Google I/O 2015 Companion Thread

[bjacks12]

Be careful lest ye incur Lord Duarte's wrath.

 

[EarlyMon]

Be careful lest ye incur Lord Duarte's wrath.

Yeah. Want the whole list over the years? It's a doozy.

 

[codesplice]

I think it's a breakthrough invention!

Spoiler

No, I totally get that a theme engine has been included in a number of OEM skins. It's definitely not a revolutionary groundbreaking idea or feature or anything. Still, like many changes that may be inspired at least in part by other phones/manufacturers/OSes/ROMs/themes/etc, it's a welcome addition to stock Android.

 

[bjacks12]

She's still going folks. I will say that when I get home and pick it up, it's a total lagfest for the first minute, then you get bombarded with notifications that have been waiting to push through.

 

[funkylogik]

And here is a great big forward step to rear -

http://phandroid.com/2015/06/02/android-m-rro-layers-theme-engine-support-baked-in/

Iow - Android M to supply for root what the latest Sense and evidently TouchWiz does for stock.

Well, I'm not surprised. Hard core fans will hail this as yet another breakthrough invention.

It just wouldn't be an I/O without Google half reinventing an existing HTC feature.

Wasn't rro/layers actually pushed into aosp by Sony? Think I remember reading that

 

[codesplice]

Wasn't rro/layers actually pushed into aosp by Sony? Think I remember reading that

Yes. Then it was broken for Lollipop. And now it's apparently maybe going to work again.

https://github.com/deadman96385/RRO-WIKI/wiki/About-RRO

 

[EarlyMon]

I think that you're referring to this, credits at the bottom -

http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/official-layers-bitsyko-apps-rro-t3012172

(edit - debated adding the Deadman link while editing, thanks to @codesplice I didn't have to)

I was referring to the fact that HTC Sense has had complete themes *for years* and with Lollipop, has exploited the new architecture so that mere mortal users can manage individual theme elements with ease, by getting the HTC Service Pack, HTC Lock Screen, HTC Sense Home and HTC Themes from the Play Store and theming elements directly from HTC (per always been that way).

I agree - adding the capability to the standard Android is a welcome step in the right direction.

And just like quick settings that HTC users have had in editable form for nearly ever, Android themes will be even more welcome when they get around to completing it. For mere mortals and for everyone.

Despite what the blogosphere has to say, user theming is not new and not a Lollipop breakthrough, not even for HTC. HTC's Sense 7/Lollipop breakthrough is to advance the feature even more - simple evolution.

Yes, hats off to Google and Sony and more so to the host of unsung rom and theme developers lighting the way in the darkness until the majors could catch up.

Meanwhile, I'll return to running what the future Nexus is going to look like and continue to nod in agreement with everyone who calls me an HTC fanboy and points out that they're a loser company with gimmicks and no real innovations.

(I don't care what anyone else thinks, sometimes I just post to crack myself up. )

Anyway - theming for root users, built in.

Don't stop. Well done!

 

[Gmash]

And here is a great big forward step to rear -

http://phandroid.com/2015/06/02/android-m-rro-layers-theme-engine-support-baked-in/

Iow - Android M to supply for root what the latest Sense and evidently TouchWiz does for stock.

Well, I'm not surprised. Hard core fans will hail this as yet another breakthrough invention.

It just wouldn't be an I/O without Google half reinventing an existing HTC feature.

Ironic how much Apple fanboys and Google fanboys have in common that way lol.

 

[bjacks12]

Hey, I'm a google fanboy who is OK with HTC..... But then, my n9 was built by them

 

[funkylogik]

So aparently the granular permissions thing auto allows the Internet permission (so you wouldn't know if say a flashlight app has Internet permission. probably due to Google's need for ads?).
Have you tested that bjacks12?
A dev I know has made an app to kind of address this
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.greatbytes.permissionswatchdog

 

[Hadron]

There's always something...

Ah well, I imagine I'll be using custom ROMs anyway, so can either assume this is included. I have a firewall in any case, so not a big problem.

 

[EarlyMon]

So aparently the granular permissions thing auto allows the Internet permission (so you wouldn't know if say a flashlight app has Internet permission. probably due to Google's need for ads?).
Have you tested that bjacks12?
A dev I know has made an app to kind of address this
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.greatbytes.permissionswatchdog

In order to take advantage of the new feature, apps have to be re-coded to follow the new permissions scheme.

According to the announcement, legacy apps will be unaffected.

If an app is denied access to data, I'm not sure what getting out on the Internet is going to accomplish - especially when a flashlight asks permission to access your contacts with a nice big pop-up before proceeding.

I'd predict a lot of refusals and hopefully a lot of immediate uninstalls for that case.

I also predict that all of the garbage apps are going to stop updating and try to slide by under the legacy loophole.

 

[funkylogik]

Yup I can see that happening.
So is "data" a separate permission from "Internet"? Not sure I understand mate

 

[EarlyMon]

Yup I can see that happening.
So is "data" a separate permission from "Internet"? Not sure I understand mate

New scenario, controlled by Google provided the app is built with the new tools -

Flashlight on - pop-up(s) get triggered (I'll make some up without looking at the new api but this is basically correct) -

"Funky Flashlight wants access to your contacts - allow or deny?"

"Funky Flashlight wants access to your account information - allow or deny?"

"Funky Flashlight wants access to your call log and text messages - allow or deny?"

"Funky Flashlight wants access to your phone identity - allow or deny?"

Deny it access and it can connect to the Internet all it wants - it won't have anything to say.

The new permissions are also streamlined so you don't have to be a permission expert to understand them, according to Google.

And I'm only assuming that Internet access is constant so license checks aren't blocked by people who don't understand license checks. I *think* that is *maybe* correct.

 

[bjacks12]

I have not played with permissions yet.

 

[bjacks12]

Also, today is the first day i brought it to work since flashing the preview. It won't connect to the Wi-Fi here now

 

[funkylogik]

New scenario, controlled by Google provided the app is built with the new tools -

Flashlight on - pop-up(s) get triggered (I'll make some up without looking at the new api but this is basically correct) -

"Funky Flashlight wants access to your contacts - allow or deny?"

"Funky Flashlight wants access to your account information - allow or deny?"

"Funky Flashlight wants access to your call log and text messages - allow or deny?"

"Funky Flashlight wants access to your phone identity - allow or deny?"

Deny it access and it can connect to the Internet all it wants - it won't have anything to say.

The new permissions are also streamlined so you don't have to be a permission expert to understand them, according to Google.

And I'm only assuming that Internet access is constant so license checks aren't blocked by people who don't understand license checks. I *think* that is *maybe* correct.

Ahh now I see what you mean by data mate
Know what you mean now but what if an app legitimately requests access to your microphone (say a dictaphone) but illegitimately has Internet access and you have no way of knowing that?

 

[EarlyMon]

Ahh now I see what you mean by data mate
Know what you mean now but what if an app legitimately requests access to your microphone (say a dictaphone) but illegitimately has Internet access and you have no way of knowing that?

Yeah, excellent question - and one we face every day with almost every add on texting app, where we do know and approve that they'll access sensitive data with Internet rights, just for one example.

 

[funkylogik]

Yeah at least were informed of that permission before install though?

 

[codesplice]

This seems to suggest the legacy applications will be able to be controlled by the new permissions management thing - well, sort of.

All permissions for legacy applications will be granted at install time, exactly how it currently works, rather than the user being prompted the first time a particular permission is requested. Users will however be able to go in and manually revoke permissions. So you might need to pay a bit more attention if you want to lock down a legacy application, but it should still be possible.

 

[EarlyMon]

This seems to suggest the legacy applications will be able to be controlled by the new permissions management thing - well, sort of.

All permissions will be granted at install time, exactly how it currently works, rather than the user being prompted the first time a particular permission is requested. Users will however be able to go in and manually revoke permissions. So you might need to pay a bit more attention if you want to lock down a legacy application, but it should still be possible.

That's the opposite of what was shown during the keynote that got a huge round of applause.

They made a point of keeping it simple and showed the denial dialog happen at first run of the app - and made a point of explaining that was more user friendly and more effective because users are often not equipped to deal with permission overload at installation. Seeing it in context - hey buddy you want a flashlight and it wants contacts - really hits home. (Flashlight example paraphrased by me from the earlier part of our discussion, not what they used on stage.)

I've no doubt that the article in question is correct on a lot of the other nuts and bolts - but I think you're reading too much in to a dev presentation that really looks more like Jellybean App Ops.

 

[EarlyMon]

Start around 13 minutes in, he says it plainly at about 13:50 - apps ask at first use, not installation.

 

[codesplice]

Wasn't the keynote referring to apps targeting the M SDK though? I thought we were talking about legacy apps - which were the subject of the article I referenced.

 

[EarlyMon]

Wasn't the keynote referring to apps targeting the M SDK though? I thought we were talking about legacy apps - which were the subject of the article I referenced.

OK...

All permissions will be granted at install time, exactly how it currently works, rather than the user being prompted the first time a particular permission is requested.

I thought you'd moved on to all permissions, all apps there.

The article did and so I thought that you meant this -

"Google indicated in the linked documentation that permissions declared with protection level PROTECTION_NORMALwill be granted at install-time to applications, even in the new permissions model. This would indicate that anything declared as PROTECTION_DANGEROUS must be user-granted separately. If you define your own permissions, this rule does indeed hold true."

Anyway, my bad, sue me, you win, and you still owe me a Huawei Watch.

 

[codesplice]

Edited my post for clarity.