Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

> Why do I still have to grant an application all the permissions it requests when I install it instead of being able to turn them on or off individually?

I don't think this is true in the later releases is it? I get a lot more ad-hoc permission requests these days, and there's much more control in the application settings (the android app settings, not the settings the app presents).

View on HN

It is true to some extent since Marshmellow. But apps can tell when their permissions are denied, so some of them straight out refuse to start unless you give it all the permissions it wants. This is especially problematic when a new version of an app holds your data hostage and refuses to start unless you give it a ridiculous new permission.

The Play Store has no requirement that apps degrade gracefully when permissions are denied. So the result is usually the same as pre-Marshmellow. You just get more annoying popups.

I miss Cyanogenmod where I could deny a permission (e.g. contacts) and the app would have no idea it was denied (it would receive an empty list of contacts).

I really wish I could whitelist which contacts each app could see, so WhatsApp only sees the ones I want on that app.

> But apps can tell when their permissions are denied, so some of them straight out refuse to start unless you give it all the permissions it wants.

I'm pretty much fine with this, though the data-hostage situation you describe does seem bad.

You're right that from a user control perspective, the cyanogenmod approach is likely best.

That is the case in iOS. All permissions are optional and the app must gracefully degrade if permissions are denied.

Unfortunately, some apps just degrade, ungracefully, by flat out refusing to run without certain permissions.

On iOS? That's against app store rules if I remember correctly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com