The next Telegram update not being available in the PlayStore yet has nothing to do with the app listing that permission in its manifest. I’m not entirely sure about what this article is trying to imply though: is it trying to say that Telegram has decided to leave that runtime permission there so Google will purge third-party forks from the PlayStore? Is it implying that Telegram’s trying to push Google to remove their app from the store so they can blame it and use it as a marketing selling point? Is it simply blaming Telegram for not complying with Google’s best practices, eventually leading to some controversies with Google? Telegram for Android’s codebase is well known to be a mess developed by a couple of people who apparently are the only ones who can properly navigate that giant amount of code, I’m not surprised at all that there’s leftovers of storage APIs meant to be used on old android versions. That’s what happens when you self-impose yourself monthly deadlines for major updates. So, to me, this looks like an example of a developer improperly adapting their app to the relatively new scoped storage system. Which is a good reason to be pissed off at Telegram as a fork maintainer, but it has nothing to do with privacy. All other implications sound like conspiracies
I’m agree with you. The real reason is undercovered but it’s easy to perceive some kind of tension between Google and Telegram. I saw some discussion in the NekoX update chat group where some people said it was a privacy thing, claming for e2ee and things like that, but with e2ee it would be de-optimization of the telegram cloud and device sync. So i don’t know, i still consider telegram private, and if you are really into digital neutrality you should know there is a difference between privacy and anonymity. They said things like: telegram is crap and wants to fuck us because it hasn’t have options to log in without a phone number, but it would be certainly impractical.
The next Telegram update not being available in the PlayStore yet has nothing to do with the app listing that permission in its manifest. I’m not entirely sure about what this article is trying to imply though: is it trying to say that Telegram has decided to leave that runtime permission there so Google will purge third-party forks from the PlayStore? Is it implying that Telegram’s trying to push Google to remove their app from the store so they can blame it and use it as a marketing selling point? Is it simply blaming Telegram for not complying with Google’s best practices, eventually leading to some controversies with Google? Telegram for Android’s codebase is well known to be a mess developed by a couple of people who apparently are the only ones who can properly navigate that giant amount of code, I’m not surprised at all that there’s leftovers of storage APIs meant to be used on old android versions. That’s what happens when you self-impose yourself monthly deadlines for major updates. So, to me, this looks like an example of a developer improperly adapting their app to the relatively new scoped storage system. Which is a good reason to be pissed off at Telegram as a fork maintainer, but it has nothing to do with privacy. All other implications sound like conspiracies
I’m agree with you. The real reason is undercovered but it’s easy to perceive some kind of tension between Google and Telegram. I saw some discussion in the NekoX update chat group where some people said it was a privacy thing, claming for e2ee and things like that, but with e2ee it would be de-optimization of the telegram cloud and device sync. So i don’t know, i still consider telegram private, and if you are really into digital neutrality you should know there is a difference between privacy and anonymity. They said things like: telegram is crap and wants to fuck us because it hasn’t have options to log in without a phone number, but it would be certainly impractical.