gumby271

I think I'm too stupid to understand what point you're trying to make, sorry.

I would say we're reaching new levels of incomplete and rushed to market though. The original Google Search, Maps, Docs, etc. weren't feature rich, but what they had worked well. I'm not saying they were perfectly built, but they weren't falling apart to the degree Gemini and other Google products are. And Google gets to do this now, no one can compete or leave them, so why do anything well.

When Google first added Gemini to Sheets, I tried it and it completely hallucinated transaction data on the bank statement I was testing it on. It's worse than incomplete, it's broken and dangerous. But Google gets to slap a disclaimer on Gemini that says "results may be fucked" and they get a pass to ship it.

I have no expectation that Google can improve its new products since everything they've been doing is going in the opposite direction. You're not seeing pushback on embracing new technology, its purely about Google not being trusted to do things well.

I've run into a similar thing where I'll be cc'd on support tickets with one of our customer support agents and they'll then reply to me with what is clearly an ai summary of the single email from the customer that I can already read. I do think they're trying to be helpful, but it's hard to not feel like they think I'm a child or an idiot. Back in the day we agreed that Googling something for someone was rude (letmegooglethatforyou.com being a good example), I don't know why ai summaries and slop aren't understood in the same way.

Doesn't that still require going though all the hoops that they were struggling with, or is this a different verification flow with Apple?

I feel like we could expect a bit more from the billion dollar company to support new apis. They have a solid mechanism to deprecate apis and force developers to rebuild their apps already, just shorten that window for the cutting edge apis released in preview.

"for you, turquoise is blue." Well no, it's turquoise, that's why we gave it a whole different word.

In the Signal app itself there's an option to hide the message body or both the sender and body, that way the OS wont have anything to store in the history.

I think that's how the Android notification history works. If I uninstall an app, the entries in the history aren't shown anymore. You also have to opt in to notification history and toggling it off and back on clears the old entries. There's also a time window that it keeps entries for: https://source.android.com/docs/core/display/notification-hi...

What the fuck?

Android is for everyone, provided they submit to Google exclusively. It's not about power users, and that isn't a speed bump. You can protect vulnerable users without centralizing power like they did, but that's not their motivation so here we are.

Bet it won't happen twice though.

Sorry I just saw this, if Kotlin isn't native, then what is the "native" way to write android apps?

Really? So all app installs on Android 17+ will have to be done online?

Really? I turned Play Protect off and have never been prompted to turn it back on, what phone do you have that does that?

Which I also don't like, but at least that can be done offline. The signature could be verified on device without sending everything to Google. If they have to track the 20 seats for the hobbyist accounts then they have to be tracking every single install

I mean, I'm happy to be conspiratorial about it too, I give Google no benefit of the doubt, but outside of Play Protect I don't think they explicitly say "your phone is telling us every app you install." This new feature is them making that explicit.

So let's say I'm F-Droid, an organization making a direct competitor to the Google Play Store and openly pointing out how much scammy shit is available in that store. My options are 1) submit my identity to Google (my competitor) so they can identify me and choose to revoke that verification at any point, or 2) I can tell all my users that they must go through these scary dialogs AND wait 1 day before they can use my competing product? That's cool, glad we've got the options laid out in front of us.

I forgot 3) instruct my users how to use ADB from another computer to install my competing app. Awesome.

Right, if this is being built into AOSP I dont see how they wouldn't add an adb command to immediately skip the "Advanced Flow" wait. if it's safe to let uses run "adb install", then "adb skip-advanced-flow" should be just as safe to do too.

> In addition to the advanced flow we’re building free, limited distribution accounts for students and hobbyists. This allows you to share apps with a small group (up to 20 devices) without needing to provide a government-issued ID or pay a registration fee.

I don't quite understand how those installs would be tracked. If I create a "hobbyist" account and share the apk, are the devices that install that app all reporting it to Google? To my knowledge, Google only does this through the optional Play Protect system, is that now no longer optional? I'd like to know if my computer is reporting every app I install up to Google.

My Pixel buds from Google have been pretty good since they support Bluetooth multipoint. I'd love to find some good headphones like Beats or the airpods, but Apple doesn't seem to support those standards, it only works with other Apple devices.

That's pretty cool, I've been wanting something like this so I don't have to reach for the touchpad on my Mac all the time. But I gotta say, I did NOT expect to be scrolling in the Z axis all of a sudden on that site!

The native locked down options are the natives apps you're advocating for, I don't understand. They're the Swift/uikit or Koltin/jetpack apps. It sounds like you don't like web technology in general and would rather everyone do it the centralized Apple/Google way?

Which is very much Google's approach to Android. AOSP could be targeted directly by devs, but Google pushes everyone to use Google services in their apps (and assume it's available on any android device) which means Android with Google services is the only viable version of Android out there.

But the app-slop is totally fine right? Apple controlling every piece of software on my phone hasn't gone too far? Empowering the web to compete with Apple and Google's native locked down options is the only viable alternative I see.

Looks like Apple decided they need their own version of the Android mascot. Theirs is definitely a little more unsettling than the little droid guy though.

I'm sure Apple would love that too. More seriously, would that also mean all editing tools would need to re-sign a photo that was previously signed by the original sensor. How do we distinguish an edit that's misleading vs just changing levels? It's an interesting area for sure, but this inverse approach seems much trickier.

I struggle with this feeling as well, a huge part of the Maker movement was excitement around people building and importantly learning how to build thing. Iterating and improving each time is a pretty common thread you'll see throughout the community. It's hard to have someone show you a thing they generated instead of made and to feel the same way. Yes, they played a part in that thing existing, and part of that person is reflected in the output, but I don't think most Makers would say the final output is goal, so what's there to be excited about?

It's hard to not be dismissive or gate-keeping with this stuff, my goal isn't to discourage anyone or to fight against the lower barriers to entry, but it's simply a different thing when someone prompts a private AI model to make a thing in an hour.

I guess I bring it up in the sense that no matter how good their security is, it still sucks that Apple products are so hostile to their owners. It's hard to be impressed by their security work with the platform being what it is.

Security, privacy, and ownership aren't equally separated in my mind.

It sucks that Apple decided to monitize iPhone the way they have, by controlling the owners ability to install software of their choosing. Ignoring the arguments one could make about this making it "more secure" it's clearly disrespectful to the power user that doesn't want to beg Apple's permission to use their computer. I'll grant them their security claims are sound, but it's hard to take them serious regarding privacy arguments.

Our choices are either (A) an OS monitized by tracking user interaction and activity, or (B) monitized by owning the basic act of installing software on the device, both of these options suck and I struggle to give up the more open option for one that might be more secure.

Except neither of those two are the exclusive way to install software on a computer that you own. All 3 have their issues, but Apple is uniquely bad in this way. I don't find myself Hating Steam/Valve.