Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #20535 > unrolled thread

Re: Stupid Google Play Services

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Stupid Google Play Services Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-06-27 18:48 +0000
    Re: Stupid Google Play Services Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-06-27 21:25 +0000
      Re: Stupid Google Play Services The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 14:59 -0700
      Re: Stupid Google Play Services Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-06-28 12:43 +0000
        Re: Stupid Google Play Services Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-06-29 18:08 +0000
    Re: Stupid Google Play Services The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 14:57 -0700
      Re: Stupid Google Play Services The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 15:15 -0700
        Re: Stupid Google Play Services The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 23:25 -0700
        Re: Stupid Google Play Services Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-06-28 13:02 +0000
        Re: Stupid Google Play Services The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 00:09 -0700
        Re: Stupid Google Play Services Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-06-29 08:49 +0100
          Re: Stupid Google Play Services chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 10:04 +0100
            Re: Stupid Google Play Services tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-06-29 18:37 -0400
              Re: Stupid Google Play Services J0HNS0N <12J0HNSON1022@92300nomail.com> - 2015-06-29 17:33 -0700
                Re: Stupid Google Play Services tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-06-29 22:30 -0400
            Re: Stupid Google Play Services chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 09:48 +0100
              Re: Stupid Google Play Services chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 09:04 +0100
                Re: Stupid Google Play Services J0HNS0N <12J0HNSON1022@92300nomail.com> - 2015-07-02 15:08 -0700
                Re: Stupid Google Play Services chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 14:28 +0100
                  Re: Stupid Google Play Services J0HNS0N <12J0HNSON1022@92300nomail.com> - 2015-07-03 09:55 -0700
                    Re: Stupid Google Play Services Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-07-03 19:15 +0100
                      Re: Stupid Google Play Services The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 14:49 -0700
                        Re: Stupid Google Play Services tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-07-03 20:54 -0400
                          Re: Stupid Google Play Services J0HNS0N <12J0HNSON1022@92300nomail.com> - 2015-07-04 00:00 -0700
                            Re: Stupid Google Play Services The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 05:56 -0700
                              Re: Stupid Google Play Services tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-07-04 15:57 -0400
                                Re: Stupid Google Play Services J0HNS0N <12J0HNSON1022@92300nomail.com> - 2015-07-04 14:42 -0700
                          Re: Stupid Google Play Services The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 05:54 -0700
      Re: Stupid Google Play Services lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> - 2015-06-29 02:10 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#20535 — Re: Stupid Google Play Services

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...use up 18% (HALF of my current usage) batter and I had wifi off and 
> didn't want to use ANY google stuff.  Can't even force it to stop.

  Did you have mobile data on? If so, Google Play Services *does* use
mobile data even if you tell it to use WiFi only. And no it's not lying,
it never said it didn't use mobile data for *checking* (for updates),
did it!? :-(

  To fix the latter, you have to turn on data usage monitoring and then
check the per-app data usage. You'll see that Google Play Services is
using mobile data and there's a setting to turn that off. (Sorry, no
detailed instructions, I'm using a *real* computer ATM! :-))

> How many battery companies does google own?

  Have you turned off any and all checking for updates and automatic
updating?

  FWIW, I find automatic checking/updating (of Android apps) more a
nuisance than an advantage. I'm not interested in notifications of
updates for stuff I don't use, and am only slightly interested in
notifications for stuff I do use. If I want/need, I'm quite capable of
doing a manual check, thank you very much! :-( 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#20541

In news:cv89gbF4eq5U1@mid.individual.net Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: 

> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...use up 18% (HALF of my current usage) batter and I had wifi off
>> and didn't want to use ANY google stuff.  Can't even force it to
>> stop. 
> 
>   Did you have mobile data on? If so, Google Play Services *does* use
> mobile data even if you tell it to use WiFi only. And no it's not
> lying, it never said it didn't use mobile data for *checking* (for
> updates), did it!? :-(

I believe that the complaint was about battery ("batter?") use, not
data. 

-- 
bert@iphouse.com	St. Paul, MN

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20543

On 06/27/2015 02:25 PM, Bert wrote:
> In news:cv89gbF4eq5U1@mid.individual.net Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...use up 18% (HALF of my current usage) batter and I had wifi off
>>> and didn't want to use ANY google stuff.  Can't even force it to
>>> stop.
>>
>>   Did you have mobile data on? If so, Google Play Services *does* use
>> mobile data even if you tell it to use WiFi only. And no it's not
>> lying, it never said it didn't use mobile data for *checking* (for
>> updates), did it!? :-(
>
> I believe that the complaint was about battery ("batter?") use, not
> data.

:-)

No, actually -- the damn phone can NOT make pancakes properly!  Why was 
this not mentioned in the documentation?

-- 
Cheers,
Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk.
Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20551

Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In news:cv89gbF4eq5U1@mid.individual.net Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: 
> 
> > The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ...use up 18% (HALF of my current usage) batter and I had wifi off
> >> and didn't want to use ANY google stuff.  Can't even force it to
> >> stop. 
> > 
> >   Did you have mobile data on? If so, Google Play Services *does* use
> > mobile data even if you tell it to use WiFi only. And no it's not
> > lying, it never said it didn't use mobile data for *checking* (for
> > updates), did it!? :-(
> 
> I believe that the complaint was about battery ("batter?") use, not
> data. 

  My point - also elaborated in the snipped part of my post - was to
prevent/limit Google Play Services from running. If you - explicitly or
implicitly - allow it to run, it will be consuming power.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20564

Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In news:cva8fbFjb4dU1@mid.individual.net Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: 
> 
> >   My point - also elaborated in the snipped part of my post - was to
> > prevent/limit Google Play Services from running. If you - explicitly
> > or implicitly - allow it to run, it will be consuming power.
> 
> If you allow your phone's CPU to run, it will be consuming power.

  I haven't checked, but I assume that CPUs in Android devices have
power-management features, just like any other 'recent' mobile CPU. I.e.
the amount of power the CPU uses depends on the amount of work it has to
do (load).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20542

On 06/27/2015 11:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...use up 18% (HALF of my current usage) batter and I had wifi off and
>> didn't want to use ANY google stuff.  Can't even force it to stop.
>
>    Did you have mobile data on? If so, Google Play Services *does* use
> mobile data even if you tell it to use WiFi only. And no it's not lying,
> it never said it didn't use mobile data for *checking* (for updates),
> did it!? :-(

No phone data plan at all.  Digging around I found a setting for phone 
data usage, which was set to ON.  So the updating feature checks all the 
time even when there's no data plan or wifi signal available at all?

>    To fix the latter, you have to turn on data usage monitoring and then
> check the per-app data usage. You'll see that Google Play Services is
> using mobile data and there's a setting to turn that off. (Sorry, no
> detailed instructions, I'm using a *real* computer ATM! :-))
>
>> How many battery companies does google own?
>
>    Have you turned off any and all checking for updates and automatic
> updating?

I can't even find the place where I might do that.  I can check for 
updates for the Motorola/Android OS, but no ability at all to prevent 
apps from autoupdating.  I looked through the 'help' on the phone and 
the downloaded documentation on my computer.  NOTHING.

>    FWIW, I find automatic checking/updating (of Android apps) more a
> nuisance than an advantage. I'm not interested in notifications of
> updates for stuff I don't use, and am only slightly interested in
> notifications for stuff I do use. If I want/need, I'm quite capable of
> doing a manual check, thank you very much! :-(

I'm not, or at least I haven't found how to do it.

Motorola Moto G (2nd Gen).  Damn, I need to do some googling...



-- 
Cheers, Bev
=================================================================
"No matter how cynical I get, it's just never enough to keep up."
                                                   --Lily Tomlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20544

On 06/27/2015 02:57 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 06/27/2015 11:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...use up 18% (HALF of my current usage) batter and I had wifi off and
>>> didn't want to use ANY google stuff.  Can't even force it to stop.
>>
>>    Did you have mobile data on? If so, Google Play Services *does* use
>> mobile data even if you tell it to use WiFi only. And no it's not lying,
>> it never said it didn't use mobile data for *checking* (for updates),
>> did it!? :-(
>
> No phone data plan at all.  Digging around I found a setting for phone
> data usage, which was set to ON.  So the updating feature checks all the
> time even when there's no data plan or wifi signal available at all?
>
>>    To fix the latter, you have to turn on data usage monitoring and then
>> check the per-app data usage. You'll see that Google Play Services is
>> using mobile data and there's a setting to turn that off. (Sorry, no
>> detailed instructions, I'm using a *real* computer ATM! :-))
>>
>>> How many battery companies does google own?
>>
>>    Have you turned off any and all checking for updates and automatic
>> updating?
>
> I can't even find the place where I might do that.  I can check for
> updates for the Motorola/Android OS, but no ability at all to prevent
> apps from autoupdating.  I looked through the 'help' on the phone and
> the downloaded documentation on my computer.  NOTHING.
>
>>    FWIW, I find automatic checking/updating (of Android apps) more a
>> nuisance than an advantage. I'm not interested in notifications of
>> updates for stuff I don't use, and am only slightly interested in
>> notifications for stuff I do use. If I want/need, I'm quite capable of
>> doing a manual check, thank you very much! :-(
>
> I'm not, or at least I haven't found how to do it.
>
> Motorola Moto G (2nd Gen).  Damn, I need to do some googling...

Stupid google.  I have to open the Play store with the phone and turn 
off auto-update in the settings.  Why is this NOT something I can do on 
my phone without wifi or google?

I noticed that even though I had auto-update set to ON, there was a big 
list of apps with available updates. This is normal, but even when I 
clicked 'update all' I had to go through and approve each one. 
Annoying.  What part of 'auto' does google not understand?

I started out really liking google back in the dark ages when they had a 
much better search engine thatn altavista AND they took over the dejavu 
history of usenet and even added to it.  Now I'm not so sure -- they 
give you cool stuff and then cripple it in some way.  Is this to soften 
us up for the time stuff is no longer free?

-- 
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk.
Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20547

On 06/27/2015 08:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:15:38 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 06/27/2015 02:57 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 06/27/2015 11:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ...use up 18% (HALF of my current usage) batter and I had wifi off and
>>>>> didn't want to use ANY google stuff.  Can't even force it to stop.
>>>>
>>>>    Did you have mobile data on? If so, Google Play Services *does* use
>>>> mobile data even if you tell it to use WiFi only. And no it's not lying,
>>>> it never said it didn't use mobile data for *checking* (for updates),
>>>> did it!? :-(
>>>
>>> No phone data plan at all.  Digging around I found a setting for phone
>>> data usage, which was set to ON.  So the updating feature checks all the
>>> time even when there's no data plan or wifi signal available at all?
>>>
>>>>    To fix the latter, you have to turn on data usage monitoring and then
>>>> check the per-app data usage. You'll see that Google Play Services is
>>>> using mobile data and there's a setting to turn that off. (Sorry, no
>>>> detailed instructions, I'm using a *real* computer ATM! :-))
>>>>
>>>>> How many battery companies does google own?
>>>>
>>>>    Have you turned off any and all checking for updates and automatic
>>>> updating?
>>>
>>> I can't even find the place where I might do that.  I can check for
>>> updates for the Motorola/Android OS, but no ability at all to prevent
>>> apps from autoupdating.  I looked through the 'help' on the phone and
>>> the downloaded documentation on my computer.  NOTHING.
>>>
>>>>    FWIW, I find automatic checking/updating (of Android apps) more a
>>>> nuisance than an advantage. I'm not interested in notifications of
>>>> updates for stuff I don't use, and am only slightly interested in
>>>> notifications for stuff I do use. If I want/need, I'm quite capable of
>>>> doing a manual check, thank you very much! :-(
>>>
>>> I'm not, or at least I haven't found how to do it.
>>>
>>> Motorola Moto G (2nd Gen).  Damn, I need to do some googling...
>>
>>Stupid google.  I have to open the Play store with the phone and turn
>>off auto-update in the settings.  Why is this NOT something I can do on
>>my phone without wifi or google?
>>
> You can. The same routine I mentioned previously - Google play,
> Settings,etc.

But that's AT the website and I can't get thre with wifi turned off.  I 
think updates -- either app or OS -- should be a phone function, not a 
web function.

Still, it seems to have cut down on battery usage significantly.  Good 
enough!

>>I noticed that even though I had auto-update set to ON, there was a big
>>list of apps with available updates. This is normal, but even when I
>>clicked 'update all' I had to go through and approve each one.
>>Annoying.  What part of 'auto' does google not understand?
>>
>>I started out really liking google back in the dark ages when they had a
>>much better search engine thatn altavista AND they took over the dejavu
>>history of usenet and even added to it.  Now I'm not so sure -- they
>>give you cool stuff and then cripple it in some way.  Is this to soften
>>us up for the time stuff is no longer free?


-- 
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"I read somewhere that 77 per cent of all the mentally ill live in
poverty.  Actually, I'm more intrigued by the 23 per cent who are
apparently doing quite well for themselves."        -- Emo Philips

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20552

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I noticed that even though I had auto-update set to ON, there was a big 
> list of apps with available updates. This is normal, but even when I 
> clicked 'update all' I had to go through and approve each one. 
> Annoying.  What part of 'auto' does google not understand?

  There's the generic auto-update, i.e. a setting of the Play Store app
('Auto-update apps') and per-app settings (tick/untick 'Auto-update'
(vertical row of three dots in upper right corner) on the app's page
within the Play store app.

  If the per-app setting is off, it will not auto-update, but (AFAIK)
will till list the update (i.e. the behaviour you're seeing).

  But even when the per-app setting is on, there are several scenarios
where the update will not (yet) be done:

- An update might require your approval of extra permissions.

- It might take some time before the Play Store app has processed all
  pending updates
  
- If an update fails - can you say "Insufficient storage available" !?
  :-( - it will (AFAIK) not be retried, but will be kept in the list of
  available updates.

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20558

On 06/28/2015 10:11 AM, John McGaw wrote:

> The only time I have to OK each update when I tell it to 'update all' is
> when an application wants more permissions than it already has been
> allowed. In each of these cases I have to approve the apps one-by-one; the
> others just update without asking individual permission. Can't see why
> yours would be any different.

It probably isn't, I just don't notice the ones that don't ask.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
  When you wish upon a falling star your dreams can come true. Unless
  it's really a meteorite hurtling to the earth which will destroy all
  life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for.
  Unless it's death by meteor.                         --Demotivators

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20559

John McGaw wrote:

> The only time I have to OK each update when I tell it to 'update all' is
> when an application wants more permissions than it already has been
> allowed. In each of these cases I have to approve the apps one-by-one; the
> others just update without asking individual permission.

Actually (with KitKat and above?) an app can silently gain additional 
permissions within the same permission group it already has permissions 
from during an update, it has to ask for any new permissions from a 
different group.

Sounds like this is going to change again in Android M, so apps will ask 
at run time rather than install time, which sounds like an improvement, 
except there will still be some permissions (such as internet access) 
that it doesn't ask for because it would be deemed too annoying, I don't 
know if it will have to ask from that permission at install time, or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20560

On 29/06/2015 08:49, Andy Burns wrote:
> John McGaw wrote:
>
>> The only time I have to OK each update when I tell it to 'update all' is
>> when an application wants more permissions than it already has been
>> allowed. In each of these cases I have to approve the apps one-by-one;
>> the
>> others just update without asking individual permission.
>
> Actually (with KitKat and above?) an app can silently gain additional
> permissions within the same permission group it already has permissions
> from during an update, it has to ask for any new permissions from a
> different group.
>
> Sounds like this is going to change again in Android M, so apps will ask
> at run time rather than install time, which sounds like an improvement,

No, that sounds worse. What happens if you disagree to the additional 
permissions upon update? Can you go back to the previous version? The 
current set-up is good, because 1) no wasted data use for unwanted 
updates, 2) doesn't touch current versions if you don't agree to a 
specific update.

I still run an old version of Gmail because of the huge increase in 
permissions required in the latest version - essentially unfettered 
access to the phone.

> except there will still be some permissions (such as internet access)
> that it doesn't ask for because it would be deemed too annoying, I don't
> know if it will have to ask from that permission at install time, or not.

Internet access is the main revenue stream for most app developers (via 
ads) can you imagine letting users block it. Disaster!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20569

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:28:44 -0700, J0HNS0N wrote:

> BTW the Windows newsreader I'm posting with is a 13 year old version.
> If it ain't broke why update it...  ;)

I see: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564. Where's one score an installer copy of that
these days :-) ? (Googling helped me not a whit, nor did Wayback Machine.)

Thanks, even if it may be OT for this NG; and cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20571

 tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:28:44 -0700, J0HNS0N wrote:
>
>> BTW the Windows newsreader I'm posting with is a 13 year old version.
>> If it ain't broke why update it...  ;)
>
>I see: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564. Where's one score an installer copy of that
>these days :-) ? (Googling helped me not a whit, nor did Wayback Machine.)

I lost my Agent install file many many years ago. I've just been
copying the Agent folder from the old computer to the new computer all
these years. It even keeps my groups, place, and settings during the
transfer. Much better than a fresh install IMO.

I think Forte is still in business where you can buy a current
version. I've certainly got my money's worth for this old one.

>Thanks, even if it may be OT for this NG; and cheers, -- tlvp

OT? That never stopped us before...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20574

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:33:21 -0700, J0HNS0N wrote:

> I lost my Agent install file many many years ago. I've just been
> copying the Agent folder from the old computer to the new computer all
> these years. It even keeps my groups, place, and settings during the
> transfer. Much better than a fresh install IMO.

Fantastic! Means they chose not to rely on the Registry then :-) . These
days, I fear they now do (correct me if I'm wrong).
 
> I think Forte is still in business ...

They are indeed.

> ... where you can buy a current
> version.

Yep. At version 8 or thereabouts. But if it's got to be for money, I'll
just stick with Dialog :-) . 

> ... OT? That never stopped us before...

Stopped? of course not. But it might cause apologies, anyway :-) .
Thanks. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20602

On 29/06/2015 17:28, J0HNS0N wrote:
> chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 29/06/2015 08:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>>> Sounds like this is going to change again in Android M, so apps will ask
>>> at run time rather than install time, which sounds like an improvement,
>>
>> No, that sounds worse. What happens if you disagree to the additional
>> permissions upon update? Can you go back to the previous version?
>
> *If* the new Android M allows it as the current Android OS does you
> can go back. You just have to save a backup (apk) copy of the old
> version before the update. If you don't like the new one you just
> reinstall the old one.
>
> I use Astro to make my backups but there are many others.

Sure that's possible, but it's an additional hurdle which most won't do 
and I, frankly, can't be bothered with.

>
>> I still run an old version of Gmail because of the huge increase in
>> permissions required in the latest version - essentially unfettered
>> access to the phone.
>
> There are also many third party email clients that run Gmail.

oh, I know. I just don't use Gmail on my phone at all, really. I only 
have it for the rare occasions and because I can't delete it.

> BTW the Windows newsreader I'm posting with is a 13 year old version.
> If it ain't broke why update it...  ;)

I'd normally agree, but apps are so prone to security vulnerabilities 
these days that keeping out-of-date versions is a potential risk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20635

On 01/07/2015 17:36, J0HNS0N wrote:
> chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 29/06/2015 17:28, J0HNS0N wrote:
>>> chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> No, that sounds worse. What happens if you disagree to the additional
>>>> permissions upon update? Can you go back to the previous version?
>>>
>>> *If* the new Android M allows it as the current Android OS does you
>>> can go back. You just have to save a backup (apk) copy of the old
>>> version before the update. If you don't like the new one you just
>>> reinstall the old one.
>>>
>>> I use Astro to make my backups but there are many others.
>>
>> Sure that's possible, but it's an additional hurdle which most won't do
>> and I, frankly, can't be bothered with.
>
> Can't be bothered? Perhaps you just wanted to complain a bit then?

I was commenting on the change of behaviour in Andriod M regarding 
accepting permission changes during updates. There is a potential flaw 
in it's implementation, which no-one has clarified what happens if you 
want to back out.

You may interpret that as a 'complaint' of you wish.

>
>>>> I still run an old version of Gmail because of the huge increase in
>>>> permissions required in the latest version - essentially unfettered
>>>> access to the phone.
>>>
>>> There are also many third party email clients that run Gmail.
>>
>> oh, I know. I just don't use Gmail on my phone at all, really. I only
>> have it for the rare occasions
>
> You don't use Gmail on you phone but just want to complain about it?

Sigh. It was an *example* of why you may not want to update all apps 
automatically because of significant changes in their permissions.

>
>> and because I can't delete it.
>
> All my devices allow me to disable the Gmail app which I do since I
> use K-9 for my Gmail.

Disable != delete.

>>> BTW the Windows newsreader I'm posting with is a 13 year old version.
>>> If it ain't broke why update it...  ;)
>>
>> I'd normally agree, but apps are so prone to security vulnerabilities
>> these days that keeping out-of-date versions is a potential risk.
>
> Ok let me get this straight:
>
> 1. You complain (way above) that you can't go back to the previous app
> version after an update if you don't like the update.
>
> 2. You complain (above) that by going back to the previous app version
> after an update is a security risk so you shouldn't do it.....   :-/

I'm not sure where you get 'complaining' from?

Updates are always a balancing act between fixing problems and 
introducing new (unwanted e.g. additional permissions) features. Like I 
said out-of-date apps are a *potential* risk, but so are additional 
features. In the example of Gmail, I very rarely use it so I mitigate 
the unfixed issues by not using it. I took the personal decision that I 
felt the risks were less than updating it and allowing it access to 
essentially everything on my phone. If someone wanted to target an app 
to compromise Gmail must be high on their list: it exists on every 
device and (now) has complete access to your phone - including the 
ability to delete files, contacts and accounts, send emails without your 
knowledge and set passwords. No thank you!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20660

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:46:21 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07/02/2015 09:36 AM, J0HNS0N wrote:
>
>> I am livid at the apps that came with the device that don't allow
>> either being deleted or disabled and insist on relaunch every time I
>> try to close them. Those I just ignore which, since I have several GB
>> of free memory really don't do that much damage except to my mental
>> health.
>
>Exactly.  And some say that if you disable (or close) them they will 
>vindictively delete all the data involved with that app.  I probably 
>don't want that, I just don't want the damn thing to run AT ALL unless I 
>tell it.
>
>What are they thinking when they force us to expend resources on shit we 
>don't want?

They think that eventually you will give in and use their app/service
and they will have another new customer. It must work on many or they
wouldn't do it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20713

On 02/07/2015 17:36, J0HNS0N wrote:
> chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Disable != delete.
>
> No, they are quite different.

Yes, that's what I said: '!=' means 'not equal to'.

>
>> If someone wanted to target an app
>> to compromise Gmail must be high on their list: it exists on every
>> device and (now) has complete access to your phone - including the
>> ability to delete files, contacts and accounts, send emails without your
>> knowledge and set passwords. No thank you!
>
> That description sounds a bit exaggerated. Perhaps even paranoid. But
> if Gmail makes you uncomfortable don't use it. I've been using it for
> many years now and feel I get good service for what I pay. YMMV.

Possibly, but just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're *not* out 
to get me ;)

> BTW If you take advantage of Gmail's 2 step verification even if the
> perp gets your password he can't do much damage.

You're missing the point. It's nothing to with getting access to my 
account - I do have 2 factor authentication - but, more to do with 
vulnerabilities in the app which may allow some malware to use Gmail's 
permissions to wreak havoc on my phone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20714

chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 02/07/2015 17:36, J0HNS0N wrote:

> '!=' means 'not equal to'.

New one on me. Thought it was a typo. Can't find it on Wikipedia.
Programming script?

>You're missing the point. It's nothing to with getting access to my 
>account - I do have 2 factor authentication - but, more to do with 
>vulnerabilities in the app which may allow some malware to use Gmail's 
>permissions to wreak havoc on my phone.

>just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're *not* out 
>to get me ;)

So if they're out to get you using the Gmail app why not just use a
3rd party client? They can't all be haunted....or can they  (scary
music in background...fade to black)....  8-O

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web