Android Phone Battery

mr_fishbulb

A couple of apps that I use to improve the battery life on my phone:

Greenify - Force close a set of apps and lock your phone. I've combined it with Apex Starter gesster so when I swipe up on the home screen, it force closes a load of apps and then locks the phone.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.oasisfeng.greenify&hl=en_GB

Moboclean - This doesn't work for all apps (and it's not on the Play store), but basically it allows you to install a moboclean version of an application and you can toggle features such as run in background. For example you could moboclean BBC News so that it doesn't autostart or run in the background. Moboclean doesn't play nicely with anything that uses a google feature - for example the map doesn't work on Uber if you moboclean it.
http://moboclean.com/

Bollotom

Just a quick genuine question. I had Avast and it recommended I download to phone also. Then my bank offered Kaspersky and I d/l'd it and a version to my phone. Could you confirm I had no need to d/l any AV at all and if so why do firms throw very expensive resources at summat they know isn't going to work on a phone. Just sounds a bit iffy. Also I'm not techie so av, malware. spyware, adware are all the same to me in terms of the damage they can cause. I did often wonder why some of my apps asked for permissions for camera/phonecalls/microphone/location etc. Surely this makes them akin to malware and/or spyware. And I use Battery Saver. :cool:

aliEnRIK

AndyPix wrote: »

Yes, like I said , the "AV" will have a list of filenames that are "dodgy"
It cant and doesn't "scan" any contents of the APK

So now you can see how the "AV" is completely useless
Because had you not ticked the option to allow from untrusted sources (at which point android its self would have warned you) - you wouldn't have been able to install this rogue APK ..

We are going round in circles here - are you sure you don't work for avast or something
You are not proving anything, you are making yourself look silly

How can it tell me about the INSTALLED app (Which has a legit name) if it goes off the name only?
And AVAST warned me not to. Are you for real?

aliEnRIK

Bollotom wrote: »

Just a quick genuine question. I had Avast and it recommended I download to phone also. Then my bank offered Kaspersky and I d/l'd it and a version to my phone. Could you confirm I had no need to d/l any AV at all and if so why do firms throw very expensive resources at summat they know isn't going to work on a phone. Just sounds a bit iffy. Also I'm not techie so av, malware. spyware, adware are all the same to me in terms of the damage they can cause. I did often wonder why some of my apps asked for permissions for camera/phonecalls/microphone/location etc. Surely this makes them akin to malware and/or spyware. And I use Battery Saver. :cool:

I have tried a number of the 'battery saving' apps with varying degrees of success. Thats why I ended up suggesting different apps.

aliEnRIK

AndyPix wrote: »

Please don't offer advice - on a subject you clearly don't fully understand

because as you said, many non-techies come here looking for advice, and may believe the incorrect stuff you are spouting

Actually, I have proven to myself that the av program not only recognised a dodgy APK file as soon as it was put onto the android device.
It ALSO warned me to not turn on allowing 'unknown sources'
After installing it warned me AGAIN that the installed program probably wasn't a good idea to have.

An anti virus is generally only as good as the user using it. If someone who didn't understand viruses decided to go past 3 separate warnings I would say the onus is on them and the AV has actually done its job.
Further to that, if someone understood a little more and was feeling brave about installing from an unknown source, it would STILL warn them the file was iffy at least twice before running it.
The AV actually worked to the point it gave MORE than enough warnings to its user.

Further to that, with this experiment its looking highly likely that attempting to install a dodgy app from PLAY direct could well also come up with a warning (Something that couldn't EVER happen if you don't use one - which is your awesome advice)

If you're telling people the PLAY store is 100% safe you're the one that is wrong and giving out bad advice.
If your also stating an AV couldn't help in this case (ie, no warnings at all) I ask for proof.

AV Comparatives test with over 4500 known malware samples (Actual number of known by the manufacturers themselves I havent seen as yet). I would rather have that protection behind me than NO protection as the 'unknown source' protection is NOT going to protect ANYBODY from a rogue PLAY file.

If any of the above is incorrect I am ALL ears

Just telling everyone you're right and I am wrong is making you look. well.

AndyPix

aliEnRIK wrote: »

How can it tell me about the INSTALLED app (Which has a legit name) if it goes off the name only?
And AVAST warned me not to. Are you for real?

Look, I have told you my credentials - and I have told you the truth regarding all this.
One more time ..

It looks at a list of names of software that are known to contain unwanted features.

If the app name it looks at matches the name of an app on its list then it reports this to you.
That is it.
That's how it works.

I don't know any other way to explain this to you that you will understand, I think I have been very clear
.
It is IMOSSIBLE for the "AV" app to scan the contents of another installed application.

IMPOSSIBLE

It matters not what tongue twisters you come out with next, I have told you the facts and I have told you my credentials to prove that I know what I am talking about.

Enjoy your AV software my friend, in the words of Duncan banatine, IM OUT :beer:

aliEnRIK

AndyPix wrote: »

Look, I have told you my credentials - and I have told you the truth regarding all this.
One more time ..

It looks at a list of names of software that are known to contain unwanted features.

If the app name it looks at matches the name of an app on its list then it reports this to you.
That is it.
That's how it works.

I don't know any other way to explain this to you that you will understand, I think I have been very clear
.
It is IMOSSIBLE for the "AV" app to scan the contents of another installed application.

IMPOSSIBLE

It matters not what tongue twisters you come out with next, I have told you the facts and I have told you my credentials to prove that I know what I am talking about.

Enjoy your AV software my friend, in the words of Duncan banatine, IM OUT :beer:

Its simple

If a file was called idonotgiveup.apk , is the filename idonotgiveup.apk that it looks for or is it something within the file? Because the filename I used as a test was a legit named file which tells me your advice is possibly incorrect

laters

aliEnRIK

AndyPix wrote: »

Look, I have told you my credentials

I have many bosses at work with many credentials. Doesn't stop them being useless at their jobs

AndyPix

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Actually, I have proven to myself that the av program not only recognised a dodgy APK file as soon as it was put onto the android device.

It recognised the NAME of the file - yes , like I explained

aliEnRIK wrote: »

It ALSO warned me to not turn on allowing 'unknown sources'.

Like I am doing now - no AV required

aliEnRIK wrote: »

After installing it warned me AGAIN that the installed program probably wasn't a good idea to have..

You need telling twice ?

aliEnRIK wrote: »

An anti virus is generally only as good as the user using it. If someone who didn't understand viruses decided to go past 3 separate warnings I would say the onus is on them and the AV has actually done its job.
Further to that, if someone understood a little more and was feeling brave about installing from an unknown source, it would STILL warn them the file was iffy at least twice before running it.
The AV actually worked to the point it gave MORE than enough warnings to its user.

Keep untrusted sources unticked - then all this is irrelivent

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Further to that, with this experiment its looking highly likely that attempting to install a dodgy app from PLAY direct could well also come up with a warning (Something that couldn't EVER happen if you don't use one - which is your awesome advice)

Impossible - as by the very nature of Android, it cant scan the contents of another program running

aliEnRIK wrote: »

If you're telling people the PLAY store is 100% safe you're the one that is wrong and giving out bad advice.

I didn't say that - you are putting words in my mouth . some apps have been found to have malwwary behaviour, but AV would have been useless because I say again, they cant scan the contents of a file, only go off known names - and if the name was known then it would be removed from play

aliEnRIK wrote: »

If your also stating an AV couldn't help in this case (ie, no warnings at all) I ask for proof.

Its impossible to prove a negative, however any android developer will be able to tell you that it is impossible for one app to scan the code of another in Android - this Is a fundamental of the operating system and is widely known - If you dispute this then I laugh in your direction and feel a bit sorry for you . You can start your journey of knowledge here :- http://developer.android.com/index.html

aliEnRIK wrote: »

AV Comparatives test with over 4500 known malware samples (Actual number of known by the manufacturers themselves I havent seen as yet). I would rather have that protection behind me than NO protection as the 'unknown source' protection is NOT going to protect ANYBODY from a rogue PLAY file.

Maybe so - so that's 4500 samples that wouldn't have been able to get onto your machine with the unknown sources unticked !!
And if one was in the google play store, your AV would have been useless because it cant scan the contents of the other program


Seriously mate - I admire your enthusiasm, but your basic understanding of Android is lacking and that is leading you to wrong conclusions based on the evidence you see and read and believe from the AV companies claims.
I invite you to learn more before you reply again as this is definitely definitely my last comment in this thread, so you may have the last word :T

Why not write to avast or whoever ?? they will confirm everything I have said

Andy

Richie-from-the-Boro

Battery saving apps.

Smartphones do their best twixt 40-80% of battery life, the first 20% is the fastest to drop in all phones. I'm on an octa-core Snapdragon 810 and 4GB of RAM with 3300mAh of battery power. While it compares with other similar spec phones such as the iPhone 6 Plus & HTC One M9 costing 3 times the price most of the battery use is down to the OS itself. Fortunately I'm on CyanogenMod 12.1 build / Android 5.1.1 and can tame most of the unnecessary extravagances of the app builder without reducing CPU power and close most risk doors left open by the app builder without impinging on the performance of the phone - the fact that the app I'm taming does not work properly or even at all is of no interest to me.