Do you have reason to believe that's not what they did?

> Do you have reason to believe that's not what they did?

None at all, no, and I did not mean to assert that they didn't. I was not saying anything about the program itself, only responding to the claim that permissions had to be requested for optional features (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28538104):

> Then why did it even ask for full system access? Did it? IMHO developers of the apps which ask for any permissions besides those technically necessary for performing the actual function the user installs the app for should be warned once and then banned for years.

which was a response to a question about why the permissions were requested if they were not necessary (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28538036):

> Then why did it even ask for full system access? Did it? IMHO developers of the apps which ask for any permissions besides those technically necessary for performing the actual function the user installs the app for should be warned once and then banned for years.

Since the permissions become necessary when the user chooses to use the optional features, I took kevingadd to be claiming that the permissions had to be requested whether or not the optional features were used.

It did. You only had to approve the permission of you wanted to use the extra features.