Since they don't want to present the user with a system UI to pick a contact. They want direct bulk access via the Contacts permission and their own UI. Ideally, they'd provide the alternative way of doing it when the user rejects the permission, but right now no one does that.
Conversation
Replying to
For example, many apps want the Camera permission so they can implement real-time display of filters, etc. and they can show it below the chat rather than having it take up the full screen. However, when the user rejects the permission they could still use the standard camera UI.
1
Replying to
Do they? No, they'll spam the request for the permission when you try to do it, or even worse they'll demand it upon opening the app and will refuse to have it work at all without it. They are supposed to implement alternatives, but they don't. The future is removing permissions.
1
Replying to
Even if only most popular apps acted decently, users would be in a position to handle this better, but it's not what happens. The model doesn't work, and instead the OS will need to keep removing access with the only way of doing things being asking for user consent each time.
1
Replying to
Want to save a file to shared storage that will persist past app uninstall? You'll need to open up the system file save UI with a suggested name / location and the user will be able to change the name and put it where they want. They could also decide to not save it at all.
1
Replying to
Same goes for reading a file. That's the most drastic change in Android Q. Allowing location access without allowing it in the background is being presented as the largest change, but I think that's because the media is misunderstanding external storage. It means app external.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
More accurately, being able to do this without a real permission is being removed. Install permissions aren't user facing and are primarily for accurate static analysis of apps. It wasn't an appropriate way to expose the functional and definitely should be removed.
1
Replying to
It's totally inappropriate for any app to be able to mess with Wi-Fi configuration / state via under the hood install permissions that are not granted by the user. Every install permission providing access to anything at all sensitive/disruptive should be disabled, and most are.
Replying to
There's Settings -> Apps & notifications -> Special app access -> Wi-Fi control, so they could make that into an opt-in menu instead of the current broken opt-out design, if there's a compelling reason to keep it. Base OS already has location-based 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically'.