3 ms·

Google/Apple should be regulated and forced to drop their anticompetitive clauses concerning third-party payment systems. They should also forced to fully allo

Google/Apple should be regulated and forced to drop their anticompetitive clauses concerning third-party payment systems. They should also forced to fully allow third-party apps installation, including independent push notification services. Currently, both Android and iOS severely restrict background app running, and developers are forced to depend on push notifications services provided by google and apple. This effectively locks in users, who can't empoy full capabilities of the device if they do not use Google/Apple services.

aaronharnly 6y ago
I appreciate that perspective. As a user of a phone with various apps, I also appreciate those restrictions, which make my experience less of a jungle of different payment plans and questionable battery-sucking activities.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Ideal solution is giving YOU, the User, decide, which apps to run. All you need to make the decision is the data which app consumes how much energy. If I need a processor-intensive app to do some computations all the time, I should be allowed to run it, with full understanding that the device will need to recharge in 3 hours. It's my device, my battery, my use case.
  - MiddleEndian 6y ago
    Android is very opaque about what is actually running. I was walking by a shopping area with a new phone recently and Google Maps popped up with some irrelevant notification. But upon viewing running apps, Maps was not in that list, so there's basically an unknown number of useless background tasks running that the user cannot view or control. As a whole, Android is pretty terrible. You can't run the things you want and you can't stop the things you don't.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      That's why efforts should be directed towards improving this aspect of Android, not removing entirely user's capabilities to manage his own device.
      - MiddleEndian 6y ago
        We are 100% in agreement. But I don't think the Android team agrees with us unfortunately.
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        Google's best interest is to vendor lock users on it's plstform and retain the maximum amount of control over Android. They won't give it up voluntarily, that's why I used the word 'forced' in my first post in this thread: now it can happen only after a binding legislation, and, possibly, breaking up Alphabet.
xyzzyz 6y ago
> Currently, both Android and iOS severely restrict background app running, I love that as a user. Android used to not do that, and apps in background would just kill the battery in a few hours.
- matwood 6y ago
  Agree. I think this black and white view of free for all good, App Store bad is not productive. The App Store model does bring a lot of benefits to both the end user and developer. There are also tradeoffs of course.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Tradeoffs is that you can't use the device you supposedly own to run the apps you need. You can't use Signal or Telegram in countries like China. Some people are fine with that. I guess, some slaves do love their chains, they are so shiny!
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  You missed the critical part of my message: the only way to wake app in the background is via push notifications, currently fully controlled by Apple / Google on their respective platform. The User should be able to use an alternative source of push notifications. You will think differently when Apple/Google will remove the app you need from AppStore, because your government told them so, and you'll be out in the cold, with no backup and a useless device, which you paid for, but you don't really own, using only those apps which you are allowed to run. But your lack of imagination does not allow you to foresee that before it happens.
  - dTal 6y ago
    This is a good rebuttal to the notion I've heard that Android "itself" is a fully free OS, and that Google services on top constitute a completely distinct and optional set of software; the OS is designed to be unfit for purpose without the "optional" closed source layer.
- 6y ago

aaronharnly 6y ago

I appreciate that perspective. As a user of a phone with various apps, I also appreciate those restrictions, which make my experience less of a jungle of different payment plans and questionable battery-sucking activities.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Ideal solution is giving YOU, the User, decide, which apps to run. All you need to make the decision is the data which app consumes how much energy. If I need a processor-intensive app to do some computations all the time, I should be allowed to run it, with full understanding that the device will need to recharge in 3 hours. It's my device, my battery, my use case.
- MiddleEndian 6y ago
  Android is very opaque about what is actually running. I was walking by a shopping area with a new phone recently and Google Maps popped up with some irrelevant notification. But upon viewing running apps, Maps was not in that list, so there's basically an unknown number of useless background tasks running that the user cannot view or control. As a whole, Android is pretty terrible. You can't run the things you want and you can't stop the things you don't.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    That's why efforts should be directed towards improving this aspect of Android, not removing entirely user's capabilities to manage his own device.
    - MiddleEndian 6y ago
      We are 100% in agreement. But I don't think the Android team agrees with us unfortunately.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        Google's best interest is to vendor lock users on it's plstform and retain the maximum amount of control over Android. They won't give it up voluntarily, that's why I used the word 'forced' in my first post in this thread: now it can happen only after a binding legislation, and, possibly, breaking up Alphabet.

xyzzyz 6y ago

> Currently, both Android and iOS severely restrict background app running, I love that as a user. Android used to not do that, and apps in background would just kill the battery in a few hours.

matwood 6y ago
Agree. I think this black and white view of free for all good, App Store bad is not productive. The App Store model does bring a lot of benefits to both the end user and developer. There are also tradeoffs of course.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Tradeoffs is that you can't use the device you supposedly own to run the apps you need. You can't use Signal or Telegram in countries like China. Some people are fine with that. I guess, some slaves do love their chains, they are so shiny!
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
You missed the critical part of my message: the only way to wake app in the background is via push notifications, currently fully controlled by Apple / Google on their respective platform. The User should be able to use an alternative source of push notifications. You will think differently when Apple/Google will remove the app you need from AppStore, because your government told them so, and you'll be out in the cold, with no backup and a useless device, which you paid for, but you don't really own, using only those apps which you are allowed to run. But your lack of imagination does not allow you to foresee that before it happens.
- dTal 6y ago
  This is a good rebuttal to the notion I've heard that Android "itself" is a fully free OS, and that Google services on top constitute a completely distinct and optional set of software; the OS is designed to be unfit for purpose without the "optional" closed source layer.
6y ago