7 ms·

In contrast in the case of Apple you have a customer relationship with the company that sold you the device and they have an incentive to keep you as a customer

by zaidf 8y ago

In contrast in the case of Apple you have a customer relationship with the company that sold you the device and they have an incentive to keep you as a customer without having a need to extract as much advertisement revenue as they can. Do you acknowledge this comes at a huge cost? Apple has a fraction of the marketshare as Android in countries like India. Apple's iPhone prices out billions of people. Android-based phones don't. If Android-based phones adopted Apple's business model, billions of people would not have smartphones.

Matt3o12_ 8y ago
But I can’t help but wonder why there isn’t an alternative. Maybe a phone that is a bit more expensive then an equivalent android. It doesn’t need to have the hardware quality of iPhones or high end android phones but also has good, secure and privacy focused software developed by some company that doesn’t make most of their revenue from advertising. But I suppose there isn’t a market for that. A majority of users would pick the phone that is only 289 instead of 319 Even if that means selling their data. And the few users that do care are willing to pay the premium for an iPhone. Considering that manufacturing a phone is expensive unless they can mass produce it in quantities such as Samsung and apple, there won’t be a company to make such a phone soon because it would be just as expensive as an iPhone with a lot less features. And of course the Most important feature of any smartphone are apps and any new platform wouldn’t have any apps. Developer won’t develop for them unless there are enough users and there won’t be enough users unless there are apps. You could probably use googles play services and emulate android but as far as I know there isn’t a way to get around google’s push notifications without compromising the users privacy (which would defeat the purpose). Besides that would be expensive to make and gooogle might not license it at all because there is little in it for them.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  You’re right that 99% of people will just pick the cheaper phone over the privacy-focused one if all else is equal. Look how many people willingly give their phone number to grocery stores in return for a slight discount.
  - 0xffff2 8y ago
    >Look how many people willingly give their phone number to grocery stores in return for a slight discount. If you're paying with a credit card, giving them your phone number in addition to your CC# doesn't make any difference at all. It doesn't even have to be your phone number, pretty much any 10 digit number will do.
gaius 8y ago
billions of people would not have smartphones. But what’s the downside?
- Kaveren 8y ago
  It seems like a privileged position to argue that there's no downside to people having smartphones. Many people are unable to regularly access decent laptops or desktops. Internet access is essential. The Internet lets you communicate with friends and family, access a massive trove of knowledge quickly (freeing up education), discuss current events, and all manner of other things. Even personally as a well to do American, have saved many, many thousands of dollars by acquiring learning resources online.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    Hello FOMO. I grew up in a world where I had to pay by the minute to access the internet or use a phone. I did not have access to a computer 24/7. Not having/using/carrying a smartphone is a conscious decision one can make with positive and negative aspects. Bruce Schneier points that out in his book Data and Goliath.
    - Kaveren 8y ago
      Not having a smartphone is much easier to do when you have regular access to a decent laptop or desktop. Many people in developing countries do not. There is nothing "FOMO" about Internet access, it is extremely important. The world changed a lot from where we were 30 years ago. The advantages of having a computer you can bring with you (be that a laptop, tablet, or phone) are enormous. This is why I consider implying that billions of people having smartphones is a bad thing to be an extremely privileged position to take.
      - Fnoord 8y ago
        Internet access is important, but not a panacea without any disadvantages. Furthermore, a smartphone assumes a device with GSM and data while an other device with on-demand WLAN (such as a cheap tablet) might suffice. TL;DR if you mean computers and internet access instead of smartphones, use the correct terminology.
mr_toad 8y ago
Very little of the cost of an iPhone is to make up for lost advertising revenue. If you spread all the revenue of Facebook & Google over every android device it still wouldn’t come close to the difference in price. Apple could make much cheaper devices, but they’d just end up cannibalising the sales of their high end phones.

by zaidf 8y ago

Matt3o12_ 8y ago

But I can’t help but wonder why there isn’t an alternative. Maybe a phone that is a bit more expensive then an equivalent android. It doesn’t need to have the hardware quality of iPhones or high end android phones but also has good, secure and privacy focused software developed by some company that doesn’t make most of their revenue from advertising. But I suppose there isn’t a market for that. A majority of users would pick the phone that is only 289 instead of 319 Even if that means selling their data. And the few users that do care are willing to pay the premium for an iPhone. Considering that manufacturing a phone is expensive unless they can mass produce it in quantities such as Samsung and apple, there won’t be a company to make such a phone soon because it would be just as expensive as an iPhone with a lot less features. And of course the Most important feature of any smartphone are apps and any new platform wouldn’t have any apps. Developer won’t develop for them unless there are enough users and there won’t be enough users unless there are apps. You could probably use googles play services and emulate android but as far as I know there isn’t a way to get around google’s push notifications without compromising the users privacy (which would defeat the purpose). Besides that would be expensive to make and gooogle might not license it at all because there is little in it for them.

umanwizard 8y ago
You’re right that 99% of people will just pick the cheaper phone over the privacy-focused one if all else is equal. Look how many people willingly give their phone number to grocery stores in return for a slight discount.
- 0xffff2 8y ago
  >Look how many people willingly give their phone number to grocery stores in return for a slight discount. If you're paying with a credit card, giving them your phone number in addition to your CC# doesn't make any difference at all. It doesn't even have to be your phone number, pretty much any 10 digit number will do.

gaius 8y ago

billions of people would not have smartphones. But what’s the downside?

Kaveren 8y ago
It seems like a privileged position to argue that there's no downside to people having smartphones. Many people are unable to regularly access decent laptops or desktops. Internet access is essential. The Internet lets you communicate with friends and family, access a massive trove of knowledge quickly (freeing up education), discuss current events, and all manner of other things. Even personally as a well to do American, have saved many, many thousands of dollars by acquiring learning resources online.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  Hello FOMO. I grew up in a world where I had to pay by the minute to access the internet or use a phone. I did not have access to a computer 24/7. Not having/using/carrying a smartphone is a conscious decision one can make with positive and negative aspects. Bruce Schneier points that out in his book Data and Goliath.
  - Kaveren 8y ago
    Not having a smartphone is much easier to do when you have regular access to a decent laptop or desktop. Many people in developing countries do not. There is nothing "FOMO" about Internet access, it is extremely important. The world changed a lot from where we were 30 years ago. The advantages of having a computer you can bring with you (be that a laptop, tablet, or phone) are enormous. This is why I consider implying that billions of people having smartphones is a bad thing to be an extremely privileged position to take.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      Internet access is important, but not a panacea without any disadvantages. Furthermore, a smartphone assumes a device with GSM and data while an other device with on-demand WLAN (such as a cheap tablet) might suffice. TL;DR if you mean computers and internet access instead of smartphones, use the correct terminology.

mr_toad 8y ago

Very little of the cost of an iPhone is to make up for lost advertising revenue. If you spread all the revenue of Facebook & Google over every android device it still wouldn’t come close to the difference in price. Apple could make much cheaper devices, but they’d just end up cannibalising the sales of their high end phones.