4 ms·

I'm a bit torn on this - for a long while, I saw Google as trying to promote "the right way" of doing things, and only getting frustrated and doing it themselve

I'm a bit torn on this - for a long while, I saw Google as trying to promote "the right way" of doing things, and only getting frustrated and doing it themselves after handset manufacturers and cell providers kept doing it wrong. I mean, was the original Nexus anything other than "look everyone, this is how it SHOULD be done, but we have no interest in actually being the ones to do it"? That doesn't deny that Google has done a lot I'm not comfy with - but I feel like had these other players done the right thing and not refused to update OSes, if they had embraced open APIs, then Google wouldn't even have been tempted to do some of the particular evils the article discusses.

contingencies 8y ago
My CEO in the mobile video space explained the rise of smartphones to me very simply: economically, it was about transferring ownership of the customer from the carrier to the device manufacturer. Apple doubled down and broke the established mold by demanding ownership if carriers wanted their devices. Google whose entire house of cards is based on the web advertising model, had to respond. They responded by providing a near-enough software stack they could "open source" to create enough noise and lower-cost competition in the market to ensure Apple was not able to dominate. They did this well. But do not mistake their motivation: it was dollars all the way.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  This is so true. Even on iPhone. I was recently traveling abroad and lost my debit card so I cancelled it. I had a credit card for the remainder of my travels but I wanted to wait to replace my iTunes/App Store payment with my new debit card number instead of my credit card. Well when Apple tried to run my disabled debit card for my monthly fees (Apple Music, extra iCloud storage space, etc.) the card didn't work and the app store was basically bricked on my phone until I updated my payment method. I couldn't even download the free updates to the free apps on my phone until Apple got their $8 from me. I'm generally a big fan of Apple and I think they usually try to do right by customers but it's appalling that a company is able to hold such an important personal device hostage without any warning over an insignificant infraction.
  - nipponese 8y ago
    Not sure I see the problem, you can still access everything you've paid for to date, I think it's fair. If you were to leave stuff with a storage company and let payment lapse, they would hold it as collateral until you paid.
    - adventured 8y ago
      The problem I see with it, is the parent is claiming their app store access was entirely bricked. The physical storage company holds your stuff - and eventually liquidates it - because you're paying to rent that space and your stuff is inside of their physical property. You aren't paying monthly rent to access the app store when you buy an iPhone, that's supposedly free to access (the parent mentions not being able to even update free apps). Apple bricking access to the app store changes that equation, they're proclaiming by doing that that the app store isn't always free to access as a baseline. Apple is certainly within their rights to go that direction as a business. However, I'm certain that's a very different value proposition than what nearly all iPhone buyers think they're getting when they buy their very expensive phone (ie they expect free, unencumbered access to the app store as a minimum offering whether they buy any other Apple services or not).
      - walterbell 8y ago
        Is it possible to use the iOS app store without ever entering a credit card, i.e. only using free apps?
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      > If you were to leave stuff with a storage company and let payment lapse, they would hold it as collateral until you paid. You're right, it's a legal lien, but with absolutely none of the consumer protections we would require of any other business. Using your storage company example, they can't just arbitrarily hold someone's possessions hostage the second they don't pay. There's a legal process that must be followed to place a lien against someone else's property. The storage company can't do anything until a payment is at least 15 days late. They also have to send a written notice to the customer of their intent to place a lien (in the form of locking the customer out) against the property and notify the customer of the exact date the lien will go into effect. The effective date has to be at least two weeks out from the date of the written notice to the customer. Would we allow an automobile financing company to repossess a car the day after a missed payment? What about a mortgage company foreclosing on a house? Of course not. But Apple can ostensibly cut off someone's app store access, and their access to free apps and updates to applications they already have a license to use, instantly and without prior notice. Not even the government has that kind of unchecked power over an individual's personal property.
- readams 8y ago
  They really did it to prevent Microsoft from doing this. Apple just ended up being the real threat. Another company with the ability to lock down access to the web and Google was (and is) an existential threat to Google.
yellowbuilding 8y ago
What exactly do you mean by “the right thing”?
tokyodude 8y ago
the most random thing ticked me from Google good toward Google evil yesterday when I discovered an Android app can choose whether or not youre allowed to take a screenshot. (I'm normally iOS but have a Pixel 2 for testing) Apps imo should not have that control. It's my phone. I should be able to capture what I want. I shouldn't need to get out another device to take a picture of a bug or record a transaction for safe keeping. That Google chose that solution struck me as heading down a Black mirror like path. I can imagine it won't be long before AI will decide if you can even take a picture of something. Someday we'll augment our eyes and they'll decide what we're allowed to see. In their defense apparently they were trying to prevent background apps from spying on your screen. They just chose the wrong solution IMO. A solution I think will end up having far reaching consequences as a precedent of control.
- fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
  I agree, but this battle has already basically lost because of DRM requirements for streaming video: I don't think you can take a screenshot of a Netflix or Amazon Prime video on any platform.
  - hackerbrother 8y ago
    I don't think it's too hard on Windows...
    - fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
      Hmm, my impression is that they will only play video if you have a secure connection from the graphics card to the screen. So, unless you have access to a HDCP stripper, I don’t think there’s any way to tap the video stream.
      - krageon 8y ago
        This is wrong. It's perfectly possible to screenshot your netflix stream.
      - 8y ago

contingencies 8y ago

My CEO in the mobile video space explained the rise of smartphones to me very simply: economically, it was about transferring ownership of the customer from the carrier to the device manufacturer. Apple doubled down and broke the established mold by demanding ownership if carriers wanted their devices. Google whose entire house of cards is based on the web advertising model, had to respond. They responded by providing a near-enough software stack they could "open source" to create enough noise and lower-cost competition in the market to ensure Apple was not able to dominate. They did this well. But do not mistake their motivation: it was dollars all the way.

elliekelly 8y ago
This is so true. Even on iPhone. I was recently traveling abroad and lost my debit card so I cancelled it. I had a credit card for the remainder of my travels but I wanted to wait to replace my iTunes/App Store payment with my new debit card number instead of my credit card. Well when Apple tried to run my disabled debit card for my monthly fees (Apple Music, extra iCloud storage space, etc.) the card didn't work and the app store was basically bricked on my phone until I updated my payment method. I couldn't even download the free updates to the free apps on my phone until Apple got their $8 from me. I'm generally a big fan of Apple and I think they usually try to do right by customers but it's appalling that a company is able to hold such an important personal device hostage without any warning over an insignificant infraction.
- nipponese 8y ago
  Not sure I see the problem, you can still access everything you've paid for to date, I think it's fair. If you were to leave stuff with a storage company and let payment lapse, they would hold it as collateral until you paid.
  - adventured 8y ago
    The problem I see with it, is the parent is claiming their app store access was entirely bricked. The physical storage company holds your stuff - and eventually liquidates it - because you're paying to rent that space and your stuff is inside of their physical property. You aren't paying monthly rent to access the app store when you buy an iPhone, that's supposedly free to access (the parent mentions not being able to even update free apps). Apple bricking access to the app store changes that equation, they're proclaiming by doing that that the app store isn't always free to access as a baseline. Apple is certainly within their rights to go that direction as a business. However, I'm certain that's a very different value proposition than what nearly all iPhone buyers think they're getting when they buy their very expensive phone (ie they expect free, unencumbered access to the app store as a minimum offering whether they buy any other Apple services or not).
    - walterbell 8y ago
      Is it possible to use the iOS app store without ever entering a credit card, i.e. only using free apps?
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    > If you were to leave stuff with a storage company and let payment lapse, they would hold it as collateral until you paid. You're right, it's a legal lien, but with absolutely none of the consumer protections we would require of any other business. Using your storage company example, they can't just arbitrarily hold someone's possessions hostage the second they don't pay. There's a legal process that must be followed to place a lien against someone else's property. The storage company can't do anything until a payment is at least 15 days late. They also have to send a written notice to the customer of their intent to place a lien (in the form of locking the customer out) against the property and notify the customer of the exact date the lien will go into effect. The effective date has to be at least two weeks out from the date of the written notice to the customer. Would we allow an automobile financing company to repossess a car the day after a missed payment? What about a mortgage company foreclosing on a house? Of course not. But Apple can ostensibly cut off someone's app store access, and their access to free apps and updates to applications they already have a license to use, instantly and without prior notice. Not even the government has that kind of unchecked power over an individual's personal property.
readams 8y ago
They really did it to prevent Microsoft from doing this. Apple just ended up being the real threat. Another company with the ability to lock down access to the web and Google was (and is) an existential threat to Google.

yellowbuilding 8y ago

What exactly do you mean by “the right thing”?

tokyodude 8y ago

the most random thing ticked me from Google good toward Google evil yesterday when I discovered an Android app can choose whether or not youre allowed to take a screenshot. (I'm normally iOS but have a Pixel 2 for testing) Apps imo should not have that control. It's my phone. I should be able to capture what I want. I shouldn't need to get out another device to take a picture of a bug or record a transaction for safe keeping. That Google chose that solution struck me as heading down a Black mirror like path. I can imagine it won't be long before AI will decide if you can even take a picture of something. Someday we'll augment our eyes and they'll decide what we're allowed to see. In their defense apparently they were trying to prevent background apps from spying on your screen. They just chose the wrong solution IMO. A solution I think will end up having far reaching consequences as a precedent of control.

fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
I agree, but this battle has already basically lost because of DRM requirements for streaming video: I don't think you can take a screenshot of a Netflix or Amazon Prime video on any platform.
- hackerbrother 8y ago
  I don't think it's too hard on Windows...
  - fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
    Hmm, my impression is that they will only play video if you have a secure connection from the graphics card to the screen. So, unless you have access to a HDCP stripper, I don’t think there’s any way to tap the video stream.
    - krageon 8y ago
      This is wrong. It's perfectly possible to screenshot your netflix stream.
    - 8y ago