> "Taking screenshots isn't allowed by the app or your organization."

To me that implies Android supports individual apps locking down your device so that you can't use certain features (like screenshots) while the app is open.

Android has had that as a feature for quite a while.

Well if it does, I should have absolute power to disable it. My phone, my screenshots.

This is meant for company provided phones. So it's not your phone, it's your company's phone.

individual apps can prevent screenshots as well. My bank doesn't allow screenshots in it's app.

For example Netflix uses it. Want to tell a friend how amazing this show is? Not on Netflix's watch!

iOS and PS4 also does have this block if the developer wishes to do so (generally for "security" reasons).

I don’t think iOS does have a way for apps to disallow screenshots. Do you have a source?

An app can receive a notification when a screenshot has been taken, so it could theoretically edit the last image saved to Photos.

https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/93362

However, I'm not really sure that would work, since I don't think that would be able to bypass iOS prompting you to give that app access to your photo library.

There's a third-party "ScreenShieldKit" which claims to be able to do this:

https://screenshieldkit.com

So, apparently it's technically possible to block this, but AFAIK, Apple doesn't provide an equivalent to Android's FLAG_SECURE ("treat the content of the window as secure, preventing it from appearing in screenshots or from being viewed on non-secure displays").

DRM-protected video can't be recorded (or screenshotted) in iOS, but as another comment noted, that seems to be a video-specific thing.

or for DRM reasons...

Nah, the DRM on iPhones is much stronger than screenshot protection. When you’re watching DRM protected media you can still take screenshots but the part of the screen that has the content will be blacked out. Basically all forms of reading pixels from DRM windows just return nothing.

That's "hardware overlay", not exactly DRM (it's been there on PCs for a very long time) but certainly leans in that direction.

It works different, you can always screen record but apps can detect it and stop playing content while the screen is recording.

It does, many bank and commerce apps use it to prevent malware screen grabbing account and payment details.

This is a feature: FLAG_SECURE is real and used by many apps. i.e. Chrome's Incognito mode.

Sure, you have workarounds for power-users, but Google is locking the Android ecosystem progressively for regular users. Just like the Manifest v3 for Chrome.

Maybe Google is doing the "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy that worked really well for Microsoft in the past.

Do you have any evidence for that?

The thread is about behavior caused by a presumably erroneous ".nomedia" file residing in certain users' screenshot folders.

The FLAG_SECURE feature doesn't appear to have anything to do with that. Two entirely separate things, unless you can show otherwise.

The thread describes a bug indeed, but the feature really exists.

Quoting the Android SDK reference : "FLAG_SECURE [...] Treat the content of the window as secure, preventing it from appearing in screenshots" [1] Try to screenshot while in Chrome's incognito, you'll see it in action.

[1] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/WindowM...

> Two entirely separate things, unless you can show otherwise.

Read the error message! It's clearly related to the real feature, which means the bug can't be "entirely separate".

> but Google is locking the Android ecosystem progressively for regular users.

FLAG_SECURE has existed for as long as Android has. It can't possibly be evidence of locking down the ecosystem progressively as it's always been part of the ecosystem.

Yeah, the comments seem to imply a case of 'commenting before reading the content' behavior to me.

Yes. Yes. First assume malice. Then any wild explanation will do.

Well, I don't assume malice, I can stay in a superposition. It could be malice, it could be incompetence, and it's important to be able to discern between the two, and that's purely contextual.