[levosmetalo]

Didn't install the app, but one look at the screenshot of the Fleksy in Playstore shows "earn coins as you type" feature. It also offers in app purchases, but didn't bother to install to check which.

I know many apps use coin system, but in many cases it's just a children manipulation.

[djsumdog]

I mean, it would be one thing if Google stated that as a reason. I really hate this in-app purchase model, and now being applied to something as stupid as a keyboard, something that can literally monitor all your data and send back your most common words to advertisers ... ugh.

I pre-ordered a Purism 5 from the next batch in anger a few weeks ago. I want off this Android/eyeProduct bullshit. I want full control of my mobile device again.

[osrec]

How would your ideal open-source smartphone ecosystem be structured?

Genuinely interested as I'm looking to explore this as a potential project myself with my team.

[ysavir]

* In app library, clear and upfront expectations of what permissions each app uses (as well as an explanation for each permission in the app creator's own words).

* In app library, ability to filter apps by permissions required

...... Specifically, I would want to be able to blacklist permission sets. Eg, search for Keyboard apps, but exclude any apps that require access to my contacts.

* Ability to pay for apps directly through those apps rather than having to go through the smartphone's software author.

...... Totally fine with the software having a default payment option in case I don't want to entrust a certain app with my payment info.

* An interface that lets me see logs of which URLs each app hits and what data it sent.

* An interface that lets me see which servers are sending data to my apps and what data is included.

"App Library" here representing the same sort of app as the Play Store, but looking to disassociate from the term "Store", as that model is not necessary.

Edit: Formatting sub-lists on HN isn't intuitive, apparently

[eitland]

This is the one I agree most with so I'll add mine here:

- network connectivity as a separate permission (no reason every app should be allowed network access)

- also, permissions systems everywhere need to get updated for this millennium. Some thoughts:

-- to read my photos is OK as long as they don't have direct network access.

-- but today every app has Internet access by default

-- and just because I trust an app to read my photos doesn't mean I should have to give it permission to delete photos

[fouc]

I would like finer grained control on photo permissions. Particularly I don't necessarily want to grant it access to ALL of my photos.

And in general, I would prefer most apps actually don't have any access to photos, the photo picker could be completely OS level and the app never actually has access.

[glennpratt]

This is possible and has been for a long time.

https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/providers/documen...

[cmroanirgo]

I'd go as far as requiring a statement of intent (soi) from developers requesting network access, describing the frequency and payload content and size. If the code doesn't match the soi then the app is crippled.

[djsumdog]

The same way my Gentoo and Void Linux boxes are .. except touch interfaces of search and install (like F-Droid) instead of emerge/xbps-install/apt-get/yum, etc. F-Droid also allows 3rd party repositories, just like other Linux package managers (and unlike Google/Apple/Microsoft).

I guess you could also have non-free repos and some kind of payment API (does Ubuntu/Snap do this?) but I really want to see if I can just write apps for the gaps I find when trying to use a PureOS or KDE Plasma device.

edit: see some comments on permissions. Honestly I've not looked into this space very much. I assume there might need to be some cgroup isolation that can be used to lock off hardware and filesystems, similar to containers (not sure if Snap/Flatpak use cgroups).

I suppose malicious code could get in and spy on you, but we've got the same concerns on Linux desktops and official package repos. I don't know exactly ... there's a lot to think about there.

[deftnerd]

Flat subscription of $10 a month for the app store. Once a month, your phone tells the store what percentage of time you spend in apps from that store. Firefox has 40% of your time? They get $4.

[dessant]

Wouldn't that encourage developers to create more addictive apps, add longer UI animations, and apply other tricks to increase usage time? Valuable apps that require only short interactions would certainly suffer under this scheme.

Just letting developers get paid without taking a 30 percent cut, or not banning open source apps for including a Patreon link [1] would be a great start.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389

[mattnewton]

Smartphones aren't Netflix though- I use my phone primarily to get things done and not just entertain myself. I don't want app developers to get paid more of my share if their app takes longer to perform a task, or my browser to get more money for pushing feed like "engagement features" encouraging a Reddit habit over performance changes that could cost them money but make my experience better.

[yoz-y]

That is a non starter for many apps that one uses rarely but provide high value. For example delivery tracking, sftp apps, vpn apps (only used while traveling). How would widgets work? Are they on all the time or never. Ideal app to make would be a launcher because you must use that all the time, but then do they deserve more than the app you use to do your job?

I don't think that any financial model can fit all usages. Except, of course, paid up front with paid upgrades (and a subscription if there is a cloud component). But that ship has sailed.

[matwood]

That is effectively what Apple introduced with the Apple Arcade and what Google followed up with.

[m4rtink]

Can't we just mirror a regular Linux distro model ? Or possibly a Enterprise Linux model where you pay a subscription and obtain bug fixes, stability gurantees & support.

[LocalH]

Then they wouldn't be able to move closer to a world where general-purpose computing is not the norm.

That's the real issue with computing nowadays, this desire to lock everything down. You see it with DRM, you see it with walled gardens, you see it with almost everything nowadays.

I fear that a world like the one described in "The Right to Read" [0] is closer than ever.

0: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html (yes, I know it's Stallman, but even he was right on a few things, as disgusting as he was in a lot of other things. Stopped clock right twice a day, etc)

[grawprog]

But the problem with general purpose computing is that it's probably one of the most powerful, equalizing things humanity has ever created. This is probably the first time in history the power to create, acquire knowledge, and become self sustainable has been so cheaply and readily available to the average person. It gives a lot of power to them where historically this hasn't been the case. This is less than ideal for those in power and I think it's just taken a while for them to really catch on to what the average person with a general purpose computer can actually accomplish. It makes me worry that this has just been a brief historical anomaly. But, it could still go either way at this point.

[duxup]

If that is the reason they should probabbly do a better job of telling them (granted it's Google, they're terrible about communication in this way).

I think that is a valid reason, but it should be clear that is the reason.

[Bartweiss]

It's worse than unclear - the Google Play team specifically cited objectionable emoji, and included a screenshot of the emoji which is also found in lower-rated Gboard. It seems like Google actually made this decision clearer than most, and it was explicitly about the hypocritical part.

[daturkel]

I've used Fleksy for over a year and wasn't aware of that feature. The in-app purchases are themes which I don't need. If you don't open the settings, you would never know these upsells existed. It's a great keyboard and you shouldn't be put off by the IAPs—they're completely optional.

[whack]

This is classic whataboutism. We shouldn't be excusing monopolist behavior because the victim "deserves" to be punished for some wholly unrelated offense.