this was around 8:30 am... line was only about 10 people deep.
My principle complaint of the Android devices when I had one was that a simple OS update meant reinstalling all of my apps! Why in the world would someone allow that to be shipped?
Were you an early adopter? I did not need to do this on my HTC Incredible when moving from 2.0 to 2.2 (froyo). Of course, I did have to wait for HTC to release it.
My roommate went the other approach and installed it himself. Not sure what he ran into...
What's interesting is that if an Android app doesn't have permission an exception is raised, but you're taught to make sure to add the permission flag instead of catching the exception. (Which makes sense, because as it stands right now, if you don't set the flag you'll -never- get the permission). But if they had told you to catch the exceptions, applications would be ready for user-flippable permissions.
Exactly. Take Camera.open for instance. According to the javadocs...
RuntimeException if connection to the camera service fails (for example, if the camera is in use by another process).
What about a permission exception?!?!
No - instead they say - "If you want to use the camera, include this catch all crap!"
<uses-permission android:name="android.permission.CAMERA" / >
<uses-feature android:name="android.hardware.camera" / >
<uses-feature android:name="android.hardware.camera.autofocus" / >
That's been my biggest pet peeve so far in developing. It can turn into a "add permission until it works" game for lazy developers.
If a simple card game asks for fine-grain location information or full internet access, that should be a red flag to anyone paying attention.
Unless of course the card game advertises a global high score list. I haven't gone through all the Android permissions - but I think you'd have to grant it full internet access. This is where trust comes in to play...
Real programs don't eat cache.