On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
They are not facts, they are opinions
I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions.
You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts.
I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before
stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being
written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one.
Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect
information.
[ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ]
As you are new to the group, I should add some info.
Thanks!,
I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single
matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed
here in depth with several participants and we reached some
conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it
again.
Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often:
I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to
disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has
anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being
exceptionally rude to friends & family.
is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in
the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie,
that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It
is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data
protection laws.
And I refuse to argue why again.
As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the
reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the
same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give
them mail addresses to spam to no end.
But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not
crossing, at least not for the time being...
On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
They are not facts, they are opinions
I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions.
You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts.
I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before
stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one.
Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>>> information.
[ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ]
As you are new to the group, I should add some info.
Thanks!,
I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single
matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed
here in depth with several participants and we reached some
conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it
again.
Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often:
I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to
disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has
anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being
exceptionally rude to friends & family.
is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in
the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie,
that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It
is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data
protection laws.
And I refuse to argue why again.
Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends,
family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes
that Google treats this as public information and that they can do
anything they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that
simply doesn't happen. In the EU where I live that is protected
information and Google would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being
rude by storing contact information in the contact app.
And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to
their own servers and make free use of it.
If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-)
--As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the
reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the
same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give
them mail addresses to spam to no end.
But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not
crossing, at least not for the time being...
...
On 2026-09-06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before >>>>> stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>>>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one.
They are not facts, they are opinions
I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions.
You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. >>>>>
Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>>>> information.
[ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ]
As you are new to the group, I should add some info.
Thanks!,
I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single
matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed
here in depth with several participants and we reached some
conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it
again.
Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often:
I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to
disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has
anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being
exceptionally rude to friends & family.
is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in
the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie,
that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It >>>> is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data
protection laws.
And I refuse to argue why again.
Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts
application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends,
family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes
that Google treats this as public information and that they can do
anything they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that
simply doesn't happen. In the EU where I live that is protected
information and Google would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being
rude by storing contact information in the contact app.
And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to
their own servers and make free use of it.
If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-)
I think the core point of the criticism is that, outside a few features/constructs, like what's upcoming for Android 17, or the
protected storage already present in 15, other applications with
Contacts permission can technically do "whatever" they want, and so it'd depend on these applications too, not just the maker of the contacts application in use.
(Yes, it'd imply a fine and probably other penalties in any sane jurisdiction, but the damage would be done by then.)
So yeah, it'd have to be something intentionally evil and illegal in developed countries.
(But yeah, I think I've understood.)
As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the
reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the
same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give
them mail addresses to spam to no end.
But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not
crossing, at least not for the time being...
...
Because AFAIK Carlos isn't using a script or chain of utilites to post,
but a self-contained MUA/NUA, and at the time I only noticed the pattern
in your posts. Had I seen the bigger picture, I'd not have asked any
question at all, because then there'd be no question to ask. The
question, again, wasn't why are you posting multiple times, the question
- only a question because I didn't want to assume that was the problem
so added a question mark - was if your posting script/workflow was
faltering somehow.
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:12:24 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Because AFAIK Carlos isn't using a script or chain of utilites to post,
but a self-contained MUA/NUA, and at the time I only noticed the pattern
in your posts. Had I seen the bigger picture, I'd not have asked any >>question at all, because then there'd be no question to ask. The
question, again, wasn't why are you posting multiple times, the question
- only a question because I didn't want to assume that was the problem
so added a question mark - was if your posting script/workflow was >>faltering somehow.
Just got here. What's a MUA/NUA?
On 2026-09-08, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 04 Sep 2026 13:12:24 +0100, Nuno Silva >><nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Because AFAIK Carlos isn't using a script or chain of utilites to post, >>>but a self-contained MUA/NUA, and at the time I only noticed the pattern >>>in your posts. Had I seen the bigger picture, I'd not have asked any >>>question at all, because then there'd be no question to ask. The >>>question, again, wasn't why are you posting multiple times, the question >>>- only a question because I didn't want to assume that was the problem
so added a question mark - was if your posting script/workflow was >>>faltering somehow.
Just got here. What's a MUA/NUA?
Mail User Agenet
News User Agent
i.e. the program you use to read and write mail/news.
You have to troll, to actually be accused of trolling.
That's logic, right?
On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
They are not facts, they are opinions
I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions.
You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts.
I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before
stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one.
Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>>> information.
[ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ]
As you are new to the group, I should add some info.
Thanks!,
I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single
matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed
here in depth with several participants and we reached some
conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it
again.
Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often:
I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to
disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has
anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being
exceptionally rude to friends & family.
is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in
the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie,
that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It
is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data
protection laws.
And I refuse to argue why again.
Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts >application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends,
family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes that >Google treats this as public information and that they can do anything
they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that simply doesn't >happen. In the EU where I live that is protected information and Google >would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being rude by storing contact >information in the contact app.
And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
their own servers and make free use of it.
If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-)
As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the
reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the
same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give
them mail addresses to spam to no end.
But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not
crossing, at least not for the time being...
...
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
[...]
The WA number is always the real phone number. However, since recently
you can define an alias and use that instead.
I know what you mean, but as Micky also mentioned, the WhatsApp number
is *a* real phone number. It doesn't have to be the phone number of the
phone WhatsApp is running on.
Your WhatsApp number is an *identification* number, which, in normally
most cases, is *also* *a* telephone number.
Micky already gave an example where the phone is in an other country
and has (only) a foreign SIM with a different phone number. In that
case, WhatsApp still uses your 'home' 'phone' number.
Another example: WhatsApp works perfectly fine on a Wi-Fi-only--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
SIM-less tablet (or phone), provided that during setup, you have given >WhatsApp *a* phone number which belongs to you. In the old days, such a
phone number could even be a landline (non-mobile) number (That was our
very first setup.). These days, that's only available for business
acounts.
[...]
In comp.mobile.android, on 1 Sep 2026 14:37:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
[...]
The WA number is always the real phone number. However, since recently
you can define an alias and use that instead.
I know what you mean, but as Micky also mentioned, the WhatsApp number
is *a* real phone number. It doesn't have to be the phone number of the
phone WhatsApp is running on.
Your WhatsApp number is an *identification* number, which, in normally
most cases, is *also* *a* telephone number.
Micky already gave an example where the phone is in an other country
and has (only) a foreign SIM with a different phone number. In that
case, WhatsApp still uses your 'home' 'phone' number.
It's been several years but I think I can elaborate on what I said in
the first place . I think when I got Whatsapp I was already using a
foreign SIM , and when I got home and went back to my normal phone
number the Whatsapp number and the Phone number didn't match .
Eventually I thought this was too confusing for me , and I found that
you can change your Whatsapp number by going into the Whatsapp settings
and clicking on the place where it displays your number . I didn't
realize that was a data entry field . I thought it was a heading . So I changed it to my home cell phone number, and of course it accepted that
. I don't know if there's any validation involved and I could have just
given it any old number , maybe not but why would I want to do that ?
So this left me still confused because I can't remember what my--
Whatsapp number is some of the time even though it's my USA cell phone
number and I live in the USA.That is, I can't remember that it's my USA
cell phone number . LOL
Another example: WhatsApp works perfectly fine on a Wi-Fi-only
SIM-less tablet (or phone), provided that during setup, you have given
WhatsApp *a* phone number which belongs to you. In the old days, such a
phone number could even be a landline (non-mobile) number (That was our
very first setup.). These days, that's only available for business
acounts.
[...]
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 6 Sep 2026 13:59:34 +0200, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-09-06 11:17, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-03 12:55, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before >>>>> stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being >>>>> written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one.
They are not facts, they are opinions
I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions.
You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts. >>>>>
Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect >>>>> information.
[ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ]
As you are new to the group, I should add some info.
Thanks!,
I refuse to answer Arlen requests for "facts" because the single
matter that I posted about that started this browhaha was discussed
here in depth with several participants and we reached some
conclusions (which Arlen refuses to accept). I refuse to go over it
again.
Namely, that this statement of Arlen, which he repeats often:
I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to
disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has
anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being
exceptionally rude to friends & family.
is false and not accepted. He is basically saying that everybody in
the world is being rude for merely using the Google Contacts app (ie,
that Google has access to our contact database and uses that data). It >>>> is specially not true for people living in the EU with our data
protection laws.
And I refuse to argue why again.
Just to clarify, in case it is not clear. I use the Google Contacts
application, which is installed by default. I add all my friends,
If one did not use the app , it would be hard to function , would it
not? What would have to type in every number , one would have to
memorize everybody's phone number , one would have to or one would have
to copy and paste it from some list he kept on his own .
Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to contacts
my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They were both
called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a silhouette
from the front in blue and the only difference was that one was a
lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this? I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps. That would really be confusing.
--family, people I barely know, professionals, etc, to it. He assumes that
Google treats this as public information and that they can do anything
they wish with it. Like spamming my friends. Well, that simply doesn't
happen. In the EU where I live that is protected information and Google
would get a monster fine. Thus, I'm not being rude by storing contact
information in the contact app.
Even in the USA, I haven't noticed any of this .
And other applications can not just copy the information and upload to
their own servers and make free use of it.
If you already understood, forgive my blurb :-)
As I've commented elsewhere in the thread: I think I understand the
reasoning behind this and I think I can agree to *some extent*, in the
same way that several years ago people joining e.g. LinkedIn would give
them mail addresses to spam to no end.
But from that to "being exceptionally rude" goes a distance I'm not
crossing, at least not for the time being...
...
Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to
contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They
were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that
one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this?
I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps.
That would really be confusing.
Nuno Silva wrote:
At this point I feel that
1) More detail or context would be necessary to explain why Carlos has
responded like that (seemed to be about past conversations), and
2) More detail would also be needed to understand why are you already
designating this "trolling".
Please see this less of a request for comment and more as an assessment
of somebody who is puzzled by how the conversation came to this so
quickly. It *is* true I've not been subscribing to this group for long,
though... ideally I'd just go with the
"read [...] for one to two months before you post anything"
prescribed in RFC 1855, extended to a longer period, but this seems to
involve two people who are otherwise regular posters in productive
threads here and one of them in other groups I've been in for longer.
Hi Nuno,
Carlos is trolling.
The facts prove it.
It's really simple, and we've dealt with it on the Apple newsgroups forever since they own purely religious belief systems, which can't be defended.
mo Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Nuno Silva wrote:
At this point I feel that
1) More detail or context would be necessary to explain why Carlos has
responded like that (seemed to be about past conversations), and
2) More detail would also be needed to understand why are you already
designating this "trolling".
Please see this less of a request for comment and more as an assessment
of somebody who is puzzled by how the conversation came to this so
quickly. It *is* true I've not been subscribing to this group for long,
though... ideally I'd just go with the
"read [...] for one to two months before you post anything"
prescribed in RFC 1855, extended to a longer period, but this seems to
involve two people who are otherwise regular posters in productive
threads here and one of them in other groups I've been in for longer.
Hi Nuno,
Carlos is trolling.
The facts prove it.
It's really simple, and we've dealt with it on the Apple newsgroups forever >> since they own purely religious belief systems, which can't be defended.
That cannot be true. Carlos doesn't own Apple kit AFAIK and is not a
regular on any Apple ngs. He occasional comments on cross-posted threads.
I suspect Arlen/Maria/Donald/whatever is confusing Carlos for me. I do regularly post on Apple ngs and I do challenge Arlen often for his opinions-dressed-as-facts plus he has in the past called me Carlos. He
often refers to me as a troll simply because he doesn't like his "facts" being held to account. But then I'm not unique he regularly calls people trolls for no reason whatsoever.
Arlen holds grudges which spill over across threads and ngs. Which is funny when he mistakes who he's holding a grudge against and why.
On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote:
Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to
contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They
were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a
silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that
one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this?
The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a Verizon
app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who makes it but
gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a clue?
I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps.
That would really be confusing.
On my Android tablets I've installed the Google contacts app from the
Google Play Store. It's version 4.86.23 (plus 9 more numbers) so doesn't appear to be related to the version number of the Verizon app. But the
Google Contacts apps on my tablets all sync and work just fine with my phone's Verizon Contacts app.
I've decided to leave well enough alone and not try to put the current
Google Contacts app on my phone as long as the installed Verizon version keeps working. That and the fact that the 'Phone' app also claims to be Verizon and its info screen shows the exact same version number
(13.1.30.10) as the Contact app info screen leading me to believe that
it might be wise that they be used together?
On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote:
Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to
contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They
were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a
silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that
one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this?
The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a Verizon
app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who makes it but
gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a clue?
I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps.
That would really be confusing.
On my Android tablets I've installed the Google contacts app from the
Google Play Store. It's version 4.86.23 (plus 9 more numbers) so doesn't appear to be related to the version number of the Verizon app. But the
Google Contacts apps on my tablets all sync and work just fine with my phone's Verizon Contacts app.
I've decided to leave well enough alone and not try to put the current
Google Contacts app on my phone as long as the installed Verizon version keeps working. That and the fact that the 'Phone' app also claims to be Verizon and its info screen shows the exact same version number
(13.1.30.10) as the Contact app info screen leading me to believe that
it might be wise that they be used together?
AJL wrote:
On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote:
Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to
contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They
were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a
silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that
one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this?
The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a Verizon
app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who makes it but
gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a clue?
I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps.
That would really be confusing.
On my Android tablets I've installed the Google contacts app from the
Google Play Store. It's version 4.86.23 (plus 9 more numbers) so doesn't
appear to be related to the version number of the Verizon app. But the
Google Contacts apps on my tablets all sync and work just fine with my
phone's Verizon Contacts app.
I've decided to leave well enough alone and not try to put the current
Google Contacts app on my phone as long as the installed Verizon version
keeps working. That and the fact that the 'Phone' app also claims to be
Verizon and its info screen shows the exact same version number
(13.1.30.10) as the Contact app info screen leading me to believe that
it might be wise that they be used together?
Hi AJL,
Like you, I don't have Google Contacts installed currently, but my phone is
a mirror of all past installations, so it was on my phone at one point.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rydmmZZt/googlecontacts.jpg>
Given I'm always helpful to others, I went to the appreciable trouble to >screenshot & annotate the situation for the OP, mirroring your experience.
I don't see the original thread for some reason, but to answer the OP...
There are some app categories, which, by their very nature, tend to have
the exact same icon-shortcut names and even the same color/shape icons.
<https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg>
There is only 1 way to tell them apart for sure, which is the package name.
<https://i.postimg.cc/fTKvbbr4/contacts.jpg>
As for Google Contacts, per se, it used to be installed on my phone, as we >can tell from the grayed-out icon below which points to the repository.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rydmmZZt/googlecontacts.jpg>
When I click on that grayed out icon, it installs the app if I want it.
<market://details?id=com.google.android.contacts>
I think everyone should have their phone set up as efficiently as mine.
AJL wrote:
I don't see the original thread for some reason, but to answer the OP...
That's cause I cut micky out of the old off topic endless personal wars
thread and made a new new one that actually has something to do with
Android...
I think everyone should have their phone set up as efficiently as mine.I think everyone should have a phone as old as mine...
my main point in responding was that the icon isn't what's unique.
In fact, app-icon PHONE ^ CONTACTS icons are particularly commonly reused.
The two green phone icons, for example, in this screenshot, are different.
<https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg>
Even I can't tell them apart without looking at the underlying intents.
As for the original topic, you've heard me extol the virtues of
Muntashirakon AM, but for others, this program tells you the package name.
<https://muntashir.dev/AppManager/en/>
There are other ways to find out the package manager, of course, but I
think anyone who does NOT use Muntashirakon App Manager, isn't efficient.
my main point in responding was that the icon isn't what's unique.
In fact, app-icon PHONE ^ CONTACTS icons are particularly commonly reused.
My Verizon and Google 'Contact' icons were very similar but still slightly
different. My problem was to remember which was which.
The two green phone icons, for example, in this screenshot, are different.
<https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg>
Even I can't tell them apart without looking at the underlying intents.
The popup on your link using my Android Chrome browser was annoying. You
should warn folks. However when I used Firefox with the uBlock Origin
extension no popup. I should always use that here, huh...
As for the original topic, you've heard me extol the virtues of >>Muntashirakon AM, but for others, this program tells you the package name.
<https://muntashir.dev/AppManager/en/>
There are other ways to find out the package manager, of course, but I >>think anyone who does NOT use Muntashirakon App Manager, isn't efficient.
Above my pay level. But speaking of app managers I'm using my Amazon Fire
HD10 tablet to post this and I'm surprised how easy it is to install apps
from just about anywhere on this thing. I can sideload apps from the
outside or from my installed sideloaded Google Play store app and the
tablet puts them all in its Fire OS app manager and treats them just like
as if they were from its own Amazon Appstore. And no outright refusals to
load an outside apk like some of my other Android toys. Ease of use great.
Security? Perhaps not so much?
BTW my Groundhog newsreader started working again on this thing. So things
are really looking up on this toy...
AJL wrote:
Maria Sophia wrote:
My Verizon and Google 'Contacts' icons were very similar but still
slightly different. My problem was to remember which was which.
Your problem is identifying which is which, only once. a. Because
once you identify which is which, you can *change* the icon. b.
And/or you can change what it says below the icon.
The two green phone icons, for example, in this screenshot, are
different. <https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg> Even I can't
tell them apart without looking at the underlying intents.
The popup on your link using my Android Chrome browser was
annoying. You should warn folks. However when I used Firefox with
the uBlock Origin extension no popup. I should always use that
here, huh...
I love that you're a rare breed on Usenet who is balanced in what you
say. So I get it. You're trying to be helpful. I appreciate that
helpful note. You think I don't know it. And therefore, you think I
need to know it. But, trust me. I'm well aware that some people see
annoying popups. So you do know browsers, but I'm not gonna warn
people 'cuz it's common knowledge that if you don't know what you're
doing, almost any web page has annoying stuff on it. I can't fix
every person's knowledge of browsers. :) FYI: I don't see any popup
but I certainly *believe* you that you saw it. So I'm not disputing
that you see annoying stuff on some browser setups.
But people who know how to use browsers don't see it. I can't fix
stupid. (I'm not saying *you* are stupid, as you fixed it.) But
thanks for (trying to) let me know.
As for the original topic, you've heard me extol the virtues of
Muntashirakon AM, but for others, this program tells you the
package name. <https://muntashir.dev/AppManager/en/> There are
other ways to find out the package manager, of course, but I
think anyone who does NOT use Muntashirakon App Manager, isn't
efficient.
Above my pay level. But speaking of app managers I'm using my
Amazon Fire HD10 tablet to post this and I'm surprised how easy it
is to install apps from just about anywhere on this thing. I can
sideload apps from the outside or from my installed sideloaded
Google Play store app and the tablet puts them all in its Fire OS
app manager and treats them just like as if they were from its own
Amazon Appstore. And no outright refusals to load an outside apk
like some of my other Android toys. Ease of use great. Security?
Perhaps not so much?
If your headers are correct, I see you're posting from User-Agent: PhoNews/3.13.4 (Android/11)
As for the Amazone tablet loading any APK, that's wonderful, as Lord
knows, Google is doing its damndest to make it harder and harder to
side load.
BTW, I hate that word 'sideload' as it's just normal loading, but
people seem to use it
Maria Sophia wrote:[...]
BTW, I hate that word 'sideload' as it's just normal loading, but
people seem to use it
Dunno why. 'sideload' is a legitimate word. I just checked a few English dictionaries and it's there.
I actually have no 'Contacts' icon ID problem. My Verizon icon is on my
phone and my Google icons are on my tablets. It is true they look very similar and I was just trying to be a bit humorous in pointing that out
but that apparently failed. When a joke bombs I can usually tell by the
look on my grandkids faces. I suspect your face may have that look now. Sorry... :-/
The trouble with using a browser that doesn't see everything on the
first look is that something important that the poster intended to be
seen might be cut out by the browser's extensions and missed. That's why
I always start looking with a fully functional browser.
If your headers are correct, I see you're posting from User-Agent:
PhoNews/3.13.4 (Android/11)
Yep. The Fire OS (Android fork) is currently based on Android 11 and so PhoNews thinks it's Android 11 and says so in the headers. Whenever I
post from any of my Android tablet toys you can always tell what Android version it uses cause PhoNews is a snitch...
As for the Amazon tablet loading any APK, that's wonderful, as Lord
knows, Google is doing its damndest to make it harder and harder to
side load.
I'm surprised Amazon is so liberal with modifying their tablets. There's certainly no secret about how to put Google on them. Or sideload them.
I'm sure Amazon could stop it with an update if they really wanted to...
BTW, I hate that word 'sideload' as it's just normal loading, but
people seem to use it
Dunno why. 'sideload' is a legitimate word. I just checked a few English dictionaries and it's there.
and gives some examples, which 'Arlen' probably won't like.
Frank Slootweg wrote:
and gives some examples, which 'Arlen' probably won't like.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.microsoft.windows
Subject: Re: This is another request to ask Frank Slootweg to stop trolling this ng
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:55:32 -0600
Message-ID: <1181ir5$2203$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
AJL wrote:
Maria Sophia wrote:
If your headers are correct, I see you're posting from
User-Agent: PhoNews/3.13.4 (Android/11)
Yep. The Fire OS (Android fork) is currently based on Android 11
and so PhoNews thinks it's Android 11 and says so in the headers.
Whenever I post from any of my Android tablet toys you can always
tell what Android version it uses cause PhoNews is a snitch...
Heh heh... usually you can change that stuff, but I don't know about
doing so in PhoNews. But I, for one, decry a snitch who gives away
header privacy!
I'm surprised Amazon is so liberal with modifying their tablets.
There's certainly no secret about how to put Google on them. Or
sideload them. I'm sure Amazon could stop it with an update if they
really wanted to...
I think it's GREAT that you can add to our combined tribal experience
on the Amazon devices as I've never even *seen* an Amazon or Chrome
tablet!
'sideload' is a legitimate word. I just checked a few English
dictionaries and it's there.
It's a word, for sure, but what's so 'side' ish about loading
normally?
The reason my Amazon tablet is my favorite is that it's lightweight, has rounded (not sharp squared) comfortable corners, wide bezels (for fat fingers), a plastic case (not ever cold or clammy), is reasonably fast,
FHD for great videos, and plenty of speaker volume.
BTW two movies I recently watched on it this week: Bad Day at Black Rock
and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. Both highly recommended.
'sideload' is a legitimate word. I just checked a few English
dictionaries and it's there.
It's a word, for sure, but what's so 'side' ish about loading
normally?
Well, on my Amazon tablet I load most of my APKs from the side (which is where the SD card slot is located)... ;)
AJL wrote:
The reason my Amazon tablet is my favorite is that it's
lightweight, has rounded (not sharp squared) comfortable corners,
wide bezels (for fat fingers), a plastic case (not ever cold or
clammy), is reasonably fast, FHD for great videos, and plenty of
speaker volume.
I also have an old tablet, which was a Costco Samsung which I gave to
an Apple owner who gave it back after a year or two, so it's mine
now. :) That's in addition to half a dozen older iPads, as I use them
for Google Voice, which is really neat as Google can't take it over
like on Android.
The Android 16 tablet I only use for NewPipe videos so I don't mess
with it that much. I haven't even factory wiped it, actually, which I
need to do.
As it's still logged into the original recipient.
BTW two movies I recently watched on it this week: Bad Day at Black
Rock and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. Both highly recommended.
1. Bad Day at Black Rock (1955) Genre: Neo-Western / Mystery Thriller Summary: A one-armed stranger named John Macreedy (played by Spencer
Tracy) arrives in the isolated, dusty desert town of Black Rock by
train, looking for a local World War II veteran. He is immediately
met with hostility, evasion and veiled threats from the tight-knit townspeople. Macreedy soon uncovers a dark, shameful secret that the residents are desperate to keep hidden at all costs.
2. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018) Genre: Western Anthology /
Dark Comedy-Drama
Summary: Written and directed by the Coen brothers, this film is a
collection of six distinct, standalone tales set in the American Old
West. Ranging from lighthearted musical comedy and tragic romance to
grim survival and eerie encounters, the vignettes explore human
nature, greed, and mortality against the rugged backdrop of the
frontier .
I once had an iPad. I just never cared for the OS. It's a YMMV thing,
not a hate the OS obsession. The iPad went to a grandkid of course.
The Android 16 tablet I only use for NewPipe videos so I don't mess
with it that much. I haven't even factory wiped it, actually, which I
need to do.
I spend most of my online time on my tablets for virtually everything.
News, investments, banking, videos, shopping, etc etc etc, and of course Usenet. For posting I often switch to my Chromebook or Windows keyboard
but not always.
As it's still logged into the original recipient.
Scary. When I give away my tablet toys I make sure they're fully
scrubbed. Could be embarrassing if a grandkid was privy to my private
life... 8-O
BTW two movies I recently watched on it this week: Bad Day at Black
Rock and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. Both highly recommended.
1. Bad Day at Black Rock (1955) Genre: Neo-Western / Mystery Thriller
Summary: A one-armed stranger named John Macreedy (played by Spencer
Tracy) arrives in the isolated, dusty desert town of Black Rock by
train, looking for a local World War II veteran. He is immediately
met with hostility, evasion and veiled threats from the tight-knit
townspeople. Macreedy soon uncovers a dark, shameful secret that the
residents are desperate to keep hidden at all costs.
Most all the actors in this one are now dead. But I (we?) grew up
watching them in many movies so that's one interesting thing. There's
also a throat chop fight scene. Over the years I always remembered this
for my use if I was ever losing a fight. Fortunately I never needed it...
2. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018) Genre: Western Anthology /
Dark Comedy-Drama
Summary: Written and directed by the Coen brothers, this film is a
collection of six distinct, standalone tales set in the American Old
West. Ranging from lighthearted musical comedy and tragic romance to
grim survival and eerie encounters, the vignettes explore human
nature, greed, and mortality against the rugged backdrop of the
frontier .
If nothing else watch the first chapter of this movie. It's a gunfight
hoot. But the rest of the chapters are great also.
I now return the discussion to Android quick draw...er, whoops...
But then this Thunderbird app I'm currently posting with also snitches
on its version number in the headers and since I use the same old
version number all the time (to avoid updates) my privacy is (gasp) also compromised... 8-O
AJL wrote:
this Thunderbird app I'm currently posting with also snitches on
its version number in the headers and since I use the same old
version number all the time (to avoid updates) my privacy is
(gasp) also compromised... 8-O
Your 'stone-age' version is also kind enough to report the underlying
OS,
which comes in handy in groups where some people ask questions, but
don't bother to mention their OS, such as in news.software.readers.
What more info does that snitch?
Frank Slootweg wrote:
AJL wrote:
this Thunderbird app I'm currently posting with also snitches on
its version number in the headers and since I use the same old
version number all the time (to avoid updates) my privacy is
(gasp) also compromised... 8-O
Your 'stone-age' version is also kind enough to report the underlying
OS,
It does say Windows but I don't recognize any of the other numbers. What
more info does that snitch?
On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote:
Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to
contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They
were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a
silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that
one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this?
The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a Verizon
app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who makes it but
gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a clue?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2I didn't want my contacts to be spread out over two different apps.
That would really be confusing.
On my Android tablets I've installed the Google contacts app from the
Google Play Store. It's version 4.86.23 (plus 9 more numbers) so doesn't >appear to be related to the version number of the Verizon app. But the
Google Contacts apps on my tablets all sync and work just fine with my >phone's Verizon Contacts app.
I've decided to leave well enough alone and not try to put the current
Google Contacts app on my phone as long as the installed Verizon version >keeps working. That and the fact that the 'Phone' app also claims to be >Verizon and its info screen shows the exact same version number
(13.1.30.10) as the Contact app info screen leading me to believe that
it might be wise that they be used together?
AJL wrote:
What more info does that snitch?
I'm not an expert in Usenet headers but what I can glean from your
headers, only from what your headers report, are the following
visual observations.
1. Your header identifies you as AJL <noemail@none.com> where most newsreaders require an email, although it's usually spoofed.
2. Thunderbird 45.0 is being advertised by your User-Agent header.
That is a claim made by the client but it could be falsified.
3. It's a 32-bit Windows application running on 64-bit Windows.
4. rv:45.0 is the Mozilla/Gecko runtime version associated with that
old Thunderbird build. 5. Gecko/20100101 is largely a compatibility/user-agent token. It does not mean the machine dates
from 2010. 6. The combination of charset=windows-1252, format=flowed
and Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit is consistent with the older Mozilla/Thunderbird-era software, which doesn't tell us much, but
the MIME headers are consistent with the claimed newsreader.
7. The Date: header says the sender's claimed local time was
08:32:36 -0700. The corresponding UTC time is 15:32:36.
8. Your machine is set to the -0700 timezone offset, which, in
September, is consistent with Pacific Daylight Time (PDT)
9. The Injection-Date is also 15:32:40 UTC, only four seconds later.
That suggests the posting software/server preserved a plausible
client timestamp, though it doesn't prove the clock was accurate.
10. Your PATH (some of which can be spoofed) indicates the flow
between a. Your posting host was "a6cd7ce76502b24500f03c493873f13a"
b. Your posting account was "U2FsdGVkX1/ooDefZcb8oiDcPO2zbn2w" c. nntp.eternal-september.org -> feeder.eternal-september.org -> eternal-september.org -> feeder8.news.weretis.net -> weretis.net -> nntp.giganews.com -> border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com -> mine -> me
Summarized, you posted via an Eternal September account which then
propagated through Weretis, then Giganews, until it got to my
server.
Perhaps "ord" indicates Chicago O'Hare, so perhaps the Giganews
server is located nearby, but that would be simply a heuristic
wild-ass guess. Regarding the posting host and account, I didn't
bother to check Eternal September headers, over time, but they could
be static, i.e., only assigned to you, or, perhaps they're changed
every day, or every post. Didn't check. I never bother decrypting
the obfuscated posting host (i.e., your IP address) and account, but
we can see U2FsdGVkX1 which is the familiar Base64 representation of
data beginning with Salted_, which is somewhat characteristic of
OpenSSL's traditional salted encryption format. So it does not look
like a conventional SHA-1/SHA-256 hash, which, if it's a hash that
Wolfgang M. Weyand <wolfgang@eternal-september.org> (aka Ray Banana)
devised himself, is likely long ago broken by typical TLAs, which, I
realize, none of us care about, but it's something you should just
know. Likewise, your IP address (posting host) is 32 hexadecimal
characters, which looks like an MD5-sized value, but appearance
isn't enough to establish that it's MD5. As with the account, it
could be Wolfgang's obfuscated 128-bit value or simply an arbitrary identifier for you. Note: If we look at an old post from you, we can
tell if it's static. If it's static, then changing all of the other
headers will still identify that it's you, which, I know you don't
care about but it's a datapoint in terms of understanding what a
Usenet header can reveal about your location. With respect to
privacy, if the posting account is static, I can find all your posts
from the beginning of time, thru that server using that account, and,
if I cared to invest in the energy of decrypting the IP address
(which I certainly do not), then it's maybe possible to find out your
IP address.
Again, I'm only telling you this to answer your question about what
your headers snitch about you, as I have no desire to hunt you down
by them. :)
AJL wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Your 'stone-age' [TB] version is also kind enough to report the
underlying OS,
It does say Windows but I don't recognize any of the other
numbers. What more info does that snitch?
It says: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
The "NT 10.0" bit signifies that it's Windows 10 or 11 (they share (effectively) the same kernel, hence the same 10.0 version number).
WOW64 (Windows 32-bit on Windows 64-bit) is a compatibility subsystem
of the Windows operating system that allows 32-bit applications to
run on 64-bit Windows systems. So your OS is 64-bit, but Thunderbird
is 32-bit. The rest is all Thunderbird (not Windows) related.
AJL wrote:
The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a
Verizon app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who
makes it but gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a
clue?
I'm sure it's a clue. I have a 1-year old Motorola phone and it
says version 1.7.34 If they're only on version 1, they must have done
a really good job on their first try, or maybe they only realized
recently that people want to save phone numbers. Or maybe they
scrapped the earlier version and are working up something new.
micky wrote:
AJL wrote:
The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a
Verizon app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who
makes it but gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a
clue?
I'm sure it's a clue. I have a 1-year old Motorola phone and it
says version 1.7.34 If they're only on version 1, they must have done
a really good job on their first try, or maybe they only realized
recently that people want to save phone numbers. Or maybe they
scrapped the earlier version and are working up something new.
I'm not sure how version numbers work but your 1 year old phone version >1.7.34 could have had 34 updates if it started at 1.7.00. Nah, probably >not... ;)
In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 12 Sep 2026 13:16:20 -0700, AJL ><noemail@none.com> wrote:
micky wrote:
AJL wrote:
The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a
Verizon app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who
makes it but gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a
clue?
I'm sure it's a clue. I have a 1-year old Motorola phone and it
says version 1.7.34 If they're only on version 1, they must have done
a really good job on their first try, or maybe they only realized
recently that people want to save phone numbers. Or maybe they
scrapped the earlier version and are working up something new.
I'm not sure how version numbers work but your 1 year old phone version >>1.7.34 could have had 34 updates if it started at 1.7.00. Nah, probably >>not... ;)
I din't think to say that this was an AT&T phone to begin with. Still >displays the ATT logo on start-up, and I think shutdown.
I'm using the Nova launcher and it keeps sending me apps, but this
is the first time it sort of installed one. They usually have "ad i"
in the upper right corner. There is other advertising too.
the Galaxy Store app won't let me delete or disable the store.
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 13 Sep 2026 05:06:14 +0300, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 12 Sep 2026 13:16:20 -0700, AJL >><noemail@none.com> wrote:
micky wrote:
AJL wrote:
The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a
Verizon app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who
makes it but gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a
clue?
I'm sure it's a clue. I have a 1-year old Motorola phone and it
says version 1.7.34 If they're only on version 1, they must have done
a really good job on their first try, or maybe they only realized
recently that people want to save phone numbers. Or maybe they
scrapped the earlier version and are working up something new.
I'm not sure how version numbers work but your 1 year old phone version >>>1.7.34 could have had 34 updates if it started at 1.7.00. Nah, probably >>>not... ;)
I din't think to say that this was an AT&T phone to begin with. Still >>displays the ATT logo on start-up, and I think shutdown.
As always, I'm a little slow. The place to see if I had two contact
apps is the, I think the name is, app drawer, and I do. The first one
is the one I said. The second one wants permission to access my
contacts, and I said no. Then it wants permission to make and manage
phone caslls and I said No. Then it said I had Disabled a required permission, and it closed, so I don't know the version.
In this larger format, the icon for the second one is much darker blue
than the first. Only his arms are lighter blue.
I'm using the Nova launcher and it keeps sending me apps, but this is
the first time it sort of installed one. They usuuall have "ad i" in
the upper right corner. There is other advertising too.
AJL wrote:
the Galaxy Store app won't let me delete or disable the store.
1. You can delete the account
2. You can delete the store
3. Already-installed apps remain on your device
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Subject: PSA: How to delete the
Samsung account & Galaxy Store & what happens to apps? Date: Sun, 13
Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0545 Message-ID: <1185cno$1835$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
the Galaxy Store app won't let me delete or disable the store.
1. You can delete the account
I need the Samsung account because I expect that my 7 year old phone
will expire soon and I plan to get the same current Samsung model as a replacement. Removing and later having to reinstall the account would be
a major PITA to eliminate (maybe) just a few seconds a week annoyance.
And your PSA link is a bit scary at the bottom: "If you encounter any
issues or do not have access to your account, you can contact Samsung
support for assistance. Make sure to back up any important data before deleting your account, as this process is irreversible. You may need to
sign out of all Samsung devices and services before you can delete your account."
2. You can delete the store
Apparently not with your PSA link. Near the bottom it says "I know there
will be some out there who want the app and its data completely deleted
from their Samsung Galaxy device. However, this is just not possible
unless you have root access to the phone."
3. Already-installed apps remain on your device
And I'm not even positive that the unwanted apps are coming from the
Galaxy Store though it's likely. Google would never do such a thing,
right? Anyway thanks for your effort but I'll pass. My phone has been
working without issue for over 7 years now and I think I'll avoid
risking breaking it at this late date by screwing with its innards just
to avoid a few seconds a week annoyance. But hopefully others can use
the info...
installerPackageName=foobar--
And I'm not even positive that the unwanted apps are coming from the
Galaxy Store though it's likely. Google would never do such a thing,
right?
AJL wrote:
the Galaxy Store app won't let me delete or disable the store.
I misunderstood you because you said "it won't let me".
I corrected that. It will let you.
Heh heh heh... you need to understand Android just a tad bit more...
:)
BTW, you can query any package to ask what program it thinks
installed it. I do this all the time because I spoof that metadata
value all the time. adb shell dumpsys package com.aurora.store |
findstr /i installerPackageName => installerPackageName=foobar
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
I'm not even positive that the unwanted apps are coming from the
Galaxy Store though it's likely. Google would never do such a
thing, right?
For Samsung phones, the 'App info' page [1] of an app has an 'App
details in store' entry. That entry often reveals the source of an
app. For example for (Google) Drive it says "App downloaded from
Google Play Store" and for Galaxy Store it says "App downloaded from
Galaxy Store". Note that this does not always work. For some app,
mainly built-in ones, this entry is absent. In other cases, the
content is different. For example for the default Calculator it says
"App downloaded from App update". But if you think the source is
Samsung or Google and want to know which, it mostly works.
[1] Settings -> Apps -> <tap on any app>
the Galaxy Store app won't let me delete or disable the store.
I misunderstood you because you said "it won't let me".
"It" being the 'Galaxy Store' as I said in a few posts back (above).
I corrected that. It will let you.
Actually IT (the Galaxy Store) won't let me delete or disable it. The
Delete and Disable commands are whited out.
Heh heh heh... you need to understand Android just a tad bit more...
:)
That is very true. And I never had a doubt that the Galaxy Store could
be deleted by several other ways including programming tricks and
smashing my phone with a hammer. For me either way would likely have
the same result for the phone's continued use.
BTW, you can query any package to ask what program it thinks
installed it. I do this all the time because I spoof that metadata
value all the time. adb shell dumpsys package com.aurora.store |
findstr /i installerPackageName => installerPackageName=foobar
Frank showed me an easier way which I'll try the next time an unwanted
app pops up. Thanks again...
I'm not even positive that the unwanted apps are coming from the
Galaxy Store though it's likely. Google would never do such a
thing, right?
For Samsung phones, the 'App info' page [1] of an app has an 'App
details in store' entry. That entry often reveals the source of an
app. For example for (Google) Drive it says "App downloaded from
Google Play Store" and for Galaxy Store it says "App downloaded from
Galaxy Store". Note that this does not always work. For some app,
mainly built-in ones, this entry is absent. In other cases, the
content is different. For example for the default Calculator it says
"App downloaded from App update". But if you think the source is
Samsung or Google and want to know which, it mostly works.
[1] Settings -> Apps -> <tap on any app>
Thanks. I'll give it a try next time one arrives...
On 9/10/26 9:30 AM, Maria Sophia wrote:.....
AJL wrote:
On 9/8/2026 10:51 PM, micky wrote:
Yesterday for the first time when I tried to save something to
contacts my new android phone gave me a choice of contacts apps. They
were both called Contacts and their icons looked almost the same , a
silhouette from the front in blue and the only difference was that
one was a lighter shade of blue ,. Have you encountered this?
I don't see the original thread for some reason, but to answer the OP...
That's cause I cut micky out of the old off topic endless personal wars
thread and made a new new one that actually has something to do with Android...
There are some app categories, which, by their very nature, tend to have >>the exact same icon-shortcut names and even the same color/shape icons.
<https://i.postimg.cc/5tH5pSNf/phone.jpg>
There is only 1 way to tell them apart for sure, which is the package name. >> <https://i.postimg.cc/fTKvbbr4/contacts.jpg>
As for Google Contacts, per se, it used to be installed on my phone, as we >>can tell from the grayed-out icon below which points to the repository.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rydmmZZt/googlecontacts.jpg>
When I click on that grayed out icon, it installs the app if I want it.
<market://details?id=com.google.android.contacts>
I think everyone should have their phone set up as efficiently as mine.
I think everyone should have a phone as old as mine...
Dunno why. 'sideload' is a legitimate word. I just checked a few English >dictionaries and it's there.
AJL wrote:
'sideload' is a legitimate word. I just checked a few English
dictionaries and it's there.
Wanted to learn more about it, and I found in wikip that "For Android
users sideloading of apps is only possible if the user has allowed
"Unknown Sources" in their Security Settings.[2] However, as of March
2026 Google plans to prevent side-loading of apps onto certified devices
from developers not approved by the company, starting in September 2026
in some countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore or Thailand), and
globally in 2027.[3][unreliable source?]"
I wonder if this is only the most recent version(s?) of Android. Anyhow,
best to get all your apps loaded before some time in 2027, right?
Most of my Android tablet toys going back to 12 already refuse to
sideload my old apks (like my old Groundhog newsreader).
AJL wrote:
Most of my Android tablet toys going back to 12 already refuse to
sideload my old apks (like my old Groundhog newsreader).
You could install them as described here:
https://liliputing.com/how-to-install-old-apps-on-android-14/
This way, I managed to install several old apps in Android 14 that would
not install the normal way any more (including Groundhog!), and I never >encountered any problems.
Most of my Android tablet toys going back to 12 already refuse to
sideload my old apks (like my old Groundhog newsreader).
You could install them as described here:
https://liliputing.com/how-to-install-old-apps-on-android-14/
This way, I managed to install several old apps in Android 14 that would
not install the normal way any more (including Groundhog!), and I never encountered any problems.
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:09:20 -0700, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
Dunno why. 'sideload' is a legitimate word. I just checked a few English
dictionaries and it's there.
Wanted to learn more about it, and I found in wikip that "For Android
users sideloading of apps is only possible if the user has allowed
"Unknown Sources" in their Security Settings.[2] However, as of March
2026 Google plans to prevent side-loading of apps onto certified devices
from developers not approved by the company, starting in September 2026
in some countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore or Thailand), and
globally in 2027.[3][unreliable source?]"
I wonder if this is only the most recent version(s?) of Android. Anyhow,
best to get all your apps loaded before some time in 2027, right?
AJL wrote:
Most of my Android tablet toys going back to 12 already refuse to
sideload my old apks (like my old Groundhog newsreader).
You could install them as described here:
https://liliputing.com/how-to-install-old-apps-on-android-14/
This way, I managed to install several old apps in Android 14 that would
not install the normal way any more (including Groundhog!), and I never encountered any problems.
micky wrote
...as of March 2026 Google plans to prevent side-loading of apps
onto certified devices from developers not approved by the company,
I wonder if this is only the most recent version(s?) of Android.
Anyhow, best to get all your apps loaded before some time in 2027,
right?
It has nothing to do with the Android version but is implemented in
the Google Play services. So it will apply to *all* Android devices, regardless which version the use, as long as they have Google Play
Services installed.
On 9/13/2026 12:02 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
[Unwanted apps are showing up on my Galaxy S10+ phone.] I'm not
even positive that the unwanted apps are coming from the Galaxy
Store though it's likely.
For Samsung phones, the 'App info' page [1] of an app has an 'App
details in store' entry. That entry often reveals the source of an
app. For example for (Google) Drive it says "App downloaded from
Google Play Store" and for Galaxy Store it says "App downloaded
from Galaxy Store".
On 9/13/2026 2:17 PM, AJL wrote:
On 9/13/2026 12:02 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
[Unwanted apps are showing up on my Galaxy S10+ phone.] I'm not
even positive that the unwanted apps are coming from the Galaxy
Store though it's likely.
For Samsung phones, the 'App info' page [1] of an app has an 'App
details in store' entry. That entry often reveals the source of an
app. For example for (Google) Drive it says "App downloaded from
Google Play Store" and for Galaxy Store it says "App downloaded
from Galaxy Store".
Got a new unasked for installed app titled "Match Factory". I opened the
app info page and "App details in store" advises: "App downloaded from >Verizon App Manager". So Verizon is the culprit.
Further, Copilot says: "Many Verizon?sold Android phones have
carrier?bundled software like Verizon App Manager that can automatically >install apps without your explicit consent".
So I disabled the Verizon App Manager app and now I'll just have to wait
and see if it worked...
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 121:15:32 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,208 |
