5 ms·

If you were right, Apple wouldn't be printing money as much as they do. Android users will ditch google and switch to... What? Apple? Where you can't install a

If you were right, Apple wouldn't be printing money as much as they do. Android users will ditch google and switch to... What? Apple? Where you can't install anything at all except through the tightly controlled Apple app store?

glogla 9y ago
Well if you get zero openness with both Google and Apple, you might as well get the privacy protection of Apple with it, right?
- jhasse 9y ago
  openness isn't zero with Android, e.g. you can install alternative app stores.
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    You mean where the ones where the apps you want don't exist or the one which works on Amazon. Apt sources don't require permission to use them with a particular device.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      Still more apps than in iOS's alternative app stores.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    What percentage of apps are available on third party app stores? Openness isn't zero with Android, it's just an obscene fractional portion that might as well be zero.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      Often you can sideload the ones you're missing. Also there's the AOSP. And openness to use a custom launcher, browser engine, overlays, ...
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        AOSP is crippled/barely functional due to parts being abandoned in favor of Google Apps. And as far as sideloading, where are you supposed to get the apps? The Play Store won't let you download them off the web, because that would let them out of the walled garden. Most companies won't link their APKs, they just link you to the Play Store. You might get lucky and it's popular enough to be on APKMirror, but there's really not a "good" way to sideload. Oh, and most apps require Play Services to run now, and won't work even if you do sideload them.
        jhasse 9y ago
        Never said it's perfect, just not "zero".
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        Its close enough to zero and getting worse not improving. Its time for people who care about making things stop trying to make things with android and ditch the platform.
  - realusername 9y ago
    Until I can download an iso and reinstall any phone with it like Ubuntu on a laptop, we might as well call it not open. The current situation is just a hacky Windows XP-like mess which still has some open-source bits in it for legacy reasons.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      That has nothing to do with Android, but with the hardware (ARM, SoCs, ...). There are also laptops where you can't install Ubuntu btw, still it's "more open" than Android.
      - realusername 9y ago
        > That has nothing to do with Android, but with the hardware (ARM, SoCs, ...). Google has way enough power to dictate standards, for most companies, not having access to the Play Store is assured death. > There are also laptops where you can't install Ubuntu btw There's very few then, I don't know any personally.
        jhasse 9y ago
        > Google has way enough power to dictate standards, for most companies, not having access to the Play Store is assured death. Still it would require the hardware to change, not Android. But you're right that Google could do something about it if it wanted to. So blame Google, not Android ;) > There's very few then, I don't know any personally. The Lenovo Yoga 900 was an example. Linux was (or still is? Dunno) missing the required RAID drivers to boot at all. Also keep in mind that Ubuntu requires binary blobs to work correctly, how many depends on the hardware. This means that Ubuntu isn't 100% open either and that "openness" isn't binary, otherwise Ubuntu would be "not open" in the same way Windows and macOS are, which obviously isn't the case.
        realusername 9y ago
        > Still it would require the hardware to change, not Android. But you're right that Google could do something about it if it wanted to. So blame Google, not Android ;) That's a bit of semantic but yeah Google is 100% responsible of the hacky mess of the Android landscape nowadays. Also the ROMs themselves (even official ones) are looking more like the hacking days of WinXP themes than anything remotely well designed. > This means that Ubuntu isn't 100% open either and that "openness" isn't binary, otherwise Ubuntu would be "not open" in the same way Windows and macOS are, which obviously isn't the case. Yeah for sure Ubuntu isn't 100% open, but at least the proprietary parts tend to reduce in the long run and there's ways to debug it. If you cannot even run the OS on the hardware without using some buffer overflows in the first place, that's another level. I would like an Android distribution which could run on 98% of the Android smartphones without much work, we're pretty far from that.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  What privacy protection from Apple? They refuse to show me how my data is being used. They refuse to allow me to control my own data. They refuse to set up their system in such a way that they can't abuse my data. They also have really close ties with at least one group that blatantly disregards privacy. Dont get me wrong, Android is a dumpster fire, but at least they give me some control over my OS.
  - grzm 9y ago
    In other discussions we've had, I know you've chosen not to use Apple (and not even using Google's services, IIRC). That's fine, and completely your choice. In the interest of keeping the conversation as civil as possible (we all know how inflammatory OS and privacy matters can get even without added fuel), can we lower the rhetoric level a bit? You want the option to compile and install your own OS. You choose not to trust what Apple says they do (such as encrypting most (admittedly not all) of the data in flight and at rest, making it inaccessible to them. I don't think there are any reasonable people that would disagree with your choice to not use Apple because of your priorities. You can choose to phrase these things in the much more aggressive "They refuse...", or, if you're interested in reasonable, constructive discussion, you can choose to phrase it in a way that shows a bit more respect for the choices others may make based on their priorities and values, that they might reasonably make those decisions, just as I think you would want them to consider yours. As one HN member to another, please? (Don't worry: this is the last time I'll ask. I just hate watching conversations derail into people talking past each other.)
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      I guess I dont see what is wrong with what I'm saying. Apple does refuse to do these things. I'm not at all saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose. In fact, I stongly agree that if someone does want to use Apple's software, they should, and damned what I say. I'm just pointing out that the poster was continuing to spread a myth that we have no proof of, and in fact we have evidence pointing in opposition of. I stongly want people to make their own choices, but more importantly, I want them to be properly educated before making those choices.

glogla 9y ago

Well if you get zero openness with both Google and Apple, you might as well get the privacy protection of Apple with it, right?

jhasse 9y ago
openness isn't zero with Android, e.g. you can install alternative app stores.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  You mean where the ones where the apps you want don't exist or the one which works on Amazon. Apt sources don't require permission to use them with a particular device.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    Still more apps than in iOS's alternative app stores.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  What percentage of apps are available on third party app stores? Openness isn't zero with Android, it's just an obscene fractional portion that might as well be zero.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    Often you can sideload the ones you're missing. Also there's the AOSP. And openness to use a custom launcher, browser engine, overlays, ...
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      AOSP is crippled/barely functional due to parts being abandoned in favor of Google Apps. And as far as sideloading, where are you supposed to get the apps? The Play Store won't let you download them off the web, because that would let them out of the walled garden. Most companies won't link their APKs, they just link you to the Play Store. You might get lucky and it's popular enough to be on APKMirror, but there's really not a "good" way to sideload. Oh, and most apps require Play Services to run now, and won't work even if you do sideload them.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        Never said it's perfect, just not "zero".
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        Its close enough to zero and getting worse not improving. Its time for people who care about making things stop trying to make things with android and ditch the platform.
- realusername 9y ago
  Until I can download an iso and reinstall any phone with it like Ubuntu on a laptop, we might as well call it not open. The current situation is just a hacky Windows XP-like mess which still has some open-source bits in it for legacy reasons.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    That has nothing to do with Android, but with the hardware (ARM, SoCs, ...). There are also laptops where you can't install Ubuntu btw, still it's "more open" than Android.
    - realusername 9y ago
      > That has nothing to do with Android, but with the hardware (ARM, SoCs, ...). Google has way enough power to dictate standards, for most companies, not having access to the Play Store is assured death. > There are also laptops where you can't install Ubuntu btw There's very few then, I don't know any personally.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        > Google has way enough power to dictate standards, for most companies, not having access to the Play Store is assured death. Still it would require the hardware to change, not Android. But you're right that Google could do something about it if it wanted to. So blame Google, not Android ;) > There's very few then, I don't know any personally. The Lenovo Yoga 900 was an example. Linux was (or still is? Dunno) missing the required RAID drivers to boot at all. Also keep in mind that Ubuntu requires binary blobs to work correctly, how many depends on the hardware. This means that Ubuntu isn't 100% open either and that "openness" isn't binary, otherwise Ubuntu would be "not open" in the same way Windows and macOS are, which obviously isn't the case.
        realusername 9y ago
        > Still it would require the hardware to change, not Android. But you're right that Google could do something about it if it wanted to. So blame Google, not Android ;) That's a bit of semantic but yeah Google is 100% responsible of the hacky mess of the Android landscape nowadays. Also the ROMs themselves (even official ones) are looking more like the hacking days of WinXP themes than anything remotely well designed. > This means that Ubuntu isn't 100% open either and that "openness" isn't binary, otherwise Ubuntu would be "not open" in the same way Windows and macOS are, which obviously isn't the case. Yeah for sure Ubuntu isn't 100% open, but at least the proprietary parts tend to reduce in the long run and there's ways to debug it. If you cannot even run the OS on the hardware without using some buffer overflows in the first place, that's another level. I would like an Android distribution which could run on 98% of the Android smartphones without much work, we're pretty far from that.
CaptSpify 9y ago
What privacy protection from Apple? They refuse to show me how my data is being used. They refuse to allow me to control my own data. They refuse to set up their system in such a way that they can't abuse my data. They also have really close ties with at least one group that blatantly disregards privacy. Dont get me wrong, Android is a dumpster fire, but at least they give me some control over my OS.
- grzm 9y ago
  In other discussions we've had, I know you've chosen not to use Apple (and not even using Google's services, IIRC). That's fine, and completely your choice. In the interest of keeping the conversation as civil as possible (we all know how inflammatory OS and privacy matters can get even without added fuel), can we lower the rhetoric level a bit? You want the option to compile and install your own OS. You choose not to trust what Apple says they do (such as encrypting most (admittedly not all) of the data in flight and at rest, making it inaccessible to them. I don't think there are any reasonable people that would disagree with your choice to not use Apple because of your priorities. You can choose to phrase these things in the much more aggressive "They refuse...", or, if you're interested in reasonable, constructive discussion, you can choose to phrase it in a way that shows a bit more respect for the choices others may make based on their priorities and values, that they might reasonably make those decisions, just as I think you would want them to consider yours. As one HN member to another, please? (Don't worry: this is the last time I'll ask. I just hate watching conversations derail into people talking past each other.)
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    I guess I dont see what is wrong with what I'm saying. Apple does refuse to do these things. I'm not at all saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose. In fact, I stongly agree that if someone does want to use Apple's software, they should, and damned what I say. I'm just pointing out that the poster was continuing to spread a myth that we have no proof of, and in fact we have evidence pointing in opposition of. I stongly want people to make their own choices, but more importantly, I want them to be properly educated before making those choices.