Jeff,

> You may have replaced the original Android OS in whatever Pixel you're
> using with GrapheneOS, but it's still Android.

Absolutily. Just like Googles tracking and adware-infested version of
android is just android. :-)

> I've always understood that GrapheneOS is Android that's been "degoogled"

What about the possibility that some nitwit has come up with that
explanation, and instead GrapheneOS is a clean version of Android plus some
privacy and security stuff added to it ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Newyana2,
[...]
> > I'm amazed that these companies are allowed, legally, to exert such
> > control over a device I paid for.
>
> I hope you're not running Win10/11, which has become nothing more than a
> thick ethernet client and doubling as an advertising platform. :-)

This is not a Windows group, so let's not drift too much, but you
still can use Windows 10 and 11 without a Microsoft account and if you
answer no to all the 'prying' questions or/and set all 'prying' settings
to off, you get *no* ads, not from Microsoft, nor from any other
company. *Unless* of course, you're an paranoid American, because then
you deserve to get what you spread FUD, urban legends, etc. about! :-)

[...]

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> >> What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?
> ...
> > Good luck igniting another flame war, Arlen :-)
>
> I think you are misjudging arlen here. Its more than likely he really wants
> to know what he asked for.

And I have a 300-meter steel tower in Paris for sale, real cheap,
honest!

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2025-01-01 19:59, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> I had a Fitbit 2, and now a Fitbit Luxe. Doesn't upload anything to any
> >> account. I never bought any premium services. I don't need all those
> >> extras for how I use it. The only "extra" I enabled was to pair the
> >> Fitbit to my smart phone via Bluetooth to transfer data from device to
> >> Android app. Don't need an online account for that.
> >
> > I don't know what a "Fitbit 2" is, probably a "Fitbit <something> 2"
> > where "<something>" is the relevant part.
> >
> > Anyway, I always needed a Fitbit account for our Fitbits (Alta HR,
> > Charge 4, Charge 5 and Charge 6). Without an account, the Fitbit won't
> > sync, also not to the Fitbit app on the phone. And to sync, it needs an
> > Internet connection. Stupid design, but that's the way it is.
> >
> > So, on the phone, do you use the Fitbit app or another app, if so
> > which one?
>
> Google Fit.

Are you sure? The Google Fit entry on the Google Play site [1] doesn't
even mention Fitbit in its list of devices and its website [2] doesn't
list any devices.

I always thought that *other* *apps* (not devices), could talk to
Google Fit and that Google Fit then showed a consolidation of all the
data.

IIRC, I used Google Fit in the past, but I can't remember with which
app/service/device.

> > I think my <insert_loved_one> has a Fitbit Luxe (on an iPhone). I've
> > to ask her what she needs to sync. I know they have a Fitbit Family
> > account together with her <insert_smaller_loved_one>.
> >
> > [...]

[1]
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.fitness>

[2] <https://www.google.com/fit/>

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > > To use a Fitbit, you need a Google account (unless you have a
> > > legacy Fitbit account from years ago). To use the Fitbit app you
> > > need to sign in with the Google account, which installs the Google
> > > account centrally on the phone, which means that account infests
> > > the rest of the OS and gets used for other stuff (eg Play
> > > Services/Store).
> >
> > Are you sure about that? Can't you just use a Google account to login
> > into the *app*, instead of into the *system*/OS? Many apps have such
> > functionality, i.e. an app-specific login, so I wouldn't know why the
> > Fitbit app would be any different.
>
> It shows under Settings -> Accounts, and the Play Store uses it without
> asking. There's no way to sign out of it apart from deleting it from the
> phone. If I do that the Fitbit app stops working and wants a sign in again.

So you already had a Google account on the phone and used that for the
Fitbit app, so you can no longer remove the account from the phone
(Settings) and use the Fitbit app with the *same* Google account.

But the scenario I was talking about was: Phone *without* a Google
account (after all, that's the subject of this thread). User wants to
use Fitbit app. Fitbit app wants a Google account. My suggestion:
Create/have a Google account, do *not* use it for the *phone* (i.e. it's
not in Settings) and just use it to login into the *Fitbit app*. I see
no reason why that shouldn't work.

On 2025-01-01 21:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-01 19:59, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I had a Fitbit 2, and now a Fitbit Luxe. Doesn't upload anything to any
>>>> account. I never bought any premium services. I don't need all those
>>>> extras for how I use it. The only "extra" I enabled was to pair the
>>>> Fitbit to my smart phone via Bluetooth to transfer data from device to
>>>> Android app. Don't need an online account for that.
>>>
>>> I don't know what a "Fitbit 2" is, probably a "Fitbit <something> 2"
>>> where "<something>" is the relevant part.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I always needed a Fitbit account for our Fitbits (Alta HR,
>>> Charge 4, Charge 5 and Charge 6). Without an account, the Fitbit won't
>>> sync, also not to the Fitbit app on the phone. And to sync, it needs an
>>> Internet connection. Stupid design, but that's the way it is.
>>>
>>> So, on the phone, do you use the Fitbit app or another app, if so
>>> which one?
>>
>> Google Fit.
>
> Are you sure? The Google Fit entry on the Google Play site [1] doesn't
> even mention Fitbit in its list of devices and its website [2] doesn't
> list any devices.
>
> I always thought that *other* *apps* (not devices), could talk to
> Google Fit and that Google Fit then showed a consolidation of all the
> data.

I don't know for sure where it gets its data from, but it is there.
Maybe Google Fit talks with Fitbit app.

I had that app installed from before, then one day I noticed that it had
data that seemed to come from the watch. Yes, looking there is displays
my siesta data as coming from Fitbit. It also shows the map of my walk
this afternoon, with a label that says "Fitbit".

In the details, it shows the elevation graph of the walk, something that
is missing in the Fitbit app.

I remember vaguely saying yes to share data, but I don't remember which
of the two apps. Maybe both.

>
> IIRC, I used Google Fit in the past, but I can't remember with which
> app/service/device.
>
>>> I think my <insert_loved_one> has a Fitbit Luxe (on an iPhone). I've
>>> to ask her what she needs to sync. I know they have a Fitbit Family
>>> account together with her <insert_smaller_loved_one>.
>>>
>>> [...]
>
> [1]
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.fitness>
>
> [2] <https://www.google.com/fit/>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Andrew, 2025-01-01 03:08:

> What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?

Everything what does not need a Google account. That was easy.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > > Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > To use a Fitbit, you need a Google account (unless you have a
> > > > legacy Fitbit account from years ago). To use the Fitbit app you
> > > > need to sign in with the Google account, which installs the Google
> > > > account centrally on the phone, which means that account infests
> > > > the rest of the OS and gets used for other stuff (eg Play
> > > > Services/Store).
> > >
> > > Are you sure about that? Can't you just use a Google account to login
> > > into the *app*, instead of into the *system*/OS? Many apps have such
> > > functionality, i.e. an app-specific login, so I wouldn't know why the
> > > Fitbit app would be any different.
> >
> > It shows under Settings -> Accounts, and the Play Store uses it without
> > asking. There's no way to sign out of it apart from deleting it from the
> > phone. If I do that the Fitbit app stops working and wants a sign in again.
>
> So you already had a Google account on the phone and used that for the
> Fitbit app, so you can no longer remove the account from the phone
> (Settings) and use the Fitbit app with the *same* Google account.
>
> But the scenario I was talking about was: Phone *without* a Google
> account (after all, that's the subject of this thread). User wants to
> use Fitbit app. Fitbit app wants a Google account. My suggestion:
> Create/have a Google account, do *not* use it for the *phone* (i.e. it's
> not in Settings) and just use it to login into the *Fitbit app*. I see
> no reason why that shouldn't work.

No, I had no Google account anywhere on the phone. The Fitbit account
wanted me to 'Sign in with Google'. This also *signed in the whole phone
with Google* (ie Play Store, everything). If I removed that account from
the phone in Settings -> Accounts, the Fitbit app wasn't signed in and
wanted to 'Sign in with Google'. Around the circle we go.

The only way to avoid this is to create a separate user profile and install
the Fitbit app into it (as the only app besides the system apps). That
signs that whole profile into Google, but doesn't affect the apps installed
in other profiles. When are done with the Fitbit app, stop that profile and
go back to your other profile that has no Google account in it. This only
works if your phone OEM has enabled user profiles.

Theo

Theo wrote on 01 Jan 2025 10:50:47 +0000 (GMT) :

> To use a Fitbit, you need a Google account (unless you have a legacy Fitbit
> account from years ago). To use the Fitbit app you need to sign in with the
> Google account, which installs the Google account centrally on the phone,
> which means that account infests the rest of the OS and gets used for other
> stuff (eg Play Services/Store).
>
> If your phone vendor supports 'user profiles' you can make a new profile,
> add the Google account there. Then it won't interfere with other profiles
> and you can terminate the session by logging out after you're done.

Only Theo, so far, seems to understand that simple fact, so everything
said, so far, is off topic except what Theo said about FitBit.

Nobody else who posted seems to understand these are NOT the same thing:
1. An account on the Internet (often which requires a login/password)
2. That account as an integral part of the Android operating system

Those are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS which only Theo understood, sadly.
<https://i.postimg.cc/x1NZwj5G/account02.jpg>

Think of it this way if you must:
a. A bank app might require an account (which often requires login/passwd)
b. But that bank account is NOT an integral part of the Android OS

Only Theo answered the question on topic.
Nobody else even understood what was being asked (sadly).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bnyr9fP1/account01.jpg>

Arno Welzel wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 23:19:50 +0100 :

>> What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?
>
> Everything what does not need a Google account. That was easy.

You have no idea how Android works if you say something that absurd.

Only Theo, so far, understood that an account on the Internet is not at all
the same thing as an account integrally set up deeply in Android settings.
<https://i.postimg.cc/x1NZwj5G/account02.jpg>

Nobody else who posted but Theo knows anything about Android.
Not Arno. Not Frank. Not Rudy. Not Carlos. Not Mayayana. None of you.

There's a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between these two things:
a. An account on the Internet
b. An account on the phone

Only Theo understood the question. Nobody else did.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bnyr9fP1/account01.jpg>

Andy Burns wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 15:46:19 +0000 :

> Agreed, you're making a one-off choice there.

Theo seems to be the only person who UNDERSTOOD the question, since most
people have no clue how Android works - they don't know how Google works.

They think this question is about a Google Account on the Internet.
It's not about that at all.

It's about how Android works with Google apps - which only Theo understood.
And specifically, which Google apps need to have a non-Google replacement.

One key reason for that non-Google replacement is the fact that...
1. Most Google apps do not infest Android with an integral account
2. But some do

Almost nobody but Theo and I (so far) are aware of that obvious fact.

R.Wieser wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 20:36:19 +0100 :

> Think of occams razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
> explained by stupidity."

Rudy is correct that nobody but Theo understood the question asked here.

The fact remains that if anyone has a Google Account set up on Android,
then they have already forfeited their right to privacy as it's impossible
to maintain privacy when a Google Account is integral to Android Settings.

The only people who stand a chance of privacy, are those who don't do that.
<https://i.postimg.cc/x1NZwj5G/account02.jpg>

Theo is the only one, so far, who understood the question, where, Fitbit on
Android requires a Google Account (because Google acquired Fitbit in 2021).

To test out Theo's FitBit observation, without a Google Account set up on
my Android phone, moments ago I anonymously downloaded the latest FitBit
app from the Google Play Store repository <com.fitbit.FitbitMobile>.

It asked me to "Sign in with Google" or "Sign in with Fitbit".

Clicking "Sign in with Fitbit" doesn't seem to allow me to *create* a
FitBit account, and "Sign in with Google" says, very clearly this:
<https://i.postimg.cc/7ZRtbdHN/fitbit01.jpg>

*The account will be added to this device*

So that makes THREE Google apps which are known to infest Android with an
unwanted integral account just by the mere act of logging into them.

1. The Google Gmail app (easily replaced with an open-source MUA)
2. The Google Voice app (less easily replaced with an open-source VOIP)
3. The Google FitBit app (is it easily replaced with an alternative app?)

To find out what that alternative app might be, I opened this thread today:
*For privacy, what is a suitable alternative to the Google FitBit app on Android?*
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=56645&group=comp.mobile.android#56645>

Frank Slootweg wrote on 1 Jan 2025 16:14:17 GMT :

>> Android settings -> General -> Accounts
>
> And those accounts are only accounts on your *phone* (i.e. in
> Settings) if the app so chooses. For example I have apps for several
> airlines and for only one of them (KLM! :-)) the account shows up under
> 'Accounts and backup' in Settings.
>
> And BTW, Fitbit is *not* listed in my list of accounts (but as I said
> before, I still have a legacy (non-Google) Fitbit account).

This thread has two separate components, to date:
A. What Google apps cannot be replaced with private equivalents, and,
B. Which Google apps are the most dangerous in terms of privacy loss?
(As those are the critical Google apps to define replacements for!)

For the latter question, and with the useful information provided by Theo,
we now collectively know of three Google apps which infest the Android
operating system with a system-wide integral account - which - wipes out
any chance of privacy (which means we need to find a FitBit replacement).

Google apps which automatically infest Android with a SETTINGS account:
1. Google Gmail app (luckily which is easily replaced with a FOSS MUA)
2. Google Voice app (probably which can be replaced by some other VOIP)
3. Google FitBit app (maybe which may have an open source replacement)

So that we all learn from the dialogue, do you know of any others Frank?

Theo wrote on 01 Jan 2025 22:33:55 +0000 (GMT) :

> No, I had no Google account anywhere on the phone. The Fitbit account
> wanted me to 'Sign in with Google'. This also *signed in the whole phone
> with Google* (ie Play Store, everything). If I removed that account from
> the phone in Settings -> Accounts, the Fitbit app wasn't signed in and
> wanted to 'Sign in with Google'. Around the circle we go.
>
> The only way to avoid this is to create a separate user profile and install
> the Fitbit app into it (as the only app besides the system apps). That
> signs that whole profile into Google, but doesn't affect the apps installed
> in other profiles. When are done with the Fitbit app, stop that profile and
> go back to your other profile that has no Google account in it. This only
> works if your phone OEM has enabled user profiles.

I tested this and Theo is correct as far as my empirical tests showed.
<https://i.postimg.cc/7ZRtbdHN/fitbit01.jpg>

My test just now was...

1. I never had a Google Account set up on my Android phone even as
I have many Google Accounts which I log into on my Android phone.

2. Anonymously, without using the Google Play Store app, I used the
canonical FOSS Google Play Store replacement app to install FitBit.

3. This anonymously installed the exact same FitBit app from the exact
same Google Play Store repo that a Google Play Store app would install.

When I tried to use that Google FitBit app from the Google Play Store repo,
the Google FitBit app gave me the choice of logging into FitBit or Google.

The choice of FitBit apparently requires a pre-existing FitBit account.
Which I don't have. (I don't even know what FitBit does in fact.)

My only choice was the Google login, which, surprise, did exactly what Theo
said it would do - and it said it would do it - it *infests* the Android
phone with a Google Account even when there is no Google Account integral
to Android settings (in Settings > Accounts and backup > Manage accounts).
<https://i.postimg.cc/x1NZwj5G/account02.jpg>

This means we need to find an alternative (hopefully open-source) to FitBit
if we wish to have any possibility of privacy when using it with Android:

*For privacy, what is a suitable alternative to the Google FitBit app on Android?*
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=56645&group=comp.mobile.android#56645>

BTW, what does FitBit do?
Whatever it does - that's what we want to find a FOSS replacement for.

Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 19:52:44 +0100 :

> So no, I'm not interested in finding out what I can do without a login
> to google.

Hi Carlos,

The question has absolutely nothing to do with "a login to google".

The question is about replacement functionality with inherent privacy.
YouTube ====> replaced by ====> NewPipe
Chrome ====> replaced by ====> Ungoogled Chromium (or Bromite)
Google Play Store ====> replaced by ====> Aurora
Gmail app ====> replaced by ====> FairEmail MUA (or similar)
etc.

I have plenty of Google logins. This question has nothing to do with Google
logins per se - as it has to do with a Google Account set up as an integral
component deeply ensconced in Android. That's a very important distinction.

They're completely different things, Carlos.
Especially in terms of their privacy implications.

Because people forfeit their right to privacy the instant they define a
Google Account as an integral part of the Android operating system.

But IMHO, Android works just fine WITHOUT that parasitic Google Account.

Luckily most Google apps do NOT create a Google Account on the phone.
For example, Chrome doesn't. Neither does YouTube. Nor does Google Maps.

But some Google apps do infest Android with an integral Google Account.
1. GMail app (which is easily replaced with the FairEmail MUA)
2. Google Voice app (which can be replaced by another VOIP app)
3. FitBit app (which Theo informed us also infests Android settings)

Anything else, Carlos?

It is my premise that there is no useful Google app that doesn't have an
equivalent (usually FOSS equivalent) that avoids the privacy issues.

The purpose of this thread is to find out if that premise is correct.
What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?

R.Wieser wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 21:05:54 +0100 :

> And damnit, does /everyone/ here know that Andrew is the next nym of Arlen ?
> I thought I was the only one here who knew that. :-)

Hi Rudy,

I'm still the same purposefully helpful kind & caring poster I always was.

I post here for a decade with the *same* images, the same phone for years,
the same posting style, the same quest for privacy, the same love of
Android, the same kind and helpful attitude to those who deserve it, etc.

I'm still in the Santa Cruz mountains. I still have the same phone.
I still answer people's questions using my vast knowledge, etc.

I'm the same kind-hearted humble Usenet servant I always was.

If it takes someone more than two seconds to figure out my posts, then
there's something wrong - because I don't hide who I am from anyone here.

Nothing changed except the wrapping paper on the gift of the present.
If that fools anyone, then there's something very wrong with them.

Look at these screenshots I post for example. Nobody but me does that.
<https://i.postimg.cc/KvTvtMS8/scrcpy31.jpg> HNS stop/start solution
<https://i.postimg.cc/WbpYsfqg/scrcpy30.jpg> Windows Update is the problem
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hs1ZZ5H0/scrcpy29.jpg> net stop hns & net start hns
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdyTjwnT/scrcpy28.jpg> Android assigns random ports
<https://i.postimg.cc/25XrGW9R/scrcpy27.jpg> Nobody can find locked ports
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dz1rcpDX/scrcpy26.jpg> Windows Update locks ports
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgvzsMRm/scrcpy25.jpg> Connect over Wi-Fi sans USB
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hnw59ZHm/scrcpy24.jpg> Compare Vysor to scrcpy
<https://i.postimg.cc/mrz6gJpC/scrcpy23.jpg> Android SMS/MMS on Windows
<https://i.postimg.cc/c4Wq5x9j/scrcpy22.jpg> Vysor IP address option
<https://i.postimg.cc/9FJMKYch/scrcpy21.jpg> Windows Drive: === Android
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y9jbTtcN/scrcpy20.jpg> Start /b as a CMD works! :)
<https://i.postimg.cc/3R6nTz7s/scrcpy19.jpg> Start /b TARGET fails :(
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y93b1z0n/scrcpy18.jpg> Free Automation APKs
<https://i.postimg.cc/bvRXdbxg/scrcpy17.jpg> AutoIT & IFFT & Automate
<https://i.postimg.cc/5NrK7jtg/scrcpy16.jpg> powershell hide-console trick
<https://i.postimg.cc/g2yNftw0/scrcpy15.jpg> Trick to pin batch shortcut
<https://i.postimg.cc/XqZsmVFM/scrcpy14.jpg> AppPath & shortcut TARGET
<https://i.postimg.cc/CxXH6N2r/scrcpy13.jpg> No scrcpy console window!
<https://i.postimg.cc/yYKNnHxD/scrcpy12.jpg> REG test of showwin.lnk
<https://i.postimg.cc/7LWJhWxq/scrcpy11.jpg> Shortcut test of showwin.lnk
<https://i.postimg.cc/fyWw2nXh/scrcpy10.jpg> The console came up :(
<https://i.postimg.cc/66Gn2t2g/scrcpy09.jpg> REG test of showwin.bat
<https://i.postimg.cc/nV6K0Cfn/scrcpy08.jpg> CMD test of showwin.bat
<https://i.postimg.cc/hjkVFyqJ/scrcpy07.jpg> Android mnt as drive letter
<https://i.postimg.cc/Sx1hgWmY/scrcpy06.jpg> Press two hardware buttons
<https://i.postimg.cc/wvsbcNBz/scrcpy05.jpg> Drag APK from Windows
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y00vx4yp/scrcpy04.jpg> Extraneous cmd window (&)
<https://i.postimg.cc/Vvrq0K0m/scrcpy03.jpg> The efficient setup explained
<https://i.postimg.cc/tTmdgKTB/scrcpy02.jpg> An efficient program setup
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0G1TXcZ/scrcpy01.jpg> Mirror Android on any PC

If it takes anyone more than a second to figure out my posts, there's
something very wrong - as the only ones who exclaim "I FOUND YOU!!!!!"
are usually the trolls who only care about the wrapping paper and not the
beauty of the vast knowledge inherent in the value imparted in the body.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> Anyway, I always needed a Fitbit account for our Fitbits (Alta HR,
> Charge 4, Charge 5 and Charge 6). Without an account, the Fitbit won't
> sync, also not to the Fitbit app on the phone. And to sync, it needs an
> Internet connection. Stupid design, but that's the way it is.

Only if you need the Fitbit device to sync somewhere. Fitbit upped the
minimum Android version, so I couldn't use it anymore. For many months
now, the Fitbit device still works all by itself. The app gives you
more, but I really didn't need more.

> So, on the phone, do you use the Fitbit app or another app, if so
> which one?

Fitbit cut me off on compatibility with my old phone with its old
Android 8 version. Don't remember when that happened, maybe over a year
ago, so I've just been using the Fitbit Luxe wrist device without any
sync to anywhere. If I wanted to manually log its data, well, Excel
works. My BPM (Blood Pressure Meter) has Bluetooth and a phone app, but
I don't bother, and just enter the readings into a spreadsheet. The
spreadsheet shows history, and I added trend lines. However, I've never
bothered recording externally the data from the Fitbit device.

The app adds extras, and some convenience for tracking (history). I
don't need them. Others feel they must. I only wear mine at the gym.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> I always thought that *other* *apps* (not devices), could talk to
> Google Fit and that Google Fit then showed a consolidation of all the
> data.

There is the Health Connect app, also from Google, which describes
itself as linking health data from multiple apps. Seems to be a health
app data aggregator, but I've never used it to be sure.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.healthdata
"Health Connect by Android gives you a simple way to share data between
your health, fitness, and wellbeing apps without compromising on
privacy."

Of course, Andrew isn't going to believe anything regarding privacy when
Google is involved.

Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote:

> Arno Welzel wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 23:19:50 +0100 :
>
>>> What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?
>>
>> Everything what does not need a Google account. That was easy.
>
> You have no idea how Android works if you say something that absurd.
>
> Only Theo, so far, understood that an account on the Internet is not at all
> the same thing as an account integrally set up deeply in Android settings.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/x1NZwj5G/account02.jpg>
>
> Nobody else who posted but Theo knows anything about Android.
> Not Arno. Not Frank. Not Rudy. Not Carlos. Not Mayayana. None of you.
>
> There's a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between these two things:
> a. An account on the Internet
> b. An account on the phone
>
> Only Theo understood the question. Nobody else did.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Bnyr9fP1/account01.jpg>

Reset the phone, and next time when an app wants a login then refuse to
prevent having the account stored on the phone. If you're just
protesting Google, don't login to any newly loaded app that wants you to
specify a Google account, so it doesn't get stored on your phone. After
a reset, there are no accounts stored on the phone. It is after *you*
specify a login that either the app will store it locally to itself, or
load it into Accounts in the Android OS.

Patient: It hurts when I do this.
Doctor: Don't do that.

On 01/01/2025 20:16, R.Wieser wrote:
> Jeff,
>
>> You may have replaced the original Android OS in whatever Pixel you're
>> using with GrapheneOS, but it's still Android.
>
> Absolutily. Just like Googles tracking and adware-infested version of
> android is just android. :-)
>
>> I've always understood that GrapheneOS is Android that's been "degoogled"
>
> What about the possibility that some nitwit has come up with that
> explanation, and instead GrapheneOS is a clean version of Android plus some
> privacy and security stuff added to it ?

Well, you might like to bet on that possibility but I most certainly
would not! Android is Google's baby and they spent a lot of time, money,
and effort bringing it up. I know that GrapheneOS has been reviewed and
the general view is that it is pretty good at what it does (interesting
discussion here:
<https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/i-dont-trust-pixel-graphene-where-are-the-authoritative-claims-of-its-credibility/17503/1>).
However, Android is said to have 12 million lines of code. Is it really
known to anyone outside Google what all of them do?

--
Jeff

Andrew,

>> Think of occams razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is
>> adequately explained by stupidity."
>
> Rudy is correct that nobody but Theo understood the question asked here.

Lol. You're up to your old tricks I see, trying to warp what I said about
something completely else into some wonkey "conclusion" furthering your own
narrative - and than claiming that someone who didn't even come /near/ to
answering your question was 'the only one' who understood what you actually
wanted to know.

Arlen, I don't like you and I never have. However, I gave you benefit of
the doubt and provided you with a reply you could use to actually gain some
kind of an answer to your stated problem. Your above reply shows me that
that was, again, a wasted effort.

> Fitbit on Android requires a Google Account (because Google acquired
> Fitbit in 2021).

And you're /behave/ like you rather stupid. Most everyone else would
understand the implications of wanting to have replacements for Googles apps
also means that hardware only working with Googles apps also need to be
replaced. Heck, my initial reply already precluded that it all depends on
what people, you, would call a replacement. You (make it sound like you)
do not want to find a replacement for that bit of hardware*, and with it
sabotage your own question - which you have just shown to consider to be our
fault/problem. Way to go kid.

* /assuming/ that there are no replacement apps for it, something you have
not even tried to figure out ...

Also, you are again trying to gaslight us into believing that this is what
you actually asked - even though any kind reference to any kind of hardware
is absent from your initial question.

Did I already say that I don't like you ? Contortions like the above do
cause that resentment. You have zero problem with warping whatever is (not)
said into stuff with which you try to make it sound as if everyone else is
just too stupid to even look at you.

And by the way, I already mentioned that you don't *need* a FitBit to keep
track of your daily(?) excersise.

Bottom line: this nym of yours also goes in my killfile. Enjoy. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Andrew,

>> And damnit, does /everyone/ here know that Andrew is the next nym of
>> Arlen ? I thought I was the only one here who knew that. :-)
>
> Hi Rudy,
>
> I'm still the same purposefully helpful kind & caring poster I always was.

:-D I remember you thru the years. Heck, your previous post already
paints a different picture.

You are "purposely" allright, just not "helpfull" or "caring". Instead,
everyone else need to be helpfull *to you* - just like with your current
question - and could not care less about offending pretty-much everyone by
stating that nobody but one understood what you where "actually" out for.

Heck, I was pleasantly surprised when you, in the "Shortcut to Bluetooth
Tethering?" thread, where able to comprise a tutorial (of sorts) of just 4
steps. Even though you implicitily called s|b stupid thruout that post.
Yeah, you really sounded "caring" there. :-(

> I post here for a decade with the *same* images, the same phone for years,
> the same posting style, the same quest for privacy, the same love of
> Android, the same kind and helpful attitude to those who deserve it, etc.

Yeah, I remember your "tutorials". For the ones I've seen they are
convoluted, mixing different, unrelated subjects and sometimes even stopped
short of any kind of a conclusion. I also remember when you posted a list
of links, and I went thru them pointing out the problems with them. You
could not have cared less. The same thing happens in this thread: you
could not care less that I was trying to actually help you (without thumping
my chest and letting the whole world know) to get /some/ kind of answer to
your stated question.

> I'm still in the Santa Cruz mountains. I still have the same phone.
> I still answer people's questions using my vast knowledge, etc.

And you still change your nym once in a while, making it impossible for
others to find your older contributions - and refuse to "deep link" to the
relevant ones in those fora you recently linked to (same thread as above).

And wonder-upon-wonder, s|b recognised you where likely sending him on a
wild goose chase, and told you he would not go along with that.

Your response ? A number of posts deeper calling everybody morons, still
refusing to post a direct link to what you /hinted/ should be in that
forum - pretty-much confirming his suspicion.

You said there that you're "frustrated trying to help people like you",
while your behaviour tells us that you're not really trying to help others,
but instead are spinning tales about what all you know and do to make it
sound as if you are something special. You're not. There are lots of
people here, and chances are that at least some of those know more about
certain subjects than you do.

I remember where you tried to tell someone who had serious job experience on
some subject that you knew better - a claim you did not bother to support.

> I'm the same kind-hearted humble Usenet servant I always was.

Don't lie to yourself like that. Just like now you have, effectivily,
demanded that all others here do all the work providing you with
replacements for all the Google apps. You consider yourself to be the
Master, with us here being peons.

> If it takes someone more than two seconds to figure out my posts, then
> there's something wrong - because I don't hide who I am from anyone here.

Besides you again lying to us (you change your nym ever so often), you are
*again* mixing two unrelated subjects together and trying to make it sounds
as if they are.

As for how easy to understand your posts are ? I had no problem
understanding what your initial question was asking for - and how impossible
it was (funny that with all your knowledge you still are not able to realize
that). And than you made it sound as if that question, asking us to come
up with replacements for google apps, was /not at all/ what you where
actually asking, and that it was about a FitBit all along.

Yeah, nobody here notices that kind of shennigans. :-)

> Nothing changed except the wrapping paper on the gift of the present.
> If that fools anyone, then there's something very wrong with them.

Only a fool will be convinced that when everyone does/believes something
else than himself it must be those others that are at fault.

> Look at these screenshots I post for example. Nobody but me does that.

Luckely so I would say. I remember a list of your "tutorials" of years
ago where I made mince-meat of each-and-every-one of them. Convoluted and
confusing, mixing unrelated subjects and sometimes not even coming to a
conclusion.

And posting *screenshots* ? Why ? Whats wrong with just posting links ?
Yeah, posting an image of where you claim to have successfully tackeled an
undescribed problem does tell us /so much/ about your prowess. No, really.
/s

"Nobody can find locked ports". Lol. Who posted that info (on the internet
or perhaps even usenet) for you to find (making a mockery of your "nobody")
? Or did you just go thu all the "help pages" netsh gives you when you
use the "/?" argument ? Yeah, nobody else did that ever. /s

"Trick to pin batch shortcut" And ? What is your conclusion to why it
works that way ? *That* would be interresting to people to know, so they
can use the same method to pin other, unpinnable stuff.

"No scrcpy console window!" The last time I checked (just a few seconds
ago) I could just press alt + print screen and paste the result into Paint.

Ofcourse, without access to your tutotial (with its problem description and
how you solved it with that batch file) its hard to say much about how good
(or bad) your solution is - or if the, my, screenshot method would solve
anything.

"Extraneous cmd window (&)" The actual question in the image is "how do you
put this command window in the background". The answer is : You don't.
Windows does not have support for it.

I can't see in that image what the solution is you arrived on (if any), but
I do see you still do not trim down the problem to what the problem states
(what has "sceencopy properties" to do with anything. Or "deamon not
running"), making it cumbersome for anyone to duplicate your problem (and
help you to find a (better) solution).

"REG test of showwin.bat" I see you still keep abusing that "app path"
registry "solution".

Oh well, I'm not really surprised that you do not seem to have learned
anything more about creating helpfull material since we spoke all those
years ago. Even this list of screenshots (that are likely part of some
"tutorials") show what a mess you still make of things (and are activily
hiding anything that could give us insight to your solutions).

> If it takes anyone more than a second to figure out my posts, there's
> something very wrong - as the only ones who exclaim "I FOUND YOU!!!!!"
> are usually the trolls who only care about the wrapping paper and not the
> beauty of the vast knowledge inherent in the value imparted in the body.

You refuse to post links to to "the beauty of the vast knowledge" you claim
you have posted somewhere, even when someone directly asks you for them.

Kiddo, you keep doing you. Forgive me if I put you, again, into my
"killfile" so that I do not need to read all your grand-standing and rubbish
"tutorials".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Jeff,

> However, Android is said to have 12 million lines of code. Is it really
> known to anyone outside Google what all of them do?

Which is exactly why a sane person would not want to go and try to
de-google-ify it, and starting with a clean version would be a better idea.
Yes, I applied logic there.

Also, the parent spoke of "android" after which I tried to make him aware
that Googles android is something different than android. Yet, you speak
of "android" as if googles version of it is the base one. Do you have any
support for that ?

And by the way, I do not even think that the people inside Google know what
all of it does. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 2025-01-02 09:02, VanguardLH wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I always thought that *other* *apps* (not devices), could talk to
>> Google Fit and that Google Fit then showed a consolidation of all the
>> data.
>
> There is the Health Connect app, also from Google, which describes
> itself as linking health data from multiple apps. Seems to be a health
> app data aggregator, but I've never used it to be sure.
>
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.healthdata
> "Health Connect by Android gives you a simple way to share data between
> your health, fitness, and wellbeing apps without compromising on
> privacy."

I don't think it is actually an app. I think I have it installed, but it
does not show in the list of apps. Ah, wait, it is called "Salud
connect" here. Yet the list of apps doesn't list it, but google play
says it is installed and offers to open it. It may be a configuration
applet showing inside of the setup wheel - no, it is not there. I can
only start it from google play.

>
> Of course, Andrew isn't going to believe anything regarding privacy when
> Google is involved.

:-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2025-01-02 11:35, R.Wieser wrote:
> Andrew,
>
>>> And damnit, does /everyone/ here know that Andrew is the next nym of
>>> Arlen ? I thought I was the only one here who knew that. :-)
>>
>> Hi Rudy,
>>
>> I'm still the same purposefully helpful kind & caring poster I always was.
>
> :-D I remember you thru the years. Heck, your previous post already
> paints a different picture.
>
> You are "purposely" allright, just not "helpfull" or "caring". Instead,
> everyone else need to be helpfull *to you* - just like with your current
> question - and could not care less about offending pretty-much everyone by
> stating that nobody but one understood what you where "actually" out for.

Caring? When he doesn't like what we say, he turns to insulting us.

>
> Heck, I was pleasantly surprised when you, in the "Shortcut to Bluetooth
> Tethering?" thread, where able to comprise a tutorial (of sorts) of just 4
> steps. Even though you implicitily called s|b stupid thruout that post.
> Yeah, you really sounded "caring" there. :-(

I don't accept said tutorials unless they are posted on a fixed web
site, not a forum with a collection of posts. Properly indexed.

>
>> I post here for a decade with the *same* images, the same phone for years,
>> the same posting style, the same quest for privacy, the same love of
>> Android, the same kind and helpful attitude to those who deserve it, etc.
>
> Yeah, I remember your "tutorials". For the ones I've seen they are
> convoluted, mixing different, unrelated subjects and sometimes even stopped
> short of any kind of a conclusion. I also remember when you posted a list
> of links, and I went thru them pointing out the problems with them. You
> could not have cared less. The same thing happens in this thread: you
> could not care less that I was trying to actually help you (without thumping
> my chest and letting the whole world know) to get /some/ kind of answer to
> your stated question.
>
>> I'm still in the Santa Cruz mountains. I still have the same phone.
>> I still answer people's questions using my vast knowledge, etc.
>
> And you still change your nym once in a while, making it impossible for
> others to find your older contributions - and refuse to "deep link" to the
> relevant ones in those fora you recently linked to (same thread as above).

Right.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.