Ubiquitous apps are generally done by developers that are well known or have proven themselves. If, however, I felt the app had serious issues I wouldn't download it. Tell me, are you one of those idiots that downloads any executable from a friend's email and runs it? Because you should use your brain and decide for yourself if an app is safe. But then I bet you're one of those people who bitches about Facebook violating your privacy, but you still use it because your friends do.

Put another, simple, easy way that even a moron can understand: Don't install applications that request more permissions then you wish to give. I should not, as a developer, be expected to cater to 200+ million people's unique permission requirements. Don't install my app if you don't want to give it permissions. Look how simple, easy, and clean that was.

Oh look, Android apps have to ask permission to access contacts -- you can choose not to install the app and LOOK AT THAT, the app is blocked from getting your contacts.

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly helpless iPhone users are, even better is how iPhone users who seem to love bashing Android can't seem to grasp something as simple as "If you don't want an app to access your contacts you shouldn't install the fucking app."

http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html#READ_CONTACTS

My question is why are you installing apps from developers you don't trust? Do you really trust your holy god Apple to not make any mistakes and there not be any sort of exploit that a developer can use to bypass the permissions system? If you don't trust the developer don't install the app to begin with. It's a dumbass security practice to install a virus on a computer, even if that machine is locked down...why do you insist on doing it with an iPhone?

> and that there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Yes there is, the program requires the access or it doesn't work. You tell the user what your program requires.

You're one of those dumbass programmers who designs Windows applications that require Administrator access to run, aren't you?

If Administrative privileges are required, yes. You don't write software much, do you? You're also rude..maybe this is why no one has taught you the basics.

> If accepting the inevitable reality that the user is going to decide what happens on his own device is a nightmare for you as a developer, then go find some other line of work. The world will be better off without your malware.

This is hardly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if your application requires certain rights then the end-user shouldn't pick and a choose what ones they want you to have. Why? Because end-users are stupid. My app might require use of text message to, for example, send text messages because it's a text messaging application. If Stupid End User thinks "ZOMG TEXT MESSAGING " and denies my application those rights then how do you expect my application to install?

You can't, but SEU doesn't understand this and leaves my app with a bad review. It's not malware because I, the developer, know what my application needs to run. Your responsibility as the user is to decide "Gee...do I want to give him all of the rights necessary for his app to run, if not I'll find a different app"...not "MESSAGE TEH DEVELOPER AND DOWNVOTE HIS APP BECAUSE IT NEEDS DATA TO WORK AND I DENIED DATA BECAUSE HUURRRR MALEWARES".

It's not a difficult concept and it's hardly malicious. Android lets you review the permissions an app says it needs before you install it...I'm proposing that if you don't want to grant the privileges that the app says it needs, then don't install the app. It's retarded to try and develop an application where some of the stuff my application needs may not be available.

I *STILL* cannot see why iPhone users can't take responsibility. You rely on the OS to protect you and Apple has shown that it CAN be fooled, that exploits CAN be written for the iPhone and approved through the store. I'm not stupid and I'm not going to download some ubiquitous app from a vendor I've not heard of or trust. iPhone users who make this argument are like people driving cars who refuse to learn the laws of the road...they shouldn't be driving and you shouldn't be using technology you don't understand. Especially when that technology has the ability to do things like run up huge bills.

> Certainly you can go without, but why am I forced to let your app do whatever it wants on my device? Yeah, it's your copyrighted app, but it's not like I'm agreeing to install a GPS in my tablet, turn it on and ensure I have signal. So why can't I simply deny access to the GPS? Because that's like expecting Windows to work on a device that you, post-installation, ripped out the keyboard, graphics card, network card, HDD, 1/2 the RAM, and set the registry to only allow access to only one of the Hives, but you left the mouse. As a programmer, I design my application to do SOMETHING bearing in mind that I should have certain hardware and permissions to the OS. If you feel you can't trust my application then don't install it. It becomes a support nightmare and a functionality nightmare and a programming nightmare to try and code around every single user's specific desires as to what hardware/permissions I should access. It's a bad thing through and through -- the better approach is to have a special review process wherein you submit your source code/materials to Google, they review it, you pay a fee, and if everything is deemed safe, you get a "Google Trust Developer" type certification.

Not necessarily. A poorly coded app that needs to use the GPS and crashes if you deny the permission is different than a well coded app that doesn't crash when you try to use the GPS and continues running. Google is most likely saying that they haven't figured out a GOOD way to prevent apps from just exploding when a permission that they expect to have is denied. Personally it doesn't make much sense for an end-user to retroactively deny permissions. You should review them up front and say up front...if my app requires specific GPS coordinates to work and you randomly decide to stop giving me permissions then there's a chance you'll get all pissy because the app stops working as intended. If I tell you my app needs X permissions then I should get X permissions or you shouldn't install my app. There's a reason I asked for them (regardless of legitimate or illegitimate reasons -- install apps from those you trust).

That's a bit of a misnomer. You can get fined for the cost of the damages if you destroy the property of someone else. You were attempting to twist what was a metaphoric comparison into a literal statement. Do you not understand the concept of an "example"?

So, if I kick in your door or smash your windows getting into your house, I shouldn't be charged damaged, because you should've bough bullet proof glass and had iron doors on special hinges with an all steel frame? What if I run into your car, shouldn't you just pay the damage because your car's materials weren't strong enough to handle the impact?

No, your right to drive is a privilege.

So you're proposing to pay for the increases in health insurance I've had to pay for over the last 10 years? By my approximation you owe me an additional $50,000 plus interest. So were you going to pay with cash, gold, silver, cashier's check, or money order?

Sounds like an over-exaggeration of what the health care law was designed to do. Personally, as a young male, I'm tired of paying for old people to go to the doctors who don't have insurance. There are plenty of elderly and middle aged Americans who have no insurance, yet they still seem to feel that "entitlement" right to life shit. I personally don't care if someone is on the brink of death, if they can't pay, it's best to let them slip painfully (sorry, no painkillers, because those cost money too) into whatever post-life system they believe in.

I mean, that's the view you're pushing, correct? Because when some bum of a 40 year guy shows up to the ER having a heart attack and has no insurance, that hospital is going to push the costs to my insurance company which causes my rates to rise. As a young male I'm not plagued with the problems of old fucks and I shouldn't have to pay extra because middle aged and elderly people tend to die off...it's not my problem.

The problem has nothing to do with the FDA trying to regulate how you think. It has everything to do with asking 23andme to provide documentation, which can be checked, that shows that the test is accurate to a respectable degree and the method(s) used in calculating that accuracy.

To play devil's advocate -- that test may cost you your life, because it's not accurate. There's no proof either way and the FDA is simply doing the reasonable thing, presumably, until said proof is submitted.

Oops -- should say "find", not fine.

The difference is that with the black market one could fine oneself without need of a mortgage as one will have their housing provided by a state or federal penitentiary.

OSX doesn't really have that much market share. It's lost market share in the mobile space and I suspect that average consumers won't keep buying over-priced junk (brushed aluminium and proprietary connectors people don't use are not features).