I see people in the comments trying to justify this change because the apps need to request for permissions, but WHY exactly would google want to get rid of this info? What benefit does it bring to the user, if any?
If anything, it harms the user by preventing them from seeing what permissions apps will access in an easy to read format.
Why did google even decide to do this in the first place? My best guess is it makes users more likely to let an application access permissions after they've gone ahead and installed it, generating more ad $$$ in the process. But is there any other reason?
I know one long-running complaint about Android's permission system was that when you installed an app you were shown all of the permissions that are declared in the manifest, without any way for the developer to explain why they are used or when they would be applicable.
Permissions like READ_PHONE_STATE make it sound like the app wants to access every phone call you make, when all it really wants to do is pause your music when you answer a phone call.
The combination of runtime permissions for most things, and the de-emphasis of permissions in the Play Store has reduced this as a pain point.
It's also easier to introduce optional features - using things like contacts, location, or Bluetooth if the user wants to give permission at runtime.
> Permissions like READ_PHONE_STATE make it sound like the app wants to access every phone call you make, when all it really wants to do is pause your music when you answer a phone call.
true, but that can be solved with a bit more metadata from the developer (usage description) right?
If anything, it harms the user by preventing them from seeing what permissions apps will access in an easy to read format.
Why did google even decide to do this in the first place? My best guess is it makes users more likely to let an application access permissions after they've gone ahead and installed it, generating more ad $$$ in the process. But is there any other reason?