• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle





  • Makes sense. The article calls it “unwarranted gatekeeping,” but they wouldn’t say that if they knew how Android internals work.

    Looking at the video demo for Circle to Search, it’s very likely they built this on top of ActionsServices, an Android component that enables extra interactions on top of the Recents switcher. This is already what’s being used to do things like OCR in the Recents switcher.

    Other non-Google ROMs use ActionsServices too, but their implementations vary, and they can’t just “tack on” something as complicated as this onto any vender implementation of ActionServices and expect it to work. They might not even have a vendor rollout plan for this thing yet, for all we know it was rushed out the door.

    Google has had a tight partnership with Samsung since the Pixel 6 came out, which is why it doesn’t surprise me that Samsung will be getting this feature first. Google can essentially boss Samsung around for little system things like this.

    The “for a long time” comment was probably due to Android 15 already being mostly final at this point. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were core changes to Android to allow more pluggable customizations to the Recents switcher in Android 16. That might enable Google to offer this feature to other vendors more cleanly (assuming the feature survives that long, which is doubtful).





  • The person you replied to is being downvoted, and yes, expecting support from Google is a meme, and Google deserves 100% of the negativity they’re receiving in this regard.

    But, in their defense, they have always kept their word on keeping Pixels updated, and in some cases, have added on an additional year of support when not originally planned, including an extra full Android update for older devices.

    So while they eventually kill every new software product they make, they’ve always kept their word on Pixel updates. I think the Pixel team has a lot more resources than the rest of Google, so I’m inclined to believe them for now, but I’ll be one of the first people grabbing a pitchfork if they don’t keep their word.






  • In this case, it sure does sound like abuse. Considering the careful wording, combined with the seemingly kneejerk reaction of requiring authentication, there was likely illegal activity going on:

    Earlier this year we saw an increase in the number of reports we received about some people using our service in ways that we cannot tolerate. To be more clear, this was not about some people merely saying things that others disliked.

    Over the past several months we tried multiple strategies in order to end the violations of our terms of service. However in the end, we determined that requiring authentication was a necessary step to continue operating meet.jit.si.

    It was a free, anonymous service that let people stream video and send messages. Consider for a moment if that “video” was actually non-video data encoded to be streamed through Jitsi and sent to another location. Or, consider if the video was video, but was so egregious and illegal, that Jitsi had to take action. It doesn’t take a lot of thinking to consider the kinds of activities could have been going on.