zlacker

>>openge+(OP)
From the (current) final comment at https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing-android/issues/2064

> Nothing came of the discussions with google. Demands by Google for changes to get the permission granted were vague, which makes it both arduous to figure out how to address them and very unclear if whatever I do will actually lead to success. Then more unrelated work to stay on play came up (dev. verification, target API level), which among other influences finally made me realize I don't have the motivation or time anymore to play this game.

>>jasonj+25
I don't think Google was ever buy a "I don't want to use file APIs because writing the code would be hard." excuse for a security issue. I don't know what kind of exact "discussions" were possible here for "give me access to all user data, photos and everything because I don't think I want to use SAF APIs". It's like that dude in your company that will have a meltdown in PRs over his better way instead of fixing the comments and having code submitted.

Apple won't let you write into random directories past their APIs either, just because it would be too hard to use ObjC/Swift.

>>izacus+vb
There's going to be loud, destructive friction when a 10-15 year old platform reduces the functionality available to its apps. Security models do need to evolve, but Android was introduced as a platform suitable for deep personal customization with few mandatory boundaries.

This was a competitive distinction against Apple's closed "safety first" platform design in iOS and led to an ecosystem of applications that took advantage of all these extra possibilities. As Google tightens its grip over the platform and pursues more aggressive limitations for security reasons (and whatever other ones), it's inevitable that many publishers and users are going to be deeply frustrated when the features that made their device theirs are no longer available.

(And incidentally, the restrictions on the Apple side have nothing to do with the application development language. I don't know where you would get that idea from or how to even make sense of it. It's just the nature of Apple's original design philosophy for iOS, where apps were deeply isolated and had no more capabilities than were necessary. Largely, Apple has been gradually adding capabilities to heavily-restricted apps over the lifetime of iOS, while Google has been moving in the opposite direction because they each started from opposite ends of the design space.)

>>swatco+Ao
Android is fine. There are many, many complaint syncing applications in the wild that use the sanctioned APIs.

The truth is Syncthing doesn’t have the resources to keep up with Android platform changes and Google’s review process.

>>fny+7D
Correct. A big part of the issue here is that Syncthing's Android app is more of a wrapper over the desktop app than an actual native Android implementation, so a lot of the code assumes the availability of certain features (like full filesystem access, and the ability to run continuously in the background[1]) that are suboptimal to have on a modern mobile OS.

Android has been pushing to restrict the usage of such features for a while. It sounds like now they finally pushed hard enough that Syncthing broke.

As a longtime Syncthing user I'm personally fine with this. I think its fair for Google to demand a certain minimum bar of polish for apps on the Play Store. I'll continue to use Syncthing on F-Droid so long as its feature set continues to make it superior to those more polished alternatives. Hopefully the absence of Syncthing on the Play Store will create an opportunity for another file syncing app to fill that void, or incentivize contributors to eventually bring Syncthing up to snuff to get back on the Play Store. (Or possibly, incentivize Google to develop tools to make it easier for low-budget apps like Syncthing to meet their quality standards.)

[1]: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing-android/issues/1048#i...