You must realise there are lots of different user types, and far far more people just want a phone that can't have stuff installed on it that can't do naughty things.
If you allow that, the app works like the way the person you're replying to wants. If you deny that, the application works the way you want.
If one company have it, the other can implement it, too. There's no shame in copying a good feature, is it?
Just checked with Dropbox, and yep, that's how it works. Files can access Dropbox transparently, and Dropbox can access any files which can be seen by the Files app.
So an equivalent is present in iOS.
And you can do some things with a phone, e.g. hard reset it if it's really broken. What do you want to be able to do with a phone to fix it that you can't do today?
As in software or hardware?
> It shouldn't matter than “most people” don't need or want to use a thing in a particular way
Well, it does a bit. If I buy a Fiat Uno I shouldn't be expecting to be towing a 2-tonne caravan with it.
I'd presume he means software
> If I buy a Fiat Uno I shouldn't be expecting to be towing a 2-tonne caravan with it.
Sure but you're basically suggesting people shouldn't be able to tow caravans. That since most people won't do it and some who do will overload or take stupid turns and damage their vehicle so it shouldn't be possible for nearly any road vehicles.
>I suppose, but that's pretty nothingy in the grand scheme of things.
Not for me. For me it's another general computing device that can't do general computing. Some random person installing dodgy apk's and giving em stupid permissions on the other hand doesn't bother me in the grand scheme of things.
The problem is casual users aren't interested in learning about this shit so they can make informed choices. They just click through and give apps access to the entire device without thinking or reading, and then bitch at Google when their data is breached. Google doesn't want to deal with that so they lock everything down.
I dunno isn't this why Android users root their phones?
No, because it would be like using dynamite to drill a small hole in the wall - effectively destroying the platform's entire security model as well as locking yourself out of vital apps (finance/banking), and many non-vital apps that pretend they need the same level of security and refuse to work on rooted devices.
edit: s/it/the radio
I use OnePlus, which has very little/no bloat.
My controversial take here is that Google's creation of a remote attestation scheme is also anticompetitive, intended to reduce the commercial viability of any non-blessed Android distributions.
Everyone could see the bad intent when Microsoft proposed the same thing about a decade earlier under the name Palladium, but Google's Safetynet didn't prompt much outcry from the tech community. I'm disappointed by that.
That's a good point. And for non-casual users there is F-droid. It sucks for app developers who lose a giant audience for sure. But maybe in the long run it's good that power users have a place to go?