So, where's the proof that this is from Nokia? I can't find a reference to this on a pre-existing Nokia property, the entire thing is on zlauncher.com except where they link to generic Nokia privacy policies and in one spot say to email press@nokia.com - so nothing that indicates they actually have access to Nokia.com. They've created a brand new twitter account that doesn't appear to have been acknowledged by any existing accounts. It seems weird to me. I don't really believe that its not Nokia, but it is enough uncertainty that I'm not going to install it.
I was going to remove that "claim" part but it was too late.
I don't use Android but this looks like a really good project. It's also good to know that Nokia we knew and loved is still creating consumer software.
One of my favorite things about android is some of the high-quality UI modifications that are out there. I've been using Cover for a while and couldn't go back to the default lock screen, it's just too useful.
Also been playing around with Aviate, but to more mixed results.
Between things like that and Facebook chat heads, I feel like Android is the place to be for high-productivity smartphone users.
Cover looks cool. Seems like the sort of thing amazon would like to launch next - with a quick launch button to it's flow app - as a way to spread the new firefly button("push to visual search") functionality faster.
I was close to install it, then I read their ZLauncher Privacy Policy and I discovered they read your text messages and call logs, and I abandoned it. I guess, trust really affects our perception of a system, and our willingness to share personal information with it. Unfortunately, if there is no trust, the relationship/interaction man-machine will never achieve its full potential.
....literally, what? It's like complaining that the contacts app has permissions to read your contacts. It's a launcher man, of course it needs to read your call logs and messages, what's so upsetting about this?
They not only access that information (locally, on-device), but may send it:
> When you use the Service, this information may be sent to Nokia for the purpose of improving the Service. You can choose the level at which you participate in the development of Nokia’s products and services. You may disable the collection of information by changing the settings of the Service.
I see there's an option user can disable this behavior, but who knows whenever it'll transfer this data right on startup before you have the chance to opt out?
By not having INTERNET permission, so users can be somehow assured their data's more likely to stay with them. Why the launcher would need one?
Android really needs a sane custom permission system and some content provider protocol standardization (like "this app provides weather data" and "this app may access any providers that provide store prices") and a package manager that support dependencies on them (similarly, "this app needs a news headlines provider").
I'm not very well versed with Android related things, but isn't a Google account required for Android anyway? If so, using it to sign in to an Android app seems like a reasonable choice.
> isn't a Google account required for Android anyway?
Not strictly speaking, no. You do need to sign in to a Google account to access the Play Store, which is synonymous with Android for most people, but it doesn't need to be a Google+ account.
Even given that though, the vast majority of Android apps don't require you to sign in with a Google account (or a Google+ account) and thus don't have access to the data associated with it. For a lock screen app to even require signing in is pretty strange.
You have to download and install the APK manually. With the ease of publishing something to Google Play, why haven't they done so? Is it just to limit initial deployment to people who know how to do this?
Also "Sorry, we are not currently supporting rooted devices". I wonder why.
Google Play is accessible only if you hook your Android device to a Google account AND you Andorid device vendor has put up the $$ to use the proprietary Google apps like Play.
The real question is why so many apps are distributed only through Play, excluding privacy-conscious users and open source Android devices.
This is a common practice for such pre-releases. Though they could have added the APK on the Google Play store but then they will have to introduce a new internal API where they keep a check on the pre-release users. Can be done but I think this manual distribution can be used for many other things!
But it's annoying that they do not want to support rooted devices!
I'm also curious why they don't "support" rooted devices to the extent they try to detect it and refuse to start. It's not that there's anything needs to be done to support them - they're no different from any other devices, just provides end-user a method to gain uid 0.
The flow can be more simple, as you suggest, but what you lose is the assurance from Google that this app is from the publisher it's marked as being from and all of the surrounding mechanisms like push updates that it makes no sense to reimplement on a per app basis.
I tried it. It's nice in some ways, but horribly limited.
It defaults to 4 icons at the bottom for the dialer, two of which weren't my defaults (for browser and SMS app). By default I run with 6 icons at the bottom, and another six or so that I go to all the time.
It doesn't allow widgets (I have one set up to allow me to toggle wifi and one for a torch).
I can see some people loving the simplicity, but for me it's just not going to work.
Sadly, the launcher tells us it doesn't support rooted devices. Given that this is a limited release to presumably early adopters, I find this not only annoying but counter-intuituve. sigh
First thing that came to my mind: great! A new launcher from Nokia!
Downloaded, installed (these permissions are fine for a launcher app) and tried for 5 minutes.
Concept is cool but it's really hard to figure out what are the improvements.
I can do the same (searching apps) just typing in to the google search bar, which is more effective than gestures..
