Comment by tavavex

The darkest UX pattern I have ever hit is trying to cancel Google Workspace; whereby they disable the scrollbar on the page so you cannot actually get to the cancel button.

I was so mad when they removed the fourth option. I can't remember which one was which, but one meant "open in a webview inside this app" and the other was "open in a new tab in your default browser". It was still terrible UX but I liked at least having that choice.

I hate this pop-up so much. I don’t even have Chrome installed on my phone. How about open up on the only browser I have installed…

This kind of thing should be illegal. The default browser is the default for a reason, to avoid this kind of stuff.

I think I’ve reported this as a bug to Google a couple times, in a couple different apps… as they do it in their other apps too.

The only thing that bothers me more are the, “sign-in with Google”, prompts on 90% of websites now. How about just giving the option to login with Google if so choose to login, and not spam it on every website just for visiting?

Google really has made the internet and worse place in so many ways.

I’m in the UK and use the Gmail app, I don’t ever see this sheet. Is this US-only?

I don’t see the sheet for imgur.com either because, well, they’ve blocked access completely for UK users. :shrug:

An annoying extension of this is opening a Google maps link on mobile. It always prompts to open Google Maps (the app) no matter what. If you click no, its bugs the fuck out and opens an App Store link. If you click yes, even if you have Google Maps installed, it bugs the fuck out and opens an app store link. In neither case will it properly show the location on a first attempt. It's been like this for years. I'd ask what they're thinking when they came up with this, but I remain unconvinced that any such activity happens inside any Google offices today.

If you use iPhone, you can use iOS Mail app (and with iCloud mail) if you really care.

Apple dark UX pattern is that there always has badges on Settings app if you do not subscribe to iCloud even if you have manual backup. You cannot dismiss it.

I love the irony that the Imgur link asks you to install the Imgur app first

I don't understand why people don't use alternative mail clients to avoid that? Is the Gmail app the only one that is good enough? If so, and if it is essential to you, just go with the bundle (Gmail, Chrome, etc). (FWIW, I left gmail entirely, I pay for my email provider)

This would drive me insane! I'm glad I ditched Gmail altogether.

Please don't use imgur, it blocks off half of the internet. Use catbox.moe or imageban

the YouTube app does the same. Infuriating. I don't have Chrome installed and it doesn't list the only third party browser I _do_ have installed: Orion

Why are you even using the Gmail as your mail app?

Gatekeepers have to gatekeeper. Sigh.

Merely regulating them isn't enough. The world needs to start enforcing antitrust laws. If we don't break up all these big tech companies, our future will be a technofeudalist cyberpunk dystopia.

Has the Apple situation really improved?

I'm probably out of the loop, but last I checked, to put an app somewhere that's not the official App Store, they required you to pay their hefty fee for putting it in the App Store (even if you weren't going to do that), _and_ an additional Core Technology Fee.

(And if that's still accurate, one thing I don't get is how that isn't also anti-competitive.)

Fast forward, and a few years from now, developers will have to sign their app with some EU bureau, otherwise it won't install anywhere. It's a choice about from whom come the restrictions. I don't like how much EU mandates and regulates hardware and software. It is about 20% helpful and 80% garbage regulations so far.

so Apple then? They require you to pay the $99 yearly fee to sideload for more than 7 days

>"PLEASE DRINK VERIFICATION CAN TO CONTINUE"

I suppose the question is, who is actually willing to believe Google is going to deal in Good Faith. Why would anyone ever even begin to think that?

> "That's just FURTHER PROOF that you're secretly trying to destroy my phone."

What a ridiculous strawman. I outlined a specific issue with what they introduced. To make it even more clear - the new flow Google created would work just the same with just the 24 hour delay, but the way how they introduced the "For how long should you be able to install apps?" question comes out of left field and suddenly makes you think about timing. Why would they ask you that? After all, you jumped through a sufficient number of hoops for Google, they probably estimated that anyone who has gone that far out of their way should know what they're doing. So why ask a developer or power user about the duration when this feature works? The very unsubtle hint here is that the question is asked because soon enough, 'Forever' will not be an option anymore. It's a very common tactic - restrictions start light, and then are ratcheted up into a nagging reminder that works to dissuade everyone but the most dedicated.

> You understand there's a real goal being pursued here, right? Suppose Google is dealing in good faith.

I do. But why are you so implicitly adamant that the only goals here are good, noble, moral goals? Google will do everything in its interests, regardless of how good or bad it is for people. Decreasing the vectors of attack on their platform is profitable for them, and it also coincides with the public interest of not getting hacked. But ensuring that other brands, OEMs or developers can't interfere with them building an app distribution monopoly is also good for them. Being the sole arbiters of what goes on the devices that have now become mandatory for participating in society is extremely good for them. Do you think they're only pursuing the first one of the three?

> How should they solve it differently?

You're not going to like the answer, but there's no clean, perfect solution that balances everyone's interests. Companies are pushing the safety angle in pursuit of the three interests I listed above. You can see just how much it ramped up in the last few years, even though we've been living under this status quo for decades. But it's not as simple as turning devices into grandma-phones with approved functionality only, because both extremes have big drawbacks. If you have 90s-style insecure fully-privileged computing for everyone, that's a path towards extremely unsafe and vulnerable systems, worked on by people who don't know what they're doing. If you have full lock-down, you're awarding current market leaders with an endless reign of power by insulating them from competition and giving them more control over users. The way we were doing things before this crackdown was striking a good balance of keeping most grandmas out while not choking the abilities of the hobbyists or third-party app distributors too much. If you want an alternative, an ADB flag that you have to change once through a command prompt would've been good too.

Do you think regular desktop computer should be locked down like this too? Scammers can also tell people to run Windows programs. Should that be banned too?

I'm fine with an opt-in lock-down feature so people can do it for their parents/grandparents/children.

Also, just let people get used to it. People will get burned, then tell their friends and they will then know not to simply follow what a stranger guides them to do over the phone. Maybe they will actually have second thoughts about what personal data they enter on their phone and when and where and who it may be sent to.

Same as with emails telling you to buy gift cards at the gas station. Should the clerk tell people to come back tomorrow if they want to buy a gift card, just in case they are being "guided" by a Nigerian prince scammer?

Let's say I'm sitting outside of your office with a bazooka and boxes of high explosives. You ask my why, and I say, "someone might try to rob this office." You say, "somehow, that does not persuade me that a stranger should loiter outside of my workplace with a massive stockpile of ordinance." I reply, "what's your solution to combat robberies?"

'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin

Would you support Microsoft doing the same thing to Windows?

These are general purpose computing devices. It's sure taking a long time, but Cory Doctorow's talk on the war on general purpose computing is sure starting to become a depressing reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

All apps should be open source and subject to verification by nonprofit repositories like F-Droid which have scary warnings on software that does undesirable things. For-profit appstores like Google and Apple that allow closed source software are too friendly to scams and malware.

Not the parent or agreeing/disagreeing with them, but to your question: if you get creative, there are a lot of things you could do, some more unorthodox than others.

Tongue-in-cheek example, just to get the point across: instead of calling it Developer Mode, call it "Scam mode (dangerous)". Require pressing a button that says "Someone might be scamming me right now." Then require the user to type (not paste) in a long sentence like "STOP! DO NOT CONTINUE IF SOMEONE IS TELLING YOU TO DO THIS! THIS IS A SCAM!"... you get the idea. Maybe ask them to type in some Linux command with special symbols to find the contents of some file with a random name. Then require a reboot for good measure and maybe require typing in another bit of text like "If a stranger told me to do this, it's a scam." Basically, make it as ridiculous and obnoxious as possible so that the message gets across loud and clear to anybody who doesn't know what they're doing.

I'm going to break your kneecaps. Oh, what's that? You don't like it? Well, what's your solution to P=NP?

If cooldowns work, put them on granting permissions.

There are just as many scam apps in play store and this system does nothing to help with those.

If I proposed putting mandatory cameras in all homes and you objected, would it then be fair for me to demand that you justify your position by proposing a better alternative to combat domestic violence?

Locking down computing is just fundamentally wrong and leads to an unfree society.

The choice is not between "individuals are on their own against scammers" and "users are locked into Google vetting their phone". Users should be able to choose another organisation to do the vetting. They bought a phone, they didn't sell their life to Google.

Tell the unsophisticated users that they would be safer inside the ecosystem that has always been a walled garden.

Why destroy the ecosystem that gives you the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot?

Turning Android into another walled garden removes user choice from the equation.

So there's no scamming happening in Apple's fully walled garden, "Only approved apps allowed" system, right?

https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-imper...

Oh, turns out they just let you pretend to be the real company to sell your scam app.

What a load of good that "Approval" process does.

Enable unknown sources in developer options, have the user type out in order to proceed "If I am typing this and don't know what I am doing, I am likely being scammed".

I suppose you could make the cooldown apply to the actual installed app. Like... when it's first installed it won't work for 24 hours and the clock doesn't start until you reboot. And then on boot it scares you again before starting the clock. And then "scares" you again after the cooldown.

Force the phones to be open so I can install my own OS on them.

Then Google can do whatever they want with their OS and I can do what I need with mine. You might actually get phone OS competition. This is what the walled garden is actually meant to prevent.

China just executed couple of them that operated in Myanmar. Since we are hurling towards the bad parts in their dystopia anyway, why not also get the good ones?

Like the ones constantly advertising across Google's plethora of platforms without any repercussions or possibility of recourse with Google? For my safety, of course.

Education is the only solution to this.

You can’t feasibly protect someone that believes the person on the phone is their family member or the chief of police.

This kind of thing has to be verified like how they try drugs. Just randomly doing things will surely be useless, similar to how randomly optimizing parts of a program is generally worthless.

Are scammers using sideloaded apps when they can use whatever remote connexion the apps in the store allow ?

I think a big warning in red "Warning :If you don't personally know the person asking you to install this app, you are getting scammed. No legitimate business or Institution will ask you to install this app"

We need to remove the play store from Android phones. People have been scammed there more than any other store.

"Warning: if someone is talking to you and walking you through this screen, you may be being scammed!"

Done.

As if Google Play itself isn't a cesspool full of scammers, or Google ads, or Youtube. As long as Google get their cut they don't give a shit about scams. For a reality check, turn off your adblockers and you'll see how much Google profits from scams. Any solution to scamming can't involve Google, since they long have been a willing tool for scammers.

Pretending that this is about anything but Google's greed is giving them far too much credit.

Something called personal responsibility and intelligence.

...which clearly companies don't want, because complacent mindless idiots are easier to brainwash, control, and milk.

But this has nothing to do with combating scammers in the first place, have you never used the play store before? It's overwhelmingly scam apps with the most intrusive ad/tracking shit imaginable. There are scammers openly buying sponsored search results for names of popular apps so their malicious app with similar name appears as the first result.

> what's your solution to combat scammers?

I'd wipe the Play Store off the face of the earth. Have you looked at the garbage on there that Google considers legit?

This: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47447600

is is the shit people are exposed to when they go through the Play Store. You don't find that on F-droid.

The second thing I'd do to combat scammers is the same thing I'd do to combat child porn and disinformation: educate people. This silly process is a technical answer to a social problem, and those rarely work well.

Arrest the scammers

I wonder how this will help combat scammers. Do you really think they don’t have $25 for a fee?

Furthermore, this verification system also functions as a US sanction mechanism—one that can be triggered against any entity the US decides to ban.

education

Don't install crap on your phone

[flagged]