←back to thread

Israeli-founded app preloaded on Samsung phones is attracting controversy

(www.sammobile.com)
391 points croes | 4 comments | 17 Nov 25 16:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
duxup ◴[17 Nov 25 17:00 UTC] No.45955483[source]▶
I recently bought a cheap android device because I needed to test something on Android. The setup was about 3 hours of the device starting up, asking me questions, installing apps I explicitly told it not to, and then all sorts of other apps and OS updates trying to do their thing seemingly at once. I wasn't even transferring data, just a brand new phone, new google account.

What a horrible experience you get with some providers and phones.

It's to the point that I think there should be some sort of regulation that involves you getting a baseline experience on the OS rather than a bunch of malware out of the box.

replies(10): >>45955502 #>>45957276 #>>45957457 #>>45957756 #>>45957987 #>>45958074 #>>45958327 #>>45958370 #>>45958555 #>>45976735 #
1. jeroenhd ◴[17 Nov 25 20:35 UTC] No.45957987[source]▶
Cheap devices get subsidized by shitty adware. The cheaper the device, the more likely that it's full of terrible adware.

Consumers often have a choice, at least between "filled to the brim with crap" and "a modicum of crap", by choosing between buying their phone from a store or from a carrier. Carriers have better deals but shovel their phones full of the worst apps you can imagine. Still, people will buy the crap-filled experience that makes you want to tear your hair out because they like the idea of scoring a better deal.

Nothing like unadulterated greed combined with short-sighed consumer behaviour at scale to drive a market segment into an awful race to the bottom.

replies(2): >>45958152 #>>45959111 #
2. oceansky ◴[17 Nov 25 20:53 UTC] No.45958152[source]▶
The premium devices still have the bloatware.
replies(1): >>45958695 #
3. smileson2 ◴[17 Nov 25 21:43 UTC] No.45958695[source]▶
Yeah, even the iPhone bundles/bakes in google junk
4. robocat ◴[17 Nov 25 22:26 UTC] No.45959111[source]▶
> subsidized

What's a better word here? Adverts cost the consumer, however I'm sure the consumer doesn't get equal recompense. Theoretically a SmartTV with adverts costs less money ("subsidised" due to price competition), but is the consumer actually ($,time) better off?

The costs are invisible and the consumer cannot actually measure the costs (the vendors do measure profitability but this is not legible).

I reckon most people are terrible at judging the value of their own time (especially children and retirees).