957
ICEBlock climbs to the top of the App Store charts after officials slam it (www.engadget.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is not true. https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3lt2prfb2vk2r

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well, who knows what is true and what not. I never knew that Push Notifications go via Apple, and not via the network operator. Definitely wrong is GraphenOS's claim that Android does not allow access to the device id. Of course it does. For what reason would the ID exist if it does not? No idea if you need it for a FB message/notification though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    who knows what is true and what not.

    Lots of people do.

    Definitely wrong is GraphenOS's claim that Android does not allow access to the device id.

    That's not what it says.

    No idea if you need it for a FB message/notification though.

    There has to be a way for Google/Apple to know which device to send the notif to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Which part? Are you saying they have made an android version?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The link in the comment you're replying to says which part is not true, but since you seem more willing to comment than to click a link and read, I'll summarize:

    The part about the Apple Push Notification service requiring less information that can identify an individual user than Google's Firebase Cloud Messaging is not true. Both use a similar token system. Furthermore, it is possible to build android apps with notifications that do not use FCM.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    they probably want to also make it as easy as possible for those who aren't technologically savvy or whose native language isn't english, though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Maybe they want that, but the statement on their website is not wrong on a technicality because it's oversimplified; it's wrong because it asserts a privacy difference between the two operating systems that does not exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    It's actually not possible to build a push service like FCM or APNS on Android and have it function at the same level as FCM. FCM has special permissions to bypass certain device states on the device to ensure message delivery that nothing else can match.

    The best you can do is approximate it with an always active websocket and a foreground service always running with battery optimizations disabled, but good luck not having that foreground service shut down on occasion as well. Devices are hostile to them for battery saving purposes. You'd have the best luck with a Pixel device though for something like that. You could also do some sort of scheduled background polling, but the device can be hostile to that as well, and it would eat more battery.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's true that FCM will result in more reliability and a better UX than other ways to implement notifications. Doing something else is still the right choice for certain use cases, such as those where privacy or keeping the entire codebase open source are top priorities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    Ya, for sure. My beef was just with people saying you can roll your own, but glossing over the reduced user experience and reliability if you do.

    With those trade offs it's absolutely doable and makes sense for certain situations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, I used web sockets for Signal for a while. It drained 30% of my battery when the phone sat idle for a day. Absolutely bonkers. Made the phone almost unusable so had to revert to FCM or disable notifications.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Ya, it can be brutal on battery.

    I worked on an app once where delivery was critical, so we gave them the option of the active service+websocket, but for them the trade off was acceptable.

    Pushes can be pretty flakey given all the shenanigans OEMs do on the device, even when marked as high priority correctly.

    And the even worse part is when OEMs reset battery saving flags the user had set to help pushes get through and they stop working one day because of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent