[HN Gopher] Google confirms 'high-friction' sideloading flow is ...
___________________________________________________________________
Google confirms 'high-friction' sideloading flow is coming to
Android
Author : _____k
Score : 628 points
Date : 2026-01-20 07:04 UTC (6 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.androidauthority.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.androidauthority.com)
| ggm wrote:
| TBH this doesn't seem a particularly high friction change. It
| seems very like what we have to do already, or like what we do on
| OSX.
| 71bw wrote:
| > like what we do on OSX.
|
| ...which is so much of a complicated nuisance that most people
| simply give up. If this will go the way I think it will prepare
| to have to skip 10 things, write 3 ADB commands and submit a
| video of you spinning around for 30 seconds just to install
| your pirated game.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _so much of a complicated nuisance that most people simply
| give up_
|
| _Most_ people _should_ give up.
|
| The number of legitimate unsigned apps for MacOS that your
| grandparents should frictionlessly one-click-to-install is
| essentially nil.
|
| Meanwhile, they're receiving countless bullying demands a day
| to install keyloggers and drain their bank accounts.
|
| The threat model tradeoffs are clear.
| bigyabai wrote:
| The threat model doesn't work. It depends on Apple doing
| their job, and even $99/year doesn't prevent Apple from
| signing a Trojan horse of your competitor:
| https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-
| imper...
|
| You want to talk about confusing Grandma? Why isn't
| Lastpass the first entry on the App Store when you search
| for it _verbatim_? At the going rate, installing signed
| software is more deceptive than searching for the official
| installer online.
| vee-kay wrote:
| Not sure if anyone should be installing Lastpass. It's
| been massively hacked in 2022 and 2024, and there's
| currently an ongoing attack (Jan 2026).
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's true but does not detract from the GPs main point:
| if you are curating your app store then you should do a
| proper job of it or you lose the curation argument.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| A single scary warning per source (ie per new certificate
| that you choose to trust) would be fine. If I had to jump
| through a few hoops to install f-droid on a stock device
| that would be fine. But once I've authorized f-droid the OS
| needs to shut up and stay out of the way for good. No "are
| you sure you want f-droid installing this other thing"
| nonsense.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| This is the human death drive externalized into thought.
| Reject it in all of its instances with extreme prejudice.
| subscribed wrote:
| Just to install a proper call recorder or a better Work
| Profile manager.
|
| Turning a possibility to install software outside of the app
| store should be about as normal as the fact you're using a
| laptop or desktop to install your pirated games.
|
| Yeah, you.
|
| If someone having access to "side load" an app has it to
| install a pirated game, then you have your OS, where you are
| not limited only to Apple/Amazon/Google store, simply for
| installing pirated software.
|
| QED :)
| tracker1 wrote:
| I absolutely HATED the first time I had to deal with it... at
| least now it works a little better.. but the first version
| didn't actually tell you that you needed to go into security
| settings right after to enable the install.
|
| Still not a big fan of it... though admittedly mostly just
| install stuff via brew/cask more than direct downloads as a
| result.
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| They did not specify what exactly is the new workflow is/what
| is high friction about it in the post no?
| faust201 wrote:
| > like what we do on OSX.
|
| You are on macOS. Not others. You are following Apple. We
| don't.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| How does this relate to the announcement from a while back about
| introducing signatures that tie back to Google? (IE trusted
| developer program or whatever they're calling that horse shit.)
| 3836293648 wrote:
| This is in response to all the pushback they got from that
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Google's long term strategy with Android is baffling to me. Apple
| has had better mobile hardware for years. Apple has higher
| consumer trust. Apple has better app selection (for most people).
| Apple has been increasingly implementing the core features that
| differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS. Every Android
| user lost to the increasing iOS market share is another customer
| Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a competitor to access.
|
| And Google's strategy is to continue removing differentiating
| features from Android that _also_ help them mitigate the threat
| of antitrust? Surely the marginal revenue from the
| inconsequential number of sideloading users isn 't attractive
| enough to justify that kind of strategic blunder.
| 3abiton wrote:
| Their strategy is growing markets, especially in india, and
| africa, and of course China. It's where the chinese oem
| dominate. Beside chinese OEM, i think the only other player is
| Samsung. So google strategy seems to be to circumvent people
| from misusing their OS by blocking certain services (mainly
| ads). This is done via apps from fdroid, and rooting and what
| not. If google can control how people uses their devices (block
| vpn based adblocking, or rooting all together), they have
| better grip on the market. At the end of the day, Android is
| front for an ad platform.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > [Google's] strategy is growing markets, especially in
| india, and africa, and of course China.
|
| Really? China? Where Google services are banned and Android
| phones come with local OS versions that cut them out? "High-
| friction sideloading" won't affect anyone in China. It won't
| be part of their experience at all.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I think OP is suggesting that the ability to sideload is
| what is preventing their phones being distributed in China.
|
| If you can present a "locked down" phone to regulators, you
| might be more likely to get permission to sell large
| volumes of them - like iPhones in China.
| pmontra wrote:
| But there still won't be Google Services so what extra
| money is Google to make there? The markup on hardware.
| But they have to compete with local manufacturers with
| the very same OS. At least Apple is the only manufacturer
| selling phones with iOS.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > I think OP is suggesting that the ability to sideload
| is what is preventing their phones being distributed in
| China.
|
| This comment is insane in several different ways.
|
| There's nothing preventing Google's phones from being
| distributed in China. They already are distributed in
| China.
|
| Those phones won't come with the vendor OS installed;
| they'll come with an OS that works without a hitch in
| China.
|
| One of the modifications to the local OS will be to make
| sideloading trivial, since that's how you're expected to
| install apps.
|
| If you _did_ start selling phones with a stock Android OS
| in China, those phones wouldn 't work because their
| connections to Google services would all be blocked.+ The
| reason for that block has nothing to do with sideloading
| or even with phones. It's going to stay in place.
|
| + In my experience, it's still possible to receive pushes
| from Google while you're in China. For example, you can't
| connect to the Play Store, but if you visit the Play
| Store in a browser on a different device that can dodge
| the Great Firewall, and tell it that you want to install
| something to your phone, Google will reach out and make
| the install to your phone even if your phone isn't
| dodging the firewall.
| silisili wrote:
| I have a feeling, despite Google's communications, this is all
| an attempt to thwart the numerous ad-free YouTube apps.
|
| Another reason it should have been broken apart years ago. It's
| laughable that the biggest ad company in the world owns the
| largest video site in the world, largest browser in the world,
| largest search engine in the world, and largest mobile OS in
| the world.
| vee-kay wrote:
| NewPipe (FOSS available on F-Droid) is nice alternative to
| ads-infested YouTube. I disabled YouTube and YouTube Music
| apps on my mobile, and I use NewPipe instead. You can even
| download YT videos or audio from YT videos using it.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| What's going on with NewPipe? Their F-droid repository is
| down. Their domain is down. Their github repository is up,
| but it links to their domain, which isn't. Are they dying?
| shscs911 wrote:
| Seems like a DNSSEC screw-up. You can find more details
| here.
|
| https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/website/issues/420#issueco
| mme...
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| I'm using Grayjay at the moment. Somehow still available in
| the play store (though with reduced feature set).
| McDyver wrote:
| I'm using Pipepipe. I believe it's a fork from NewPipe, and
| has more features, namely skipping sponsor block, and
| intros
| vee-kay wrote:
| Pipepipe stopped downloading audio or video when I was
| using it a couple of years back.
|
| I switched over to NewPipe as it was better maintained
| and worked well.
|
| Since past few months, NewPipe is not automatically
| showing latest YT videos, but it opens the video if I
| type in the video's source url. Downloads are working
| fine though, which is what I mainly use it for.
|
| Will try Pipepipe again next weekend if it fares better.
|
| Google is trying to suppress all these FOSS alternatives
| to its ads-overloaded apps.
| Grazester wrote:
| So entitled. How do you expect Google to pay it's content
| creators that you watch if they didn't have ads?
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| The issue is obviously one of trade-off.
|
| Google pays content creators so little they have all
| started including ads in their videos. Si technically as
| long as you are counted they get paid. Meanwhile, Google
| is more and more aggressive with their own ads
| interrupting videos and pushing you to subscribe to their
| expensive offer.
|
| Some people, like me, have just stopped watching YouTube.
| Other are turning to blocking ads.
|
| It's the usual tug of war between revenues and UX but I
| don't think consumers have to feel bad about not playing
| by Google's rules.
| vee-kay wrote:
| >Some people, like me, have just stopped watching
| YouTube. Other are turning to blocking ads.
|
| Just use viable FOSS alternatives like NewPipe or
| PipePipe. They are good and clean. They allow to watch or
| download YT content, without ads.
| shakna wrote:
| When Google's ads do all the following, I'll consider
| guilt:
|
| a) Don't throw malware in their ads.
|
| b) Don't throw seizure-inducing flashes in their ads.
|
| c) Allow turning off gambling in their ads.
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| I will be downvoted, but I'm not fooling myself. I don't
| care. As long as uBlock and yt-dlp still work, I'll use
| them. If Google breaks them, I'll resort to some
| automated screengrabbing + maybe some AI automation to
| click "skip" in a virtual machine or something.
|
| People will use all sorts of excuses, like the ads are
| about gambling, or contain viruses, or are detrimental to
| mental health, or whatever. No, don't use these excuses.
| You just don't want ads, and it is still possible to not
| see them. That's respectable.
| Grazester wrote:
| I will up vote you since you make no pretense about it.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| I'm not sure how those are "excuses". They are _reasons_
| to not want ads. Ads are fundamentally malicious, so you
| should remove them from your life. I don 't view
| attempting to "influence" me as a valid way to make a
| living, and am unconcerned with those who want to do it
| in the same way that I'm unconcerned about what would
| happen if someone tried to scam people with early wins in
| a shell game, but people just took the early win and
| walked instead of placing a big bet. That's just
| comeuppance.
| kwk1 wrote:
| They are the ecosystem shapers, let them figure it out.
| xigoi wrote:
| You're implying that YouTube being limiteZ to creators
| that don't care about getting paid would be a bad thing.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If google push too hard, someone will make a "youtube mirror"
| - ie. a complete copy of youtube at a different domain.
|
| The actual data could be hosted p2p across all the users
| devices, and any missing data retrieved one-time-only from
| real youtube servers.
| nine_k wrote:
| Do you have an estimate of how much would be needed to
| mirror?
|
| BTW PeerTube is a thing.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| 1GB per video
| clhodapp wrote:
| Has there ever actually been a success story for using end
| user mobile handsets as servers?
| necovek wrote:
| I guess you never received a copyright infringement notice
| from your ISP for seeding a torrent.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| That website will have an IP address and a registered
| owner. Taking down piracy websites is routine for
| governments, server providers, and domain registrars now,
| and they don't care whether the site is actually illegal.
| You can only get away with this long-term if the site is
| hosted in Russia, but Russia is sanctioned so how will you
| pay them?
| michaelt wrote:
| Eh, somehow The Pirate Bay, Fitgirl Repacks, Anna's
| Archive, Sci-Hub etc seem to manage it.
|
| The real challenge is delivering good enough performance
| that your site is better than waiting through 30 seconds
| of ads; and making it worth your time to run the site:
| there's hassle, legal risk, and it's not like you can run
| ads to make some cash.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| They're all severely bandwidth limited. Wouldn't work for
| YouTube. TPB and FGR get around this using torrents.
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| > The actual data could be hosted p2p across all the users
| devices
|
| Sounds like a Pied Piper app.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Why the surprise, they do the same with search, they do the
| same with their Google workspace (the degree to which they are
| pushing AI is _really_ hurting the product).
|
| Google stopped being aware of their customer's needs a really
| long time ago, they are so arrogant they think the audience is
| now fully captive.
| chii wrote:
| > they think the audience is now fully captive.
|
| the audience is captive. Do you have a choice to move from
| android, if you didnt want to have an apple device? Do you
| want to use a different search engine other than google? Is
| there another email provider than gmail (for the non-
| technical person - i know you can run your own). Is there
| another browser other than chrome (and dont say firefox or
| edge - because both don't compete)?
|
| Google behave in ways that they think makes them more profit.
| When users cannot migrate (nor even threaten to), then it
| simply means they can do this.
| kristopolous wrote:
| Once an alternative to one of their things, like immich,
| becomes viable, people run as fast as they can.
|
| The strategy of doing everything you can to make sure your
| customers truly and utterly despise you and want to spit in
| your face is probably not productive.
| csomar wrote:
| > Do you want to use a different search engine other than
| google?
|
| I've been on Kimi now for 3 months. I rarely used Google in
| that time. Kimi is largely free though sometimes when I run
| of the free quota I fallback to DeepSeek/Perplexity. I have
| no idea where they are getting their index from though.
|
| > Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-
| technical person - i know you can run your own).
|
| There is microsoft/apple/yahoo mailboxes. However, I think
| most people should pay for their email especially that it's
| cheap and also critical (2FA).
|
| > Is there another browser other than chrome (and dont say
| firefox or edge - because both don't compete)?
|
| Firefox is a solid fallback and also webkit (Apple) is now
| basically a different browser (ported to Linux on GNOME
| Web). Not the best situation though it could be worse
| (given Firefox situation).
|
| For me personally, the only two things I still use Google
| for are chromium and maps. I am unlikely to move from
| Chromium anytime soon but might consider alternative for
| maps (though might still need maps for
| reviews/photos/street view).
|
| I am the most bullish I've ever been on Google losing its
| monopoly especially after they botched AI and hyper-
| scaling.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > Do you have a choice to move from android, if you didnt
| want to have an apple device?
|
| Not wanting and not having a choice are two different
| things.
|
| > Do you want to use a different search engine other than
| google? Is there another email provider than gmail (for the
| non-technical person - i know you can run your own)
|
| My wife uses ddg and outlook, she's non-technical. I
| convinced her to use ddg but she's always used
| outlook/hotmail.
| arthens wrote:
| > Not wanting and not having a choice are two different
| things.
|
| As a general statement, sure. But if we are talking about
| mobile phones this is a very privileged and unrealistic
| point of view.
|
| According to chatgpt, 70-80% of mobile phone sold
| worldwide every year cost less than the cheaper iPhone.
|
| Some people could probably stretch their budget and get
| the cheapest iPhone, but otherwise it seems safe to
| conclude that more than 50% of people simply have no
| choice.
| eloisant wrote:
| I see poor looking people with iPhones all the time.
|
| People do stretch their budget when they really feel the
| need for it (and the poorest you are the more you'll want
| to prove you're not poor by buying a status symbol), also
| the second hand market is an easy way to get a cheap
| iPhone. Sure, it won't be the latest model...
| nozzlegear wrote:
| In the US it's very common to get your phone financed via
| your carrier, too. It's so common that most people
| probably don't even think of it as financing, it's just
| an extra monthly charge they pay on their bill which lets
| them upgrade to the latest iPhone or Android model every
| two years.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > My wife uses ddg and outlook, she's non-technical
|
| My mom too. The difference though is that they have us.
| Most people don't.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Well yeah, but my wife used Outlook/Hotmail without my
| convincing. She'd been using it since before we even met
| 16+ years ago.
| franga2000 wrote:
| I'd agree if you picked Google Docs or something like that,
| but Gmail? Chrome?? Come on! Edge is just Chrome with extra
| features, plenty of people use Bing without even noticing
| and many even non-techy people are fine with DuckDuckGo,
| good free email providers are everywhere (yahoo, hotmail,
| proton...).
| mohas wrote:
| the move don't have to be permanent, there are alternatives
| and as we increase our usage and give active feedback and
| commit to invest even little money in them, they will
| improve too. I've seen this pattern a thousand times the
| monopoly gets worst and worst until a revolutionary new
| tech will rise it applies to social concepts, business
| sectors, companies, mother-in-laws, etc.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Is there another browser other than chrome (and dont say
| firefox or edge - because both don 't compete)?_
|
| Can I run an ad blocker in Android's Chrome? I can in
| Firefox
| carlosjobim wrote:
| >Do you want to use a different search engine other than
| google?
|
| Yes, type yahoo.com into your browser, or install an app.
| Non-technical people love installing apps on their phones.
|
| >Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-
| technical person - i know you can run your own).
|
| Yes, there are hundreds of good e-mail providers to use
| instead of Gmail. Easy for the non-technical person to use.
| B1FIDO wrote:
| No, that is not how you change search engines.
|
| In Chrome on Android (and yeah, on desktop too) you just
| go into "Settings" and change your default search engine.
| I can choose between Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yandex, or
| DuckDuckGo.
|
| There are also custom searches through Wikipedia and
| other resources. You can use little shortcuts to get to
| almost any custom search you set up in advance.
|
| This has been configurable by the user for a long, long,
| long time. This is not a surprise or a concession. This
| is built-in stuff by Google for Chrome. (Edge too, of
| course.)
|
| Changing your browser, you can do, but it won't be
| comfortable. I have Edge installed on my Android, but it
| is not possible to run natively on Chromebook and the
| Android emulation is bad. I will not set Edge to my
| Default Browser because it messes things up. It is not a
| great experience to change your Default Browser on
| Android. I just go with Chrome and use Edge for specific
| tasks and topics.
|
| You can set up all kinds of email services in the Gmail
| app, or you can install a native app. I use Outlook in
| both of those ways, and it's fine.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > No, that is not how you change search engines.
|
| See it from the perspective of a non-technical user:
|
| 1. I install the Yahoo Search app
|
| 2. When I want to search I poke the Yahoo icon on my home
| screen.
|
| Or:
|
| 1. I open my browser.
|
| 2. I poke Yahoo on the grid of suggested sites.
| B1FIDO wrote:
| Sure, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
|
| There are lots of non-technical users who navigate purely
| by doing a "google search" on whatever domain they're
| aiming for, too. Nobody said they were efficient about
| it.
| dismalaf wrote:
| > It is not a great experience to change your Default
| Browser on Android
|
| It actually is, it just sounds more like it's Edge that
| isn't a great experience.
|
| I've had Vivaldi as default for awhile now and it's
| great, everything is as seamless as using Chrome.
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| I've been using Edge on Android for a while now with 0
| issues, switched because chrome was frequently crashing.
|
| I think your issue is trying to switch off of Chrome
| while using a _Chrome_ book.
| dmantis wrote:
| Why are saying that Firefox or even Chrome reskin can't
| compete with Chrome? I haven't been using Chrome for maybe
| 10 years or more, so I'm genuinely interested. Even if you
| hate Firefox, something like Brave is felt the same way but
| without google's garbage. I heard there are new guys in
| town like Helium and other Chromium based browser which
| choose to remove telemetry, support manifest v2, adblocks
| and so on.
|
| The browsing experience without constant upselling some
| trash and proper adblockers are magnitudes better.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The most compelling argument I've heard is around
| security, while Firefox does sandboxing, it is not as
| comprehensive as what went into Chrome.
|
| I'd still choose Firefox over it for the reasons you've
| mentioned.
| chii wrote:
| > or even Chrome reskin can't compete with Chrome?
|
| reskined chrome are still ultimately taking google's
| changes downstream. For a while, it may be OK, but what
| happens when google changes the web standards to suit
| themselves? Will those reskinned browsers fork the
| standard?
|
| Firefox _is competition_, but not competitive based on
| market share.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| There are non-google android OS's you can install (it's
| easy these days). Kagi is nice for search. Fastmail is nice
| for mail. Brave is a fine browser (though I'm aware that
| it's a chrome derivative). It just takes a bit of
| determination.
|
| Maps is the last hold they have on me. I haven't yet
| bothered to find an alternative.
| twelvedogs wrote:
| Google's search engine domination is nearly over, they are
| constantly making it worse to the point using ai is
| preferable and literally anyone can spin up an ai
| bluescrn wrote:
| > they think the audience is now fully captive.
|
| It is, for the large sub-$800 segment of the smartphone
| market.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| you mean sub $599, right?
|
| https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-16e
|
| Which is still a valid argument, the number is just lower.
| And the UX on these sub 600 devices have definitely gotten
| worse over the last 5 years too... Likely because Google
| isn't really targeting that price point anymore, so Android
| isn't getting enough optimization to be viable on
| underpowered devices.
|
| That was different in 2010-2020
| eloisant wrote:
| This market still exists and is pretty strong, especially
| outside of US. It's all on Android so Google doesn't need
| to try to compete here.
|
| This is why with Pixel they're focusing on competing with
| the iPhone, they want people to use Android so there is
| no point in competing with other Android manufacturer.
| trinix912 wrote:
| Is it really Google's Android? I have the feeling it's
| mostly Chinese manufacturers with their own Android
| versions sans the Google services.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Android is still developed by google, yes.
|
| The chinese are mostly adding skins on top, not
| developing the core of the operating system.
|
| There is however a chinese fork of android (state
| sponsored), but it has not gotten wide market adoption in
| china either to my knowledge, but i dont live in china so
| i'm open to be corrected.
|
| Finally, even if that OS has gotten widely adopted in
| china - it IS a fork. the changes are not being
| upstreamed to android, hence irrelevant to the discussion
| on this forum.
| trinix912 wrote:
| I'm talking about the Google services which is where
| Google profits. Chinese phones ship without them. When I
| said "Google's Android", I meant Android+Google Services.
| The people buying cheap Android phones are most likely
| not buying Pixels. Even Samsungs aren't exactly cheap
| anymore. I'm not talking about Android forks. I'm talking
| about customized Android without Google services.
|
| The biggest Android market (internationally) are Chinese
| phones. If Google suddenly decided Play Store should be
| the only way to install apps, that doesn't affect Huawei
| and Xiaomi phones at all, they don't ship with Play Store
| and Play Services in the first place.
| deaux wrote:
| Chinese phones _sold in China_ ship without Google
| services. Chinese phones sold outside of China include
| them.
| trinix912 wrote:
| That's false. The ones you can get here in Slovenia don't
| have them. I've personally helped quite a few friends
| sideload them. I also remember how shocked people were to
| find out there's no YouTube or Play Store after buying a
| Huawei or Xiaomi phone when that first came into effect.
| psii wrote:
| Correct, same in Germany. Here is a photo I shot last
| December in an electronics store. Aurora Store is now
| official, I guess.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/v6zaRYo
| wongarsu wrote:
| I don't think that picture indicates in any way that
| there are no Google Services on those phones. I've had
| multiple Chinese phones, and all of them had both their
| in-house app store (every brand seems to have their own)
| and also the Google Play Store. And obviously things like
| Google Play Services and Google Maps are installed too,
| way too many Android apps wouldn't work without them
|
| This isn't even a China-exclusive strategy, Samsung does
| the same with their Galaxy Store.
| psii wrote:
| Aurora Store is not a separate app store but is an
| alternative front-end to the Google Play Store. Combined
| with microG it should be possible to get all the Google
| apps.
|
| There must be a reason why Aurora Store is being
| advertised, though. Why would they do that if they could
| just pre-install Google Play Store and standard Google
| applications.
|
| Update: End of 2018, I bought a Huawei phone with GApps.
| I remember that two or three generations later, Huawei
| was not allowed to include GApps anymore.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Probably because they are bootleg imports in a very small
| country.
|
| Chinese telephones legally imported usually have them in
| most relevant big markets like Indonesia, India, Brazil,
| etc.
| trinix912 wrote:
| So the national carrier importing them and selling them
| in their brick-and-mortar stores is "bootleg imports"?
| Not to mention that the EU is, legally speaking, a single
| market so the same rules should apply everywhere.
|
| The reason they probably have them preinstalled over
| there is because they don't care about licensing so they
| can freely preload whatever they want. At least that's
| how it was with netbooks in the early 2000s that they
| were selling loaded with MS Office, Windows, even Adobe,
| of course with no COA stickers.
| eloisant wrote:
| When they sell them in China, yes.
|
| But the same manufacturers sell Android phones with Play
| services in Europe, Japan, India, Indonesia, etc.
| imiric wrote:
| > Google stopped being aware of their customer's needs a
| really long time ago
|
| Google's customers are advertisers. They cater to that
| segment very well. They only need to attract users with
| "free" and cheap services so that advertisers think their
| campaigns are reaching enough eyeballs. Whether or not that's
| the case, and whether or not the end user has a good
| experience, is hardly relevant.
| midoBB wrote:
| Google's AI in their docs suite is so bafflingly bad. I
| wanted their AI to automate a sheet for me and it just
| choked. I switched to Claude for making a sheet that I ended
| up hosting in my local NAS using Microsoft Excel format.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Embedded AIs always suck. It's a dead end, long-term. By
| its nature, AI subsumed software products, reducing them to
| tool calls for general-purpose AI runtime.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| I can't remember a youtube change that did not degrade my
| experience on their platform.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Except only a few countries in the world have wages where their
| citizens can afford Apple.
|
| While I can afford Apple, out of principle I am not buying
| anything above 300 euros, that requires me to also buy another
| computer for hobby coding, and a dev license.
|
| All my use of Apple hardware is via projects where pool devices
| are assigned to the delivery team.
| necovek wrote:
| Mobile providers usually offer loans ("service contracts")
| where people get phones outside their financial standing (I
| regularly see high end iPhones and foldable phones of EUR1-2k
| run by people in a country where average monthly salary is
| less than EUR1k): if a highly visible device like your phone
| can be had for 10% of your monthly salary, people will,
| unfortunately, opt for it.
|
| I tend to not use Apple not due to cost (I honestly believe
| it's OK to pay a premium for quality; I might disagree they
| offer it today though, as I do use a couple of their devices
| at work), but because of how closed their ecosystem is (and
| yes, all my personal devices are running some sort of Linux,
| and Android phones are rooted and with bootloader unlocked).
| pjmlp wrote:
| Many countries prefer the freedom of pre-pay/post-pay than
| being bound by contracts though.
|
| Not everyone has the US culture of running their life on
| credit.
|
| Because when life changes, it isn't only their phone they
| lose.
|
| The only single time I had a contract, because it was the
| only way to get a Nokia N70, I learnt never to do another
| one ever again.
| necovek wrote:
| Are you sure it is your whole country or it's you?
|
| I mostly buy my phones outright too, but I am under no
| impression that everybody else does it as well.
| grishka wrote:
| In my country, for example, buying phones from carriers
| as part of your plan just _isn 't a thing_. As in, you
| couldn't do it even if you wanted to. Same for postpaid
| plans and contracts.
|
| As a result, quite a lot of people use the "I can't
| believe they could make and sell an entire phone at this
| price" Xiaomi and similar phones.
| Klonoar wrote:
| Name the country if you want this to be a useful data
| point.
| pjmlp wrote:
| You could have checked their profile.
| Klonoar wrote:
| I'm not clicking the username of every commenter I read
| just to account for details they should've put in the
| comment.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Well too bad, otherwise you would have found it quicker
| than the time it took to write two comments.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The planet is full of such countries, it isn't only me.
| tazjin wrote:
| I've only seen the carrier locked phones and long-term
| contracts in a handful of countries. I've lived in a
| _lot_ of countries on three continents.
|
| In many places the default is prepaid SIMs with
| separately purchased phones. Sometimes the prepaying can
| be automated (e.g. in Russia), sometimes it involves you
| physically going to a shop once a month or so (e.g. in
| Egypt).
| PlatoIsADisease wrote:
| This is one of Apple's marketing strategy.
|
| Faux luxury.
|
| Totally works in the US too on teens, moms, and lower middle
| class people.
| eloisant wrote:
| It's getting to French teens unfortunately.
|
| They'll make fun of the kid who has a Galaxy S24 while
| proudly showing off their aging iPhone 12...
| Guestmodinfo wrote:
| Because antitrust laws are strong in a few countries. While
| most of the 2nd or 3rd world antitrust laws are non existent.
| Google's strategy is to squeeze those markets. They have higher
| population too and hence many more advertising to sell and much
| more control of the "online experience" in those countries.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| This is a legitimately crazy take, yes the differentiations are
| less but how we got there isn't so altruistic
|
| I'm firmly in the Apple ecosystem and every one of those
| examples were not Apple's unilateral decision
|
| I think seeing the noose circling around both Apple and
| Google's necks better explains the quagmire that Google is in
|
| Apple was getting ahead of a European consumer protection
| ruling to switch to a single interoperable cable, USBC was
| there
|
| Apple and Google worked to make RCS better for years, as Apple
| was ignoring it and Google was using a non-standard RCS
| onli wrote:
| I don't see any iOS advantage with the apps anymore. That was
| maybe true in the very beginning, during the gold rush time of
| the app store. But not since then. In which category are there
| better iOS apps? Browsers? No, strictly worse. Youtube app? No,
| worse. Texting? Worse or equal (Whatsapp). Podcast client? I
| assume worse, since there is no Antenna Pod. Social media apps?
| The iOS variants of those apps are afaik in no way better. What
| else is there, where is the advantage?
|
| Also, while the Play store is an equally ad-riddled and
| unsearchable hellhole, at least Android does have with F-Droid
| a high quality alternative. iOS has nothing.
|
| But sure, removing the F-Droid advantage can only hurt Android,
| the direction of your comment still stands.
| karlgkk wrote:
| Honestly, you're so wrong about the app situation that it's
| almost staggering. iOS apps tend to be more stable, better
| polished, have better integration with system features (like
| the Dynamic Island), and even often have more features. This
| isn't even an unfounded opinion, it's a material problem for
| Google and led them to vastly investing in automated testing
| and quality efforts
|
| App addressable user base is another problem for Google, one
| that they have mentioned in developer conferences. It's a big
| part of why they've been trying to ship a tablet and unify
| android and Chromebook. If Google isn't careful they could
| find themselves in a downward spiral situation, stuck between
| apple on one side, and android forks on the other.
|
| And the last answer is, as always, money
|
| - browser is deemphasized on iOS, and so it's weaker feature
| set matters less
|
| - iOS is generally easier to develop for because of less
| device differentiation
|
| - on average iOS has significantly wealthier users who tend
| to be higher return or paying customers (seriously, look it
| up). This in turn leads companies to invest more heavily in
| iOS.
|
| - easier integration due to a narrow system services
| ecosystem (no Google vs Samsung slapfights)
|
| - unified platform advantage (apps written for iOS easily
| port to the watch and tablet, unlocking larger markets, and
| justifying greater spend in developing apps)
|
| - apples review process is significantly stricter (for better
| or for worse)
|
| Yes, Apple doesn't have something like fdroid, and that's
| really disappointing and honestly a legitimate dealbreaker
| for a lot of people
| wiseowise wrote:
| > browser is deemphasized on iOS, and so it's weaker
| feature set matters less
|
| That's precisely the OP's point. They gimped their browser
| so there's bigger incentive to use their proprietary system
| frameworks.
|
| > iOS is generally easier to develop for because of less
| device differentiation
|
| That's nonsense. What year are you from? I've heard this
| like 10 years ago when there only 1 or 2 current iPhone
| models in circulation.
|
| > on average iOS has significantly wealthier users who tend
| to be higher return or paying customers (seriously, look it
| up). This in turn leads companies to invest more heavily in
| iOS.
|
| If you offer subscription service, like Netflix/HBO/Nest or
| whatever, your main goal is volume, not how wealthy your
| demographic is.
|
| > easier integration due to a narrow system services
| ecosystem (no Google vs Samsung slapfights)
|
| Easier integration with what?
|
| > unified platform advantage (apps written for iOS easily
| port to the watch and tablet, unlocking larger markets, and
| justifying greater spend in developing apps)
|
| That's like Android's moat from the start, not bolted on
| during some 10+ major versions like on iOS. And it works
| much better, Android apps are truly the same apps. Not
| gimped, cut off things like Instagram on iOS (is it even
| fixed now?).
|
| > apples review process is significantly stricter (for
| better or for worse)
|
| Both are shit these days due to volume of shovelware
| produced.
| jakub_g wrote:
| Re: iOS apps being easier to develop: device sizes are
| the minuscule of the problem.
|
| The real problem is that Android vendors mess up with the
| OS in weird ways by adding custom ultra battery savers,
| removing APIs etc. which is much less predictable than
| dealing with a few Apple devices, that are more
| homogenous.
|
| Then many vendors ship their own apps which are buggy and
| you need to know that vendor's Z Calendar app has a weird
| bug to account for.
| mh- wrote:
| It's very obvious in this thread who has developed both
| an iOS and Android app - with a real, large userbase -
| and who hasn't.
| karlgkk wrote:
| Really almost every rebuttal you offer is factually
| incorrect while demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the
| modern developer experience.
|
| For example
|
| > That's nonsense. What year are you from? I've heard
| this like 10 years ago when there only 1 or 2 current
| iPhone models in circulation.
|
| What? Models? Is that how you think? Screen sizes?
| Resolution? That's so... 2015.
|
| Apple has kept consistent scaling factors across their
| phones, laptops, and tablets. That alone counts for a ton
| of saved data effort. Device ratios are also generally
| consistent.
|
| Android... well, not much needs to be said. It impacts
| the developer experience in a substantial way.
|
| > If you offer subscription service, like
| Netflix/HBO/Nest or whatever, your main goal is volume,
| not how wealthy your demographic is.
|
| Ironically making my point for me without realizing it
| (wealthier users sub more) AND dismissing the massive
| market that smaller services exist in. Incredible two for
| one miss.
|
| > That's like Android's moat from the start, not bolted
| on during some 10+ major versions like on iOS.
|
| A moat they squandered. Look at platform tablet adoption.
| It's dire for Google now.
|
| As for "bolted on"? lol.
|
| I know the mobile os holy wars always activate posts like
| this, but for some people it's simply impossible that
| despite some visible missteps, Apple has been out
| executing Google for quite some time now.
| ben_w wrote:
| > iOS apps tend to be more stable, better polished
|
| It's been a while since I was last using Android, but
| first-party Apple apps no longer meet my standards for
| "polished".
|
| e.g. type this sequence into the calculator:
| [2] [-] [4] [=] [x2] [=]
|
| The answer should not be negative, but the app says "-4".
|
| The desktop Contacts app has been putting invisible LTR and
| RTL codes around phone numbers for years now, breaking web
| forms when auto-entered. The mobile version refreshes
| specific contacts several times in a row to add no new
| content, preventing copy from working while it does so.
|
| The MacOS Safari translation button appears on the left of
| the omni-bar, until you click it, at which point it
| instantly moves to the right and your click turns out to
| have been on the button that the left-side translation
| button had hidden. Deleting a selection of items from
| browsing history is limited to about 5 items per second, as
| it deletes one then rebuilds the entire list before
| deleting the next.
|
| If I'm listening to a podcast on headpones and an alarm
| goes off, it doesn't play the alarm through my headphones,
| it plays on device speakers only.
|
| Podcast app's "Up Next" is a magical mystery list that
| can't be disabled or guided.
|
| The "Do Not Disturb" mode can be activated unexpectedly,
| leading to missed calls, and cannot be deleted.
|
| Localisation is inconsistent at every level, including
| system share sheet and behaviour of decimal separators.
|
| I could go on, but you get the point. Apple's quality
| control just isn't visible in the software at this point.
| criddell wrote:
| > The answer should not be negative, but the app says
| "-4".
|
| When I do those exact keypresses I get the correct
| answer.
| ben_w wrote:
| Good for you? The fact this happens on my versions of
| both MacOS and iOS means they didn't have automated tests
| covering this from day one.
|
| Famously, "it works for me" is not how high quality
| software happens.
| akerl_ wrote:
| It seems basically impossible that math works differently
| on your calculator app than somebody else's.
|
| Can you post a recording of what you're seeing?
| ben_w wrote:
| https://vimeo.com/1158174682?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci
| akerl_ wrote:
| What iOS version is that? It seems odd that the UI does
| not match what I see.
| criddell wrote:
| Whoa! What calculator is that?
| akerl_ wrote:
| Some googling shows hits from iOS 18 betas, where folks
| reported this bug, that seem to have the same UI.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| Good for me too? I get the correct answer when I type the
| keys, exactly as you specified. On both macOS and iOS
| vbezhenar wrote:
| When I do those exact keypresses I also get "-4".
| akerl_ wrote:
| https://vimeo.com/1158134310?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci
|
| Can you show what you're seeing?
| odo1242 wrote:
| I get the same, fwiw
| criddell wrote:
| thats what I see too
| vbezhenar wrote:
| http://vimeo.com/1158294037
|
| That's iOS 18.5, maybe they fixed it in later versions
| akerl_ wrote:
| > e.g. type this sequence into the calculator
|
| Works perfectly for me.
| toxik wrote:
| -4 makes sense if you understand that the input -2 is a
| unary minus operation. So typing -2 then hitting square
| only squares 2, not (-2). This is the same in eg Python
| so I'm not sure it's very controversial. I agree it's
| unexpected, though.
| well_ackshually wrote:
| "-4 makes sense if you consider that the calculator is so
| damn stupid it ignores every convention every single
| calculator has made in the past hundred years and instead
| copies behavior of a dumbass language" isn't exactly the
| praise you think it is.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| At no point in the current expression you wrote "-",
| though. It may make sense that if you type [-] [2] [x^2]
| [=] then you get -(22) = -4, but if your current answer
| is already -2, then tapping x2 should result in (ans)^2 =
| (-2)^2 = 4. Splitting your current answer into a separate
| unary [-] as in - (22) makes absolutely no sense.
|
| Most calculators, even CAS ones, simply get this always
| right. But sadly this is not the first "desktop"
| calculator that I see getting this completely wrong. And
| it makes some results outright wrong!
| ben_w wrote:
| I didn't enter -2, I calculated -2. The x2 should have
| been taking x = (-2).
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Python gets it right: >>> 2-4
| -2 >>> _**2 4
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| What? The person you're replying to isn't typing -2. He
| said explicitly what he is typing, and the result is
| unambiguously incorrect.
| quantum_magpie wrote:
| Regarding the calculator, I get the same -4 in Android,
| just checked. So they all suck..
| Jedd wrote:
| FWIW, starting a sentence with "Honestly ..." always makes
| me think the rest of what this person has to say is
| dishonest.
|
| Your BIO on HN is:
|
| > I HAVEN'T SHOWERED AT ALL! THAT'S WHY I REEK! WORKING IN
| FINTECH! AIN'T SHAVED IN WEEKS! POUR CRUMBS FROM MY
| KEYBOARD! THAT'S WHAT I EAT! WROTE A CURRENCY LIBRARY! 3RD
| TIME THIS WEEK! LURKING HN! I PREFER /b/! IN MOM'S
| BASEMENT! I'M THIRTY THREE! IT'S 3'O'CLOCK AM! THAT'S WHEN
| I SLEEP! AH!!!! COME ON FUCK A GUY!!!!
|
| What level of credibility are you seeking?
| fennecbutt wrote:
| Ngl I think that bio is hilarious.
| karlgkk wrote:
| It's chuggo lyrics. Ah fuck a guy!
| barbecue_sauce wrote:
| "Honestly" is a colloquialism used to indicate disbelief
| with the previous statement or to preface candidness.
| Choosing to interpret the colloquial use of "honestly" as
| an indication that everything else that person says is
| dishonest is a very weird trait I've only seen show up in
| grammarian literalists and pedants that only makes
| yourself seem like a disingenuous person.
| B1FIDO wrote:
| "Not Gonna Lie":
| https://youtu.be/_ru0pnAnq7g?si=fKwnDNkRz6XQKDz5
| mystraline wrote:
| So a sentence starting with "frankly" means they aren't a
| frankfurter?
| karlgkk wrote:
| > What level of credibility are you seeking?
|
| I didn't realize I needed to seek credibility. Seems kind
| of sad to have to read someone's hn profile to decide if
| their post has merit or not
| wolvoleo wrote:
| The pricing gap also rules Apple out in a lot of markets.
| Almost nobody has Apple here in Spain, the only people i
| see are tourists and expats.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| While not as popular as Android, last time I checked iOS
| was at 28% market share. That's hardly "almost nobody".
| dismalaf wrote:
| It's not the pricing gap, there's Android phones more
| expensive than the most expensive iPhone. There's just
| also tiered alternatives.
|
| It's the fact Euro carriers are less likely to subsidize
| or finance the phone. And realistically, a $500 phone is
| pretty good these days.
|
| In Canada (where phones are subsidized and/or financed)
| there's very few budget Android phones too. Almost all
| Samsung flagships, Pixels, etc...
| zjaffee wrote:
| The iOS version of most social media apps is better. IOS
| simply has better API integration to it's hardware, where
| with android, many OEMs (hell this was even the case to a
| certain extent with older pixel phones), do a number of
| things that make the hardware not as easily accessible as
| quickly from the OS API for said feature.
|
| This is especially relevant for the camera, but also various
| other sensors and hardware modules that exist inside these
| phones.
|
| That said, in recent years there are just a number of other
| areas that android is much better at such as deeper AI
| integration, which goes back to even prior to the current LLM
| craze.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| What are those things?
| bloqs wrote:
| sorry this is not correct. (do you consistently use both?)
| iOS apps are consistently better, because people prefer using
| swift
| Devorlon wrote:
| As an Android power user (I've ran Lineage, Graphene,
| rooted with Magisk and passed safetynet) that's moved to
| IOS this last month. My subjective opinion: app quality is
| the same.
| microtonal wrote:
| I have both an iPhone and an Android phone and I agree.
| The largest chunk of apps are the same anyway, using
| something like React Native or Ionic.
| lkjdsklf wrote:
| It very much depends. These days most apps are developed
| so that they're equally trash on both.
|
| The apps that are more specialized to reach OS tend to
| prioritize iOS because if you look at app revenue, iOS
| users wildly outspend Android users. At least this was
| true when i was doing mobile shit a couple years ago
|
| That doesn't mean the android app sucks, but it's usually
| given lower priority. New features and updates will
| usually hit iOS version sooner and things like that
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > In which category are there better iOS apps?
|
| Almost all of the prosumer apps on iOS offer a consistently
| better experience. This is maybe less relevant on phones than
| on tablets, but music production, video editing, digital
| painting and drafting, etc...
| hulitu wrote:
| > Almost all of the prosumer apps on iOS offer a
| consistently better experience
|
| So for people who don't want to use computers. I cannot
| work with a tablet or phone. I need a computer.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| I mean, as someone who is mainly a programmer, same. But
| high-end cameras, big touchscreens, and an excellent
| pencil input is sort of the optimal device for a whole
| bunch of creative tasks
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Are the cameras "high-end"? Good for a phone, certainly.
| But compared to a real camera with a much bigger lens and
| sensor?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| They're good enough to have displaced the vast majority
| of camera purchases, and be used by professionals (e.g.
| influencers, photojournalists, pro photographers).
|
| There are benefits to larger sensors, but the best camera
| is the one you have in-hand.
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| They can certainly hang with some of the big dogs.
|
| Apple's camera(s) and color science is fantastic. The
| black magic app in particular shows off their capability.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > Good for a phone, certainly.
|
| The multiple lenses and the processing power make
| smartphones wildly better than almost any _consumer_
| camera, particularly for someone without professional
| photography skills. A professional camera in the hands of
| a professional photographer can do better, but that means
| the market has changed from "consumers buy consumer
| cameras, professionals buy professional cameras" to
| "consumers use the camera that's always in their pocket
| and get surprisingly good results, professionals buy
| professional cameras".
| econ wrote:
| I make the superior picture with my camera but then it
| sits there on an SD card in the camera. I have to boot a
| desktop, hope the USB connection works today, find a
| folder, create and name a folder in the folder, copy the
| pictures there, find and open something to view and edit
| the images with, find and open something to upload the
| images. OR open the camera, take out th SD card, boot up
| a computer, plug the card into a reader or a laptop and
| do the same ritual.
|
| People pretend this is a perfectly acceptable workfow. It
| is not.
|
| The pictures would have to be dramatically better than
| those made by phones. They are not.
|
| I shoot, review on the much larger phone screen, click
| share and chose from countless options to publish
| immediately. OR edit it a bit and enjoy the same.
|
| I also never consciously bring the phone, it's just there
| in my pocket. Interesting things happen, you unholster it
| and start shooting. The real camera is more like guard
| duty. You sit there waiting for the interesting shot.
| Sometimes that works out and some of those times the
| extra quality is actually visible and some of that time
| it is totally worth it. The rest of the time I wonder
| what it is I think I'm doing.
| cesarb wrote:
| > but then it sits there on an SD card in the camera. I
| have to boot a desktop, hope the USB connection works
| today [...] OR open the camera, take out th SD card [...]
|
| Or open the app on your smartphone (https://play.google.c
| om/store/apps/details?id=jp.co.canon.ic...), connect to
| the camera through WiFi, and copy the photos directly.
| ichicoro wrote:
| I don't know about Canon's offering... but Sony's is
| lackluster to say the least. On my A6000 (and possibly
| other older models), you can't import RAWs, only JPEGs.
| Not to add that manual connection to the camera's wifi is
| a rather "annoying" process, having to go into the camera
| settings, manually turning on wifi, going into the
| phone's settings/quick menu to connect to said hotspot,
| then open the app, etc...
|
| It's just a plain worse experience to just some extremely
| good phones like the iPhones with pro camera apps
| econ wrote:
| We are apparently very spoiled with how smooth some
| things work on smart phones.
|
| I want dedicated cameras to offer a superior experience.
| In stead it is quite bad.
|
| In order to publish one should first disconnect the
| internet?
|
| I have to put down the camera and pick up the competing
| device?
|
| My absolute favorite annoyance with my cameras is the
| lack of charging over USB. After taking a good amount of
| pictures I have to guess if there is enough battery left
| to transfer the images to the computer.
|
| Not that PCs or laptops offer very good charging power.
| This because there is little demand.
|
| It seems in order to make the superior experience the
| camera maker should also make phones and/or laptops? I
| have no idea really.
|
| All I know is that my phone has 100W charging. I can
| almost immediately return to the front. The camera does
| have swappable batteries going for it but that I have to
| remove it from the tripod to reload it won't win the war.
| mike50 wrote:
| I just plug the sd card reader into my phone.
| epolanski wrote:
| I own a galaxy tab s7 fe and I'm quite happy with it to
| be honest.
|
| Not sure what I'd want more from an iPad.
|
| It is true that it has slightly more apps, but
| realistically all I need is there.
| bigyabai wrote:
| The iOS prosumer apps are, frankly, pathetic. I produce
| music and every single DAW/plugin on iPad is very clearly a
| "lite" version of something that would run better on a
| full-featured OS. There's really no workflow I can imagine
| that doesn't entail using a real PC for basic mixing and
| arrangement.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > I produce music and every single DAW/plugin on iPad is
| very clearly a "lite" version of something...
|
| I agree in several cases, but the question here wasn't
| "are they better than PC equivalents", it was "are they
| better than what's available on Android"
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| That isn't saying much. Even the best possible music
| editing (etc) app on a tablet is still crappy, by virtue of
| the form factor. Tablets simply are not suitable for
| getting actual work done.
| no_wizard wrote:
| This is changing with iPadOS, but the market needs to
| catch up with that. It supports a mouse and keyboard
| really really well now
| bigyabai wrote:
| > the market needs to catch up with that
|
| By that token, touchscreen laptops will replace the iPad
| any day now.
|
| I think the preeminent issue is that touch-native UIs are
| very imprecise and clunky by nature. The iPad makes a
| great MIDI controller; it's an awful mixer or plugin host
| compared to a regular laptop running regular PC plugins.
| Buying a mouse or keyboard won't port Omnisphere or the
| U-He plugins to iPad. I doubt the market will ever "catch
| up" in that regard.
| StreamingPanda wrote:
| While I can't speak to the editing side of things, the
| live music apps for ios are exceptional. My dad is a
| musician and I'm a sound engineer. The sheer number and
| quality of the apps dwarfs the android offerings.
| kwanbix wrote:
| Seems super biased comming by someone called SWIFTcoder.
| theshackleford wrote:
| > I assume worse
|
| You know what they say about assuming.
| sghiassy wrote:
| The YouTube app on iOS is superior to the Android app for one
| anymouse123456 wrote:
| This used to be true, but really is not anymore.
| onli wrote:
| Also, I wasn't aiming at the official Youtube app, but at
| PipePipe etc. The great alternative Youtube clients
| Android has.
| pbmonster wrote:
| A YouTube client that can't AdBlock and SponsorBlock
| automatically is strictly worse.
| neves wrote:
| Is there clients that block? I just use Brave browser
| ImJamal wrote:
| NewPipe, but it is an Android exclusive.
| Derbasti wrote:
| Camera apps.
|
| Everything else I agree with, but the Android camera APIs do
| not allow developers to build good device independent camera
| apps the way they are available on iOS.
| synergy20 wrote:
| first time hear this, any more specifics? i used android to
| develop video conference software and don't recall camera
| limits
| lgeek wrote:
| I'm only familiar with this as a user and not a
| developer, but I've had multiple Android phone where not
| all camera features available in the Camera app were
| available to other apps via the APIs:
|
| * not all cameras being available
|
| * stabilisation not working
|
| * 60 FPS unavailable
| ErikBjare wrote:
| To be fair to Android, iOS isn't offering "good device
| independent camera apps" either, you only have ~one choice
| of device with iOS.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Probably the use of "device independent" had other
| meaning than the usual.
| kernal wrote:
| It's not Android. The Camera 2 API is more than capable of
| building device independent apps. It's the developer not
| using the API for whatever reason.
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| > Social media apps? The iOS variants of those apps are afaik
| in no way better. What else is there, where is the advantage?
|
| This is incorrect. The IOS versions of social media apps
| extract way less data from the device than on android, and is
| thus more privacy friendly.
|
| Sure the best way would be for people not to use them, but if
| you "have" to, then it's better to use those on IOS.
| fruitworks wrote:
| In what manner do they extract less data
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Unless you're running Graphene or a similar security
| minded distro the sandboxing isn't very good. Okay let's
| be honest it's fairly abysmal at preventing
| fingerprinting. It could almost be accused of not even
| bothering to try.
|
| But one example:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518866
| water-data-dude wrote:
| The mobile operating system developed by the enormous ad
| tech company doesn't try to prevent fingerprinting?! :O
| gruez wrote:
| >Unless you're running Graphene or a similar security
| minded distro the sandboxing isn't very good
|
| Grapheneos doesn't prevent the installed apps
| fingerprinting you linked either.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Color me surprised. But if you run the app using the
| sandboxing feature that it provides surely it will only
| be able to see other apps installed within that same
| sandbox?
| gruez wrote:
| What is "the sandboxing feature" you're talking about?
| The standard app sandbox built into android allows apps
| to discover each other for various purposes, and
| grapheneos doesn't do anything to attempt to plug this.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Apologies. I was thinking of Android user profiles which
| are available from mainline and (AFAIK) prevent the
| linked workaround from revealing any apps not installed
| in the same profile. So it's an example of an unfixed
| leak in Android but not (as I had previously implied)
| something that Graphene corrects.
|
| Honestly the state of anti-fingerprinting (app, browser,
| and otherwise) is fairly abysmal but that's hardly
| limited to android or even mobile as a whole.
| gruez wrote:
| >Apologies. I was thinking of Android user profiles which
| are available from mainline and (AFAIK) prevent the
| linked workaround from revealing any apps not installed
| in the same profile.
|
| But there's no evidence that stock android leaks apps
| installed across profiles? The link you provided doesn't
| discuss profiles at all, and stock android also has
| private space and work profile just like grapheneos.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| ... yes? That's what I said? Feature available in
| mainline, motivating leak unfixed, graphene doesn't
| correct.
| Saris wrote:
| Even with graphene I don't believe it mitigates much as
| far as apps collecting data. The idea for more privacy is
| you run open source apps instead that just don't collect
| data.
|
| AFAIK Graphene is oriented towards strong device security
| with privacy as more of a side effect.
| palata wrote:
| One thing with the sandboxed Play Services being that
| Google has fewer permissions on the device, so presumably
| they can collect less data.
|
| Which I believe is GrapheneOS' argument when people
| praise microG: microG being open source does not
| fundamentally add privacy: apps using microG will phone
| to Google's servers (that's the whole point of microG).
| What microG solves is that it removes the Play Services
| that are root on your device, and it turns out that
| sandboxed Play Services do that as well.
|
| > The idea for more privacy is you run open source apps
| instead that just don't collect data.
|
| Yep exactly, I just wanted to add about the sandboxed
| Play Services, because it was not obvious to me at first
| :)
| palata wrote:
| > Unless you're running Graphene or a similar security
| minded distro the sandboxing isn't very good. Okay let's
| be honest it's fairly abysmal at preventing
| fingerprinting.
|
| Hmm... the sandboxing is a security feature, it's not
| there to prevent tracking (not sure what "fingerprinting"
| includes here). The sandboxing of Android is actually
| pretty good (a lot better than, say, desktop OSes).
|
| There is pretty much nothing you can do against an app
| requesting e.g. your location data and sending it to
| their servers. Fundamentally, the whole goal of apps is
| that they can technically do that. Then you have to
| choose apps you trust, and it's easier to trust open
| source apps.
|
| What GrapheneOS brings in terms of sandboxing is that the
| Play Services run sandboxed like normal apps. Whereas on
| Android, the Play Services run with system permissions.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| You'd think this would be more known! I feel like general
| sentiment says the opposite is the case.. What can one
| point to in the future to show what you are saying here?
| myko wrote:
| I agree with the thrust of the GP comment but:
|
| > The IOS versions of social media apps extract way less
| data from the device than on android, and is thus more
| privacy friendly.
|
| I seriously doubt this. I agree that this is the perception
| but anyone working in the mobile space on both platforms
| for the past ~2 years will know Google is a lot more hard
| nosed in reviewing apps for privacy concerns than Apple
| these days (I say this negatively, there is a middle ground
| and Apple is much closer to it - Google is just friction
| seemingly in an attempt to lose their bad reputation).
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| It would be nice if the app stores offered different
| levels of requirements. Let the market decide how much it
| cares about privacy (and security, and ...), reduce the
| friction for developers who want to do a particular
| thing, and give end users more confidence in the entire
| system.
| al_borland wrote:
| Last time I tried Android I had to sign my rights away to
| everything the app wanted just to install it.
|
| In contrast, on iOS I get prompted to allow or deny
| access to my information when the app tries calling
| Apple's API to fetch that information.
|
| For example, if an app wants access to my contacts to
| find other people using the app. On iOS I can simply say
| "no" when it prompts me to allow it to read my contacts.
| I lose out on that feature to find other people using the
| app, which I don't care about, but I can still use the
| rest of the app. On Android it seemed like by installing
| the app, I had already agreed to give up my contacts...
| it was all or nothing. If I don't like one privacy
| compromising feature, I couldn't use the app at all.
|
| Android may have improved this in the last few years, but
| I found it to be a dealbreaker for the entire platform.
| palata wrote:
| > Last time I tried Android I had to sign my rights away
| to everything the app wanted just to install it.
|
| Sounds like it was years ago... I remember that it was
| being introduced like... more than a decade ago? Of
| course maybe it took longer than iOS because of how
| Android works. iOS can just force everybody to use liquid
| glass with one update, Android has to think more about
| backward compatibility.
| privacyking wrote:
| You still have the same things on android. If an android
| app requests eg exact location it can refuse to run and
| there's nothing you can do. That sort of behaviour is
| prohibited on iOS and an app won't be approved if it does
| that sort of thing. They have to allow declining location
| permission or at least approximate location
| palata wrote:
| Not sure I understand. So you're saying that a bad app on
| Android can request all permissions and tell you that it
| will refuse to run unless you give them, and the same app
| would be declined on iOS?
|
| I could agree with that, Apple is more picky. Now
| personally, if an app does that, I uninstall it.
|
| But technically, the Android rules are that you shouldn't
| do that, and when you request a permission you need to
| explain to the user why you request it.
| al_borland wrote:
| It was there for the launch of the App Store with iOS.
| They didn't have to worry about backward compatibility,
| because they took the time to worry about user privacy
| and app developer overreach from the very start.
| palata wrote:
| A difference is also that Apple has 100% control over the
| hardware and can enforce their updates much better than
| Android.
|
| Android has to deal with tons of devices, and allow
| developers to update their tooling while supporting older
| devices. I actually find it quite impressive how they
| manage to do that. Must be difficult.
| gruez wrote:
| >This is incorrect. The IOS versions of social media apps
| extract way less data from the device than on android, and
| is thus more privacy friendly.
|
| Source?
| JimDabell wrote:
| Here's one example:
|
| > Meta devised an ingenious system ("localhost tracking")
| that bypassed Android's sandbox protections to identify
| you while browsing on your mobile phone -- even if you
| used a VPN, the browser's incognito mode, and refused or
| deleted cookies in every session.
|
| -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44235467
| gruez wrote:
| That's only one example, and as I explained in a sibling
| comment[1] doesn't even seem like something iOS designers
| were specifically defending against. In light of this, I
| think it's fair to say this example is poor and that
| another one is warranted. For instance, I'd consider the
| app tracking transparency changes to be something where
| iOS was doing better than Android on, but Android has
| since reached feature parity on that because you can
| delete your advertising id, which basically does the same
| thing.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46755250
| siddheshgunjal wrote:
| Nope, they have exact same data collecyion policy. Just
| represented in a different way on app store. That's the
| illusion they create
| jorvi wrote:
| For one, I can actually use gesture controls without
| constantly triggering backswipes. Even something as droll and
| first party as Google Photos suffers this problem, where,
| say, cropping a photo and pulling too close from the screen
| edge will result in a backswipe detection instead.
|
| Another example is Sonos, where the iOS app contains TruePlay
| to tune your speakers. They can do this because there is
| relatively few iPhone models (microphones). But this is a
| general, noticeable trend, where developers will add more /
| better / polished features to the iOS app.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| The iOS YouTube app is not worse than the one in Android.
| Texting in iOS is arguably better or, at the very least,
| there is one more app to choose (Messages). And I'm curious
| to know what makes Antenna Pod so much better than the
| thousands of other podcast apps out there.
|
| Social media apps have historically been worse in Android,
| because of lax app and privacy controls.
|
| > What else is there, where is the advantage?
|
| Personally, I'd rather not have Google buried deep inside all
| aspects of my phone.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Texting in iOS is arguably better or, at the very least
|
| Since some updates ago, my keyboard is still broken if I
| type too fast, and autocorrect been essentially broken for
| the same amount of time. Must be happening for ~years now,
| still waiting for a new update to finally fix it.
|
| At least on Android you can change the keyboard to
| something else if you'd like, instead of being stuck with
| what your OS developer forces on you. Wish I had that
| option now.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Hasn't happened to me, but I guess that you could always
| install a third party keyboard. Both Microsoft and Google
| have offerings in the App Store.
| BlaDeKke wrote:
| The keyboard can be changed in iOS.
| ikamm wrote:
| I have been using SwiftKey keyboard on iOS exclusively
| since 2018 and have had very few issues compared to
| Android where it regularly crashed
| DiskoHexyl wrote:
| A lot of the apps, not just the banking apps, but food
| delivery etc, restrict using alternative keyboards,
| leaving you with a default one, which is especially
| jarring for a multi-lingual countries where you typically
| need keyboards for English + language 2 and 3.
|
| I had to give ap on a swiftkey iOS for that reason
| pvab3 wrote:
| iOS keyboards are hardly different from one another
| Melatonic wrote:
| If you turn off swipe or swift or whatever they call it
| the iOS default keyboard is much better
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| > Personally, I'd rather not have Google buried deep inside
| all aspects of my phone.
|
| I mean, one could say the exact same thing but swapping
| Google with Apple.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Google core business is ads. It is not the same.
| hulitu wrote:
| One should read, carefully, the Apple EULA and TOS.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Is it worse than Google?
| nerdix wrote:
| Apple's core business is trapping users into their walled
| garden so they can rent seek.
|
| Whichever one you think is worse is really just a
| reflection of your own personal values. I value computing
| freedom above all.
| fsflover wrote:
| > I value computing freedom above all.
|
| So perhaps you should consider switching to GNU/Linux
| phones.
| JimDabell wrote:
| > Apple's core business is trapping users into their
| walled garden so they can rent seek.
|
| Apple's core business is selling hardware. Their services
| revenue is not even close to their hardware revenue.
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| Yes, trapping users into their walled hardware garden so
| they can rent seek.
|
| You buy a phone, and you're forever forced into buying
| only their peripherals.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| That's demonstrably untrue.
|
| You could say that there are Apple devices that do not
| work well or don't work at all without another Apple
| device, and off the top of my head I would say the only
| ones are the Watch and the HomePod, but most alternative
| devices work fine with Apple ones, e.g Chromecast, Garmin
| watches, Google Home hubs, etc.
|
| And even so, the same could be said about Android only
| features and devices, e.g. Samsung Watch doesn't work
| without an Android phone, Google Earbuds are feature
| capped on iPhone, etc.
|
| IMO, if we are looking at rent seeking behaviors, Google
| shoving Gemini down the throats of Google Home users,
| with no chance of rolling back if they don't like it, is
| way worse.
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| Demonstrably not true? What did you do with the 200+
| Apple-only charging cables?
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| What are you even talking about? The only Apple exclusive
| connector in recent memory was Lightning, and it's been
| phased out.
|
| Did you get rid of all your micro USB cables and devices
| once the transition to USB-C began for Android?
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| The difference between Apple vs Google is that with Apple
| you ARE the ad. They don't need advertising when they
| know people will adopt them and then be forced into their
| ecosystem.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Even if
| that was true, my point was that an ad driven business
| like Google, would be incentivized to monetize all the
| aspects of my life they could have access to. If that's
| not what Apple is doing, compared to Google, then that's
| a win I guess?
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| > would be incentivized to monetize all the aspects of my
| life they could have access to
|
| You're literally describing Apple's business model.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| That's false.
|
| Google most profitable business line is ads. They profit
| from literally knowing everything about you, then selling
| access to that to ad bidders. Apple makes the most money
| from devices. It is not the same.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > They don't need advertising
|
| Then why is it that they advertise? We just last week had
| a thread about how the Apple app store is making ads
| blend in more with organic results. So not only are they
| advertising to users (which admittedly was news to me),
| they are engaging in dark patterns to make those ads more
| enticing. It doesn't seem like being locked into the
| Apple ecosystem (and paying their tax on hardware) is
| actually benefiting the users.
| drnick1 wrote:
| That's where GrapheneOS comes in. You can go fully
| Google-free or use their "sandboxed Google libraries" to
| run the Google apps as a normal user.
| gruez wrote:
| >at the very least, there is one more app to choose
| (Messages).
|
| How's that different than Google Messages being exclusive
| to Android?
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| RCS is not exclusive to Android, the point is moot.
| al_borland wrote:
| Everyone I know on iOS just uses Messages, they don't
| feel a need for other apps.
|
| People on Android I've run into seem to have a half dozen
| apps and use anything but the built in messaging.
|
| A few months ago while on a trip I ran into an older
| couple that wanted some picture I took in a place they
| weren't physically up to going. They were not tech savvy
| at all. Had they been on iOS, they would have just been
| using Messages and it would have been easy. They had
| Android, and the guy opened about 5 or 6 different
| messaging apps, not really knowing what any of them were,
| it seemed like a real mess. I sent them using Messages
| over RCS, assuming they'd go to Google Messages, or
| whatever the default equivalent standard app is for
| Google (they seem to have changed it a dozen times). It
| could be that the pictures were taking a while to send,
| my phone showed they sent, but he had no idea where to
| look or where they might have went, despite having so
| many messaging apps. I hope he is able to find them or
| they came through with a notification once he had a
| better single.
|
| Having one good app that everyone uses is better than the
| default app being sub-par, or so constantly in flux that
| the users and smattered about to dozens of different apps
| that can't talk to each other.
| avcloudy wrote:
| This is a really ideology driven push. I don't think you
| really think the iOS browsers are _worse_ , there's just less
| choice, because they all fundamentally use WebKit. Having to
| use Chromium is a worse experience, and not being able to use
| Gecko under Firefox is not a clear upgrade - particularly as
| WebKit is so tightly integrated with the hardware, leading to
| less battery use. If you really don't like WebKit for
| whatever reason, I get it. But that's not worse.
|
| Whenever there is an app with full feature parity (WhatsApp)
| you assume _at best_ it can be equal, based on nothing. You
| have specific apps that work for you, and that 's great, but
| my practical experience is much different: whenever I haven't
| had a choice in an app (think banking apps, carrier apps,
| local library apps, the Covid apps) the experience has been
| much better on Apple. Whenever there is a choice in apps,
| they're often cross-written in something that allows easy
| porting, and very similar, or the native Apple solution is
| much smoother. It's rare that an app just feels better on
| Android, and usually limited to cases where a specific app is
| only available on Android or, you know, Google.
| fruitworks wrote:
| no ublock
|
| How can whatsapp be better? Android at least has features
| like scoped storage.
|
| Where is the ios equivalent of newpipe? Where is the iOS
| equivalent of pojavlauncher? where is the iOS equivalent of
| libretorrent or syncthing?
|
| Open source is essentially banned on iOS.
|
| What is the advantage of iOS? "Feels smoother"? Totally
| subjective.
| avcloudy wrote:
| Safari just got uBlock back!
|
| iOS isn't particularly open source friendly, but mostly
| people don't do it because of personal incentives, not
| because it can't be done.
|
| It's subjective, and I get that, but what you miss is
| that features are subjective too. Missing parity apps are
| only relevant when you care about that feature; at no
| point in my life have I ever thought my life would be
| better or more convenient if I could only torrent on my
| phone.
|
| But having an app that is responsive and works well _has_
| made my life better. Standing outside a bar in the rain
| trying to get a stupid Covid app to work, not work well,
| just work, on Android has made my life worse.
|
| (Ironically, I've kind of noticed this is part of the
| Unix ethos writ small: do one thing and do it well. It's
| not exact, and iOS for sure has tons of crud everything
| apps. And they sure don't work together! I just think
| it's amusing.)
| tuesdaynight wrote:
| You say that they are ideologically driven when they say
| browsers are better on Android, and then go on to defend
| that having LESS features is not necessarily bad.
| Honestly, you are the one sounding ideologically driven.
| Having more options is good, specially if there are
| better options out there (which is the case). Firefox on
| Android is a better browser than Chrome or whatever, and
| having the option to use it IS better than not having.
| You have the right to say that Safari is great, but you
| cannot say that Gecko on iOS would be worse because,
| well, you don't have that option.
| avcloudy wrote:
| I'm just gonna put it out there, more choice always being
| good is the ideology, but when you measure user
| experience, they consistently rate smooth, fast
| experiences over feature count unless it's a feature
| that's important to them.
|
| I don't think iOS is less feature rich except in some
| specific areas, like web browsers, but you can see in the
| extreme example that if you could use any web browser for
| 20 minutes before running out of battery vs safari for
| hours, one is clearly better. Then you're just haggling
| over scale. Having the choice to use bad options is not
| really a choice, unless you have to eg for certain
| functionality.
|
| And like, in other contexts this isn't even a debate. You
| talk about the useless feature bloat of Microsoft Word
| and the associated UI crud, and people are like 'yeah'.
| But in this context people will straight up make an
| argument that n+1 features better than n features.
| misterdata wrote:
| Synctrain is an open source (MPL2.0) iOS Syncthing client
| (which I made) with full native mobile-first UI and tight
| iOS integration (shortcuts, background processing, etc).
| jasode wrote:
| _> I don't see any iOS advantage with the apps anymore. That
| was maybe true in the very beginning, during the gold rush
| time of the app store. But not since then. In which category
| are there better iOS apps? _
|
| I researched iOS vs Android last year so some of my info may
| be out of date but this is what I collected.
|
| Apple iOS exclusives (or earlier app versions because devs
| prioritized iOS): ChatGPT iOS app -2 months
| before Android Sora -2 months before 2025-11 Android
| Bluesky iOS app -2 months before Android (February 2023 iOS
| invitation-only beta; April 2023, it was released for
| Android) Blackmagic Design camera 2023-09-15 -9 months
| before Android 2024-06-24 Halide camera app https://o
| ld.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/17klq40/what_are_some_good_examp
| les_of_iphoneexclusive/k7efznt/ Zoom F6
| https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/software-product-page/software-
| sub-cat/F6-control-app/
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/f6-control/id1464118916
| Godox Light https://www.diyphotography.net/godox-finally-
| launches-android-app-for-the-a1-but-only-for-some-phones/
| ForeFlight Mobile https://support.foreflight.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/115004919307-Does-ForeFlight-Mobile-work-on-
| Android-devices https://old.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/188
| 3eya/the_authoritative_answer_to_why_isnt_foreflight/
| Adobe Fresco Procreate FlexRadio SmartSDR SSDR
| 2023-10-27T13:15:09+00:00
| https://community.flexradio.com/discussion/8029186/smartsdr-
| for-android-device
|
| Google Android app exclusives TouchDRO for
| milling Kodi media player
|
| There really aren't many popular/prominent Android-only apps
| that's intended for direct consumer download from the Google
| Play Store. Instead, Android dominates in OEM use as
| "turnkey" and "embedded" base os as the GUI for their
| customized hardware devices: Amazon Fire
| Stick, car infotainment, music workstations, sewing machine
| GUI, geology soil tester, etc
|
| If it's a typical mainstream user (browser + Youtube/Tiktok +
| WhatsApp etc), they won't see any iOS ecosystem advantages
| over Android.
| palata wrote:
| It seems like a pretty arbitrary list to me...
|
| Also Android has a bigger market share in the world than
| iOS, by a lot.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Also Android has a bigger market share in the world
| than iOS, by a lot._
|
| The tone of that seems like you thought I was taking the
| discussion into fanboy evangelism and therefore Android
| needed to be defended. That wasn't the intent and I
| already tried to downplay my comment by stating the iOS
| ecosystem specifics do not matter to 99% of mainstream
| users. Yes, everybody on HN already knows Android has a
| much bigger market share.
|
| The point was simply to inform the gp asking the question
| about iOS that there are apps and niches he may not be
| aware of. Nobody's trying to convince any reader of
| switching to iOS or that "iOS is superior" ... or vice
| versa!
| palata wrote:
| Wow I don't get all the downvotes I'm getting for that.
|
| You answered to:
|
| >> I don't see any iOS advantage with the apps anymore.
|
| With a list of apps, some of which only listed because
| they got Android support a few months later. And some of
| which I have never heard of (SmartSDR?).
|
| I get why those apps matter _to you_ , but it feels a bit
| arbitrary. While the quote refers to something that was
| more general (which suggests that "at a point, iOS had a
| lot more quality apps"). I am just saying that the answer
| "no but I checked the app I like on iOS and a handful of
| them don't exist on Android" was kind of one anecdotal
| data point in the discussion.
|
| And my point about Android having a bigger market share
| was that my intuition is that probably popular apps end
| up on Android eventually, or alternatives exist.
|
| I honestly really don't care if people prefer iOS,
| Android, GrapheneOS, or a Linux for mobile distro.
| jasode wrote:
| _> I get why those apps matter to you, [...] I am just
| saying that the answer "no but I checked the app I like
| on iOS and a handful of them don't exist on Android" was
| kind of one anecdotal data point in the discussion._
|
| No, you don't get why it matters to me. You assuming my
| comment was just a personal list of my favorite apps is
| way off base. _To be clear, I have never installed nor
| used any of those apps on either iOS nor Android._
|
| So if I don't have any personal connection to those apps,
| why do I have that list handy?!? Because I was
| researching possible coding strategies for a new
| smartphone app:
|
| - have 2 separate native mobile codebases (Swift AND
| Kotlin) from the start and therefore can release at the
| same time on both Apple App Store and Google Play.
| Difficult and expensive. Finite time and funds means both
| native apps suffer from less features and polish.
|
| - or start with deliberate handicap of just 1 native
| codebase (e.g. iOS-only for initial launch) and see if it
| can attract revenue/funding to pay for the other native
| codebase (e.g. then Android). Or do the reverse of
| Android-first-then-iOS. Focusing on just 1 native
| platform means the app is higher quality. However, the
| risk is a clone app could quickly show up on the other
| platform I didn't code for.
|
| - or 1 cross-platform toolkit with something like React
| Native which is what Meta and Microsoft Office apps like
| Outlook did.
|
| That was why and how that list was created. The purpose
| was to _get enough industry examples to form a
| generalization of what others did_. I often do software
| research and my notes let me make lists about it.
| (Another one of my comments listing software I don 't
| personally use but I do know the monthly costs :
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42331312)
|
| I thought the iOS apps list was a neutral comment full of
| factual information and also counterbalanced with the
| areas where Android has an enormous influence. Yet
| somehow, my comment is still interpreted as some type of
| smear on Android. If you're confused about downvotes, I
| am too!
|
| If you go back to the gp's comment I replied to, he
| literally asked: _> "What else is there, where is the
| advantage?"_
|
| This thread is full of people replying with examples of
| the _" what else"_. How could any of us seriously answer
| that question without the answers being criticized as
| "arbitrary" ?
| palata wrote:
| > You assuming my comment was just a personal list of my
| favorite apps is way off base
|
| Well I am saying that it is a list of apps I have never
| used (if I have heard of them at all), so it sounds
| arbitrary for a comparison between iOS and Android.
|
| > Because I was researching possible coding strategies
| for a new smartphone app
|
| Sure, yeah, it makes sense there. I just don't feel like
| "ChatGPT released their Android app 2 months after iOS
| means that iOS is better in terms of apps".
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Market share matters, but spend matters more.
|
| Ads running on premium devices are worth more to apps
| (and therefore the platforms). Users on premium devices
| pay more in subscriptions and in-app purchases.
| FrequentLurker wrote:
| iOS has less device models to target for. This makes it
| easier to support and deliver a more consistent experience,
| especially for gaming. I have also heard a few other points
| back in the day, but I am not sure how true they are now. One
| is that some social media apps might offer better quality in
| app camera experience. Another is that iOS userbase is more
| willing to spend money so devs are more likely to target iOS.
| clickety_clack wrote:
| I switched from Android to iPhone last year, and this just
| isn't true. There's so many tiny issues with android apps
| that just don't exist on iPhone, because the android apps
| have to work on all these different devices. You don't even
| have to look for the kinds of apps you're talking about
| because things like Safari and Apple Podcasts work really
| well. I know people have a lot of complaints, but things on
| the iPhone really do "just work".
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| > because things like Safari ...work really well
|
| Are we living in the same universe? We manage a fleet of
| tablets (both Apple and Android) for a healthcare company
| whose EMR is web-based. And because of that Sarafi has made
| our lives miserable. So much so that we're migrating to
| Chromebooks.
|
| I've been developing for the web for 15 years. The first
| half was spent battling Internet Explorer. Now it's Safari.
| clickety_clack wrote:
| I'm a developer too, but the developer experience doesn't
| matter to users. As a user of the app, it's fast enough,
| cleanly designed, seems to be reasonably private and
| secure, and I haven't hit any website with it where I've
| had to download chrome to view it or something.
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| You're a developer but you can't connect the dots between
| features being hard to build and the inconsistencies
| between other browsers vs Safari to how that might effect
| the user?
| clickety_clack wrote:
| I can be a user separate from being a developer. The user
| experience of Safari is basically perfect for a browser.
| The development experience is completely irrelevant from
| that perspective.
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| > The user experience of Safari is basically perfect for
| a browser.
|
| This is such a wild, absolute statement it's not even
| worth discussing this with you anymore.
| clickety_clack wrote:
| I mean... what do you want me to do, list problems I
| don't have with it? As a user of the app, Safari fades
| completely into the background for me, I don't know what
| else I could ask for from a browser.
| acdha wrote:
| There are some proprietary Chrome APIs but if you're not
| using those it's been pretty rare to have major problems
| in recent years. I open a couple of bug reports a year
| against Chrome, Firefox, and Safari--mostly accessibility
| related--but most of the time it's been a problem with
| code written specifically against Chrome rather than code
| which couldn't work in the other browsers.
| shuckles wrote:
| The people complaining about Safari often are running
| enterprise crapware that requires some esoteric Chrome
| API or bug to operate correctly and should actually be an
| app on iOS but cannot be funded as such because its
| creators don't care about its users.
| mexicocitinluez wrote:
| > some esoteric Chrome API or bug
|
| Or simple things like supporting 100vh consistently. Is
| that estoric?
| jorvi wrote:
| Well, formerly you would have been right, but WebUSB and
| whatnot are gaining a lot more traction.
|
| I didn't take WebUSB seriously until I steered someone to
| flashing a small firmware onto something and they could
| do it straight from the browser! And it was a nice
| workflow too, just a few button and a permission click.
|
| Two other examples I can think of are flashing Via
| (keyboard) firmware and Poweramp using WebADB via WebUSB
| to make gaining certain permissions very easy for the
| layman. I imagine it's gonna get more and more user in
| enterprise too.
|
| Firefox is seriously behind by refusing to implement it.
| dns_snek wrote:
| WebUSB is a giant gaping hole in the browser sandbox.
| Innocent use cases are really nice, I've used WebUSB to
| flash GrapheneOS on my device, but the possibilities for
| users to shoot themselves in the foot with nefarious
| website are almost endless.
|
| Consider the fact that Chromium has to specifically
| blacklist Yubikey and other known WebAuthn vendor IDs,
| otherwise any website could talk to your Yubikey
| pretending to be a browser and bypass your 2FA on third
| party domains.
|
| I'm conflicted on WebUSB because it's convenient but on
| the balance I think it's too dangerous to expose to the
| general public. I don't know how it could be made safer
| without sacrificing its utility and convenience.
| jorvi wrote:
| It really isn't. Chromium (since 67) does USB interface
| class filtering to prevent access to sensitive devices.
| Then there is the blacklist you mentioned.
|
| On top of that, straight from Yubico's site:
|
| ".. The user must approve access on a per website, per
| device basis .."
|
| This isn't any more a security hole than people clicking
| "yes" on UAC prompts that try to install malware.
| dns_snek wrote:
| > ".. The user must approve access on a per website, per
| device basis .."
|
| Of course, but a phishing website "fake-bank.com" could
| collect user's username, password, and then prompt them
| to touch their yubikey. This wouldn't trigger any alarm
| bells because it's part of the expected flow.
|
| > This isn't any more a security hole than people
| clicking "yes" on UAC prompts that try to install
| malware.
|
| Yes it is. The only reason why Yubikeys are immune to
| phishing and TOTP codes aren't is because a trusted
| component (the browser) accurately informs the security
| key about the website origin. When a phishing website at
| "fake-bank.com" is allowed to directly communicate with
| the security key there's nothing stopping it from
| requesting credentials for "bank.com"
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Then again, if a company can't polish a web browser app,
| then the native app they'd produce will be even worse.
|
| Now you have a crappy app that only works on some
| devices, and now with no tabs, no links, text you cannot
| select anymore because they used the wrong component,
| etc.
|
| Ugh.
| HPsquared wrote:
| iOS is great if you only want the parts that "just work",
| and don't need any of the things Android has that "just
| don't work" on iOS.
| hulitu wrote:
| > but things on the iPhone really do "just work".
|
| For values of "just work" close to 0.
|
| Make a picture, connect with a Windows PC, iOS needs a
| password, then the picture is not visible to the PC,
| disconnect, go with Apple photos to look at the picture,
| repeat connecting, with password, now it is visible.
|
| Try to set up a hotspot, there is no button to turn the
| hotspot on/off.
|
| So yes, it "just works"
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > Try to set up a hotspot, there is no button to turn the
| hotspot on/off.
|
| There is. You can even put it on the settings drawer.
| Look for "personal hotspot".
|
| I don't have a mac anymore, but IIRC you could even turn
| it on from the paired mac. This definitely still works
| between iphones. When I take out my old iphone from the
| drawer to use as a GPS on my bike, with no sim card, it
| will connect to my regular iphone's hotspot
| automatically.
| gcr wrote:
| You can find your hotspot button in the control center.
| Swipe down from the top right of the screen. It's in the
| same section as airplane mode / WiFi / cellular data, and
| takes another tap to access.
| odo1242 wrote:
| You actually don't even need to set up hotspot more than
| once if the phone and the computer are both yours (and
| apple-brand). You can just connect to the iPhone with the
| Mac (if they're on the same iCloud account) and it works
| without entering a password.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > Try to set up a hotspot, there is no button to turn the
| hotspot on/off.
|
| I'm confused, which button? Do Android phones come with a
| physical button to enable hotspot?
| cannonpalms wrote:
| Just a quick shortcut
| xigoi wrote:
| > I know people have a lot of complaints, but things on the
| iPhone really do "just work".
|
| Recently on HN: https://www.bugsappleloves.com/
| clickety_clack wrote:
| I would love to see a site like that for android, but
| people don't have the same expectation of flawlessness
| with it.
| UltraSane wrote:
| I've tried switching to iPhone and the lack of a consistent
| back button like Android has always drives me crazy.
| SomeHacker44 wrote:
| Foreflight is iOS only. There is nothing even a third as good
| on Android. I literally have a one app iPad just for this.
| Sigh.
| odo1242 wrote:
| iOS apps consistently get updates a few weeks to months
| earlier than the Android version. Including some of Google's
| own apps, sometimes.
|
| To give examples:
|
| - https://www.phonearena.com/news/google-photos-update-to-
| reac...
|
| - https://www.t3.com/tech/iphones/google-maps-gets-an-
| iphone-u...
|
| Both of the above are updates to Google apps that released on
| iOS but are _planned_ on Android. Haven 't seen any examples
| of the reverse.
| odo1242 wrote:
| To add more examples, a game I play on my phone got an
| update that adds controller support on iOS, with controller
| support on Android expected 6 months down the line.
| gf000 wrote:
| There are plenty examples to the contrary. It's almost
| like one of the platforms has the supermajority of phones
| in most countries, so there are plenty of apps only
| targeting a single one.
| jdiff wrote:
| Do you have any examples handy? It'd strengthen your
| argument a great deal, even if it wasn't the specific
| example of controller support.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| Do those updates matter?
|
| Not for me at least usually (exception might be something
| like an rpg game expanding the world), apps nagging to get
| updated is annoying in fact.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Most online RPGs (Genshin for example) check for world
| updates everytime you log in, it's not tied to app
| updates.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| I was thinking Andor's Trail :)
| al_borland wrote:
| > apps nagging to get updated is annoying in fact.
|
| There is no nagging. Apps auto-update on iOS, and have
| for years. I had 15 apps update in the last week. There
| was no nagging or notifications. It just happens.
|
| My only gripe is that they seem to want to update right
| after I take it off the charger in the morning, instead
| of at night. But I only actually notice this once or
| twice per year, if I go to use an app that's in the
| process of installing within the first few minutes of
| waking up.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Apps also auto update on Android. Frequently though, the
| updates reduce functionality or make it more annoying
| (basics like messages, calculator, photos, calendar, etc
| have been 'done' for a decade+ and can only really be
| made worse), so personally I've turned that off for most
| apps (and I suppose the other poster has too). Of course
| Google being aggressive assholes, they then have some of
| their apps start showing popups every time you open it
| telling you to update when the entire point was to have
| it not change in functionality and not introduce that
| sort of thing.
| kernal wrote:
| The iOS and Android app teams at Google don't coordinate
| their releases. They ship it when it's ready for
| publication. Why inconvenience the other base just because
| the other team has other priorities and schedules. That
| said, Google apps have always been superior on Android than
| iOS. Just look at Keep.
| ulfw wrote:
| I've never understood how Google was able to get PR for the
| most trivial coding stuff any child coder can do.
|
| "...support for a dynamic light mode. Instead of always
| viewing photos with a black background, Google Photos will
| use the light mode or dark mode background that you have
| set for your device's system theme."
|
| This is literally one IF statement. The sentence is longer
| than the code.
| vachina wrote:
| iOS apps are truly sandboxed, they cannot carry out stunts
| like this:
|
| https://localmess.github.io/
| gruez wrote:
| For this particular exploit, it's not really because "iOS
| apps are truly sandboxed", it's because iOS is more
| restrictive with background activity, so you you can't keep
| a server running in the background. If your app is in the
| foreground it can create a listen socket just like in
| android.
| layer8 wrote:
| If iOS apps were "truly" sandboxed, Apple wouldn't have
| grounds to invoke security issues with regard to third-
| party app stores and app reviews.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > In which category are there better iOS apps?
|
| Just one example, but aviation.
|
| Foreflight is iOS-only. Literally the only reason I have iOS
| devices is because of app availability in this category.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| If you'd like an example, every single person who flies has
| an iPad to use an app called FOREFLIGHT. It doesn't exist in
| android. Other EFBs exist on android but they are not as
| good. To a point that among things a new pilot student has to
| buy, like headsets and such, is an iPad.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| I don't know about categories overall, but I'm attached to my
| iPad and won't switch to Android in part because Affinity is
| not available there, nor is there any near equivalent as far
| as I can tell.
|
| I still think Overcast is nicer to use than Antenna Pod.
|
| Microsoft Office apps work much better on iDevices, in my
| experience. (I know they exist for Android, but I've never
| had much luck editing there, where it actually works pretty
| nicely on iDevices.)
|
| I don't game much, but my kids like gaming on iDevices much
| better than Android. (I have an Android tablet that I use for
| testing things, and they consistently reject it in favor of
| iPhone or iPad.)
|
| Flowkey (music instruction app) works much better with my
| MIDI keyboard on iDevices than on Android (where it doesn't
| work and has to resort to microphone, which is buggy as
| hell).
|
| I'm sure some of this is just a matter of the platform being
| more polished in general, but these are some apps that keep
| people in my house on iDevices despite having plenty of
| access to Android. The quality of the Youtube app doesn't
| move anyone, nor do the browsers.
| 8note wrote:
| how do you live without ublock on your browser though?
|
| firefox with adblock is the high quality youtube app
| eldaisfish wrote:
| safari has ublock now.
| pvab3 wrote:
| i just use Brave for iOS. I use the setting to block
| Youtube shorts, default to old.reddit, block ads and
| annoyances, etc.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Brave on Android has ad blocking built in, I would assume
| it does in iOS too. No need for ublock in that case.
| krferriter wrote:
| Correct. Brave on iOS is worse than Brave on Android
| because Apple forces it to be a Safari skin, but they're
| still able to achieve some UI improvements over Safari,
| and achieve their built-in adblocking.
| einsteinx2 wrote:
| I use the AdGuard extension just like I do on macOS
| Safari. It works perfectly fine for removing ads.
| bestnameever wrote:
| Another vote for Adguard. it works perfectly.
| darepublic wrote:
| As a mobile Firefox with ublocker user I'm not sure I
| would call it high quality. I regularly have to force
| stop it to get pages to load properly. I suspect it might
| be the hostile google based os at fault but not sure
| nvr219 wrote:
| Look up Vinegar, Baking Soda, and (by a separate
| developer) Wipr.
| throw3e98 wrote:
| I use Wipr 2. You throw $5 at the dev and you never have
| ads on any iOS device again.
| physicles wrote:
| Wipr 2 is in the running for the best $5 I've ever spent
| in my life.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Thirded. I recommend it without hesitation.
| literatepeople wrote:
| ublock has been on safari for the past year! there were
| others before. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ublock-
| origin-lite/id674534269...
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| I use uBlock on mobile safari.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Orion browser on iOS is great and can run Firefox and
| Chrome extensions. Also has built in Adblock
| password1 wrote:
| There's a saying in mobile development that in most companies
| the Android version of the app is a second class citizen. It
| usually brings substantially less money and so less money are
| invested in it. As a result the Android team is often
| understaffed and the app is almost always behind in feature
| development, less polished and with overall worse UX and more
| bugs compared to the iOS app.
|
| Also iOS still has a community of iOS only indie devs that
| publish polished apps for iOS, it's very common to find very
| popular iOS app with very curated UX that are exclusive to
| that platform and have a good fanbase.
| gunalx wrote:
| The indie dev market is a flip flop, I have seen many great
| apps only available on android as well.
| atomicnumber3 wrote:
| This is more because the barrier to entry is so much
| lower.
|
| Android: have laptop that can do virtualization (...so
| basically ever laptop that can also do this:) and have
| enough ram to do run Android studio. Then you
| theoretically also need an Android device but even that's
| just because I assume you want to use the app you're
| making. That's it.
|
| iOS: $100/yr entry fee, plus you need Apple hardware,
| plus a "server" mode Apple hardware (Mac mini?) if you
| want to alt store and I assume your main device is a
| laptop.
|
| Just the money thing and the hardware thing is a huge
| stumbling block. I know it's rounding error for any even
| semi serious business but also let's be real, a ton of
| very important software is basically run on the budget of
| "the software devs main job and/or EU welfare state
| benefits".
| econ wrote:
| The www wins. All you need is something that can run a
| browser. You edit a line, save, refresh and there it is,
| the real finished product, not emulation.
|
| Apps have terrible reliability too. I just wanted to
| order a pizza, the restaurant website offered a button
| for the play store and app store.
|
| There it said the app was for an outdated version of
| Android.
|
| Perhaps it had been like that for a long time? But lets
| imagine it happened today. Where are you to get your
| orders from? Ahh yes, the website.
|
| If apps didn't get the icon on the home screen 90%
| wouldn't have a reason to exist.
|
| Bunch of pictures with descriptions and an add to cart
| button. One shouldn't even need to write code, it should
| be as simple and obvious as serving a document. In stead
| you need a full time carpenter to keep the store running.
| The counter and shelves spontaneously collapse, doors
| regularly get stuck, light fixtures rain down from the
| ceiling.
|
| People trying to sell pizza deserve better, we can do
| better.
| kwanbix wrote:
| The only place where this happens is in the US. In the rest
| of the world Android rules with 70% or more of the market
| share.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Since Android has 70% of the world market share, and there
| are countries where iOS is hardly a presence other than the
| country's elite population, those are quite a few customers
| they will be missing on.
|
| Maybe they can keep the lights on with those 30%, I guess.
| Archit3ch wrote:
| > In which category are there better iOS apps?
|
| Audio, and it's not even close. On iPadOS you get full-
| fledged DAWs like Cubasis and Logic.
| ece wrote:
| Cubasis and Blackmagic Camera are cross platform, not that
| "most people" would use these over whatever was
| preinstalled or the camera interface in their social app.
| kernal wrote:
| The Android audio latency issues were solved long ago with
| Pro Audio. Whether Android audio apps chose to use it is on
| them and the significance of latency on their audio app.
| newsoftheday wrote:
| > while the Play store is an equally ad-riddled
|
| That made me realize how little I go to the Play store these
| days to just browse compared to the early days of Android.
|
| I personally can't stand Apple products ... dbut with Google
| doing their crap and Samsung acting like Microsoft with all
| the crap they load in I have to disable just to make the
| phone usable; I've seriously thought about moving to iPhone
| the past couple of years.
| Klonoar wrote:
| It's not "strictly worse" for browsers unless you care about
| esoteric web spec features that few sites actually need
| today.
|
| Safari works fine. 99% of users legitimately do not give a
| fuck.
| nvr219 wrote:
| Why are you booing them? They're right.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| There is not a single android app that is ever better than
| its iOS counterpart. At the very top margin, the android app
| is equivalent to its iOS counterpart. But there's really only
| Gmail, photos, and Google Maps, and the big tech co apps that
| this small exception covers. Android apps don't have to be
| worse from a technical standpoint, but in reality they are
| always worse than the equivalent iOS app.
| onli wrote:
| I personally wrote an app where the android version was
| better than the iOS version (because of background tasks
| and notification limitations on iOS). Your "not a single
| android app" is an absolute statement and thus absolutely
| wrong.
| jhatemyjob wrote:
| I don't understand how, almost 20 years after the release of
| these platforms, there are fully grown adult mobile OS
| fanboys still out there that either consciously or
| unconsciously spread lies about the difference between the
| platforms. Not just the parent comment, but this entire
| comment tree. For both iOS and Android. It's an almost
| religious cult-like type of behavior that reminds me of
| teenagers back in the early 2010s engaging in flamewars in
| YouTube comments arguing in favor of whichever gaming console
| they happen to own.
|
| In that context, it made sense because they were kids, but
| also, these platforms were new with not much information out
| there, and the users were basically forced to pick one
| platform or the other because of the diminishing returns from
| owning both. 15 years ago, a PS3 or an Xbox 360 cost around
| $500, which adjusted for inflation is around $800 today. Not
| worth dropping an extra $800 for a few exclusive titles.
|
| In the context of Android and iOS, you can gain access to
| both of these platforms quite easily... I mean, presumably,
| you already own an Android or iOS device already. For $150
| you can get a decent device on the used market. Not state-of-
| the-art, but pretty good, all things considered. And with
| that you can gain a holistic perspective.
|
| I seriously just don't get how you can stay faithful to
| either Android or iOS. They both are awful. I sort of see it
| as a necessary evil, pick your poison sort of thing. But some
| people get Stockholm Syndrome and never bother to try the
| alternatives I guess? I find that really odd.
| NoahZuniga wrote:
| Just wanted to chime in to say Antenna Pod is really good.
| tjr wrote:
| ForeFlight
| rockooooo wrote:
| There's many iOS only apps that either don't have anything
| comparable on android or the alternative is just nowhere near
| as good (a lot of it is more creative-focused stuff)
| jesterson wrote:
| Would you mind mentioning at least one? Not something niche
| (as there is lotso of niche apps in Playstore which
| appstore will never see) but something sizeable userbase
| would install?
| siddheshgunjal wrote:
| So many amazing open-source developers just don't want to
| publish their app to app store because of the fees. On
| android, this is way way easier. If google keeps making this
| difficult, then i'll just have to switch to linux phone
| leetnewb wrote:
| Probably not exclusive to open source, but at least some
| projects are running into issues publishing to the Play
| Store with little/no explanation.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>Apple has had better mobile hardware for years
|
| Are you joking? Look at the latest Xiaomi, Oppo and other
| Chinese manufacturers, Apple would love to have the hardware
| they are shipping right now. From batteries to cameras and
| screens, apple is way behind on hardware tech. Yeah they are
| better than Samsung - but Samsung has also massively fallen
| behind what's the state of the art.
|
| >>is another customer Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a
| competitor to access.
|
| Last time I checked, it's apple paying Google, billions of
| dollars a year? And it will be even more now that Apple
| announced they are going to use Gemini as their AI base model.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > Last time I checked, it's apple paying Google, billions of
| dollars a year?
|
| You checked wrong. Google pays Apple on the order of $20
| billion to be the default search on iOS - this is so
| significant it accounts for ~5% of Apple's annual revenue
| trinix912 wrote:
| > Look at the latest Xiaomi, Oppo and other Chinese
| manufacturers, Apple would love to have the hardware they are
| shipping right now.
|
| This is true, but their phones don't ship with Google
| services out of box (at least the last time I checked). So in
| reality, "Google's Android" is really mostly Samsungs and
| Pixels.
| socialcommenter wrote:
| They do when purchased outside China (largely EU, UK, also
| Singapore and others)
| trinix912 wrote:
| They don't in the EU. Not in Slovenia, so not the entire
| EU. I've seen it first hand. It's also not some special
| law that we'd have invented here so I'm pretty sure there
| are other EU countries where it's the same.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>They don't in the EU. Not in Slovenia, so not the
| entire EU.
|
| In Poland you can buy Vivo phones with google services
| out of the box just fine.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>This is true, but their phones don't ship with Google
| services out of box (at least the last time I checked)
|
| I have an Oppo Find X9, purchased directly from them in the
| UK, and it came with all google services the same as my
| previous samsung.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Look at the latest Xiaomi, Oppo and other Chinese
| manufacturers, Apple would love to have the hardware they are
| shipping right now.
|
| If any of these manufacturers decide to include an EMR pen in
| the body of the phone, like Samsung's S-Pen, they'll have me
| as a customer. The S-Pen so completely changes the experience
| that I am unwilling to go back.
| gambiting wrote:
| Shame Samsung decided to nerf the pen by removing
| bluetooth, I was one of those users who used it all the
| time to take photos with, now that they removed that
| function in the S25 Ultra I traded in my S24U and bought an
| Oppo instead. And I'm very glad that I did, it's a superior
| phone in many aspects.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| What confuses me is that easy "sideloading" has been the main
| thing that kept down the proliferation of degoogled custom
| ROMs.
| spwa4 wrote:
| Well you misunderstand enshittification. It will never get
| better again. Both Google and Apple have enshittified their
| phones. You can verify this on the App Store, on the Play
| Store, both of which have now more than 50% of search result
| screen space dedicated to ads, more when it comes to scams
| [1]. AND you can verify this in the financial statements of
| Apple and Google, where you see what we've always seen in
| Google: steadily increasing at a fixed rate profits from ads
| on the play store in Google's case, and steadily increasing
| at a fixed rate profits from "Services", which is App Store
| ads.
|
| In Apple's case this has been the _only_ Apple business to
| grow at all in several of the recent years. In fact there 's
| quite a few Apple businesses that look like they are "revenue
| neutral", most famously iPads. Google is better, but not by
| much. Cloud is growing fast ("but why?" is a question that's
| unanswered. I mean, "because of AI", of course, but ...
| seriously?)
|
| So not only are they enshittified, and you see them getting
| worse and worse over time, but the financial statements show:
| if you're expecting this to get any better either in the
| Apple or Google case, you're insane. Because clearly ads for
| scams are worth it for advertisers, and most other types of
| ads are not worth it. The situation evolves more and more
| towards the cable channel situation of 20 years back.
|
| You could also reverse the view. The simple question: "are
| people willing to compromise on hardware quality to get less
| ads?" has a very clear NO answer. "Are
| governments/institutions that are totally dependent on these
| systems willing to pay to either improve phones or make an
| alternative available?", again has boatloads of evidence that
| the answer is NO, in all caps.
|
| [1] Search for "credit card" or "lose weight" and judge for
| yourself. Top results are promoting Apple or Google
| themselves, everything else are ads, and _very_ bad deals
| that trivially will neither accomplish the promised financial
| independence nor weight loss. Or should I put it like this:
| the credit card deals advertised are _so_ bad they might
| achieve weight loss. By the way ads designed to mislead,
| which the top ads for either search obviously are, are what
| both Google and Apple promised time and again never to do.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Secure boot prohibits custom ROMs on most android devices
| vbezhenar wrote:
| If custom ROMs will be more popular, it probably will push
| some vendors to unlock their devices. In the end, I don't
| think most of them really care.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _Surely the marginal revenue from the inconsequential number
| of sideloading users isn 't attractive enough to justify that
| kind of strategic blunder._
|
| If the rumors are true that the whole anti-sideloading thing is
| mostly because some governments complained, it might not have
| to do with a business strategy at all.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Why not limit these restrictions to these specific locations?
| Surely there's already lots of location-specific and carrier-
| specific customizations like shutter sound in Japan,
| different radio frequencies and many more. It still sucks for
| those who live in these countries, but at least they know who
| to point their finger at.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Apple makes a lot more money. Google wants to do what Apple
| does, to make more money like Apple.
|
| Google might also get paid to enable surveillance.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| > Apple has had better mobile hardware for years.
|
| Well no, Chinese phones are above Apple material-wise (better
| battery, better cameras, better cooling) and on par SoC-wise
| since last year. That's what makes Google's strategy so
| baffling.
|
| > Apple has better app selection (for most people).
|
| It's entirely the same. I have gone back and forth regularly
| for the past 10 years. Android is completely on par app-wise.
| Apple has the iMessage lock-in in the US obviously but not in
| the rest of the world. Apple might have a slight advantage on
| the pro segment with the iPad but I don't think it has a huge
| impact on phones.
|
| The really baffling thing to me is that while they lock down
| Android, they pay to put Gemini on iOS. Google has a real
| competitive advantage with IA and they just gave it to Apple.
|
| It's clear to me that they are two companies fighting each
| other inside Google: the ex-Motorola who wants to be Apple and
| the service side who wants to be Microsoft.
|
| I personally fear that they are making the bed of the
| regulators who will probably come for Play Protect at some
| point to open the door for alternative OS providers at least in
| Europe. But maybe they think it's coming anyway and are
| strengthening their position and trying to milk what they can
| in the meantime.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > they pay to put Gemini on iOS. Google has a real
| competitive advantage with IA and they just gave it to Apple.
|
| What Google loses by pushing iOS AI customers to ChatGPT
| outweighs what they gain by trying to convince people to
| switch phones for access to Gemini.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| How are they on par SoC-wise? Last time I checked, Qualcomm
| was still trying to catch up to Apple.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| Well, recheck.
|
| Both Qualcomm and Mediatek have caught up on the phone SoC
| market.
|
| The Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 has a slightly better CPU than
| the A19 Pro but a slightly worse GPU. Apple has a very
| slight advantage in watt usage but that's more than offset
| by the battery gap. Same thing with the Dimensity 9500.
|
| The SoC market is now extremely competitive.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Beats A19 Pro in Geekbench, at 65% higher power
| consumption.
|
| How is that a win?
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| One, you are entirely moving the goal post. Nothing was
| said of winning. The discussion was about catching up and
| catching up they did. As I said, the market is
| competitive.
|
| Two, because the actual power consumption is not 65%
| higher - that's peak - and high end Chinese phones have
| batteries significantly bigger than the iPhone so you
| still get better screen time between charges in the end.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| I think it's fair to say that a SoC should perform better
| at higher wattages, so my comment is definitely relevant.
|
| Regardless, I don't understand how you can say that I'm
| moving goalposts when I mention performance per watt,
| which is absolutely relevant when talking about
| smartphone SoC performance, and then you bring up battery
| capacity, which is not.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| Your initial question was "How are they on par SoC-wise?"
|
| They are on par because they now sometimes beat Apple top
| of the line A-chips on performance be it single core,
| multicores or GPU and do so within a power budget which
| allows the phone they ship in to be competitive screen-on
| time wise.
|
| Apple doesn't have a one generation lead anymore which is
| a huge change compared to only three years ago.
|
| You are moving the goalposts because the discussion was
| always about the gap between Apple and its competitors
| and you have entirely shifted to peak consumption when it
| was clear the conclusion would not be the one you
| want/expect.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| The whole claim that Qualcomm is on par with Apple
| predicates upon results from benchmarking tools, which
| stress CPU and GPU and thus induce peak power
| consumption.
|
| If we were to look at more thorough reviews, e.g.
| Geekerwan, they always include TDP and power consumption,
| because that gives the necessary context to understand
| the results.
|
| And obviously I'm not denying that Mediatek and Qualcomm
| have massively improved their designs, but they aren't on
| par when we account all the things that matter.
|
| Your argument is that, since manufacturers are putting
| larger batteries in phones, SoC power consumption
| shouldn't matter. That _is_ moving the goalpost, because
| you introduce a variable that should be irrelevant to SoC
| performance testing to dismiss my observation.
| eloisant wrote:
| Chinese phones have great hardware at great prices,
| unfortunately they suck at software.
|
| So unless you want to spend the time and effort to switch to
| and work with the quirks of LineageOS or similar, you get an
| overall worse experience.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| That hasn't been true for years. Both Oppo and Xiaomi ship
| with very usable software nowadays, very inspired by
| Cupertino in the case of Oppo but still ok.
| ulfw wrote:
| Exactly. I am very happy with ColorOS 16. It looks like a
| prettier version of iOS18 and that's not a bad thing.
|
| https://www.oppo.com/en/coloros16/
| ulfw wrote:
| ColorOS 16 on my Oppo Find N5 works flawlessly, fast,
| smooth. I have no idea what you mean
| ulfw wrote:
| Thinking Apple hardware is better is utterly laughable when you
| look at non-US Android devices.
|
| Much better camera sensors, much better silicon carbon
| batteries etc in Oppo, Vivo, Honor and Xiaomi devices than
| anything Apple produces. Form factors Apple still hasn't
| figured out, such as 7th gen Foldables, Flip foldable phones
| etc, Camera zoom lenses that can be attached...
| patrickk wrote:
| Apple only implemented USB-C due to pressure from the EU.
|
| One area Android has a clear advantage is Android TV devices
| verified by Google, because there is a much wider array of
| streaming apps of all kinds available. However google doesn't
| seem to focus on this very much, and if you look for forum
| recommendations for google android streaming devices it's very
| often the NVIDIA shield pro from 2019. Hopefully that device
| will I'll be supported for a few more years because there seems
| to not be good easily available alternatives.
| xattt wrote:
| The killer apps that gave Android an advantage on TV are now
| mostly available on tvOS. To me, these were VLC and
| RetroArch.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| Apple was among the first to implement USB-C in early 2015. A
| whole year before Samsung and the likes.
| freerk wrote:
| But not on mobile. First iPhone with USB-C was iPhone 15
| released late 2023. The Google Nexus 6P phone had USB-C in
| 2015, 8 years earlier.
| JasonADrury wrote:
| Sure, but the claim that "Apple only implemented USB-C
| due to pressure from the EU." is simply ridiculous.
|
| Apple implemented USB-C at a steady pace across their
| entire product lineup, as is demonstrated by the timeline
| below: 2015: 12in MacBook with USB-C
| released 2016: MacBook pro switches to USB-C
| 2018: iPad Pro switches to USB-C 2020: iPad Air
| switches to USB-C 2021: iPad Mini switches to USB-C
| 2022: iPad switches to USB-C 2023: iPhone switches
| to USB-C
|
| If Apple only implemented USB-C because of pressure from
| the EU, you'd presumably be able to see a gap in that
| list during the period of Apple allegedly not
| implementing USB-C. There is no gap, because Apple was
| steadily moving users to USB-C since 2015.
|
| It feels really silly to be spending time defending Apple
| over this, but the EU certainly does not deserve credit
| for iPhones having USB-C. I'm sure there are politicians
| who'd love for you to believe that, but it's simply
| dishonest propaganda.
| andrekandre wrote:
| > And Google's strategy is to continue removing differentiating
| features from Android
|
| they see apples recurring revenue and lust over it, and the
| correlation is the walled-garden and they want it too
|
| personally, it makes me less enthusiastic about android as i
| don't need another iphone but n=1, so maybe it will work out
| for them....
| rvba wrote:
| People who are reaponsible for Android all use Google phones.
| They dont care about android. They dont use it. They dont
| understand their use cases.
|
| If you are hired by a manufacturer of say cola, you cannot
| drink the competition cola.
|
| Those in google laugh when asked to show their phones - and
| then show iphones. In any other business they would be
| terminated.
| pbalau wrote:
| I think an edit is in order, as your post, in the current
| form, doesn't make any sense.
| jerojero wrote:
| He's saying people at Google use iPhones.
|
| I don't know if that's true, but the times I've visited
| silicon valley I didnt see many android phones.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| You're typically issued a corporate phone, it's the only
| phone that can open work email. You have a choice between
| an Android (something like a Pixel and a Samsung) and an
| iPhone, with some companies incentivising Androids with
| things like a faster upgrade cycle or more premium trims.
| The culture is split between having just the one free
| corporate phone and having two phones - one personal, one
| corporate.
| rvba wrote:
| There are lots of examples of Android team employees who
| are proud of using only Apple phones.
|
| Check the "socially inept tech roast show" - where people
| from those teams demonstrate their ignorance and hatered
| towards own products and users.
|
| Since they dont use them, they dont see nor care about
| bugs.
|
| Meanwhile if you work for a cola company and they catch
| you drinking competing product you will get fired (your
| contract bans you fron that). Same for many other
| products.
|
| I understand using an Apple phone to learn what it does /
| its featurs, but those Android employees dont use Android
| at all. And it shows
| eloisant wrote:
| I don't know how it works at Google, but unless they're
| giving away Pixel phones for free to their employees (or at a
| very, very strong discount), they have no business forcing
| their employees to use their products.
|
| Here is how a job works: worker works, company gives money.
| Workers do whatever the fuck they want with the money they
| earn.
| lucideer wrote:
| I'm similarly baffled for the reasons you state but your
| breakdown of the market differentiations is a little
| hyperbolic.
|
| > _Apple has had better mobile hardware for years_
|
| Apple has never had better hardware (on mobile). Apple has had
| better software support & integration for their hardware that
| has lead to e.g. strong camera quality advantages (iOS camera
| app has been able to use the hardware better to produce photos
| people want despite some Android OEMs having objectively better
| camera modules since those OEMs have to work through a lot of
| Google contracts & software extraction).
|
| The hardware has never been better - their holistic ecosystem
| has just made integrations with it smoother.
|
| > _Apple has better app selection (for most people)_
|
| This has been true but it's always been marginal, & the "for
| most people" qualifier has contracted significantly in recent
| years. Both Google's & Apple's 1P offerings have declined in
| quality & popularity, but Google have increased lock-in &
| reliance on theirs in ways Apple can't, while the 3P offerings
| on Android have improved significantly relative to iOS. Gone
| are the days of companies releasing exclusively on iOS, or the
| Android version being an afterthought with missing features -
| if anything it's swung in the other direction.
|
| To be clear, I think your points still stand: Google's recent
| strategy doesn't make sense for Google. I just don't think it's
| as glaringly clear cut as you make out.
|
| One aspect that's worth keeping in mind is the non-US market.
| Apple has a 58% market share in the US but it's 28% worldwide.
| Outside of the US market the impact of that "every Android user
| lost to the increasing iOS market share" is significantly
| diluted (tbh I'm not sure it's even increasing outside of the
| US at all) & emerging markets are growth areas.
| qball wrote:
| >Apple has never had better hardware (on mobile).
|
| This is just straight up false. Qualcomm's current _top of
| the line_ processors are about 3 years behind what you can
| get in Apple 's cheapest product (that being the 16e), and
| the budget phones (and by "budget" I mean "the 600 dollar
| ones") are another 3 years behind _that_.
|
| iPhones don't generally become too slow to realistically use
| until their support lifetime expires. Androids are like that
| out of the box unless you spend over a thousand dollars, and
| those only last for about half the time (a combination of
| inferior hardware and inferior software). It doesn't matter
| if you have a 120Hz screen if the UI only updates at 20.
|
| This is why the only killer feature for Android (outside the
| cameras) is adblocking- which, of course, is what Google
| wants to prevent. They don't want you to run real Firefox
| (with the only effective adblock remaining), and they want
| you to pay for YouTube Premium rather than using NewPipe (or
| some other ReVanced successor) so you can't get out of paying
| 10 bucks to listen to a video with the screen off.
| monooso wrote:
| For context, I'm a long-time iPhone user, who switched to a
| Pixel 8a about 18 months ago.
|
| > Apple has had better mobile hardware for years.
|
| I can't say I noticed a difference in quality when switching.
| Maybe some people can, but for me it was just a different, but
| still well-made phone.
|
| > Apple has higher consumer trust.
|
| I can't speak for consumers in general, but this is certainly
| no longer the case for me.
|
| I also used MacOS for 20 years, and switched to Linux about a
| year ago because I didn't like the direction Apple was headed.
| It may be my choice of reading material (HN), but I receive
| almost daily confirmation that this was a sound decision.
|
| > Apple has better app selection (for most people).
|
| Not selection, necessarily, but certainly quality.
|
| As a side note, my iPad (my sole remaining Apple device)
| quietly updated to iOS 26 a few days ago. Despite having spent
| months reading about how bad it is, I was still genuinely
| shocked.
|
| Again, I can't speak for "consumers", but for me Apple now has
| a far worse user experience.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| I've been an iPhone owner for a while, but recently was
| required to get an Android phone to be a secondary work
| device. I got a Pixel 10 Pro--- brand-new, Google's flagship
| device--- and within about a week there was a rattling noise
| from the camera module any time the phone moved.
|
| The consensus online appears to be "oh, yeah, that's the OIS
| module, you have to expect it, they all do that". Well,
| iPhones also have OIS and they don't do this.
|
| Android might be "good enough" in hardware now but it's
| definitely still behind.
| layer8 wrote:
| This can happen with iPhones too: https://www.google.com/se
| arch?q=iphone%20camera%20rattling%2...
| darkhorse222 wrote:
| Personally I feel that their emphasis on privacy by design
| was a very winning marketing strategy. Not sure if it played
| with the general pop.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Realistically, they have nothing to lose. There a duopoly. It's
| not like people pissed at this are going to migrate away.
|
| Sure, a small proportion might move to Linux Mobile.
|
| Most of the rest of the population will just stick to Google,
| because they don't have a choice.
|
| In many countries, your government or some other essential
| service demands that you have either an Apple or Google device.
| sigmar wrote:
| >Every Android user lost to the increasing iOS market share is
| another customer Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a
| competitor to access.
|
| What? Are you referring to the 36% of ad revenue Google pays to
| Apple? I don't think Google is too concerned about that.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/apple-gets-36percent-of-goog...
| anymouse123456 wrote:
| It's incredibly sad to watch Google abandon the values that
| inspired so much trust and belief that there is a better way to
| build a company.
|
| Long time Pixel user here who has always believed the story
| that Apple has the closed, but refined, higher quality
| experience and Google has the slightly freer, but coarser UX.
|
| I was convinced to make the switch this year and the Apple
| iPhone 17 Pro + whatever iOS version is, by far the worst phone
| I've ever owned.
|
| Photos are worse, low light is worse, macros are worse, the UI
| is laggy, buggy and crashes.
|
| The keyboard and autosuggest is shockingly bad.
|
| Incredibly popular apps on iOS (YT, X, etc) are just as bad and
| often worse.
|
| iMessage is a psyop. The absolute worst messaging app in
| history with zero desktop access for non-Mac users?!
|
| If you're on Android, and especially pixel, please know that
| Apple has completely given up and no longer executes at the
| level you remember from 10-15 years ago.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| The whole software world is shit now. The foundations were
| stable decades ago. Like Windows kernel, WinAPI, .NET, WPF,
| Linux kernel. But end user software is so terrible. Windows
| 11 with ads and unhelpful AI. macOS which is a bit less
| terrible, but still too bloated. Linux with its eternal
| changes between X, Wayland, Alsa, Pipewire, Pulseaudio,
| sysvinit, systemd, and endless choices. Both iOS and Android
| are terrible. iOS was perfect 10 years ago, it's absolute
| clownfest now. I would blame AI vibe coders, but it started
| before. I don't know who to blame. Why can't we just build
| solid minimal non-bloated OS that will last for decades
| without major rewrites. We've got so good foundations but so
| terrible end product.
| potatoproduct wrote:
| ""Apple has better app selection (for most people). Apple has
| been increasingly implementing the core features that
| differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS.""
|
| You mean Apple has been forced by regulators to implement core
| features like USB-C and RCS?
|
| https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...
| dietr1ch wrote:
| Sure, but uninformed consumers won't see it that way. Maybe
| in their circles it just sounds like a great idea and they
| thank Apple for implementing it.
| lkjdsklf wrote:
| Even if you're an informed consumer, it doesn't matter.
|
| Whether they did it out of the goodness of their heart or
| because a regulator forced them, it's still got usb-c
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Saying they were forced to implement USB-C is really
| overstating things. Apple _loooved_ USB-C - so much so that
| their ill-fated butterfly switch laptops went all-in on it.
| They also helped design it. It 's highly likely they were
| planning a move to USB-C anyway and the EU just pushed it
| forward a year.
| weazl wrote:
| This is untrue. Apple was fighting EU the entire time
| trying to avoid a switch to USB-C on iPhones. EU
| representatives were publicly critical of Apple, eventually
| Apple was forced to give in.
| acdha wrote:
| I realize a conspiracy narrative gets more clicks but ...
| you know Apple started the development of USB-C and
| shipped some of the first devices in 2015, right? People
| whined about the MacBooks requiring new hubs, etc. for a
| couple of years and got over it. The same thing happened
| with the iPad in 2018, AirPods, etc.
|
| When they introduced Lightning in 2012, they made a
| commitment to all of the third-party hardware developers
| that iPhones would support it for a decade. I'm sure the
| EU pressure helped but USB-C iPhones shipping in 2023 is
| right on that original timing.
| izacus wrote:
| Why are you so motivated to rewrite history to defend a
| mega corporation?
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| Why are you so motivated to fight the truth?
| kakacik wrote:
| Truth is, apple didn't want to migrate their phones due
| to some internal decision not relevant for us, and the
| fact some other devices were on it doesn't change this.
| Users comfort was never part of the equation, its
| politics, sales projection, stabs at competition and
| similar.
|
| Truth is, apple fought EU hard, we saw it from inside
| quite well. Backstabs, some cheap tricks trying to delay
| and evade this, even when it was clear how things will
| be. Not their best days to be polite.
|
| Why giving some heartless mega corporation free moral
| credits if they are not well deserved?
| acdha wrote:
| I'm not: each thing I wrote is common knowledge--read the
| Wikipedia pages for the Lightning and USB-C pages if you
| don't believe me--and it's a little silly to spin this as
| something other than large companies not making massive
| supply chain changes quickly. I'm glad USB-C has won but
| you don't change things deployed in the hundreds of
| millions in a year-I saw an original iPhone connector in
| the wild as recently as last year!
| Kwpolska wrote:
| But why would Apple, the company that famously hates
| backwards compatibility, make things easier for third-
| party accessory manufacturers, instead of making things
| easier for users bought into the ecosystem who had USB-C
| on their iPads and Macs?
|
| Oh right, because they collected license fees and
| royalties for Lightning, reportedly $4 per cable.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209924
| acdha wrote:
| Sure, I'm not saying they're altruists. I just think the
| most likely explanation is that they promised
| compatibility under the "Made For iPhone" program and
| kept that promise because they've been in business long
| enough to know that screwing people who supported your
| last product is a great way to ensure they don't support
| your next one.
| alpinisme wrote:
| People can and do fight things they agree with on the
| principle of not wanting to do something _because_ they
| were told to. You fight it just to say "you can't tell me
| what to do" (for precedent) not just to actually defend a
| position you believe in. Even if the other side wins,
| they had to pay a cost that may discourage or at least
| raise the floor for future regulatory efforts.
| PlatoIsADisease wrote:
| > Apple has had better mobile hardware for years.
|
| No Aux port, no usb. Slow phone with slow animations. But maybe
| this is fixed, its been 10 years.
|
| >Apple has higher consumer trust.
|
| lmao, this is just a user error problem. None have trust. If
| they trust, yikes. Thats a negative that Apple can brainwash
| people.
|
| >Apple has better app selection (for most people).
|
| Solid no here. Being able to install stuff from fdroid is
| amazing.
|
| >Apple has been increasingly implementing the core features
| that differentiate Android devices
|
| As long as you are okay with waiting 4 years. Sure.
|
| You forgot to mention how poor iPhone security is. People have
| died due to Apple's poor security.
| ikamm wrote:
| "Slow phone with slow animations" is a crazy assessment, I
| switched from Galaxy S7 to iPhone XR in 2018 because the
| Galaxy was (like every other Android I had) slow to do
| everything, applications would crash randomly and my phone
| would just give up and reboot without warning. Not to mention
| all of the killer Android features that Google had gotten rid
| of up to that point (RIP notification ticker, I miss you so
| much). What's the point of being able to sideload and
| customize when none of it works on a day to day basis? And
| when Google/other Android phone manufacturers insist on their
| phones being more and more similar to iPhone/iOS, the reasons
| to stay on Android go away too.
| PlatoIsADisease wrote:
| Samsung is the Apple of Android. They are fake luxury and
| use a big marketing budget.
|
| Not surprised the same kind of person that buys an iphone
| also fell for samsung.
| ikamm wrote:
| In early 2016, it was by far the best Android offering
| available and it was a pitiful display for the operating
| system.
| mminer237 wrote:
| Most Android devices also don't have aux ports. iPhones have
| USB now too.
|
| Losing the ability to easily sideload apps is what we're
| talking about.
|
| How do iPhones have worse security than Android???
| armadyl wrote:
| > No Aux port, no usb. Slow phone with slow animations. But
| maybe this is fixed, its been 10 years.
|
| It has been 10 years and none of this is true today, also the
| average person doesn't care about an aux port.
|
| > Solid no here. Being able to install stuff from fdroid is
| amazing.
|
| Not sure if you're serious here, the app selection is far
| better on the App Store (and also Google Play Store) due to
| the nature of not being restricted to purely FOSS apps.
|
| > You forgot to mention how poor iPhone security is.
|
| Citation needed, iOS has the second best mobile security and
| is at worst equivalent to stock Android. The only OS that
| surpasses iOS by a large amount is GrapheneOS.
|
| > People have died due to Apple's poor security.
|
| This could also be said for any other OS/maker? Nothing is
| 100% secure/private.
| firebot wrote:
| Oh come on fanboy, Apple doesn't have meaningfully better
| hardware, consumer trust, or app selection (for most people the
| opposite is true!)
|
| Oof, Apple adopting core 'Android' features... Yea, finally?
| Increasing iOS market share? Where? Not most places
|
| I think it's weird you come at this from an antitrust angle
| when I would totally make the argument the other way.
|
| If there's pressure to remove this feature, then it's from
| companies that make apps that anyone can pull up in Revanced
| and they can patch it and can be running a version of a piece
| of software that shouldn't exist with "premium" features
| enabled. I don't think there's an argument against it really
| besides that. At least not an honest, intelligent argument....
|
| Ultimately, I doubt many would jump to Apple. Inertia would
| insist: People just won't upgrade. Which is already occurring,
| people are keeping their devices longer, especially Apple
| users. And they wonder why their battery stops working... Oy
| vey!
| codyb wrote:
| Apple's certainly been working to destroy their consumer trust
| though!
|
| At least on my end the political knee bending by Tim Cook and
| their recent iOS and MacOS updates have me firmly on the side
| of not giving any more money to Apple. (Sadly, I still pay for
| Apple One for hy family, so I'm not perfect. But... hey, it's a
| start. Speak with your wallets).
|
| And I will be considering alternatives when my machines which I
| will be running to their end stop working.
|
| It's really such a shame cause I really liked their privacy
| stances, accessibility work, and focus on user experience.
|
| Now I say, screw Apple, and encourage people to boycott and be
| wary of upgrades.
| conception wrote:
| Advertising folks not engineers are now in charge of Google,
| and they are gaining influence at Apple now as well.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| This is the real threat. Brand loyalty is a distraction.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Cost? Apple stuff is expensive and unaffordable or inaccessible
| to a lot of the world. Google'd Android is the only option if
| you can't shell out for an iPhone (assuming you don't want to
| buy an unsupported 5+ year old device second/third-hand).
| dismalaf wrote:
| > core features that differentiate Android devices, like USB-C
| and RCS
|
| It's obvious you've never used Android if you think these are
| core features LMAO. No one cares that much about connector
| type, more the fact it's using an industry standard versus
| proprietary. No one cares about RCS, everyone uses WhatsApp,
| Telegram, Signal, Messenger, Line, etc...
|
| Core features are stuff like being able to search for a
| business through the phone app, Maps telling you where you
| parked your car, unprompted, compatibility with the casting
| protocol, the ability to make ANY app the default for a
| particular task, the ability to sideload, the fact you can
| switch phone brands and get whatever hardware you want but your
| core OS with all your accounts stays the same. Basically the
| ability to do what you want win your OS and no one restricting
| your phone's features.
|
| As for Google's strategy, it's the same as Valve's. Having a
| platform they can't be locked out of since both MS and Apple
| have shown they'll abuse their market power.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Apple has a huge hole in their screen that I hate.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Agreed. The only thing they have going for them is that you can
| degoogle your android device, but you can't deapple your
| iphone, and here they are making moves that suggest they may
| back off from that position.
| kazinator wrote:
| AnkiDroid, a fully self-contained version of Anki for Android,
| not requiring pairing with a desktop app and completely free,
| does not exist or iOS. Or did not, last time I checked. So that
| would be a deal breaker.
|
| Maybe by now there is some Android emulation for iOS that can
| do it?
| petre wrote:
| I gave an iPhone a shot fof like a week but had to return it
| because it didn't have alternatives to the apps I was using on
| Android. Apps like BitCalculator, Convertbee, Aegis, a decent
| calculator with sin/cos/log and the ability to write
| expressions like the default on Android, Wireguard and a decent
| browser with an ad blocker. No Safari doesn't qualify.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| The biggest differentiator is price. An entry level Android
| phone is about $300 while an iPhone is in the $1000 range. And
| to be honest, anything more than an entry level Android is
| luxury these days. I say that because that's what I have and I
| have never felt held down, except maybe for pictures, but it is
| good enough for my (lack of) skills as a photographer.
|
| So, Android may actually benefit from a lack of
| differentiation: like iOS, for a third of the price seems like
| a good value proposition.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| The iPhone 16e (came out less than 6 months ago) starts at
| $600 without carrier subsidy. That's about half of what you
| claimed.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I wasn't referring to the absolute cheapest, more of a
| representative price.
|
| If you want to go cheap, the Samsung Galaxy A17 5G, a
| perfectly fine, recent phone is $200, which is still a 1:3
| price ratio to the $600 iPhone.
|
| And you can go even cheaper than that, as in $150, new,
| though at that point, we are entering a territory where
| many people will feel the limitations.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| > And Google's strategy is to continue removing differentiating
| features from Android that also help them mitigate the threat
| of antitrust
|
| Sigh. When will HN learn that the vast majority of customers
| _dont_ see those as differentiating features.
|
| One of the key things separating humans from other animals is
| being able to put yourself in another's shoes.
| fHr wrote:
| >Apple has had better mobile hardware for years. Classic Apple
| glazer take. This is why I still made another 100% with Apple
| stock over past 5 years because stupid people got gaslight into
| buying their overpriced stuff that is marginally better if at
| all.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Yeah, at no point has Apple ever had meaningfully better
| hardware than the competition. They have always been a more
| expensive version of the same hardware you can get from their
| competitors, just this one has an apple logo. But a lot of
| people, even smart people, are fooled by the marketing.
| drnick1 wrote:
| > Apple has higher consumer trust.
|
| That is quickly eroding and has never been justified other than
| by marketing.
|
| > Apple has better app selection (for most people).
|
| Android has always had a much better selection of open source
| software, which, at least to me, is the thing that matters
| most.
| miki123211 wrote:
| This isn't about pure revenue, it's about scams.
|
| Android has a reputation for being unsafe precisely because of
| sideloading (as well as low Google Play fees, looser app
| review, accessibility services and remote access).
|
| This policy is bad for us HNers, but objectively good for the
| 95+% of people who will never sideload a legitimate Android
| app, but are extremely likely to get caught by scammers.
|
| The heavy US skew of HN really distorts the arguments here, as
| Android-based scams aren't as common in AMerica due to the
| prevalence of iOS in that region.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| And yet the times that I have dealt with Android phone issues
| (2 times in the last year), it has been an app that was
| popping up full screen ads.
|
| Both phone users have no idea how to sideload, everything was
| installed from the Play store.
| tw04 wrote:
| I can say that my parents have never once complained about a
| scam on their phone caused by sideloading.
|
| In fact I don't know anyone among any of my friends or family
| that have ever had that issue.
|
| Every last one of my non-technical friends and family have
| been hit by spyware on their windows devices.
|
| To say I'm extremely skeptical that this has anything to do
| with protecting users is an understatement.
|
| In fact I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it's a nearly
| non-existent issue outside of people being targeted by nation
| states.
|
| Would love to see some numbers backing up the claim that
| sideloading is resulting in mass exploiting of Android
| devices because I can't find them.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Yeah. My dad loves sideloaded Newpipe, and I haven't ever
| heard of him dealing with scams or viruses.
| miki123211 wrote:
| Do your parents:
|
| 1. Live in a country where Android is much more popular
| than iOS?
|
| 2. Live in an environment where piracy is rampant?
|
| 3. Are used to sideloading apps to get free movies /
| soccer?
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| If they actually cared about scams on Android, when I
| explicitly searched for <App I'm going to pay for anyway> in
| the Play Store, they wouldn't put <Some other random app that
| pays money to appear above the app I searched for> at the top
| instead lol
| j45 wrote:
| That's a bit of a surprising postulation.
|
| If there's a reputation, that means it's reasonably
| widespread. 5% doesn't seem like much.
|
| Does this mean there are so many advanced users sideloading
| apps to compromise them?
|
| Except users aren't so advanced that they are getting scammed
| because of side loading?
|
| Or might it be the cascading delays in security updates that
| don't seem to reach devices between Google, manufacturers,
| and telcos? This is a much more massive (the 95%) of security
| hole and backdoors for scams to enter.
|
| These arguments don't really seem to fit together or make
| sense.
|
| Happy to get some links to read more about all of the
| statements.
| conradev wrote:
| For example: To resolve the problem, scammers
| would deceive the victims into downloading a malicious app,
| in an Android Package Kit (APK) file format, sent through
| WhatsApp.
|
| https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/android-users-
| lose-2-...
| kernal wrote:
| On the topic of looser app reviews on the Play store vs the
| App store. I can give you a long list of fake iOS apps where
| you enter a 4 digit code to watch free movies. People who
| think Apple is manually reviewing apps are delusional.
| ece wrote:
| Scams are the justification, F-Droid hasn't had any scam apps
| throughout it's existence, and it's not clear every
| functionality it currently has will be preserved with this
| change like auto-updating apps and easy installation of the
| store itself.
|
| Google could let users add their own signing keys (like
| browsers allow), and it might be they will let students or
| power users do this, or they could do what F-Droid does in
| packaging FOSS apps without developers having to provide
| extra PII information. If they do neither of these things, it
| de facto means they're only after control at the expense of
| normal users.
| lpcvoid wrote:
| The Play Store was _riddled_ with scam apps last time I used
| it. Be it fake apps that pretend to do something while doing
| at best nothing ( "system optimizers", "antivirus" apps) over
| user data mining apps (often targeted at children or young
| people) to hundreds of clones of commercial or open source
| apps - you do _not_ have to search very long to find the real
| scams.
|
| Making sideloading harder has only one goal - growing the
| wall around the garden a bit higher, piece by piece, layer by
| layer, while everything within slowly grows more toxic.
| miki123211 wrote:
| Which is why I said sideloading is only a part of the
| problem, I expilicitly pointed out insufficient Play Store
| verification and insufficient app sandboxing in my original
| comment.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Google is doing
| this to protect users from scams. It is purely driven by
| their desire to control the platform and eliminate things
| like ad-blocking youtube apps. You're far too credulous of
| evil corporations' stated motives.
| kernal wrote:
| Android gets a bad rap because of security and Apple has
| exploited this in their marketing campaigns to the max. So the
| moment Google does something to address this glaring hole in
| their security model the 1% vocal minority throws a fit. You'll
| still be able to side load, but because it has extra friction
| they'll threaten to switch to iOS. To which I say - go for it.
| Google doesn't care about people who side load apps like an
| automatic reloading the chamber. You're an insignificant
| percentage of their base.
|
| Personally, I would rather see Android only run signed and
| sanctioned apps to prevent the technologically illiterate from
| getting pwned. If you want to be able to side load then sign up
| to be a developer and go to town on your device.
| kakacik wrote:
| Better mobile hardware is highly specific. Crappy batteries
| worse than literally all competition? Check for first what, 5
| or 6 generations? For many people, battery life is single most
| important attribute of their phone.
|
| Also USB-C ain't some differentiating feature of _android_ ,
| rather rest of the world and electronics. Fully apple's fault
| here, it could have been their standard as the one, but greed
| is greed.
|
| Screens were always better on Samsungs flagships (apple buys
| screens there too) - mildly higher resolution, refresh rate and
| contrasts but these are rather unimportant. As an non-apple
| tech user, apple phone hardware has very few things that
| interest me or put them above the others.
|
| Its better integration with software that did put them above,
| since it was optimized for a very narrow band of hardware so
| could get far even with subpar hardware (till M chips came but
| these days they are almost on par with Snapdragons). But that
| software has a list of issues much bigger than hardware above
| so no, thank you.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "Google's long term strategy with Android is baffling to me. "
|
| How does one know there is a long-term strategy
|
| History has shown that so-called "tech" companies often act in
| a reactionary manner^1
|
| 1. Often, the act is of one of copying what someone else has
| done. Other times it might be response to regulation
|
| One could argue Android itself was a reaction to iOS
|
| This is one example of the reactionary copying phenomenon but
| HN replies may choose to focus only on this one example and not
| on the overall "tech" company phenomenon of reactionism as
| exhibited through endless copying
| einsteinx2 wrote:
| > One could argue Android itself was a reaction to iOS
|
| It quite literally was a reaction to iOS considering it was
| originally a copy of the BlackBerry OS (the older one in
| their keyboard phones) until the iPhone came out and they
| pivoted to copying iOS instead.
|
| EDIT: to get ahead of any negative replies about them copying
| iOS, I'm fully aware that they work quite differently under
| the hood and Android has had various features before iOS,
| etc. I mean they were creating from a UI/UX standpoint a copy
| of the BlackBerry when Google bought them, and then when the
| iPhone came out they completely changed the UI/UX paradigm to
| match.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| IDK what you could possibly mean by saying it was "a copy
| of the BlackBerry" and further I don't see how that
| validates the claim that "Android itself was a reaction to
| iOS".
|
| The actual truth seems to be that "Android's introduction
| of touchscreens was a reaction to iOS", which is WAY
| different than saying that the entire operating system was
| spun up just to compete with iOS.
| mannycalavera42 wrote:
| > One could argue Android itself was a reaction to iOS
|
| and it definitely was, to mitigate the risk of losing sight
| of the web users behaviour
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Android was in development well before iOS was released,
| really the only big change was the touchscreen, which is
| obviously revolutionary, but that's a long-way from "Android
| is a reaction to iOS".
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| What's the long-term strategy with Android. How does one know
| it exists
| shmerl wrote:
| These "better" claims are simply not true. But it's surely a
| marketing Koolaid they sell.
|
| That said, Android options are dwindling which is not a good
| thing. Remember LG? They are gone.
| bri3d wrote:
| > Surely the marginal revenue from the inconsequential number
| of sideloading users isn't attractive enough to justify that
| kind of strategic blunder.
|
| Or you could analyze this at the actual face value: the damage
| to Google's brand caused by malware campaigns, especially faux-
| banking apps robbing people in some regions, is greater than
| the damage from making sideloading harder for some edge case
| users.
|
| Not everything is a giant conspiracy; this move has always
| looked pretty clear cut to me from Google's standpoint and I've
| never really seen any evidence to the contrary.
| krzyk wrote:
| Apple has better app selection? Where? Does it have Tasker? Or
| browsers that aren't reskin of safari?
| shams93 wrote:
| The lock in with Safari is horrifc though, the browser on a $20
| prepaid android phone is better than the browser on your most
| expensive ios device. Apple says well you need to write a
| native app, stop using the web and PWA's. Allow Apple to
| mediate absolutely everything.
| no_wizard wrote:
| While I agree with the principle, and we as tech
| professionals and enthusiasts should be lobbying hard for law
| makers and regulators to open iOS up to allow for different
| browsers, there's a couple flaws here without these
| precedents or activism.
|
| The alternative here is not Firefox gaining more market
| share, it's further encroachment of Chrome and derivatives.
| You're not getting this big win for browser diversity. I'm
| not sure what you really gain here as Safari works fine for
| near most everything most people do.
|
| Also I don't think PWA's have proliferated on desktop or
| Android despite Google's efforts in raising awareness for
| them. It seems to me like consumers largely aren't into web
| app shells. They either visit a web app in their browsers or
| use the App Store apps, by a large margin
| epolanski wrote:
| Not everybody wants/cares for an iPhone.
|
| Realistically a 200 euros Xiaomi phone, to most users, is as
| good as they need it for seeing videos online and chatting.
|
| If you want to spend more, at each price tier you have plenty
| of choice including: better hardware, better cameras, more
| memory, etc.
|
| E.g. I _do need_ dual (physical) sim phones. So I ain 't buying
| iPhones ever for this very need.
|
| Consumer trust is very debatable: I have been locked out of my
| apple id for 2 months in 2021, and that was a work machine I
| was locked out from. Tragic. Apparently it's not my hardware if
| Apple decides it's not.
|
| Nowadays I only own an M3 Max because my employer gave it to
| me. But I don't even use it unless on the move, as I have a way
| more powerful desktop computer.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's true, but the _main_ reason I haven 't just switched to
| an iPhone is the ecosystem that lets me write apps without
| having to pay Apple money or use their computers.
|
| If Google is narrowing their moat on this, there are a lot
| fewer reasons for me, personally, to stay on the platform.
| epolanski wrote:
| Sure, but the alternative ain't better for it, no?
| hedora wrote:
| Price hasn't been a particularly compelling difference
| between iOS and Android for a while. Here in the states, you
| can get a new iPhone 13 for $200 USD, which is 170 euros at
| today's exchange rate.
|
| https://www.metrobyt-mobile.com/cell-phone/apple-
| iphone-13?i...
|
| That's a prepaid cell phone company (no contracts); not sure
| how many months (if any) you have to pay for to unlock the
| phone. Renewed and unlocked ones are about $270 on amazon.
| drusepth wrote:
| Why would you buy a 5-year-old iPhone for the same price
| you can get a new Android with comparable specs though? If
| I'm gonna spend 2-3 hundred on a phone, I'd like it to last
| at least a couple more years. Regardless of OS, you're more
| likely to get that on a new phone vs any phone 5+ years
| old.
| hedora wrote:
| If Apple's still selling it, they'll almost certainly
| support it at least as long as an above-average Android
| manufacturer.
|
| The current iOS supports things back to iPhone 11 and the
| SE2, so you can expect the SE3 and iPhone 13 to get at
| least two more years of support (no real guarantees, but
| they're still selling new stock of both, and they have a
| reputation to protect).
| epolanski wrote:
| That's legacy machine, soon out of support. Not a sensible
| choice imho even if hardware might be still okay.
| kwanbix wrote:
| > Apple has had better mobile hardware for years.
|
| Better on what? Versus what?
|
| > Apple has higher consumer trust.
|
| Not from me and my peers. All nerds/devs/sysadmins.
|
| > Apple has better app selection (for most people).
|
| Again, based on what?
|
| > Apple has been increasingly implementing the core features
| that differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS.
|
| Only when forced.
|
| > Every Android user lost to the increasing iOS market share is
| another customer Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a
| competitor to access. What are you even talking about?
|
| Don't get me wrong, iPhones are great devices, but I prefer the
| Android ecosystem time and time again.
| jdkrkekebeb wrote:
| I think what is happening here is the moat is breaking. With
| llms getting good enough to make a program, how long until it
| is a whole OS...? And then how long until regulars figure out
| play store and play appa not needed???
| vintermann wrote:
| I think they _are_ worrying about antitrust, and believe
| (probably correctly, unfortunately) that whether they get hit
| by antitrust or not is entirely political. There 's more than
| enough evidence, for any justice department which wants to.
| They're not going to change that by keeping Android moderately
| open.
|
| What they can do, is make themselves politically useful to
| whoever will be in charge. Right now the war on general purpose
| computing is in high gear, due to panic over AI models, social
| media manipulation and (as always) kids. That's the only ticket
| to avoid an antitrust crackdown.
| whyagaindavid wrote:
| > Matthew Forsyth, Director of Product Management, Google Play
| Developer Experience & Chief Product Explainer, said the system
| isn't a sideloading restriction, but an "Accountability Layer."
|
| And... What about accountability for hosting distributing
| spyware, malware loaded apps from Google Playstore and hundreds
| of copy cat, misleading apps?
|
| Why can't they pose a question when the phone is setup?
|
| - Yes, I want to sideload
|
| - No I dont want
|
| If the user says NO then to later enable it to allow sideload
| Yes, the user needs to factory reset phone. Done.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| > And... What about accountability for hosting distributing
| spyware, malware loaded apps from Google Playstore
|
| This is no joke. The Playstore is filled with malware that
| pretend to be a different app. It takes days if not weeks to
| remove these apps.
|
| I have twice now had to recover the devices of family members
| when they installed malware on Samsung phones running up to
| date firmware.
|
| That malware to this level is even possible is another matter.
| torginus wrote:
| A somewhat unrelated thing, is I got bombarded with ads for a
| 'mental health mindfulness' service on one of the major
| international news websites.
|
| I decided to Google the company after a few days. I was
| immediately confronted by thousands of reports by angry
| users, complaining about how after they tried the app, they
| got locked into a yearly subscription at exorbitant prices
| and it was impossible to cancel. The company itself is
| registered in some offshore tax haven.
|
| They used to scare us, that if we went to those shady pirate
| websites, somebody would steal our credit cards and steal our
| money. Well...
| The_President wrote:
| This problem is significantly worse than the height of
| Windows XP spyware.
| e145bc455f1 wrote:
| >And... What about accountability for hosting distributing
| spyware, malware loaded apps from Google Playstore and hundreds
| of copy cat, misleading apps?
|
| The rules don't apply to billion dollar corporations. Meta is
| showing 15 billion scam ads per day.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...
| gorbachev wrote:
| This right here exposes the bullshittery about the reasons
| behind preventing sideloading on Android phones.
|
| For Google everything is about protecting revenue, even when
| doing so exposes their users to real harm, and that's why they
| will not address the issue of copycat apps, poor practices on
| play store security or anything else that lowers the number of
| downloads on apps on play store. But, heaven forbid, I want to
| download an app that doesn't create revenue for them onto a
| phone I OWN, Google spends money lavishly.
|
| The Internet cranks are right. Google is run by bean counters
| and all the invective the cranks heap on the Google leadership
| is entirely earned.
| glenstein wrote:
| Right. Or, the way I might put it, you could have set up a
| system that empowers trusted alternative distributors so that
| you're not killing F-Droid.
| MrDresden wrote:
| When this whole thing got announced, I purchased a new Pixel 9
| and flashed it with GrapheneOS.
|
| I am hoping that in about 6-8 years (when I realistically need to
| update) the landscape might be a bit better. Or who knows, maybe
| I'll just continue using GrapheneOS.
|
| So far I have not had a single issues with it. Apps the rely on
| attestation do not work, but honestly it's only two applications
| out of hundreds so I can live with it.
|
| I also financially support GrapheneOS on a monthly basis (15$).
| This is just too important of an project not to.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I think the EU should pile in as well. It's basically an oven-
| ready independent mobile OS.
| onli wrote:
| Graphene OS spends its social capital on hallucinating
| attacks from other projects and bullying other projects by
| sending their followers against them, based on those
| hallucinated attacks. It also has a completely intransparent
| project structure based around a supposedly retired mean
| developer, who then just did not (and still does almost all
| commits). That's not a project where the EU can invest money
| in, and the confidence users on HN tend to put into that
| project is baffling.
| cakealert wrote:
| Yes that guy is extremely weird, he should delegate
| operations and community management to someone who isn't
| weird and stick to development.
| tazjin wrote:
| These weird anti-Graphene posts confuse me. I use
| GrapheneOS, fwiw, and I believe some things the project
| does (like its attacks on F-Droid) are misguided for
| orthogonal reasons.
|
| However, it all makes sense from the perspective of
| Graphene _not_ attempting to be a general purpose OS like
| Lineage, but explicitly a security focused OS. Security is
| often in conflict with what the average consumer wants, and
| they can go use Lineage or whatever.
|
| It's like writing lots of comments complaining about
| OpenBSD devs coming across as grumpy and refusing to
| support Bluetooth. That _is_ part of their value
| proposition! You 're just not the target audience and that
| is okay.
| Liquix wrote:
| not much in the parent comment is anti-graphene. it's
| probably the best available option for a mobile OS right
| now.
|
| the sentiment is that the dev team - specifically one
| zealot - does not engage
| politely/rationally/transparently in any public forum,
| which undermines the image of the OS as a whole.
| fph wrote:
| And unfortunately that one zealot is the project leader.
| Batman8675309 wrote:
| Most if not all of their attacks are inexcusable. Calling
| a competing OS, CalyxOS, nazi sympathizers is
| unacceptable and when I first read that I started seeing
| the red flags.
|
| Nothing is open about GrapheneOS aside from the source
| code. We officially know nothing about the leadership,
| their current plans, what their finances look like or
| even who this new mysterious OEM is.
|
| It's weird.
| max_ wrote:
| Europe is hostile towards Graphene users.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Source: https://boingboing.net/2025/07/23/your-google-
| pixel-might-ge...
| MrDresden wrote:
| I am sure you know this, but just in case:
|
| Europe is a continent, with many disparate nations and
| cultures. This continent is not hostile towards Graphene
| users.
|
| In Europe there is the European Union (EU), which also is
| comprised of many disparate nations and cultures but a
| subset of those comprising Europe.
|
| I say the following as a staunch supporter of European
| integration and cooperation:
|
| The EU is actively hostile towards any software with the
| stated goal of safeguarding users right to privacy and
| security. That means GrapheneOS but also Signal, Matrix and
| more.
|
| _edit: spelling & grammar_
| Batman8675309 wrote:
| And with Europe you mean a single country, Spain?
| clhodapp wrote:
| The EU hate GrapheneOS. They chased them out to Canada just
| last year because they didn't want to put in backdoors for
| law enforcement.
| microtonal wrote:
| The EU should pile money into /e/OS. It's maintained by an EU
| company (Murena) and has European hardware options -
| Fairphone (NL), SHIFTphone (Germany), and Volla (Germany).
| Yes, I know some of them use US Qualcomm chips, but you have
| to start somewhere.
| tcfhgj wrote:
| The new phone is a nice reward for Google for this announcement
| MrDresden wrote:
| Nah, rather an upgrade from an ancient device. But good try
| there.
| tcfhgj wrote:
| Can be both
| realusername wrote:
| My next phone will be on GrapheneOS or EOS as well, the last
| straw was Samsung removing the bootloader unlock with an update
| (not even sure what they've done is legal)
| jeroenhd wrote:
| GrapheneOS can choose to simply not apply the same restrictions
| but now that they're partnering with another vendor to get
| security updates earlier, I'm not sure what the future holds in
| this aspect.
|
| This is only an issue for Google compliant Android so projects
| like LineageOS will be fine. Depending on their implementation,
| this may even just be restricted to AOSP with Samsung and
| others just ignoring the extra restrictions.
|
| But, if they make compliance a requirement for being part of
| their parent programme, GrapheneOS will be in a tough spot.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I would love to run GrapheneOS if it didn't involve giving any
| money to Google to get up-to-date hardware, brand new. (Yes, I
| know I can buy and run it on a used Pixel.)
| eikenberry wrote:
| Which apps require attestation? People always mention banking
| apps but I'm curious what non-banking apps might pull this
| crap.
| nichos wrote:
| Airalo, an esim provider I use when traveling wouldn't load.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Ironically, I've found that blocking the attestation API for
| some apps that supposedly require it (such as the latest
| versions of Waymo) might make them work anyway. lol
| n0vella wrote:
| Don't be evil
| swe_dima wrote:
| I am not very well educated when it comes to alternative stores
| landscape. But I do know that in Russia there's now Rustore:
| https://www.rustore.ru/en which functions by automatically
| downloading and updating APKs for you.
|
| During the APK install, however, you do see the ugly Android
| prompt about how this app may be dangerous.
|
| Rustore has its own app payment system, which obviously
| circumvents Google Play fees.
|
| This works on regular Android phones.
|
| Are there other examples of such stores? Perhaps it's Google's
| answer to that.
| hexfish wrote:
| F-Droid and derivatives are really popular in the FOSS
| community.
| swe_dima wrote:
| oh, right! Didn't have my coffee yet :-)
|
| But one difference is Rustore actually has payments and
| subscriptions, which hurts Google more.
| necovek wrote:
| I was expecting Google has stopped doing most of the
| business in Russia due to sanctions. Do you still see
| Russian-company ads in Google Search results or Youtube?
| Similarly, I thought they were not selling apps or ads in
| Google Play store in Russia either (they might be showing
| ads from non-Russian companies because, well, that just
| increases the show-count and absolute number of clicks).
| swe_dima wrote:
| I no longer reside in Russia, so I am not being targeted
| by these.
|
| But I think that it mostly comes down to companies being
| able to pay for these ads. Mastercard / Visa payments no
| longer work in Russia. If a company has a way to pay (by
| having another business entity in another country), then
| it probably works.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Unfortunately both Russia and Ukraine are slacking in losing
| the war so it doesn't seem that making payments to Russia will
| be easy soon. Now of course if they were Uzbeki or Kazakhstani
| stores it would be completely different.
| necovek wrote:
| I would like to see a high friction flow for installing all the
| crap from the Play Store to "protect and educate users". "Are you
| sure you want to install this app? It's only got a score of 2.8
| and only 7 reviews, and will ask for all of these permissions?"
| Culonavirus wrote:
| Even if it has 4.8 and 7000 reviews it's often fake 4.8 because
| the reviews are botted / paid / dark patterned (e.g. when you
| pop up star rating on your users and beg them "rate the app
| plz" and when the users tap anything but 5 stars you say "k,
| ty" and keep those "bad" reviews for yourself)
| necovek wrote:
| That was just an example to communicate my idea: a better way
| to validate authenticity of the app could and should be used.
|
| But to your point specifically, Play store and App Store have
| APIs to rate from within the app: when the pop up shows, app
| author does not have an option to avoid getting a 1-star
| rating (they are also time-restricted, eg. at most once every
| 180 days for Apple IIRC).
|
| What devs do though, is to preempt it with "Are you enjoying
| our app?", and only giving you a formal rating pop-up if you
| answer "Yes".
| kotaKat wrote:
| The hilarious part in all of this is watching Epic Games sue
| Google over how bad the "high friction" flow was for them to
| sideload their hefty bundle of Google Play violations and win
| the rights to be back in the Play Store.
|
| It's OK now that Epic can have a one-click download for
| Fortnite to shove all the friction back into the sideloading
| experience.
| _ink_ wrote:
| And I want to see transparent price structures. Hey, this app
| is free. _Installed_. Only works with subscription. I hate it.
|
| Edit: to clarify, I don't hate subscription, I hate that I
| cannot search for free apps in the store.
| Sytten wrote:
| I want even worse restrictions on my parent phone so they dont
| install spyware. I want "install ONLY from fdroid". I trust
| their one server in a basement more than Google at this point.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| I heard that the frog boiling is a myth. You can't boil frog
| alive, it will jump out. As opposed to humans
| eloisant wrote:
| That's because the frog has low switching costs from the pot to
| the outside world.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| frog is not pot-locked-in
| xethos wrote:
| The frog had to be pretty well lobotomized to keep it from
| jumping out. One can recreate the "experiment" with a
| lobotomized frog and mostly get the result described though
| tjpnz wrote:
| Part of me thinks they wouldn't be doing this if their own ad
| team wasn't knowingly accepting money from fraudsters.
| otikik wrote:
| Add high friction to scammy ads on your platform, Google
| PunchTornado wrote:
| I agree with high friction sideloading. it is the best of both
| worlds. no friction sideloading is too easily exploited by
| scammers. having a member of my family exposed to this kind of
| thing in the past taught me some things.
| reddalo wrote:
| I don't agree with the word "sideloading" though. It's just
| _installing_.
| B1FIDO wrote:
| "Installing" has the connotation of doing it directly from
| the Play Store. This is also known as "Downloading" (because
| the data is on a server, in the cloud, and you're fetching it
| "downstream" to a local device.)
|
| "Sideloading" doesn't refer to the installation process, but
| to the file transfer process. You're sideloading when you
| transfer, e.g. APKs from your notebook to your Android. Or,
| from a USB stick into your phone or something.
|
| In general, though, "sideloading" also refers to any "non-
| app-store" installation. It's a kind of colloquial shorthand.
| It's not really a technical term. But it's adequate for
| getting the point across.
|
| If you just called it "installing" without qualifying it, how
| would anyone know that it's a different process, or that it's
| accomplished not by navigating to the app store? It seems
| that you would invite ambiguity here!
| clhodapp wrote:
| The point is that before walled-garden app stores, that was
| how pretty much every normal person installed software on
| their PC's. Using the term "sideloading" for that is a
| clever invention to try and retroactively rebrand what is
| actually super-normal as something scary.
| B1FIDO wrote:
| It is not really though.
|
| "Sideloading" refers to data transfer between two local,
| peer devices. Really, that is it. It is not "something
| scary" or something forbidden. It is not even really
| installing. It's data transfer.
|
| So "before walled-gardens" people would install software
| in many many ways. I originally typed it in from scratch,
| or from a magazine. I loaded it from tape. Or diskette.
| That's not really "sideloading" if you think about it,
| because it's just "loading" from peripheral storage.
|
| Later, when people dialed up on a PC, they could
| "download" software and then install it or do whatever
| with other data or media. They could also upload it. They
| could transfer it among devices locally. This was not, at
| the time, called "sideloading" but just transfer, or
| "null modem", or "sneakernet", or "a station wagon full
| of backup tapes".
|
| If we're going to use "sideloading" in the strictest
| sense, then we cannot actually refer to the process of
| _downloading_ APK files separately and then installing
| them, because that 's literally downloading. But that is
| the colloquial meaning now.
|
| Hey, if you want to coin a new term or neologism for it,
| by all means do so. But it seems absurd to downplay
| "sideloading" as having "scary" or "negative"
| connotations, when it really doesn't. You've got to look
| past the hype and F.U.D.
|
| Remember, there was a time when people considered FTP and
| torrenting to be dangerous or subversive. Perhaps they
| still do.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Given that you've agreed that "sideloading" is not an
| accurate descriptor of installing apps directly from the
| web browser, I'd think you could see how using
| "sideloading" incorrectly like this is a marketing
| gimmick designed to scare users (and politicians!) into
| backing the official platform app store monopolies...
| reddalo wrote:
| >"Sideloading" refers to data transfer between two local,
| peer devices.
|
| I don't agree with this definition. "Sideloading" sounds
| like loading something "on the side", as in secretly,
| like in the expression "side piece".
| allreduce wrote:
| Honestly, no. Not for everyone.
|
| As someone from Germany, I don't want Google to nanny family
| members computing devices. They don't want it either. It is
| completely absurd for an ad company in a surveillance state an
| ocean away to play IT services for everyone. This has already
| gone to far.
|
| Rather, there should be tools for value-aligned IT services and
| technically minded family members to help.
| BatteryMountain wrote:
| If the make sideloading high-friction, either via account-bound
| or apk upload or permissions from MNO/ISP, I will leave android.
| I have a bunch of my own apps that only I use, not released to
| the public, if I cannot use them, I have zero reason to stay on
| android.
|
| I think one of the reasons they want to lockdown the system is to
| prevent guys like me from locking THEM out of my home/ecosystems,
| as and example, I build my own launchers, specifically for TCL
| TV's, which runs Android TV and has Developer Mode + adb. Which
| means I remove all the bloat & ad garbage, which they want to
| prevent.
|
| We will get to the point where google will remove your ability to
| set custom dns servers and only use theirs.. just wait & see
| friends.
|
| Anywhoo, when this side loading fence materializes, I will jump
| ship to apple.
| shreddit wrote:
| Yeah, as an iOS dev, the grass is not greener on this side of
| the fence...
| stavros wrote:
| It's not, but at least it will be equally ungreen.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| From that I can see from the early leaks, it may actually be
| if you live inside of the EU where alternative app stores are
| now a requirement.
|
| iOS doesn't have the F-Droid ecosystem equivalent, but she
| F-Droid dies because of Google, there's a chance AltStore
| will be able to take its place.
| saurik wrote:
| The point isn't that things are better on this axis on iOS,
| but that things are better on numerous other axes, to the
| point where many people are only using Android at all because
| it feels slightly more open and free than iOS... if Google
| wants to play Apple's game, then the only reasons to bother
| with the mess that is Android are gone, and so you'll see
| people switch to iOS.
| ihsw wrote:
| Eventually the only reason people will use Android is the
| same reason people are using Windows now -- mandated by
| their employer or by being forced into the bottom cost-tier
| of products.
|
| And the experience will be just as user-hostile with no end
| in sight.
| xandrius wrote:
| Why jump to another abuser when you could seriously start
| looking into alternatives? Ubuntu Touch has a really active
| community and it's very stable, you can even emulate android
| apps which you might absolutely need.
|
| I don't see Apple as the obvious next step; the obvious step,
| when one is pissed off with abuse of power is open source, not
| Apple.
| juliie wrote:
| Can I install my banking apps? Is there a Google pay
| equivalent?
|
| As much as I want open source, I really don't think it's
| there yet for most people.
| pmlnr wrote:
| > Can I install my banking apps?
|
| Choose a bank with viable web banking.
|
| > Is there a Google pay equivalent?
|
| It's called a debit/credit card.
| Macha wrote:
| > Choose a bank with viable web banking.
|
| There are five options in my country, 3 of which require
| app push based 2FA to log into the web interface and 2 of
| which only have an app interfere.
|
| Maybe I could get a EU bank from another EU country but
| my employer will not accept an out of country account for
| salary deposits because it makes their tax life difficult
| and my mortgage provider doesn't trust foreign accounts
| either.
|
| > It's called a debit/credit card
|
| Since about two years ago, activating a card requires the
| app.
| clort wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_the_Republ
| ic_...
|
| so Eire has 5 significant banks, and 15 'less
| significant'. There are also 276 Credit Unions, I don't
| know if they are useful. (I had a Credit Union account in
| the past, could send/receive online but no payment card)
|
| (I don't know their suitability, but there are more than
| 5 options in your country)
| Macha wrote:
| Of the "significant banks" listed, only AIB and Bank of
| Ireland do consumer bank accounts. I suspect the presence
| of the others is more to do with wanting an EU entity for
| targeting larger EU markets than the Irish domestic
| market. For example, Citibank only expanded from "large
| tech multinationals" to also "mid sized businesses that
| are planning to scale internationally" in 2023 [1]
|
| Also on that Wikipedia page are Dell's private bank,
| Danske Bank (closed their Irish retail business in 2013),
| Klarna (sort of banking-adjacent, but they're not giving
| you a current account), etc.
|
| The 5 banks offering retail consumer accounts nationwide
| are AIB, permanent TSB, Bank of Ireland, Revolut and N26.
| The first 3 are the surviving brick and mortar banks and
| the latter 2 are recent-ish neobank entries.
|
| Credit unions are limited to serving customers in their
| local area. The one credit union who's catchment area I'm
| in also requires app based 2FA.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2023/0925/1407279-citi-
| to-g...
|
| (Side note: The name of the country in English is
| Ireland, the name in Irish is Eire - using the accent-
| less Irish name in English was promoted by the UK
| government and BBC because they didn't want to recognise
| the name of the country prior to the GFA in 1998. Most
| people will also accept Republic of Ireland if you need
| to distinguish from Northern Ireland, even though that's
| technically not the name)
| Cu3PO42 wrote:
| > Maybe I could get a EU bank from another EU country but
| my employer will not accept an out of country account for
| salary deposits because it makes their tax life difficult
| and my mortgage provider doesn't trust foreign accounts
| either.
|
| I do not doubt this is happening, but it is forbidden
| under SEPA. All IBANs, no matter from which member
| country, must be treated equally. Unfortunately, "IBAN
| discrimination" happens quite frequently still. The
| European commission recommends filing a complaint with
| your national governing body.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Your employer's tax obligations should depend on where
| you live and where they live and where the work happens,
| not where your bank account is.
| nevi-me wrote:
| It's not just tax obligations, no? Employers in many
| countries have an obligation to ensure that your salary
| reflects on the X day of the month (or whatever frequency
| you're paid). Banks in my country have a payroll payment
| system for this reason, where funds will clear on the day
| they're made despite the destination bank (in the same
| country).
|
| If my employer has to use SWIFT to pay me, on whom does
| this obligation to ensure I'm paid on time fall? I've had
| a salary payment from a foreign employer fail to be
| delivered for 2 weeks a few times. We'd have to go back
| and forth with my bank, their bank, their payroll vendor.
| That's an exception because they hired me as a foreign
| employee. Despite paying their local employees on time, I
| always received my salary at least 4 days 'late', as long
| as their payroll system reflected that I was paid on the
| X day, it wasn't their problem.
| g947o wrote:
| If you are a normal human being who doesn't enjoy
| suffering, you'll give up the idea of doing web bank on a
| mobile phone.
| matwood wrote:
| Saying 'don't use those things' is not a viable solution.
| It's like when I was trying to move to linux a couple
| years ago I asked for help getting HiDPI/scaling to work
| and there were many responses saying 'who needs that?'
| nkrisc wrote:
| Most people don't want to rearrange their life around
| what their phone can't do.
| tcfhgj wrote:
| they will have to when Android closes down
| tcfhgj wrote:
| Why to apple?
| rowbin wrote:
| Sideloading is already worse on iOS
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Seems like you'll still be able to use your own apps just fine
| under this scheme.
|
| It also seems pretty obvious that the ignorant phone-users of
| the world who get scammed are the reason for this change. The
| revenue lost from people like you is really not worth any
| amount of engineering effort.
| Sophira wrote:
| The image at the top of the article is actually what _already_
| happens in Android and has done for years. At first, I thought
| that this meant that the article was very outdated, but no, this
| is from January 2026.
|
| I imagine the text of the article is fine, but I'm a little bit
| disappointed that Android Authority chose to lead with that image
| and caption and make it seem that this is what the future flow
| would look like. You'd think they'd know better.
| throwa356262 wrote:
| I think i have an idea that would better protect normal users
| while not getting in the way for power users and developers:
|
| 1. All applications must be signed with a valid store key.
|
| 2. Anyone can import a store key after rebooting into the
| bootloader (similar flow as custom roms)
|
| 3. Google can maintain a list of malicious keys and reject them
|
| Why is this better? Because it makes it much harder to trick
| grandma into installing an APK some site just dropped.
| faust201 wrote:
| 1. google can arbitrarily revoke key. Countries can revoke key.
|
| 3. Like the amazing malicious crapware from PlayStore that they
| allow. They don't reject that.
|
| 4. Grandma installs crap mainly from PlayStore
| jhanschoo wrote:
| As TFA does not mention it, and I don't see any top-level
| comments discussing it, this is a continued rollout of a
| "feature" first piloted in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and
| Thailand. See:
|
| https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...
|
| https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de...
|
| https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/google-android-dev...
|
| Of course, HN reaction has always been skeptical about this
| including in earlier news. But the reporting on it, and the
| countries in which it is piloted in, seems to me to involve
| government/banking industry cooperation with or pressure on
| Google to combat cyber fraud. These polities are prime targets
| for Android cyber fraud of this sort due to Android penetration,
| and seemingly (to me) also cultural proximity to scam operators,
| and tech-illiteracy among the vulnerable demographic. (And
| anticipating a reply I got from a previous article on my comment
| on this feature---no, it's just not feasible to comprehensively
| educate retirees against evolving tactics by scam operators and
| expect that to be a sufficient sole countermeasure.)
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yeah for every HN user complaining about it there are hundreds
| of people sideloading apps (not realizing what they're doing -
| under promise of loans or other advantages) and then getting
| their phone ransomed
| direwolf20 wrote:
| For every person getting ransomed by a sideloaded app there
| are ten people getting ransomed by apps they installed from
| the Play Store.
| raverbashing wrote:
| And two wrongs don't make a right
| direwolf20 wrote:
| If we ban sideloaded apps under this reasoning, we have
| to ban the Play Store as well, ten times more urgently.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| And for every person getting scammed by an app from any
| source, there are a thousand people getting scammed just
| through phonecalls. Scam apps isn't a real problem at
| scale, it's a bunch of fear mongering.
| necovek wrote:
| There is no doubt that sideloading by uninformed users can be
| used as a backdoor.
|
| It's also not a surprise that banks/industry that's accountable
| to recover the losses for tricked customers is looking to
| someone else to solve it for them.
|
| However, if this was "piloted", do we have the numbers of how
| much has it decreased the number of scams or their impact?
|
| I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is impossible to
| "educate the public", but it is indeed extremely hard. But
| click-through pop-ups have succeeded when?
| tschumacher wrote:
| I know in some people's eyes saying this will make me a Google
| shill but this reminds me of the manifest v3 thing. What makes
| it to the top of HN is mostly clickbait a las "Google is
| cracking down on ad blockers" or in this case "Google is
| preventing side loading". These articles don't link to primary
| sources (Google) and they (intentionally?) miss all nuance.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| These measures are indeed the result of governments blaming
| their citizens getting scammed on phone manufacturers. There's
| not a lot Google can do here.
|
| However, Google is choosing to extend these changes worldwide.
| That's where the problem really starts. People in Asia and
| Brazil may vote for idiots who will shift the blame for their
| citizens' lack of basic digital education onto others, but that
| doesn't mean that countries where this type of fraud barely
| exists should also be subject to these extreme measures.
| spwa4 wrote:
| The real question is if you can still sideload:
|
| 1) a .apk that was _not_ developer-verified
|
| 2) without informing Google of this
| GuestFAUniverse wrote:
| The highest risk is the play store itself. Gambling and
| addiction. So, when does Google add "high friction" there,
| instead of encouraging it? Ah, well, it's the money! Than stop
| bending the truth.
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| The current system is already high friction. Enabling "advanced
| protection" in your google account additionally requires
| installing apps through adb.
| or_am_i wrote:
| Steam phone incoming in 3... 2... 1...
| oceansky wrote:
| "3? What's that?" - Valve
| ReptileMan wrote:
| The year of linux desktop unironically may be close. What is the
| situation with mobile?
| danelski wrote:
| There are community projects, but no Valve in sight.
| xandrius wrote:
| I take the opportunity to let people know that there are
| alternatives to Google/Apple duopoly on mobile. Link:
| https://www.ubuntu-touch.io/
|
| Sure, GrapheneOS is often suggested but Ubuntu Touch is a really
| interesting alternative, their own store and ecosystem.
|
| The community is amazing and welcoming. If there are Android apps
| which you can't do without, they can be emulated and used anyway.
| Imagine switching to Linux and then using Wine for the apps you
| really still need.
|
| Yes, it's not perfect but Linux isn't either. If you think you're
| sufficiently tech savvy and want to make a change, give Ubuntu
| Touch a try. Find a cheap second hand supported device and play
| around, make some fun apps. (devices currently supported:
| https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/ )
|
| To me it's like being back when there was only Windows and Macs
| as viable home computer OS, and people were getting their feet
| wet with Linux and all its flavours. Now, it's the same but for
| mobile.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suppose emulating Android apps
| on a non-Android system will have the same problem as trying to
| run them in an Android without Google Services or in a rooted
| phone, i.e., banking (and similar) apps detecting it and
| refusing to run?
|
| Were it not for that, I would never have stopped using Huawei,
| IMO the best phone brand by a mile. But I'm too busy a person
| to depend on hacks and having to regularly find new workarounds
| to access my banks.
| gspr wrote:
| I think you're right about certain apps refusing to run in an
| emulated environment.
|
| I'm beginning to think we need to consider such apps, and the
| hardware they run on, as the outsiders. Keep a cheap "normal"
| Android phone for those apps, and those apps alone. Then keep
| a "real" second device for everything else. Up to you which
| one gets the SIM card and provides connectivity for the other
| (and ordinary phone services).
|
| I'd rather go back to old-fashioned hardware dongles from
| banks - but hey, lacking that, maybe I'll just think of the
| first of those two devices as a clunky, overly expensive one
| of those.
| whatevermom5 wrote:
| This is the best solution. Actually, if you have money, in
| my experience, the best is to have an iPhone dedicated to
| that. Sometimes even on stock Android (Pixel 10 Pro) you
| get weird incompatibilities. E.g. trying to connect to a
| DJI drone, paying with Google Wallet, getting a train
| transit card in Japan... An iPhone supports all daily life
| use cases with predictability. So my solution right now is
| to have one iPhone where I keep things clean, and one
| Android where I do whatever I want. :)
|
| (I do get the odd look when I take out my second phone to
| do something else in public and questions about it :))
| uyzstvqs wrote:
| Ubuntu Touch has amazing UX, IMO. Sadly it's been non-viable
| for practically forever, and is non-viable today unless you
| want to use a 7-year-old out-of-production device. It's
| practically abandonware with a few hobby maintainers at this
| point, as much as it had potential compared to other
| alternatives.
| Voklen wrote:
| I was under the impression that Ubuntu Touch worked just fine
| with the Fairphone 5 which is very much not a "7-year-old
| out-of-production device". I'm currently writing this from a
| Fairphone 4 (with CalyxOS, not Ubuntu Touch though).
| thrance wrote:
| Thank you for the much needed hopeful note. Maybe I'll try
| doing exactly that, sounds like a fun hobby. My biggest worry
| about Linux on mobile is that banking apps will stubbornly
| refuse to offer support to these platforms, basically forever.
| leminimal wrote:
| Ubuntu Touch so far has the best hardware compatibility for
| things like camera and battery life. But it also insists on
| doing a lot of its own thing like using Mir instead of X and
| click packages. Running programs inside Libertine often crashes
| for me and is cumbersome. It makes developing for it harder.
| clickable needs Docker installed just so you can build and run
| your own apps on the device! Instead of letting you launch
| things quickly from terminal.
|
| It make some things that should be easy on Linux harder. I.e.,
| there's no Firefox + mobile tweaks like other linux mobile
| OSes, in part because it wants you to use Morphic.
|
| But other linux mobile OSes dropped support for
| Halium/libhybris and even the very few that still have it don't
| seem to match Ubuntu Touch's level of hardware support.
| skerit wrote:
| > like using Mir instead of X
|
| X11 is dead. It's over. At least Mir is now a Wayland client.
| tommica wrote:
| XLibre exists - it keeps x11 alive
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Standalone Xorg is on life support, not dead.
| ottah wrote:
| I have struggled with getting anything functional on a
| Fairphone running Ubuntu Touch. The problem is you can't really
| run any Linux app, it has to be written to support their
| specific display manager. Running regular Linux apps is
| possible but not properly documented and I haven't gotten it to
| work. Android apps through Waydroid sort of works, but is
| unstable and not suitable for daily use.
|
| I really want Linux on mobile to be a thing, but I haven't
| found it yet. PinePhone is abandoned, Purism just isn't a
| finished product, Planet Computers doesn't even build a phone
| with Linux support anymore.
|
| The only thing that's current and active I've seen is a Hong
| Kong startup https://furilabs.com/. I've got one on my desk to
| try, hoping it will be something usable as a daily driver.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's never going to work. Any competitor that isn't Android
| won't have app support (e.g. you won't even be able to
| message people in 90% of the world where WhatsApp, Telegram,
| Line, etc. are the de facto communication method for almost
| the entire population).
|
| So you need some way to run Android apps... which is totally
| possible, but at that point why not just use Android?
| fsflover wrote:
| Telegram desktop app works flawlessly on Mobian, PureOS,
| postmarketOS though. Whatsapp web version can be used, too.
|
| > So you need some way to run Android apps... which is
| totally possible, but at that point why not just use
| Android?
|
| Perhaps for reasons like this:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
| IshKebab wrote:
| > Whatsapp web version can be used, too.
|
| Pretty awful UX, and you still need an Android phone to
| actually run WhatsApp.
|
| > Perhaps for reasons like this
|
| When I say "use Android", I mean the codebase, not
| necessarily Google's Android. Something like
| PostmarketOS.
| realusername wrote:
| PostmarketOS doesn't use the Android codebase, they work
| on upstreaming devices with a standard Linux kernel, so
| the opposite. They act mostly the same way as a desktop
| distribution. They do use the downstream image but mostly
| as a reference to remove it.
|
| Ubuntu Touch does use the Android vendor images though
| through the libhybris compatibility layer, that's why
| they have some good compatibility, if the phone has a
| lineageos image, there's a good chance that it'll work
| with Ubuntu Touch.
|
| The downside of that is the same as Lineageos, they are
| stuck on whatever kernel the device shipped with and it
| can be ancient.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Ah yeah I always assumed it was Android based. Graphene
| then.
| silon42 wrote:
| If you are willing to have 2 phones... it will/already is
| needed if you need rooted/unrooted Android phone.
| GranPC wrote:
| I work at Furi Labs; and am writing this comment from my FLX1
| daily driver. Let me know what you think when you give it a
| shot :)
| mfru wrote:
| there is also jolla, their new device is supposed to be
| shipping this year
| fsflover wrote:
| > alternatives to Google/Apple duopoly on mobile. Link:
| https://www.ubuntu-touch.io/
|
| This is far from the only alternative. There are also Mobian,
| PureOS, postmarketOS and more. Unlike Ubuntu Touch, they allow
| you to run ordinary Linux desktop apps. Also there is hardware
| not tied to an ancient Android kernel, designed to run desktop
| GNU/Linux: Pinephone and Librem 5. The latter is my daily
| driver.
| yndoendo wrote:
| At the moment I would recommend FuriLabs solution.
| https://furilabs.com/
|
| It already has a built in Android VM that allows seamless
| FDroid and Aurora Store usage.
|
| Since FuriOS is a based Debian distro, it should be reduced
| friction to use PostmarketOS or UbuntuTouch.
| hedora wrote:
| That looks surprisingly good (I see there's a 5G modem).
|
| Does it make phone calls + send texts + manage battery
| reasonably?
|
| Also, what does "non-rugged" design mean?
|
| (I've had a few pieces of niche phone hardware before, and
| none of them had good answers to even one of those
| questions.)
| nunez wrote:
| Unfortunately, apps have always been the barrier to entry for
| competing options.
|
| If your platform doesn't have apps, then your platform won't
| have users, which won't attract developers and BigCo's to write
| apps for your platform. Rinse and repeat.
|
| This is how Windows Phone was wiped out, despite them spending
| *a lot* of money trying to attract companies and developers to
| write stuff for their OS.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| Windows Phone was fantastic because it had no apps. Wish it
| managed to stake out and maintain a decent portion of the
| phone market. If 30% of the population could say "Oh sorry
| TicketMaster, I can't install your app, please just email me
| a pdf or text me a link to your tickets that I can just open
| in a web browser" the that would benefit everyone, even non-
| WP users.
| js8 wrote:
| I was looking into buying one of those:
| https://www.www3.planetcom.co.uk/
|
| No experience, but if they lock out Android I probably will.
| skycrafter0 wrote:
| The issue with buying phones like that, is they are just
| insanely expensive. Without shipping/tax, that phone is
| CAD$1500, whereas I can buy a refurbished Samsung S22 for
| CAD$350 (all in), that has roughly the same specs, but for
| 1/5 the price. I understand small companies can't use
| economies of scale like Samsung/Apple, but it's still really
| bad, and the majority of consumers wouldn't even take a
| second glance at it from the price.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Notice that, per https://www.www3.planetcom.co.uk/devices-
| specification , the newest OS they ship is Android 11. I
| owned a Gemini and I liked the hardware, but they don't
| update software and I consider that a deal breaker.
| cesarb wrote:
| > I take the opportunity to let people know that there are
| alternatives to Google/Apple duopoly on mobile.
|
| In my country (which will AFAIK be one of the first ones to get
| the new app install restrictions), so far I haven't found any.
|
| You're not allowed to import phones which are not certified by
| ANATEL, and AFAIK all currently sold certified phones are
| either Android (from several hardware brands), Apple, and
| feature phones.
|
| > To me it's like being back when there was only Windows and
| Macs as viable home computer OS, and people were getting their
| feet wet with Linux and all its flavours. Now, it's the same
| but for mobile.
|
| There's one VERY IMPORTANT distinction: back then, you could
| easily take a Windows or Mac computer and install Linux in it.
| For mobile, it's never been that easy; strong cryptographic
| signing of the operating system, combined with endless churn of
| the hardware design (there's no "PC compatible" equivalent for
| phones), and there being no way to keep the data partition
| intact when installing a custom ROM, make it much harder for
| people to "get their feet wet" with alternative operating
| systems.
| hedora wrote:
| I see an announcement from 2016 saying they're adding React
| Native support. Does it actually work? That'd allow low-effort
| ports onto their platform, and I'd much rather see them succeed
| than be stuck with the current duopoly.
|
| (So, I'd probably put in the effort.)
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| In the technofeudal new world order, your smartphone is not just
| a device, it is your gov issued digital ID/wallet
|
| The Apple/Google OS duopoly exists by design, they view
| bootloader unlocking and sideloading as threats because they
| break that control
|
| They want to be able to define and/or revoke your existence in
| the system
|
| No escape, because no alternative
| danelski wrote:
| Exactly. For most people not having a bank app, probably no
| digital payments due to that, and no government-issued digital
| ID is too much friction to even consider any alternative.
| hans_castorp wrote:
| Can we please stop calling it "sideloading"? It's simply
| "installing" software on hardware that I own, and that I should
| have full control over.
| spondyl wrote:
| I'm sure I'm missing something but wasn't this already the case
| where the first time you try to install an APK, you had to go
| into Settings and mark the relevant application as a trusted
| source for installing APKs from?
| tentacleuno wrote:
| _Some_ friction is probably wise. I remember them introducing
| the requirement to individually allow each app you 're
| installing things from. The question is, how much more friction
| will they add? I suspect they will add prompts per install,
| too.
| 1023bytes wrote:
| Some manufacturers like Xiaomi already have a very annoying flow
| for enabling developer options and using ADB. You need to have a
| SIM card inserted, need to create a Xiaomi account and there's
| several popups with timers you have to wait through.
| isodev wrote:
| So, which 3rd mobile vendor and/or OS are you moving to?
| barnabee wrote:
| Not OP but my GrapheneOS phone is fine with me installing
| things on it. It just seems like a better Android at this
| point.
| mrsssnake wrote:
| Would switch to PostmarketOS tomorrow if there was any fully
| supported hardware (camera, 4G calling, etc.). All
| programs/apps I use are FOSS and standardized anyway.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Those of us who use Android phones now - and install FOSS apps
| form F-Droid or just any apps from elsewhere other than the
| church of Google - might be thinking: "Oh, I need to work out how
| I'll have decent app access after this happens."
|
| But what we should really be thinking is: "Oh, I need to _donate_
| to projects which aim to patch Android-based phones to remove
| these restrictions; or to projects which aim to replace (most/all
| of) Android completely".
|
| We need to speak with our wallets in addition to just ranting
| about Google.
| qiine wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder I we should instead fund massive marketing
| campaigns instead, because the vast majority of people have no
| idea it's even an option.
| goldenarm wrote:
| Sideloading is a neologism to scare users and lawmakers, it just
| means "Installing software" and should be a basic right.
|
| Also software installation in Android has been high friction for
| a while. Installing an APK on my phone is at least 10 clicks.
| lokar wrote:
| I think what is missing here is the growing trend of scammers
| convincing people they are their bank (or whatever) and walking
| them through enabling side-loading and then installing malware
| (sometimes to address some urgent security issues with their
| account).
|
| This is meant to counter an actual issues that is affecting
| many many users.
| seg_lol wrote:
| Is the solution to make it harder? Or is the threat of
| scammers and the insecurity of the OS used as false flag to
| make installing software outside of the profitable walled
| garden much much harder?
| lokar wrote:
| I doubt that side-loading impacts revenue all that much.
| Alternate stores are the real, potential, risk to $.
|
| I think the solution is to come up with a balance between
| the needs of different groups of users. People here see the
| phone as a general purpose computer they should be able to
| modify and use for all kinds of novel tasks. This is great,
| and should be fully supported.
|
| But there are also many, many more people who see the phone
| as an important way to enable a higher standard of living.
| Giving them access to information, government services and
| banking for the first time. They are not technically
| sophisticated, and don't need or want a general purpose
| computer.
|
| So, we need platform providers to come up with ways to work
| out who is who, and give each side what they need.
| ronsor wrote:
| This has been going on since the Internet became widespread
| and Windows users started regularly downloading random
| executables from random websites.
| sofixa wrote:
| And many things have been done, including Windows telling
| you in bold red letters that this software is dangerous if
| it wasn't signed by a trusted signer with lots of installs.
| curt15 wrote:
| And why are those not sufficient for Android?
| lokar wrote:
| This is not a theoretical issue. It's a major problem is
| several countries, the governments are getting involved.
| ronsor wrote:
| Yes, but governments are getting involved because
| governments always like increasing control and reducing
| freedom; the "major problem" is merely a pretext.
| lokar wrote:
| People are loosing their life savings
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| If you need to sacrifice your freedom for a little bit of
| security, then you deserve neither. It's true with this
| too.
|
| Most rules/laws don't actually stop problems, they just
| hide them.
| curt15 wrote:
| Are the governments also coercing Microsoft to restrict
| Windows users to the Windows app store?
| IshKebab wrote:
| What do they use the app to do?
| lokar wrote:
| Steal banking credentials, I think
| IshKebab wrote:
| How though? Just did the vulnerabilities that allow that.
| dns_snek wrote:
| It's not a vulnerability necessarily, but "Display over
| other apps" permission allows malicious apps to intercept
| interactions like users entering passwords and trick them
| into performing actions (clickjacking).
| choo-t wrote:
| If you can convince the user your are their bank, can
| convince them to install software and walk them through how
| to do it and enable side loading, you can also convince them
| to input their logging into any webpage.
| lokar wrote:
| Somehow that's not working for them, it would be simpler
| koolala wrote:
| Should we whitelist the whole web for this reason too? Why
| does that trend use apps and not websites?
| lokar wrote:
| In the impacted nations people only use phones, and the
| local banking ecosystem is really focused on apps. I think
| most people would never think to use their bank website.
| koolala wrote:
| If someone is tricking you over the phone to sideload
| would a 'official' bank website really be a deal breaker?
| behnamoh wrote:
| > This is meant to counter an actual issues that is affecting
| many many users.
|
| No, that's an excuse. Google just wants a tighter grip on
| their software chain, which is understandable if they were
| Apple but they're not.
| gmueckl wrote:
| This is not simply an excuse. Android phones are prevalent
| in countries where smartphones offer the only realistic
| access to banking and cashless payments to the majority of
| the population. Scamming schemes targeting those users are
| also very frequent in many, if not most of these countries,
| and educating people about them is hard. Like it or not,
| this change is likely going to be a net positive for many
| people.
| lokar wrote:
| And in at lest one case Google is getting direct pressure
| from the government to do something
| shiandow wrote:
| I have no trust in a solution that mostly benefits the
| proposer.
|
| By all means let people curate and use safe lists of
| software, but let's not pretend that making the life harder
| for the few registries containing solely open source and
| vetted software is in any way about making people safer.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| This solution clearly mostly benefits the ignorant phone
| users of the world who are susceptible to scams. There is a
| minuscule number of people sideloading Android apps on
| their phones compared to the greater population.
|
| Like I strongly believe that sideloading should be possible
| on phones, I don't even do it myself anymore but it can be
| very helpful and is part of what makes the Android platform
| fundamentally more open than iOS. I was VERY opposed to
| their original idea of closing off sideloading altogether,
| but having to mark it in your settings manually seems like
| a very good compromise.
| einpoklum wrote:
| It seems you think what is missing here is some FUD, which is
| what I believe you are feeding us with here.
|
| If there's anyone people need to be protected against, it's
| Alphabet and Apple and the entities they let in
| intentionally, rather than specter of "growing trend of
| scammers".
| riedel wrote:
| If that was the only reason, they would proactively cooperate
| with alternative app-stores like F-Droid to allow them to
| provide a lesser friction flow for open source releases. My
| question would be why I they see themselves as the only
| possible trust anchor here. A high friction method to install
| a different app store, once, IMHO would be OK.
| chmod775 wrote:
| You cannot save these people by technical means. They'll just
| fall for something else instead.
|
| The only one who can protect them is a family member or
| appointed guardian.
|
| Or maybe, just maybe, we start doing something about the
| criminals and those who protect them. It's ridiculous how
| these industrial-scale scam operations are allowed to exist.
| gruez wrote:
| >Sideloading is a neologism to scare users and lawmakers, it
| just means "Installing software" and should be a basic right.
|
| No it's not. The term originated far before this debacle, and
| carries a meaningful distinction than just "installing".
| Specifically it means installing from a non-first party source.
| You might not agree the restriction should exist, or that even
| the concept of first party source at all, but for communication
| purposes it's worth having a simple word to describe that
| concept, rather than something like "installing from a non-
| first party app store".
| archvile wrote:
| So... installing software?
|
| >Specifically it means installing from a non-first party
| source.
|
| Just like 99% of software running on computers in the world
| today? How is it different from "installing software"?
| gruez wrote:
| >How is that different from "installing software"?
|
| It's easy to see this play out if try to replace
| "sideloading" with "installing software". If you apply it
| to OP's headline of
|
| >Google confirms 'high-friction' sideloading flow is coming
| to Android
|
| You get
|
| >Google confirms 'high-friction' _installing software_ flow
| is coming to Android
|
| which isn't at all accurate. You still need the distinct
| concept of "installing software not from first party
| sources", otherwise it sounds like google is making it a
| pain to install all apps, which isn't the case.
| glenstein wrote:
| Sure, you could argue it helps to express a distinction
| but that doesn't mean it has to live inside the verb
| install. Historically installing software was the
| _general_ act and provenance was handled with qualifiers
| eg installing from "third-party sources", "manual
| install" etc. Android is alone among computing platforms
| in collapsing that qualifier into a new term that
| implicitly recenters the Play Store as the default
| meaning of "install."
|
| In other ecosystems the store path is described as "store
| install" not the other way around. Android chose the
| inverse framing and that choice isn't neutral.
| gruez wrote:
| >Sure, you could argue it helps to express a distinction
| but that doesn't mean it has to live inside the verb
| install.
|
| Right, which is why they used "sideload".
|
| >In other ecosystems the store path is described as
| "store install" not the other way around. Android chose
| the inverse framing and that choice isn't neutral.
|
| No, this is just being non-neutral in the opposite
| direction. Given the fact that installing from the play
| store is the default experience for the overwhelming
| majority of the user, calling it "store install" is even
| more obtuse.
| glenstein wrote:
| "That's why they used sideload" is exactly the point
| being contested. Historically, _install_ was the
| unmarked, neutral verb for adding software, regardless of
| source. The distinction, when needed, lived in qualifiers
| about provenance. Introducing a new verb for non-store
| installs does more than merely describe a difference, it
| reassigns conceptual ownership of "install" to the store
| path.
|
| And neutrality here isn't about mirroring current usage
| frequency (which is unique to Android and recent relative
| to the history of computing), it's about continuity with
| prior computing norms. Even when one distribution path
| dominated in practice, it didn't get to redefine the base
| verb.
| sophrosyne42 wrote:
| It is more informative to reword it
| dns_snek wrote:
| Well that's just self-referential. You're justifying the
| distinction by referring to Google's (artificial)
| distinction.
| functionmouse wrote:
| before phones that was just called installing software
| glenstein wrote:
| >No it's not. The term originated far before this debacle,
| and carries a meaningful distinction than just "installing".
| Specifically it means installing from a non-first party
| source
|
| It's amazing how many confidently wrong people are springing
| up out of the wordwork to present revisionist history about
| the meaning of "install" like it's ancient wisdom. Pre-mobile
| computing treated "install" as neutral and primary and had no
| built in relation to centralized distribution. Sideloading as
| a term of art originally, in practice came into usage for
| transferring media to devices, and some cloud file hosts
| briefly used it to mean load a file to an online drive
| without downloading it to computer. It's usage was varied,
| irregular, and not at any threshold of popular acceptance for
| one meaning or another.
|
| Windows, Dos, Linux, and online self-hosted services had no
| notion of "sideloading", or at least no usage of that
| vocabulary and did not use this notion of "install" that is
| now being retrospectively declared a longstanding historical
| norm. Even now, that's not a term used in Windows or Linux.
| Even Apple, who very much in practice utilize this controlled
| distribution model but even they don't use this
| sideloading/installing verbal distinction. In Apple's lexicon
| installing is neutral with respect to where an app comes
| from.
|
| So it's staggering to see a specific term of art that
| deviates from historical precedent that _only_ is used in an
| Android context and only relatively recently in the history
| of computing be referred to as if its observing a
| longstanding precedent across all of computing. It 's nothing
| of the sort.
| gruez wrote:
| >Even now, that's not a term used in Windows or Linux.
|
| No, it's existed in windows 10 (and probably windows 8.1)
| for over a decade.
|
| https://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/13/how-to-enable-developer-
| mo... (note the date)
|
| >So it's staggering to see a specific term of art that
| deviates from historical precedent that only is used in an
| Android context and only relatively recently in the history
| of computing be referred to as if its observing a
| longstanding precedent across all of computing. It's
| nothing of the sort.
|
| None of that refutes anything I said. You're basically
| arguing "back in the good old days, all installs were not
| from first party source and there was no distinction", but
| that doesn't mean no such distinction exists right now.
| Otherwise it's like arguing "immigration" is some
| "neologism" because back before the advent of the nation
| state, people just moved wherever, there wasn't random
| lines that turned "moving" to "immigration", and the word
| "immigration" is coined by statists that want to impose
| their worldview on the populace.
| curt15 wrote:
| >but that doesn't mean no such distinction exists right
| now
|
| A distinction only exists if people parrot the verbiage
| coined by corporations with a business interest in
| creating artificial moats. They have no obligation to,
| especially media outlets who have the right (and IMO
| responsibility) to use accurate vocabulary.
| curt15 wrote:
| > Specifically it means installing from a non-first party
| source
|
| What "first-party" source? Apple invented out of thin air the
| notion of a "first-party" software source or that computer
| users can only install software approved by a central
| authority.
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| The idea the manufacturer of a product is a "first party" is
| BS.
|
| You are the first party. If I own the device, I am the first
| party.
|
| The manufacturer is now a second or third party after you own
| the device, and for most ideas, a third party, especially if
| they don't truly offer real support of the device.
| middayc wrote:
| I was never an iOS user, or developer - exactly because Android
| was more "open", exerted less control over a user of the device.
|
| The same reason I use Linux for 25 years (not ideological, but it
| just makes most sense by far). In time where this view (win11 vs.
| Linux) is starting to make sense to more and more people, few
| rare config nuances are getting easier to solve due to LLM-s,
| going into the opposite direction with a mobile OS calls for
| users to also start seriously considering more open alternatives
| and making a path for users of our app to do the same.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Ah yes, such enormous friction, to install F-Droid and install an
| app via it, instead of Playstore. Argh, sooo much friction,
| really unbearable. /s
|
| Google is getting more ridiculous by the day.
| sylware wrote:
| Funny way to say 'dark patterns'
| Macha wrote:
| So I was actually planning on upgrading from a Pixel 7 Pro to a
| Pixel 10 around the time this announcement came out last year,
| but have put it on hold as I wait to see what form these changes
| take.
|
| Like if it was "you need to do the developer 7-tap of the version
| label in settings", it'd be like "whatever". But given how long
| this process has taken, I suspect that is not what they've
| planned - it wouldn't take this long to develop, it certainly
| wouldn't take this long to explain.
|
| So I suspect that we're actually in the "Maybe Later" phase of
| "Google wants to control which apps you install: [ ] Yes [ ]
| Maybe Later". And I mean, if their proposed solution turns out to
| be "Me and 25 of my closest friends can install apps I make by
| phoning home to Google servers", then like, I can do that on iOS
| too. And if I'm not going to have meaningfully more control of my
| Android device, I may as well just go to iOS where Apple at least
| have a better privacy record and don't seem to have have an all-
| encompassing goal of "where can we put AI features to drive AI
| usage metrics up the most?"
| Sytten wrote:
| Honestly just install grapheneos on your Pixel, that is what I
| did and bought a Pixel for that reason alone. I use all Google
| play services and it works great, only payment with phone
| doesn't work.
| palata wrote:
| Yes I agree: if you already have a Pixel, try GrapheneOS on
| it. Then if it can wait (Pixel 7 is still supported for a
| while, isn't it?), GrapheneOS may support a non-Google phone
| in 2026, so it may be worth waiting.
| ece wrote:
| If auto-updating apps stops working on fdroid, I'll be installing
| Graphene, Lineage or taking a shot at something like
| postmarket/ubuntu touch/plasma mobile. I've used Lineage as a
| daily driver before for a while, so I'll probably just go back to
| that and tell developers to support the platform I'm using. It
| doesn't rent seek on developers or users.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I'm with Google on this one. Idiots and old people (the public)
| use these devices daily. These are the very same people that send
| money to Nigerian royalty and expect to hear back about a great
| reward. This is mostly a CYA move with hard data behind it. If
| they completely removed side load, that would be a different
| story.
| pawelduda wrote:
| This bit of article is what I'm hopeful will happen:
|
| > That explanation broadly matches what we're seeing in recent
| versions of Google Play, where new warning messages emphasize
| developer verification, internet requirements, and potential
| risks, while still allowing users to proceed.
| kwhat4 wrote:
| If google really cared about security, they would place ad's
| for shady apps right above the 2fa or banking app I searched
| for to install.
| hypercube33 wrote:
| The old saying goes a fool and their money is soon departed.
|
| Why should the rest of us be punished?
| gruez wrote:
| >Why should the rest of us be punished?
|
| Exactly. I'm sick and tired of all the apps/websites that
| mandate 2fa. All of that adds friction when I'm a big boy who
| knows how to choose secure passwords. For that matter, why
| even invest resources into fraud detection or law
| enforcement? All of that money is coming out of somewhere,
| and why should my tax dollars go toward catching fake
| nigerian princes when it's just helping idiots anyways?
|
| /s
| ori_b wrote:
| https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-
| fra...
| gruez wrote:
| I'm sympathetic to that argument, but to invoke it you
| have to argue why the anti-fraud measures outweigh the
| benefits, not just drop a link to it. Moreover that's
| giving too much credit to the OP, who doesn't even
| recognize there's some sort of a trade-off, only that
| "fool and their money is soon departed".
| g947o wrote:
| It is a very long stretch to compare 2FA with restricting
| sideloading.
| minitech wrote:
| You pay a cost either way: live in a world with better funded
| and incentivized scammers and in a community less wealthy by
| a corresponding amount, or have a slightly less convenient
| sideloading experience.
|
| I guess if you take the old saying extremely literally, you
| could conclude that every fool is guaranteed to be parted
| with 100% of their lifetime available money regardless of
| what anyone else tries to do to stop that, but that's not
| true - and why old sayings (with a respectable 75% of the
| words right) taken literally aren't a good basis for
| decision-making.
| gretch wrote:
| You are punished one way or the other.
|
| These scammers are parasites on society, they add nothing
| while draining resources away from honest people.
|
| If you participate in society, that net drag will affect you
| in subtle ways. Like if you have money invested in something,
| that thing doesn't go up in value as much as it would have if
| x% of society isn't simply parasitic.
| lokar wrote:
| I don't think calling people who don't really understand
| computer security a can be tricked "stupid" is fair or helpful.
|
| Designing a product so that almost all of it's intended users
| can operate it safely seems like the right decision.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| How is it unfair? Are you assuming only intelligent people
| use Android?
| lokar wrote:
| Not at all. There are a lot of people in the world. Many of
| them are not nearly as interested in tech as you, or have
| simply not have the reason or access to learn more. That
| does not make them stupid.
| gmueckl wrote:
| Wait a second... making a product that is safe and easy to
| use requires removing or mitigating potential hazards
| involving product. Building safeguards around a feature that
| can be used to hurt people in significant ways is exactly
| that, isn't it?
| lokar wrote:
| Are you responding to me? I think we agree. I'm saying that
| calling scam victims "stupid" and then not trying to change
| the product to protect them is bad.
| koolala wrote:
| Why wouldn't they just use websites instead? Imagine if you had
| to ADB from a PC to enable a website that isn't Google
| approved.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Yeah in fact I don't really see what's new in this article
| except that it hints that it will allow install of software
| from unverified developers via big scary warnings. Which seems
| like an improvement from what has been announced previously
| that only software from verified developers would be allowed.
|
| I already have to configure apps to allow them to install apps
| on my Pixel... it's like "okay yeah I want to allow F-Droid and
| Obtainium to install apps" done. Maybe that's not the default
| or something? Who on earth wants popup ads in Chrome installing
| shit? And why would anyone want any random app to be able to
| install additional apps?
| eightys3v3n wrote:
| My grandmother was tricked into buying cryptocurrency for a
| scam. All the apps that they used on her Android and iPhone
| were in the respective app stores. Removing side loading has
| little to nothing to do with it from my point of view because
| the app stores are not doing a good job of verifying apps.
| WarmWash wrote:
| The Apple app store was ruled to not be monopoly.
|
| When Google inquired in court how that could be if Apple doesn't
| even allow any form of side-loading, including other app stores
| (which Google does allow)
|
| The judge said, I shit you not, Apple doesn't have any
| competitors on their platform, therefore they can't be anti-
| competitive.
|
| Probably one of the worst most off the rails rulings ever. Google
| took notes and is now following Apple. You can thank the courts
| w4rh4wk5 wrote:
| Semi-related question: how invasive is the Temu App on Google
| Play Store nowadays. Last time I read about it, it posed a bigger
| threat to users than the average side-loaded app.
| largbae wrote:
| Articles like this where we lament being trapped in an ecosystem
| duopoly are contemporary with articles saying that software
| engineering is over and LLMs can just vibe code anything you
| imagine. What's keeping the duopoly in charge?. Code signing?
| koolala wrote:
| You think a local model will get to that point? Some AGI
| revolution like your describing is impossible for humanity as a
| whole even if LLMs get that smart. The same companies control
| the supercomputers and your access to them.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Apparently this "high friction" is a term entirely invented by
| Android Authority based on finding a few new generic warning
| messages about sideloading in the Android source?? I guess if
| there's no news, you have to play word games to make some.
| charles_f wrote:
| Wait so did this rollback? Initially they were about to forbid
| any install from non verified accounts, then allow them but just
| a limited number, this article seems to suggest there will just
| be extra steps?
| TurboSkyline wrote:
| Yes, after that they said that there will be an on-device flow
| to load apps from outside the Play Store after all. They didn't
| describe how that will work and I didn't see it discussed as
| commonly as the original announcement; I only saw it mentioned
| by the way in a Reddit thread.
| Noaidi wrote:
| BOYCOTT.
| kazinator wrote:
| > _Google says the added friction is meant to educate users about
| the risks of sideloading._
|
| Or maybe the risks of monopolies and monocultures in computing.
| kazinator wrote:
| Side loading into a streaming box is an essential feature for me.
| I depend on a side-loaded app for Japanese TV.
|
| But of course, I have that in a separate Android box, so I'm not
| forced to update to a new OS when replacing a TV (as I just did
| this week).
| macinjosh wrote:
| Call me what you want but it is my belief that the reason google
| is locking down and Apple refuses to budge is that in the near
| term future our mobile devices will become our identity online
| and in public.
|
| Apple already offers digital ID in some states. They can do this
| partly because they can guarantee to the gov't the ID is genuine
| because the user cannot modify the system.
|
| Google needs to be able to do the same thing.
|
| Age verification laws for online services will actually require
| something like a digital ID and Apple and Google want to be the
| providers.
| sgt wrote:
| Is the solution for sideloading to also have the same APK in the
| Play Store? That way, Google would have received the AAB and
| generated a signed APK that is used from the Play Store and also
| offered via sideloading.
| pier25 wrote:
| The vast majority of Android users don't sideload apps. I used
| Android for years and only did it during dev. I don't know anyone
| who does it.
| aembleton wrote:
| No need to restrict it then
| pier25 wrote:
| Plenty of users will benefit from restricting it or even
| disabling sideloading entirely. I know my mother in her 70s
| can't be trusted with downloading random crap from the
| internet.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| > I know my mother in her 70s can't be trusted with
| downloading random crap from the internet.
|
| There's a very simple fix for that, that doesn't involve
| her being a benchmark for others.
| ars wrote:
| I had to sideload telegram, the version on Google Play has
| restrictions (censorship I believe) that the sideloaded version
| doesn't.
| pier25 wrote:
| the vast majority != 100%
| cmxch wrote:
| Why not just go full Apple right now and just rebrand iOS? That
| seems to be the ultimate outcome.
| nunez wrote:
| At least they aren't removing it like originally planned. A
| warning from `adb sideload` or `adb install` that can be bypassed
| with an environment variable is reasonable IMO.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I'd really like to see details before drawing conclusions. If
| it really is just an extra up-front warning screen or something
| then yes that's reasonable. If it's something that unfairly
| disadvantages F-Droid compared to the much less safe Google
| Play store, then it's unreasonable.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| I think we should stop calling it "sideloading". I don't think
| the history of the term matters. By using that term, you imply
| that running the code you want on the hardware you own is somehow
| a secondary or second-class activity.
|
| Call it "installing" or "jumping the garden wall".
| j45 wrote:
| Does high friction involve parties needing to identify
| themselves?
| asadm wrote:
| iOS has fallen behind, I am struggling to use apps and even type
| on new liquid glass. My 2TB photo library is useless with the
| current photos app. I am trying out Pixel 10 on the side and I
| HIGHLY recommend it! Android does not suck anymore. I am in
| process of migrating stuff over slowly.
| EngineerUSA wrote:
| I wish the EU would step up and bring sideloading on iOS. iPhone
| hardware is great but the software is severely lackluster. I know
| a few developers there and they are not exceptional by any means.
| Chiefly because Apple pays much less than their competition so
| they do not attract the best talent
| amelius wrote:
| EU said that App Stores must have alternatives.
|
| So F-Droid can just continue with their alternative app store.
|
| If Google makes it harder than it needs to be, then I'm sure they
| will be fined/sued.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| > if Google makes it harder than it needs to be, then I'm sure
| they will be fined/sued.
|
| Aaaaand, Action! Cue EU hate messages.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| Can we stop calling this "side loading" please.
|
| There is nothing sleazy happening "on the side", I am simply
| installing an application of my choosing on some hardware that I
| purchased.
|
| As long as it remains possible (without extra developer
| verification, etc, etc), a bit of extra friction is probably OK,
| as is assigning accountability to the person who chose to install
| an app outside of the "official" store.
|
| But it has to remain possible. Otherwise can someone name any
| advantage that Android has over iOS?
| ptrl600 wrote:
| Friction hopefully means "you have to plug in a USB cable" and
| not "you have to associate your phone with a particular Google
| account, then go through a process with Google's customer service
| to approve your phone for sideloading" etc.
| cess11 wrote:
| Eventually my so called smartphone will be a device for
| authenticating against a few services that require a special
| application, that I can also tunnel a serious device through for
| doing the things that I actually want to do.
|
| It would be interesting to know why they're doing this, but it's
| unlikely it'll ever become public knowledge. I also don't think
| it is important, the people responsible should be in jail for a
| lot of other reasons anyway.
| xnx wrote:
| Can we also get total app isolation sandboxing and location,
| network, etc. spoofing while we're at it?
| snapplebobapple wrote:
| Guys, a discussion of which big tech company is better is
| equivalent to talking about which cancer is the best to have....
| Can we all agree that each operating system has good features but
| they share a terrible feature of being strapped to a giant
| vampire squid exfiltrating your data and selling your secrets to
| the highest bidder? Instead of wasting bandwidth on these two
| companies can we go and figure out how to force cell phones (and
| consoles and numerous other things) open like the PC was/ mostly
| still is?
| kurtoid wrote:
| My guess is the 'high-friction' part is some kind of mandatory
| waiting period of 1 to 3 days
| FrozenSynapse wrote:
| Sideloading is already painful. I tried installing Sora (which is
| not available in my region's Play Store). The phone didn't allow
| me to start the app (complaining about integrity) unless I
| disabled the Play Store Integrity Checks. It wasn't
| straightforward in saying what the problem is and how can I
| bypass the check.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-26 15:01 UTC)