The recently lost file upload feature in the Nextcloud app for Android

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s removal of “all files” access for the Nextcloud Android app has reignited tensions over how much control platform owners should have over third‑party apps’ access to local storage. Commenters weigh the security benefits of restricting broad file permissions—given past abuses by malicious or intrusive apps—against the loss of functionality for legitimate tools like cloud sync and backup, and question whether Google’s own services enjoy de facto advantages via system‑level APIs. Many see this as part of a wider antitrust and digital sovereignty problem in mobile ecosystems, even as Google has since contacted Nextcloud and offered to restore the permission.

Antitrust, DMA, and Platform Power

  • Many see this as a textbook example of why the EU’s Digital Markets Act exists: platform owner (Google) restricting a class of capability (full file access) that competitors need while the OS itself retains privileged backup APIs.
  • Others argue DMA only requires Google not to give its own apps extra permissions like MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE; since Google Drive also doesn’t have that permission, they see no clear DMA violation.
  • Several commenters stress broader pattern: Google historically creating first‑party‑only APIs or flows, making life harder for independent apps even when technically “same permissions” apply.

Security vs User Control

  • Strong camp: broad storage permissions were “rampantly abused” (games, social apps, predatory loan apps harvesting photos, contacts, documents). Removing MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE is framed as necessary hardening, not self‑dealing.
  • Opposing view: users should be allowed to explicitly grant “dangerous” capabilities with strong warnings or an “I’m an adult” mode, especially for backup/sync tools.
  • Some worry about a paternalistic trend: users increasingly blocked from full control of their own devices and data “for security,” similar concerns raised about browsers (e.g., Manifest V3).

Technical Debate: SAF and Performance

  • Several Android‑savvy commenters state Nextcloud technically can use the Storage Access Framework (SAF): user chooses a directory; app gets long‑lived URI access; background sync is possible.
  • Others counter that SAF is architecturally awkward and severely slower due to Binder/ContentProvider overhead, especially for scanning large trees; links are shared claiming orders‑of‑magnitude slower directory enumeration.
  • SAF’s incompatibility with straightforward native code and cross‑platform designs is highlighted (e.g., past issues with Syncthing’s Android client).

Comparison with Google and iOS

  • Google Drive reportedly uses SAF‑style pickers and doesn’t hold MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE, but system‑level Android backup has deeper access not available to third parties.
  • iOS is described as using File Provider and backup hooks rather than broad filesystem access; some prefer Apple’s clearer “tool, not hobby project” posture, others see both ecosystems as vendor‑controlled prisons.

Alternatives, Workarounds, and Impact

  • Suggestions include using F‑Droid builds (outside Play policy), alternative ROMs (e.g., /e/OS, GrapheneOS) or Linux phones, with trade‑offs in security, stability, and usability.
  • Users relying on automatic Nextcloud sync fear silent breakage if permissions must be re‑granted per folder; the risk is unnoticed backup failure and data loss.
  • A final note mentions Google has contacted Nextcloud and offered to restore the permission, but the reasons (technical vs regulatory/PR pressure) are viewed as unclear.