←back to thread

80 points thunderbong | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lokar ◴[] No.42200889[source]
I see apple as like LVMH, but for phones. It has a minority of overall sales, but a majority of the “luxury” part of the market. This gives them influence over the whole market, but not a real monopoly.
replies(6): >>42200914 #>>42201067 #>>42201094 #>>42201131 #>>42201148 #>>42201290 #
echelon ◴[] No.42200914[source]
You have two choices for phone ecosystem, and they're both bastards about what you can put on your device. Google uses the tyranny of defaults, deeply buried settings, and scare walls to accomplish much the same thing that Apple does by strictly being draconian. It's mafia behavior over the most important device category in the world.

Both of these companies need to have their asses handed to them. Not just by the US DOJ, but by every country. What we do with our phones is bigger and more important than two companies that got there first. They'll still have their trillions dollar market caps after the DOJ tells them they must allow web installs.

Apple and Google's only role should be to provide a hermetic sandbox with permissions layer and do occasional malware scans. That's it. Once we buy the devices, they're ours, and these companies should have no say as to what innovation takes place and what customer relationships are built after the initial sales are made.

replies(2): >>42201057 #>>42201440 #
dismalaf ◴[] No.42201057[source]
> Google uses the tyranny of defaults, deeply buried settings, and scare walls to accomplish much the same thing that Apple does by strictly being draconian.

Ah yes, Google is so draconian that on Samsung devices Samsung Internet is the default browser and Swiftkey is the default keyboard. And all the settings are incredibly easy to find, you can sideload easily, make any app the default for it's category, etc... They are not close to equivalent.

replies(1): >>42201735 #
1. nar001 ◴[] No.42201735{3}[source]
We're not talking about what manufacturers can do, but about what users can do, they're not the same
replies(1): >>42201772 #
2. dismalaf ◴[] No.42201772[source]
Well only 1 platform lets users do pretty much whatever they want... That's not even up for debate.
replies(1): >>42202191 #
3. bmicraft ◴[] No.42202191[source]
Well, except for the Play Integrity API (formerly SafetyNet). As soon as you do anything remotely interesting you can't use NFC payments, your bank or even the McDonalds app anymore.

This notably doesn't even achieve it's supposed goal of keep anything secure from anyone - bypasses are found usually days after it's "fixed". That only leaves the conclusion that Google wants to make it painful so as to discourage anyone from stepping out of line. Because that's the only thing it actually achieves, and it does so remarkably well.

replies(1): >>42202303 #
4. sofixa ◴[] No.42202303{3}[source]
Remotely interesting you mean root your phone, I presume?

I haven't found the need to root mine, there's plenty of flexibility in unrooted Android. I use the browser (actual browser, with its own engine), password manager, search engine, PWAs, email app, launcher of my choice. I use F-Droid for generic apps (like QR code reader).