[HN Gopher] Android 12 forces you to choose a default browser un...
___________________________________________________________________
Android 12 forces you to choose a default browser unless you
disable Chrome
Author : notRobot
Score : 221 points
Date : 2022-03-15 12:04 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (old.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (old.reddit.com)
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| Another unwelcome change is that disabling the YouTube app no
| longer allows opening YouTube links in an external application,
| forcing them to open in Chrome instead.
|
| I use just a handful of services that require Chrome, so it's
| unreasonable to have to disable it entirely to restore default
| historical behaviors. Really feels like throwing their toys out
| of the crib over not having total dominance on people's devices.
| zagrebian wrote:
| Are there any instances of this link hijacking crap on iOS as
| well?
| beart wrote:
| My experience on iOS was that many application specific links
| were forcing the use of apple's apps, even if you have a
| third party app installed.
| dijit wrote:
| That only applied to the browser, calendar (and maybe the
| mail app, but I think that was always overridable), but
| this has changed now so you can choose default apps for all
| Apple built-ins.
|
| Most Apps seem to implement their own in-app browser
| (LinkedIn, Apollo) too.
| Steltek wrote:
| So is the browser stuff fixed then? IIRC, "default
| browser" was left to individual apps and it was
| implemented as the app requesting a URI of https:// or
| chromeHttps:// (or something like that. It was total
| Apple bullshit.
| zagrebian wrote:
| From my experience, it works well. I've set my default
| browser to Firefox, and links do open in Firefox indeed.
| Even when I'm in an in-app browser, and there's a little
| Safari icon in the lower right corner, when I tap that
| icon, the link opens in Firefox. So the Safari button
| does not mean Safari but default browser. Pretty good.
| toyg wrote:
| Usual reminder that Firefox in iOS still means "Safari
| with a Firefox skin". But yes, it's an improvement, after
| "only" a decade of complaints about a clearly
| anticompetitive restriction.
| dijit wrote:
| isn't that just the JS engine though? And isn't that
| mostly because native access to the FPU in silicon is not
| made use of properly in V8?
|
| I remember someone had Chrome working on iOS but it was
| painfully slow.
|
| Apple has allowed arbitrary code execution before
| (Pythonista) so it's _possible_ I guess.
|
| You can do your own rendering for sure.
| zagrebian wrote:
| > isn't that just the JS engine though?
|
| Mozilla develops the Gecko browser engine, but Firefox on
| iOS uses the WebKit browser engine provided by the
| system. If Mozilla were allowed to use Gecko on iOS, they
| would, trust me.
| Steltek wrote:
| Arbitrary code execution fell under an "educational"
| exemption, I think. Also, the app store review process is
| highly variable based on the reviewer.
|
| I'm not an iOS developer but I bet your paths into the JS
| engine API depends a lot on the web engine you're using.
| I know the in-app browser had two flavors of UI component
| with drastically different capabilities.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Yes, iOS has default settings for http and mailto links
| as of iOS 14
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211336
| throwra620 wrote:
| maxhille wrote:
| Can you clarify what you want to do exactly?
|
| 3rd party apps can still register on Youtube URLs, the process
| just changed a bit. And being affected in my app[1] by this
| change myself I have to say that this permission-style model is
| an improvement IMO.
|
| [1]
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lambdasoup...
| xenomachina wrote:
| Two things the new system has broken for me:
|
| 1. Previously, installing a reddit app meant that it would
| become the default handler of reddit links. Worst case, I'd
| be prompted when I opened a reddit link, and I could choose
| the app I wanted, and say to use it every time or continue
| prompting.
|
| In Android 12, I have to go to settings and preemptively
| check a checkbox for every kind of url my reddit app can
| handle. Worse, every time my reddit app updates, these
| settings seem to get reset, and I have to go back and fix
| them.
|
| 2. It used to be possible to register an app with a file
| type. For example, MX Player registers itself with video file
| types. Firefox even has some special support for this, so if
| you're on a page with an embedded video, you can long press
| on the video and select "Open in external app". Prior to
| Android 12 this would give you a chooser, and you could
| select an installed video player.
|
| In Android 12, it just takes you straight to the default
| browser. It is no longer possible to register a default
| handler by file type.
|
| > I have to say that this permission-style model is an
| improvement IMO.
|
| What does the new system make better? All it does is remove
| user choice. If I wanted a walled garden I'd use iOS.
| Larrikin wrote:
| This isn't true? I discovered Vanced a few weeks ago, and
| YouTube links are opening just fine after disabling the links
| on the official app and enabling them in the Vanced.
| moogly wrote:
| I have some bad news for you regarding Vanced...
| Iolaum wrote:
| Can't you install Newpipe and select that as the default way to
| open youtube links? (Assuming you don't object to doing that of
| course.)
| UberFly wrote:
| This is what I did and it works fine. Newpipe is awesome. On
| phones & tablets I always disable Chrome and Youtube.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| IIRC you can't install Newpipe without enabling side-loaded
| apps, though. It's not available on the Play Store for
| obvious reasons.
| Aachen wrote:
| That sound like "you can't install Notepad++ without
| enabling something dangerous on Windows". It's a lock in
| hurdle that we can thankfully (for now) disable, let's not
| label it as a bad thing.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| That's not a bad thing though? F-Droid has some really
| great apps. Very fast too compared to their data harvesting
| Google play alternatives.
|
| I mostly use FOSS apps now, their quality has improved a
| lot in recent years.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Which apps would you specifically recommend as faster
| compared to their counterparts?
| Ourgon wrote:
| The solution to the Youtube-problem is to use a Youtube-
| frontend like Invidious [1] in combination with an extension
| like Privacy Redirect [2] of libredirect [3] so you don't need
| to touch the Youtube site at all. The same works for things
| like Twitter and Reddit (which can be redirected to front-ends
| offering the same content) or Google Maps, Google Search and
| Google Translate (which get redirected to alternative
| services). Some of these alternatives - Invidious for Youtube,
| Nitter for Twitter, libreddit for Reddit - can (but don't have
| to) be run on your own server, others use established services.
| This way you get the benefits of accessing content from
| adversarial services like Twitter and Youtube without having to
| interface with them directly on any device you use, not just
| that phone you happened to install some alternative front end
| like Newpipe on. You can "subscribe" to Youtube channels
| without telling Google you did so, you can access those
| subscriptions from anywhere, etc.
|
| Ditch that Youtube app and while you're at it ditch the rest of
| those Google apps as well. Freedom is just one click away: Are
| you sure you want to uninstall this app? [OK].
|
| [1] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious
|
| [2] https://github.com/SimonBrazell/privacy-redirect
|
| [3] https://github.com/libredirect/libredirect
| xigoi wrote:
| How do you use the extensions on mobile, where Firefox
| doesn't allow non-curated extensions?
| yissp wrote:
| I think Firefox Nightly gives you access to the full
| selection of extensions.
| xigoi wrote:
| It doesn't.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Am I the only one who is less likely to pay Google for
| anything when they pull hi-jinks like this? The more that
| they change how things work, the more that I want to disable
| updates and use libre software alternatives. If they were
| just cool and didn't try to prevent me from having things my
| way, I'd probably have paid them for a premium app
| experience.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| What are you going to do though? Apple forces you to use
| their web browser, any apparently 3rd part web browsers are
| using apple's actual browser as a plug in.
|
| There are no viable options for smart phones that are not
| fascist.
| [deleted]
| coffeecat wrote:
| PinePhone + mainline Linux. Obtaining freedom isn't easy
| - it requires hard work and sacrifice - but it's
| absolutely possible.
| Liquix wrote:
| This works flawlessly at the moment (currently using the same
| setup). However it's more of a workaround than a solution -
| Google could break/throttle all of Invidious at any point if
| it drives ad revenue down another couple points, just like
| they recently did to Vanced. The real solution is the hard
| one - moving away from YT entirely
| bluGill wrote:
| Seems like an anti-trust lawsuit just waiting to happen if
| they do.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I don't see anti-trust actions happening in current
| administration.
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| Normally the EU is always up for making life complicated
| for big tech but we are currently... indisposed.
| ouid wrote:
| I thought that there was a rather strongly worded memo to
| the FTC to enforce anti-trust in july of last year.
| toyg wrote:
| _> just like they recently did to Vanced_
|
| What did they do to Vanced? Still works on my phone.
| input_sh wrote:
| It still works but it's no longer being worked on nor
| offered for download.
|
| Discussed recently:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30663739
| CamelRocketFish wrote:
| Cease and desist.
| 14 wrote:
| YouTube is getting shittier by the year also. Forcing me to
| watch an ad that takes 5 seconds to even start then after
| said ad the video freezes and doesn't even play requiring a
| page refresh just to watch something. I'm ready for the
| alternative to arrive.
| jvolkman wrote:
| There are no video ads if you pay for YouTube Premium
| (outside of embedded paid sponsor stuff added by the
| video producers themselves).
| mcagl wrote:
| Or even better: youtube in the browser, with ublock
| origin + sponsorblock, and Youtube becomes at least less
| annoying.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Invidious is different from Vanced in that Vanced was a mod
| on top of the main YouTube application, while Invidious is
| just a different frontend with presumably no infringement
| of YouTube IP or code or TOS. Now, youtube-dl got the
| infamous copyright complaint by RIAA because they
| advertised using it to download copyrighted music[0], so
| perhaps a stronger case could be made if any code within
| Invidious used more hidden APIs or otherwise shows using it
| to watch Standard YouTube License videos without fulfilling
| the quid pro quo of watching ads.
|
| 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911
| crtasm wrote:
| > because they advertised using it to download
| copyrighted music
|
| Their unit tests used some music videos, and only because
| Youtube's website uses different javascript for such
| videos. It's a stretch to call that advertising, I don't
| believe I'd ever read the tests code before the
| complaint.
| fsflover wrote:
| If you search for a solution, not workaround, consider
| this: https://joinpeertube.org.
| Ourgon wrote:
| I host a number of Peertube instances next to Invidious.
| There is a reason for having both of these: _Peertube can
| not access Youtube-hosted material_. Thus, to publish
| your own material use Peertube, to access Youtube-hosted
| material use something like Invidious.
| sneak wrote:
| How do I use Privacy Redirect on a mobile browser? I can't
| seem to install arbitrary browser extensions in Firefox on
| Graphene, just a little allowlist of a halfdozen "blessed"
| ones.
| 123jay7 wrote:
| esperent wrote:
| I used invidious for a few weeks. Actually getting the videos
| once I connected was fine, the issue was that invidious
| instances were constantly going down and I had to keep
| searching for a new working instance.
|
| I also use libreddit and teddit and almost never have a
| problem with those. Are there any equivalent invidious
| servers?
| lopis wrote:
| If you need a chrome browser, would using another chrome based
| browser work?
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| notjustanymike wrote:
| This is a nice time to point out Firefox for Android allows you
| to install uBlock Origin.
| depingus wrote:
| The browser situation on Android sucks. I test every browser I
| try like this: Can it scroll through Imgur properly? Sadly,
| only Chrome and Brave pass this test (its been a while since I
| tried Edge, but it used to fail at this too). Luckily Brave has
| decent ad blocking built in.
| UberFly wrote:
| Vivaldi on Android is really nice. Blocks ads and trackers by
| default and does it well.
| depingus wrote:
| Vivaldi is nice. Last time I tried it there were a few UI
| quirks that made me switch back to Brave. IIRC, it didn't
| behave all that great with Imgur (though better than
| Firefox).
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Firefox for Android leaves much to be desired. But I still
| use it over Chrome.
| Sunspark wrote:
| The best browser on Android is usually Samsung Internet
| Browser. It will work on non-Samsung devices.
|
| It has dark mode, it has adguard block addon, it's chromium,
| etc.
| distances wrote:
| I don't know why you would blame the browser and not Imgur
| for this.
| depingus wrote:
| Oh, I'm certain Imgur could fix this issue if they wanted
| to. But they would rather push users into their app, so
| that's never going to happen.
|
| I still think this is as good test because A) I use Imgur's
| website on mobile, and B) expecting all web sites to be
| correctly optimized is unrealistic. I prefer to use Brave
| and uninstall Chrome, than use Firefox with Chrome as a
| backup.
| zaat wrote:
| Is it possible nowadays to tell Brave to delete cookies
| when closing the browser?
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Hmm, design of some page is broken so you measure all
| browsers based on that? That's one of the weirder things I've
| heard in a while...
| depingus wrote:
| Well, its a webpage I use often. So I need a compatible
| browser.
| dangus wrote:
| Another thing to point out that a lot of long-time Android
| users (or even iPhone users) don't know: Safari on iOS recently
| gained browser extension support.
|
| While iOS Safari had a content blocker API and password manager
| integration, it now has support for full browser extensions
| that can do more.
|
| Probably the only downside to iOS extensions is that they're
| more frequently paid, since developers need to have paid Apple
| development accounts. uBlock Origin itself is not available,
| but there are alternative content blockers with similar
| features.
|
| Here are some neat ones:
| https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-15-safari-extensions/
| zaat wrote:
| So I'm currently moving to new phone, after 4 years. My Firefox
| history is essential to me, it is a huge, indispensable and
| private index for stuff I know. And now it is taken as hostage
| by the lovely Mozilla foundation, since the only supported way
| to transfer it to my new phone is by using their syncing
| service.
|
| I don't want to have account there, nor do I want to create
| mail account for creating one. Offering users no other choice
| to get their data is user hostile on a degree akin to Google's
| level. It boils my blood.
| beeboop wrote:
| If it helps at all, all your Firefox data is encrypted client
| side before getting uploaded.
| nulld3v wrote:
| Firefox history has a limit though and I'm pretty sure you've
| hit after 4 years of browsing. This is why I maintain my own
| history index.
| zaat wrote:
| Don't even get me started on that unconfigurable limit.
| Still, there's a very long list that still there. How do
| you maintain your own index?
| nulld3v wrote:
| I have a custom extension that sends my history to a SQL
| database (I didn't put much effort in making it easy to
| use for other people so I honestly wouldn't recommend you
| use it): https://github.com/null-dev/Historian.
|
| What I would recommend is just making both your history
| and bookmarks browser agnostic. That way you don't have
| to worry about limits and you can switch browsers
| whenever you want. I'm sure there are extensions out
| there that can sync data between different browsers, I
| remember looking at xBrowserSync a while ago:
| https://www.xbrowsersync.org/. I don't know how well it
| works though as I've never used it.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| You can also set a "Private DNS" in the Android settings menu
| to dns.adguard.com and block (most) ads system-wide, including
| those in any ad-riddled "free" games/apps.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| uBlock Origin and DOZEN of other extensions!!
|
| No others allowed.
|
| Unless you use a beta version and do a weird thing with
| accounts and a website.
|
| And it's been broken this way for years now.
|
| Firefox seems to be trying hard to keep their benefits over
| chrome as minimal as possible.
| zaat wrote:
| The worst part is that it was much better before the botched
| update (which was essentially push of a different browser)
| that they inflected on us one bright day without warning.
|
| Firefox is the best browser we have, and it is really not
| that good, and the management is just terrible.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Slightly OT but I heard complaints about bluetooth on android 12.
|
| I am holding back at Android 11, anybody knows if this has been
| adressed yet?
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| Good for me, it's been over 5 years since I last had Chrome
| installed on mobile.
| martin_a wrote:
| Well, I'm probably developing more and more into a grumpy mid-30s
| guy, but I'm just annoyed by all of this.
|
| Just let me use the browser I want and don't fuck around like
| this. Just let me have things the way I want, I will even accept
| that I have to fiddle with obscure settings and whatnot, but at
| least give me the option to have things the way I like them and
| give me the feeling that I have control over at least
| _something_.
|
| I have the feeling with every tech news, there's immediately
| something like "but you can only do it in that way because the
| developer/producer does not want you to do it another way".
|
| Don't know if I can keep up with all of this.
|
| Has anybody experience with switching from e-commerce & software
| to lumberjack?
| judge2020 wrote:
| This is only if you really want to be able to open different
| browsers depending on which link you click. You can still set
| the default to some other browser and forget it.
| martin_a wrote:
| For how long, though? At some point Google just decides that
| Android only works with Chrome and users don't want anythign
| else (look at the data from A12 user base!) and removes that
| option, just like Apple did.
| djrogers wrote:
| > and removes that option, just like Apple did.
|
| Umm, no - Apple started without that option, but recently
| introduced it.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| The entirety of Google itself is like a dark pattern.
| shoeWill wrote:
| Well you just forced me into old Reddit. Why do people like that
| clunky interface?
| f1refly wrote:
| Clunky, as opposed to the new design:
|
| * "No, you can't see this community, download the app"
|
| * "this post is nsfw, download the app"
|
| * (popup at the bottom of the screen) "do you want to use the
| app?"
|
| * when reading comments, suddenly the chain stops and completly
| unrelated posts are shown
|
| * if you want to read a comment chain deeper than three, you
| have to open each subcomment individually. Naturally, pressing
| back won't take you to the right position after following a
| chain
|
| * all of the above is slower than even youtube, making it the
| worst web experience right after IBM's presentation of the plex
| font
| hackmiester wrote:
| It's a losing battle with this crowd. I finally just wrote a
| user script that deletes the "old" from the URL for me.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > Why do people like that clunky interface?
|
| Why do people like the super slow new reddit? Is a slightly
| shinier site really worth several 100ms delay for actions
| taken?
|
| FWIW, I'd switch to new in a heartbeat. Better Markdown, more
| customization, looks cleaner (and I'm always logged in, so the
| account thing is not an issue). But not with the crappy speed
| it currently has.
| judge2020 wrote:
| At least with adblock it actually loads pretty fast, the
| issues are the annoyances, and man I didn't know how bad it
| was.
|
| It dimmed the entire page to try to ask me for notification
| access: https://i.judge.sh/EUnAO/2_koa6cB9q.png
|
| Then it wants to ask me about topics i'm interested in:
| https://i.judge.sh/RF58W/N_17B22eMD.png
|
| Then, without ublock, below the fold, almost all of the
| content on the page is an advertisement
| https://i.judge.sh/bfACD/6_Kl9IneDr.png
| Semaphor wrote:
| I run everything with uBlock Origin and uMatrix (maybe it's
| like amp where it slows down if you block something...),
| it's most certainly still far slower than old. I recently
| gave it a try again and it either got worse or I had
| forgotten just how bad it was.
| krageon wrote:
| > clunky
|
| As opposed to what? The smooth new interface? Reddit is a
| cesspit of poor design, but at least the old theme did it
| without getting in the way.
| elric wrote:
| IMO the "new" interface is a serious downgrade. Especially on
| mobile: it keeps nagging you to switch to the mobile app and is
| rife with dark patterns, including pretending some subreddits
| are only accessible through the app.
| exodust wrote:
| > _Why do people like that clunky interface?_
|
| For me, more posts fit on the screen in old reddit. In this
| case, it's 10 posts in old reddit vs 6 in new, (desktop
| monitor).
|
| No infinite jank-loading and nudging more content I never
| requested into view as I scroll. Similarly I don't want to find
| a new book stuck to the back cover of the book I just finished
| reading.
|
| In old reddit I can open comments in new tab, scroll to last
| comment, then close tab. I don't always do that, but I like the
| option.
|
| In new reddit, the separator is a single line "More posts from
| the GooglePixel community"... Not even a horizontal line. I
| sometimes miss the end of one thread, and don't realise I'm
| reading comments in the next. Each to their own. I'd stop using
| old if new was better.
| Miner49er wrote:
| I think you're the first person I've ever seen who prefers the
| new interface. It's extremely unpopular, at least on HN.
| Jcowell wrote:
| Add +2 thought it's mainly for dark mode (and no I will not
| install an extension)
| Sunspark wrote:
| I love the old interface. The new one is impossible for me to
| use. I can't read a thing on it.
| mdellavo wrote:
| It's pretty much BS like that that had me switch to IOS after
| years on Android.
| tomComb wrote:
| Because Android will make you pick a default browser, you
| switched to iOS where you weren't even allowed to change the
| default browser (depending on when it was you switched), and
| even now every browser is actually Safari so users think there
| is diversity but there isn't really.
|
| Ok.
|
| I mean, I acknowledge that sort of thinking is common, but it's
| makes no sense to me.
| mdellavo wrote:
| you can pick a alternate browser on IOS and as I said - it
| was multiple instances
|
| Go in your google/android settings and make sure location
| tracking is off - come back and tell me with a straight face
| that the UX of the feature is not a dark pattern.
| kmonsen wrote:
| It depends on your definition of browser, they are all
| frontends for Apple WebKit.
| [deleted]
| cma wrote:
| An alternate where all alternatives are safari.
| akvadrako wrote:
| You can't have an alternate browser engine on iOS, just a
| shell around Safari's webview.
| morganvachon wrote:
| I use an iPhone too, but aren't all iOS browsers using the
| Safari engine in the background, even if the front end is
| branded as Firefox/Edge/whatever?
| bluGill wrote:
| Only for javascript - you can have your own html engine, but
| you have to use the sarari javascript engine. Technically you
| can have your own javascript engine, but your performance
| will be bad enough that we can ignore this.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The performance would be bad because of no JIT, but the
| main issue it is that Apple requires WebKit usage:
|
| > 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate
| WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
|
| > 4.7 HTML5 Games, Bots, etc. -> only use capabilities
| available in a standard WebKit view (e.g. it must open and
| run natively in Safari without modifications or additional
| software); and use WebKit and JavaScript Core to run third-
| party software and should not attempt to extend or expose
| native platform APIs to third-party software;
|
| Now, I get their reasoning - if you did parse regular
| javascript and JIT was allowed (which would be required to
| prevent any anticompetitive remarks in terms of performance
| for these other engines), random pages could exploit those
| 3p browsers and extract information from the APIs they have
| access to.
|
| But computers are complicated enough to where you probably
| couldn't explain to a layperson/congressperson the
| difference between iOS forcing developers to use their
| Window management APIs and iOS forcing developers to use
| their javascript APIs, so this is unlikely to change with
| regulatory force or anything of the sort.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I _am_ technical and I still don 't quite grasp the
| reasoning. Why does it matter if a browser makes
| available a non-standard API? And why is this a concern
| for mobile and not desktops?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Apple doesn't want app developers to deflect
| responsibility of user data siphoning off onto third-
| party websites or parties. Think the contacts API - the
| user might grant the app access to it in general, but
| then facebook.com could try to access them via a special
| browser API; if there aren't any extra prompts within the
| browser's code asking for user permission, this could
| lead to the site siphoning off user contacts without the
| user knowing.
| [deleted]
| eldaisfish wrote:
| I would pay for a mobile operating system that was not from
| Google or Apple and that i could install with one click. Before
| someone recommends Android ROMs, that's too complicated for most
| people and i don't have the patience or time to dig through forum
| posts for the solutions to bugs.
|
| I avoid google where i can and this includes their mobile
| operating system. I despise apple because of their design choices
| that prevent you from doing even the simplest tasks.
|
| An easily installed alternative would be great.
| beardog wrote:
| I know you said no Android roms, but GrapheneOS can be
| installed from a website over webUSB in just a couple steps.
| It's as simple as enabling OEM unlocking and clicking install -
| just make sure you have a supported non-carrier variant Pixel.
|
| That's the closest you're going to get to "install with one
| click". There is no preinstalled Google spyware or bloat
| pjmlp wrote:
| I paid for Symbian and Windows Phone as long as I could, it did
| not help.
| lostgame wrote:
| To be fair, Windows Phone would have - inevitably -
| eventually had the same issues.
|
| For God's sakes, I saw a post yesterday about ads _within_
| File Explorer on Windows, it 's nuts.
| dangus wrote:
| Technically, Sailfish is what you're asking for, though it's a
| little bit niche, Europe-focused, and only supported on
| specific Sony devices: https://sailfishos.org
|
| > I despise apple because of their design choices that prevent
| you from doing even the simplest tasks.
|
| That seems a little dramatic. I'm quite sure that iPhone owners
| are able to complete "simple tasks."
|
| I'd recommend trying a device with a recent iOS version, giving
| it a chance, and seeing if that opinion still rings true. The
| iPhone as a platform is a lot more open and flexible than it
| used to be.
|
| I switched from Android in 2016, and the most shocking thing
| about it was just how much of the experience is essentially
| identical to Android. Apple and Google have been borrowing
| identical features from each other for quite some time now.
|
| If you last tried iOS back when Steve Jobs was alive, you might
| think that all of these things couldn't be done on iOS:
|
| - Install full browser extensions (introduced in iOS 15)
|
| - Integrate with 3rd party password managers (iOS 12)
|
| - Change default browser, email apps. (Default navigation app
| still can't be changed, sadly.)
|
| - Removing icons from the home screen without uninstalling the
| app (iOS 15)
|
| - Adding widgets to your home screen (iOS 14)
|
| - Use an alternate keyboard (iOS 12)
|
| - Tell Siri to play a song in Spotify or other third party
| services
|
| - Use third party communication, navigation, and music services
| with CarPlay (Spotify even adds a custom UI element for its
| favorite button)
|
| - Play videos with Picture-in-Picture
|
| - Cast to Chromecast and other non-Apple casting devices (app-
| dependent, but you can always use the Chrome browser, YouTube,
| and Spotify apps to cast that way)
|
| - NFC is no longer locked down
|
| Really, the only difference between Apple and Google is that
| their business interests are aligned in a slightly different
| way. They're both restrictive when it comes to features that
| threaten their business model.
|
| I agree with you that we should have more/better alternatives,
| or at the very least more consumer protections and restrictions
| on Apple and Google's duopoly.
| enimodas wrote:
| Copperhead os? Not cheap.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The problem is not the operating system itself, the problem is
| the secrecy of the manufacturers and the _complete_ lack of
| standardization in the ARM environment. It 's trivial to make a
| (tiny) operating system for PCs as all the early initialization
| is done by the BIOS/UEFI and the interface that calls the OS
| from there is clearly defined. And in theory you don't even
| need to write hardware-specific drivers for basic system
| functionality - video, storage access, mouse and keyboard are
| all abstracted by the BIOS/UEFI. If you want, you can write a
| "hello world"-capable "OS" in a day or two - it's about 20
| lines of ASM code [1] that you put onto an USB stick and that's
| it.
|
| For ARM, everyone ships their own bootloader that has certain
| expectations on the hardware built-in (especially flash
| layout), there are _no_ standards at all that serve as some
| sort of fallback... it 's an utter wild west. And Google seems
| for whatever reason very reluctant to force the manufacturers
| as part of the Google Services license to adhere to at least
| _some_ standards (=following the open source mandate for the
| kernel and other GPL-licensed parts, publishing device trees,
| allowing access for people to flash their own OS).
|
| As a result, to even get started on ARM you need _at the very
| least_ information from the platform vendor how memory is
| structured, where to place the image, _how_ to flash it, how to
| bring up CPU cores... and that 's only going to give you a
| serial port _at best_. You then need to develop at least basic
| functionality to initialize the graphics processor, and _only
| then_ the user can actually see something.
|
| [1]: http://mikeos.sourceforge.net/write-your-own-os.html
| stragies wrote:
| I still want to read up more on the subject, but I was under
| the impression, that the EFI-support in U-Boot was/is
| supposed to remove most pain-points from the above list of
| valid points.
|
| The boot-sequence (I thought) that is becoming the new
| "standard" is: B1 ... U-Boot -> grub-arm-efi -> whatever_OS.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| That applies for ARM-based appliances which in most if not
| all cases run U-Boot... the problem is, in literally
| _every_ appliance whose firmware I touched for one or the
| other reason the respective fork of U-Boot was extremely
| old, and the vendors did not publish the sources at all or
| lacking the configuration used.
|
| In the mobile sector, most don't ship u-boot but some other
| bootloader, in this case mostly because u-boot doesn't
| support GUI operation/output which is vital for a phone.
| toothpicked wrote:
| LineageOS without Google Services/gapps is pretty nice... I
| only miss Google Maps.
| selectodude wrote:
| You're in luck!
|
| https://sailfishos.org/
| snoopen wrote:
| I just read their install instructions and there are over 20
| steps to follow.
| elcomet wrote:
| > that i could install with one click
|
| Come on, there isn't even a button "install" on the sailfish
| website. You certainly have to go through the "developers"
| menu, but even there, it's not clear where to go to install
| it.
|
| It does not fit att all the requirements
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| If you could click one button on a website and override
| your entire OS, malware makers would have a field day with
| it.
|
| Such things sound cool but are untenable in the real world.
| Microsoft used to have downloadable binaries on websites
| (ActiveX) and that showed what a stupid idea it was :)
| There's a reason internet explorer has such a bad name.
| beardog wrote:
| You have to grant webUSB permission and enable OEM
| unlocking on your Pixel, but GrapheneOS can be installed
| from a website: https://grapheneos.org/install/web
|
| It is arguably easier than installing windows on a laptop
| (if you were someone who had done neither before), since
| it is just a few buttons to press.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I think _you 're_ the one with unrealistic expectations
| here. There's quite literally _no way_ for you to install
| another OS with one click; even if you do have a device
| that allows you to flash other OSes to it, you have to
| unlock the bootloader and -- oops! That 's your one click.
|
| OP means it figuratively. Amazon's "one click" checkout
| isn't actually just _one click_ , it's a metaphor for how
| simple they're going to make it for you to buy the item.
| Similarly, a "one click" install of another OS should be
| taken to mean "dead simple to install" instead. You're
| welcome to debate how easy it is to install Sailfish OS on
| _those_ grounds, but if we 're being pedantic then there's
| quite literally no solutions that actually fit the parent's
| description.
| readams wrote:
| One click really was one click. They had all the payment
| and address info shared. You just clicked one button.
| They did have an undo.
| daggersandscars wrote:
| While not one click, GrapheneOS is fairly easy to install
| (series of clicks on the phone and a web page), and does not
| require digging through forum posts.
|
| However, it is based on AOSP and only supports relatively
| recent Pixel phones. Also, like all non-Android/non-iOS phones,
| some apps may or may not work on it. Depending on your phone
| use case, this may or may not be acceptable.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > I would pay
|
| But no one else would. You won't get the same level of support,
| features, or app compatibility unless you're willing to pay the
| salary of those who will make it possible, or you're able to
| find a niche group of people (eg. a million developers) to
| split the cost of making this possible. The OS duopoly is only
| a thing because making a functional & useful mobile operating
| system takes a enormous amount of human effort by some of the
| most skilled people in their fields.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| And yet the base OS of Android is made by volunteers ;)
| rat9988 wrote:
| How much of it is volunteer work nowadays?
| brnt wrote:
| Then you'd need to first pay for a phone that isn't bootlocked
| to a certain OS. Not many phones are.
|
| Once your Android phone is boot-unlocked, it's actually pretty
| straightforward to flash a LineageOS rom. It could be
| streamlined, sure, but since the hard part is unlocking and
| tends to require some tech skills, not many need the flashing
| to be any simpler than it is.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Google Pixel line is, funny enough, not boot-locked. And it
| offers quite decent hardware. Being build for Googles non-
| bloatware versions of Android the Pixel phones also offer a
| high degree of compatibility with de-googled versions of
| Android out there.
| brnt wrote:
| Hmm, I surely had to unlock my Pixels; get a nice big fat
| warning on every boot too. Don't remember how exactly
| though.
| authorityofnil wrote:
| This is highly dependent on where you live. For example there
| are pretty much no bootlocked phones in Finland
| brnt wrote:
| Are you sure you're not referring to simlock? If not, is
| that mandated by law in Finland?
| stragies wrote:
| Are there actually (current, available, lineage-supported(1))
| COTS phones, where you can add your own signing keys, and
| then re-lock the boot-loader? With mainline/non_ancient Linux
| kernel?
|
| Because without that, aren't all (modded to unlocked_boot-
| loader) Android devices susceptible to an Evil-Maid attack?
| Even if the device/user uses FDE, the evil maid could just
| spoof the key-entry frontend, no?
|
| (1) or whatever other ALT-Android/Linux FW.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| > Are there actually (current, available, lineage-
| supported(1)) COTS phones, where you can add your own
| signing keys, and then re-lock the boot-loader? With
| mainline/non_ancient Linux kernel?
|
| You may want to check out https://grapheneos.org/
| stragies wrote:
| Only supports the Pixel devices, no?
|
| `fastboot flashing lock` is available on some phones, but
| is there a comprehensive list somewhere of devices, where
| you can freely/add remove signing keys?
| jankovicsandras wrote:
| I'm very happy with my Fairphone 3+ bought here:
|
| https://esolutions.shop/
|
| They sell mobiles with /e/OS preinstalled, which is their
| privacy enhanced version of LineageOS (Android).
| Freak_NL wrote:
| I looked into Fairphone, but their current offering --
| Fairphone 4 -- seems to have persistent issues with the
| camera quality, and no official LineageOS build either.
|
| It really bums me out. I need a smartphone that will run
| Android apps, because the duopoly is not going anywhere and
| governments and banks are pushing hard to use theirs, but
| also because there is no way around WhatsApp here in the
| Netherlands if I want to give my young son a chance at going
| to play dates and stuff.1 I also like Fairphone's more
| ethical hardware side, but their offering just falls short a
| bit at the moment. Am I missing something here?
|
| 1: Personally, I'm fine without apps, and would much prefer
| to have a phone that does what Linux does for me on the
| desktop, but I'm not an island.
| awiesenhofer wrote:
| WhatsApp works fine on /e/OS, its even easily installable
| from their appstore! As are loads of other apps.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Including banking and government ID apps only spread
| though official app stores?
| fsflover wrote:
| https://puri.sm/products/librem-5 and
| https://pine64.org/pinephone.
| yosef123 wrote:
| This has been happening for a while, my solution was to disable
| google chrome, and install chrome beta instead just to have a
| "chrome"
| akagusu wrote:
| A big corp being hostile to users and treating users like cattle?
| Nothing new here.
|
| People have been warned for years about this kind of s#it, but
| they were more interested in the free stuff offered by the big
| corp.
| qiskit wrote:
| Seems to be the M.O. of these companies. Get a comfortable and
| safe/monopolistic position and then screw the users over.
|
| It's so funny how everything seems open and promising until
| they reach a certain size and then it suddenly starts to be
| restrictive and closed.
| tgv wrote:
| Did they provide a rationale for this change? Or is this more of
| a "middle manager's bonus depends on engagement KPI" kind of
| thing?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| It is possible that 98% of people aren't as familiar with
| digging through said menus, and that they would prefer having a
| default application, and that this is the way to force it.
|
| I don't enjoy power-user features and functions being removed
| from a device, but I've come to expect it on mobile. I don't
| think it is always willful "evil". It may just be "this is how
| most people do it, this is a way to simplify code/UX/etc." and
| they pull the trigger without thinking about the HN or reddit
| thread with a few people complaining.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| That's a little hard to believe, because the prompt makes it
| very obvious what's happening. If you attempt to open a link
| and it prompts you to pick a browser, the options are (using
| my own phone as an example:
|
| Open With
|
| (Samsung Internet) (Chrome) (Firefox) (Firefox Focus)
|
| Just Once | Always
|
| Android already _really wants you_ to click "Always" and
| just have something set. But I click "Just Once" every time,
| because I want the freedom to use Firefox Focus for the
| random clickbait article that shows up in my news feed that I
| don't want polluting my Firefox history. By its nature, it is
| already an intentional decision on my part.
|
| This being removed from Android 12 is Google saying, "Yeah,
| we really don't want you to have that choice anymore, because
| you might not pick the _right_ choice for us. "
| cryptoz wrote:
| You say that this prompt is "very obvious" but I strongly
| disagree.
|
| > Open With
|
| > (Samsung Internet) (Chrome) (Firefox) (Firefox Focus)
|
| > Just Once | Always
|
| I'm an android developer and have been for more than 10
| years. I get messed up at this kind of prompt sometimes,
| and just the other day I thought to myself, 'surprised
| google hasn't improved that yet '
|
| I'm sure 99%+ global android users find the experience
| confusing.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Agree to disagree, I guess?
|
| What would you propose as an alternative? To my mind,
| this is a pretty like-for-like experience with other
| operating systems, e.g. when you click an unknown file
| extension in Windows and it prompts you to pick the
| program to open it with. You'll get a prompt that says
| "How do you want to open this file?", you'll get a prompt
| to pick the program, and then there's a tick box that
| says "Always use program to open .XYZ files" It's
| reasonably intuitive to me.
|
| And again, if you click "Always", the prompt never comes
| back again. I've _unintentionally_ clicked Always once or
| twice and then had to spend some time in the Android
| System menu resetting defaults.
|
| The only other option for using the non-default browser
| after you have one associated is to long-click the URL
| and then manually locate the browser you want to use in
| the Share menu. That is cumbersome AF. The present menu
| offered when a non-default browser is specified is much
| better, IMO.
| BuildTheRobots wrote:
| I'd make the point that previously when opening a link or
| document that could be used by multiple locations you got a
| popup asking which one to use and if it should always be used
| or as a one off.
|
| No problems with defaults, but you should let the user pick.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Perhaps when you uninstalled a default third-party browser
| before, it was setting the default to None? Eg. install Firefox
| -> delete it -> now links take an extra click to actually open
| in a browser.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Does Google _ever_ provide a rationale for why they continue to
| twist Android internals to use More Google?
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| I always felt Google regards Android as a mistake. It is too
| open. Just look at how iOS is printing money for Apple with
| its walled garden. And Google's Pixel line smartphones are
| not selling.
|
| If they could do it all over again things would be very
| different.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| They seem to be adding very little wrt. useful features,
| and resorting to pointless churn as we're seeing here.
| Unfortunately the most workable "open" alternative is the
| mainline Linux stack, which has yet to reach "daily driver"
| usability on any device. Sailfish is a non starter as it's
| just a closed UX on top of vendor kernels and drivers, only
| the middle layers are open.
| toyg wrote:
| Oh no no no. They executed the MS playbook perfectly. Now
| it's just the time to cash in. It's "Google - The Ballmer
| Years".
| hef19898 wrote:
| I'm happy with the Pixel line, so I hope they don't try to
| redo them. Google tried to turn the Pixel phones into
| Google's iPhones ever since they dropped the Nexus
| branding.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| It certainly helped when they bought half of HTC's
| engineers in 2017.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I loved the LG made Nexus phones a lot back the day. But
| yes HTC did build nice, solid phones as well.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Alphabet simply does not want to invest enough in R&D to
| develop devices as solid as Apple's, nor do they want the
| expenses of in person support. Nothing has stopped them for
| the past 15 years from spending money to develop a similar
| locked down device and building out a network of retail
| stores.
|
| They would rather leave the expensive hardware business to
| other companies since it does not scale as cheaply as
| slinging ads via software. Microsoft is guilty of the same.
| They are happy with the high margin rent from
| Azure/Windows/Office licensing, so why bother rolling the
| dice on expensive hardware development and support.
| nr2x wrote:
| Given the recent investment in a custom chip, the opening
| of a store in NYC, massive ad spend for pixel, and
| statements on earnings calls noting hardware investment I
| don't think it's lack of desire. Nest and sundry Google
| Home devices far exceed Apple's equivalent offerings.
|
| I think the truth may be Apple just makes it look easy,
| and it's really hard - even with the resources at
| Google's disposal.
| naoqj wrote:
| Because they will not be developing an operating system
| completely for free? It makes no sense.
| zaat wrote:
| They don't. I paid them good money for hardware that
| contains the OS with updates for 4 years.
| fsflover wrote:
| > I paid them good money
|
| You think it was a good money, but they disagree and want
| (much) more.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| >completely for free
|
| Yeah, yeah. And the money they spend on it doesn't come for
| a multi _billion_ ad business.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| Oh, just wait a while. Google employees will be logging in
| soon, you'll see the rationale on this very thread!
| xg15 wrote:
| Waiting for the obligatory "Googler here, not on the
| Android team, but here's my totally personal opinion why
| this is actually a good thing..."
| chasil wrote:
| A better thing is the TWRP option to "format system
| partition."
| Spivak wrote:
| My guess is that people who juggle multiple browsers and
| who want actively want a null default are nonexistent but
| the people who are confused when opening links after
| installing a second app that works as a http handler
| changing the flow are.
| Steltek wrote:
| I'm one of those nonexistent people. I have Firefox for
| personal use and then Chrome for work stuff. Depending on
| the app launching the link, I choose the browser myself.
|
| The new work profile container stuff has somewhat reduced
| the utility of this but it's not gone for me yet.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Same story. Got four different browsers I work with.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| In fairness, that easily _can_ be an actual personal
| opinion; consider that "people who work at Google" is
| almost certain to be filtered to "people who aren't too
| bothered by Google's behavior" in the first place, and
| then they work in an environment that exposes them to the
| values that create Google's behaviors.
| kevinh wrote:
| Also consider that people are more likely to vocalize
| what they think their company is doing well as opposed to
| what they think their company is doing poorly in a public
| forum.
| nixass wrote:
| "That's an excellent question...."
| svnpenn wrote:
| I am all for hating on Google, but is this really a problem? How
| many people are consistently opening different links in different
| browsers? Whats wrong with just setting the default to some non-
| Chrome browser?
| ProAm wrote:
| I do all the time. I use Chrome, Firefox, Firefox Nightly on a
| daily basis for different things.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Well, it's a great way to try to force web developers (who must
| make it work on Android Chrome) to either buy extra devices or
| be unable to use the default of their choice. And if you can
| get the developers to default to Chrome, that's good for
| reinforcing "chrome first" development.
|
| Edit: Apparently I misunderstood the imposition (see the
| response chain below). Seems benign but annoying for power
| users.
| unholiness wrote:
| Developers have no trouble changing this setting though,
| right?
| k1t wrote:
| You can use the default of your choice.
|
| Previously, if you didn't choose a default, Android would ask
| you every time you opened a url - which browser?
|
| Now, if there's no default set, it just uses Chrome instead.
|
| Workarounds are disabling Chrome, or setting a third party
| browser selector as the default browser.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Ah, I misunderstood. Thanks for the correction. Seems
| fairly harmless then, as the most common reason for
| nondefault is an error.
|
| I would like to see an explicit way to set it to "none" by
| including a first party browser selector.
| curt15 wrote:
| Does Android 12 now hard-code references to Google Chrome?
| juanci_to wrote:
| Didn't Microsoft had trouble in Russia for pushing Internet
| Explorer so much?
| uhtred wrote:
| There are google free versions of Android. https://e.foundation/
| loufe wrote:
| For sure, but have you tried an even partially de-googled
| phone? It's not as simple as not using gmail and google maps.
| Lots of apps don't like MicroG, and MicroG free Android results
| in a small percentage of apps working.
|
| Google has done an amazing job of owning yet "not owning"
| Android.
| bennettnate5 wrote:
| I've been using a de-googled phone for about a year now
| (CalyxOS, uses MicroG) and I have yet to run into an app that
| behaves differently than when I used the stock OS for my
| Pixel. I've even tried downloading Google's apps and they
| work the same, no hiccups (Maps, Camera and Translate for
| me). CalyxOS includes a firewall that can disable network
| connectivity on a per-app basis, so one could even just use
| downloaded maps/translation sets with Google apps if they
| wanted.
|
| Again, this is just my personal experience--I'm sure there
| are apps out there that deliberately throw a fit when they
| detect a custom-signed OS running on your phone. I just have
| yet to see that in any of the banking, social media or
| productivity apps I've used.
| uhtred wrote:
| I use a completely de-googled phone OS - /e/. MicroG works
| great.
| nyanpasu64 wrote:
| I've worked around this issue by installing "Open Link With"
| (https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.tasomaniac.openwith.flos...,
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tasomaniac...)
| and setting it as the default browser. Unfortunately its
| mechanism for setting browsers as default on a per-domain level
| has issues (can't open Reddit images and threads in separate
| apps). And a few years back, this app got slower and randomly
| spends a few seconds preparing a list of browsers, though I never
| debugged why it started happening.
| voz_ wrote:
| Yet another major reason to never use Android, the weaker, worse,
| less secure, less private OS.
| ProAm wrote:
| Weaker and worse is arguable. There is so much more
| functionality available on Android than iOS, I can install
| whatever I'd like on my device, I can write any kind of app I
| choose to and install it on my device. I can organize my media
| files in any manner I wish to.....
|
| But yes less secure, and much less private. Android is
| essentially spyware for google.
| naoqj wrote:
| throwmeariver1 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| astrea wrote:
| What is the rationale for opening different links in different
| browsers? Do some pages render better in other browsers?
| slig wrote:
| There's no way to open links directly into an incognito tab, so
| I like to keep two browsers: one logged in in everything and
| another that I use to open random links from IM.
| cuteboy19 wrote:
| Firefox has that option, to open links directly in private
| mode
| slig wrote:
| Thanks, did not know that!
| h3mb3 wrote:
| I needed to read this a couple of times before understanding
| what's the issue. Interesting how differently people use their
| devices.
|
| For me instead, the #1 annoyance with Android 12 is that it
| doesn't support changing the default camera app anymore. I'm on
| Pixel 3, where Google Camera is artificially made shitty as the
| 60 fps option for the video is hidden. As a workaround, I've been
| running the Camera PX version of the app (from XDA Developers)
| which let's you change the fps and has other cool customization
| (while still keeping the best parts of Google Camera). Now this
| doesn't help as the "double tap the power button" shortcut always
| opens the subpar stock camera app.
| oauea wrote:
| Anyone know how they do this? Is this one of those APIs that
| exist but you're not allowed to use (unless you're Google) if you
| want to get published on the play store?
| xg15 wrote:
| What do you mean specifically? The "use this app as the
| 'default' default browser" behaviour?
|
| My guess is that Chrome's app ID is simply hardcoded somewhere
| inside the OS.
| oauea wrote:
| > The "use this app as the 'default' default browser"
| behaviour?
|
| Yes, this. If the app id is actually baked into the OS that
| seems shadier than usual.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| YouTube does the same thing. If you have it set to ask when
| opening YouTube links, and the YouTube app is available for
| opening them, it will change the setting so the links always open
| in the YouTube app without asking.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-15 23:02 UTC)