static, all-or-nothing model instead of a dynamic one, with granular permissions control?
I dont buy this shit that an organization with the kind of resources at Googles disposal has no idea of what to do, yet look how easily some OEMS have implemented such granular security without much fuss, look how long CM have provided users with Privacy Guard, look how far certain Xposed modules have gone to protect user privacy via clever fakery. But no, just look how quickly Google moved to shut the door on users with this hidden functionality on 4.3, once they got spooked by the prospect of users latching on to this possibility and the potential threat it poses to their own conflicting agenda of data mining.
To me its fucking obvious what their gripe is. Just look at how they approached security lock with trusted places in Lollipoop for example, and you will get an inkling of what their priorities are when it comes to the issue of google vs user welfare. Instead of offering users the practical option of trusted SSID and/or MAC, what they do is try and bait you into using location services, when they know its bound to be problematic with issues of accuracy and reliability, not to mention wakelocks and battery drain. So instead of a pro-user stance from Google, what were seeing is clever entrapment on their part. If theres one wisdom in a nutshell you can count on, its that user sense will only come after google sense so to speak, not before. Any conflict of interest, is likely one of fuck the user until they can negotiate a faux user angle around the issue.
So what is Googles problem with granular permissions when OEMS or third parties have no such qualms? You see, much like their deliberate maneuver with trusted places in Lollipoop, the problem is not that they dont have the technical knowhow. Their main obstacle has always been getting around the challenge of how to spin their half-baked shit without coming across too much like another detestable google sense gimmickry so to speak, but to masquerade more believably from a faux user sense angle if you know what I mean. The difference between Google and OEMs is, unlike the former, OEMS still have a REAL product to sell you at the end of the day, and as such is keen to be seen in pro-consumer light. Google on the other hand, operates on a different level and is not as perturbed, as its prosperity is very much dependent on its ingenuity to exploit users as a product to sell to a different audience.
Regardless of how hard you try to give Google the benefit of the doubt, their stance re GPS, airplane mode and mobile data API really reeks of double fucking standards at the end of the day. Well, if they believe so much in their existing static model, then why not make these things permissions based? Why not let users decide if they are ok with granting permissions for GPS, airplane mode or mobile data instead of revoking access and diluting user empowerment? Afterall, this is the basis of what theyve been peddling with their permission model all these years. So which is it then Google? Either you believe in your permissions model or you dont! You dont get to preach two different shit at the same time. If you believe in your permissions model, then give users the API. If you dont, then scrap your shit and give users dynamic permissions model now. This sort of selective We know whats best for you Apple-esque ploy that Google is taking, is something Im growing wary of tbh.
Are we being played directly into Googles hand in their attempts to gain more control and close up Android? , Ive often wondered whether what well seeing from Google nowadays is a page of the 3 E form book. You know, move past Embrace stage of open ideals adoption and pretenses, to the phase of Extend and Extinguish, whereby theyre slowly turning AOSP into abandon-ware, to this emphasis of more restrictive API changes at the expense of user empowerment, to the act of marginalizing partners of the ecosystem whore uncooperative of any pledges of brand approved bloatware initiatives with threat of Play support withdrawal etc. I dont know about others, but I for one am glad and whole heartedly welcome EUs scrutiny of Googles antics.
This is exactly why Ive never been a Google choir boy, or part of that special breed you commonly see being typified by your evangelists of the fast OTA lane. With every update, I become more distrustful of Google. More should be made about the distinction between Googles Android and Pure Vanilla Android tbh. Theres nothing fucking pure about Googles Android. AOSP is the only true vanilla I recognize, and its the premise of what AOSP brings that drew me to android in the first place, not Googles fucking Android.
Googles android is nothing but another fork to me, no different to OEMs. And out of the two, Im more fearful of Google tbh and the kind leverage it has in dictating the overall direction of android. OEMs being more subservient to Google is not all good news to me because they bring about the diversity which is the strength of the ecosystem. Look, Im all for Google exercising more control if the beneficiaries are the end users at the end of the day, but what Im seeing from Google does not fill me with confidence. Im beginning to think this sort of control that Google is after is exactly the kind of leverage it needs to in its pursuit of its 3E gameplan. Fragmentation to me is an unavoidable byproduct of increased choice and freedom and its not that much of a user problem as their choir boys would have you to believe.
Fuck me for wasting time on this rant.
