25 ms·

You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple? While I agree that Google has market-dominance, they are not anti-competition or

You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple? While I agree that Google has market-dominance, they are not anti-competition or anti-consumer in the same sense as Apple. Android is open source, Chrome OS is open source, etc. Google is actually providing and contributing something back to the community. Apple intentionally locks people to specific hardware and to their app store.

hugi 6y ago
Google is an ad company. I do not understand why people would choose to use an operating system created by an ad company, designed to harvest their personal information. I'm happy to use an iPhone, knowing my personal information is safe and it reduces my chances of being Harvested by Google.
- sneak 6y ago
  The iPhone and iPad transmit their fixed and unchangeable hardware serial number to Apple every time you open the App Store, like a permanent supercookie. Apple has just as much reason to harvest your personal information and track you in their App Store as anyone else.
- diogenesjunior 6y ago
  >I'm happy to use an iPhone, knowing my personal information is safe and it reduces my chances of being Harvested by Google LOL. Instead of bowing down to one master, you chose to bow down to the other?
  - hugi 6y ago
    I choose to spend my money on devices from a company that's explicitly and repeatedly stated that their mission is privacy. But if you choose to buy phones from ad companies, it's your decision.
    - harry8 6y ago
      They'll flip the nanosecond it suits them. Their commitment isn't valuable or enforceable or anything other than a dodgy sales pitch. Really. They can encode it in contact in a second and choose not to.
      - hu3 6y ago
        > They'll flip the nanosecond it suits them. Like when Apple dropped end-to-end encryption on iCloud because FBI asked them politely. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
        meepmorp 6y ago
        https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-fbi-and-iphone-backup-encryption-everything-you-wanted-to-know/ https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-fbi-and-iphone-back...
        hu3 6y ago
        "The encryption keys are stored at Apple’ own servers" Thanks for confirming that there's no privacy in iCloud.
        meepmorp 6y ago
        You should actually read the article, perhaps after first setting down the axe you're grinding. The details are interesting, and they discuss the Reuters piece you linked to.
        hu3 6y ago
        I did read the article. It nitpicks on Reuters article but the point still stands. Apple has the keys to iCloud backups. There's no axe to grind because the lack of end-to-end encryption is a fact. Your own link states that. Nitpicking Reuters won't change that. I don't understand this mentality of religiously defending something that's clearly wrong. It will only make the platform you use worse. By the way you should read HN guidelines. Don't comment whether someone read an article. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  You may feel you're safer, but there is no proof that Apple implements better privacy practices than Google. There are a lot of different vendors that provide Android without Google services and you can also unlock your bootloader and install a custom ROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib... Last, Google allows you to disable their activity history and other options that may be concerning from your Google Account. Apple has very few options to limit your amount of data sharing.
  - fnord77 6y ago
    there is proof - recently researchers showed google phones send an order of magnitude more data to the mothership than Apple does. Of course that's at this point in time. Tomorrow Apple could turn around and be worse.
    - NorwegianDude 6y ago
      Are you referring to this one that says Apple is collecting more personal details, but is communicating less than Google? "Android sends 20x more data.."? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/android-sends-20x-more-data-to-google-than-ios-sends-to-apple-study-says/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/android-sends-20x-mo... Take it with a huge grain of salt, but also note that Apple sends more personal data to themself than Google according to that article. Not in the amount of bytes, but in they amount of different data send, according to the article. I think most people would agree that fewer personal details being shared is more important than the amount of data used to communicate. So in that regard Apple is worse. All in all, I think this whole discussion is pointless. Both are collecting as much as they can get away with and both suck when it comes to privacy.
- paxys 6y ago
  It is possible for a company to do multiple things, sometimes even conflicting with each other. Google is an ad company, and a hardware/smartphone company, and an enterprise collaboration company, and a cloud hosting company, and lots more. Similarly Apple is a hardware company which is getting more and more of its revenue from digital sales, subscriptions and even advertising every year. They can and do track their users exactly like Google. It is naive to think that any company at that scale has your best interests at heart. They will do whatever it takes to make more money, period.
  - hugi 6y ago
    > It is naive to think that any company at that scale has your best interests at heart. They will do whatever it takes to make more money, period. Exactly. And Apple makes money of privacy. It's their thing. Google's business model is based on abusing my privacy. Apple's business model is based on securing my privacy. That's why I use Apple stuff and won't touch Google with a 10 feet pole.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Exactly. And Apple makes money of privacy. It's their thing. Apple makes money by (among other things) appealing to a certain set of privacy conscious consumers. That's different than "making money off of privacy".
      - hugi 6y ago
        How so?
      - colinmhayes 6y ago
        only if you think consumers are idiots.
        encryptluks2 6y ago
        I thought by making the argument that users shouldn't be allowed to install apps themselves you were making that insinuation and that people supporting Apple's anti-competitive behavior are willfully ignorant.
- fnord77 6y ago
  I have a couple of friends who worked at google. they're always baffled why I would want to block trackers and data harvesters. And I'm baffled why they're baffled. Is the koolaid that strong and that permanent there?
  - rleigh 6y ago
    Yes, it is. I went to interview at Google (a few years back now). Frankly, I was disturbed at the cult-like behaviour and attitudes of the majority of the employees I interacted with. For most of them, it was clearly their first job out of college, and they had no prior experience of working for a large corporate, or any objective perspective about what they were doing, or why. One hopes they will gain a little more maturity along the way, since such people are going to be exploited by their corporate masters without them even realising it.
    - fnord77 6y ago
      "why wouldn't you want your ads personalized?" - that came out of a xoogler's mouth.
- TheDong 6y ago
  It's not quite so black and white as that. It's possible to run open source android phones (including without google play services) which protect your privacy pretty well. As part of android allowing more consumer control, there's a larger culture of open source apps, so you can get further with fdroid. Open source apps are usually pretty unlikely to compromise your privacy and harvest data. On iPhones, it's true that the phone itself doesn't track you as much, but there's other downsides. You're unable to use firefox+ublock origin, so far more websites on iPhone will track you. There are fewer open source apps, so it's quite plausible you get tracked by more apps individually. There's no ability to uninstall default services whatsoever, again unlike android. I think for the default user who doesn't make an effort to search out privacy-preserving software, an iPhone will probably harvest less data. However, for someone who knows how to run LineageOS, install ublock on firefox, and install apps from fdroid, I think you can get a phone that harvests less of your data with android. I also think that there are enough distinct data-points on each side of this argument that it's difficult to claim either is better with certainty.
- imperio59 6y ago
  Apple runs its own Ad network for app advertisements. They conveniently do not need to deal with iOS 14 requirements when it comes to using their users' data to target ads and track app installs in their own network. Can you say monopoly power?
- sfifs 6y ago
  If you're like the majority of people on HN, you're likely (relatively) "rich" - perhaps in top 5-10 percentile of income globally. The other 90% use Androids. They could use "second-hand" iPhones - but those don't work quite as well and stay compatible with the latest apps whereas the latest cheap Androids do.
- 8note 6y ago
  How do you know that apple isn't using your information to sell you things? They sell plenty of things, including these apps
- fogihujy 6y ago
  I'd love to buy an iPhone that is waterproof, has decent battery life, durable screen (that part apparently has gotten better recently, though), can run Firefox (the actual one with proper ad-blocking options) and is generally made to withstand punishment from being used in the field. Until such a beast is released, I'll stick with my (admittedly) crappy and de-googlified Android phone; I simply can't afford to buy a new iPhone 3-4 times a year because they keep breaking.
- arvinsim 6y ago
  Please check your privilege. Not everyone can afford iPhones even if they want to buy one.
- marticode 6y ago
  Your data on iPhone aren't safe from Apple though, a company that relies increasingly on selling subscription and content. As long as you use cloud-hosted service, you trust a company to store your data.
insert_coin 6y ago
> You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple? You can buy an Android Phone, and install whatever app store you want.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Elidrake24 6y ago
As a user of iOS, this is precisely why I go with Apple, and why I push my family to do the same. Particularly for the more elderly in my family, Apple's setup (by and large) prevents them from doing anything that would screw themselves over. Removing Apple's control removes my desire to be apart of that ecosystem, and I know that is true for many others outside our insular little community here.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I agree - Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements. I like Apple forcing use of in-app-payments, I like Apple giving me subscription control to make canceling easy. I like Apple blocking app tracking and forcing design constraints. That said, the 30% weakens their entire argument about this and is a racket. If they want to charge a yearly deployment fee or something fine, but 30% of a company's income via IAP? That's obnoxious and anti-competitive, particularly in cases like Spotify where they directly compete and undercut them in the same market. Apple is skimming a tax off the top and they're forcing everyone to pay the toll. It weakens their entire argument. I wish they would stop, because I think a world with multiple stores and such would be a huge pain and customers would suffer because of it. If you think it's a pain to have 15 streaming services or 10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives - it'd be that on the phone.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - echelon 6y ago
    > Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements. I don't understand this argument at all. You're almost certainly taking more risk driving in a car than downloading an app, yet you're probably willing to embrace the full degrees of freedom of the roadway. We shouldn't be afraid to use computers. Security is possible without an app store. Apologizing for Apple's exploitive system is doing us all a disservice. It's making it harder to do business, launch a startup, use your own device, refurbish your device, and compute freely. Technology wasn't always a locked-in time share. We're witnessing a hostile takeover. An invented scam, sold to us by the Jobs and Ballmers of the world. The Apple and Google stores make us serfs in their kingdoms. We're renting, not owning. Your choices are impinging upon my freedoms. The more people that accept this, the more companies are willing to take. A Department of Justice breakup is looking like the only solution at this point.
tracer4201 6y ago
I specifically buy Apple products because I trust their App Store. I trust Apple with my information. I’m counting on these guys to get out software I download from the App Store. And I trust them to protect my privacy, better than anyone else. You’re calling them anti consumer. But that’s wrong. This is why I give them my business, and if they bowed to pressure so people can execute whatever software on my device, I’d exit the Apple ecosystem and buy a $300 phone instead of a $1000 phone. It’s actually that simple. Edit: Sitting at -2 votes because people don’t approve of my consumer habits. Censor people you don’t agree with instead of having an actual response. Okay.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  I seek this asinine take everywhere around here. Opening these platforms doesn't kill them, it forces them to compete.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    It is not asinine just because you disagree. They already are competing. There is Android, and there is iOS. Apple certainly could be hemmed in on clear areas of conflict like Spotify. Opening the platform is not traditional antitrust because consumers like it this way - it’s more about charity for the competition.
    - twitch-chat 6y ago
      By consumers do you mean the loud but very small minority that defend Apple in comment sections of online articles? Because if you ask me, my guess is that the average Apple consumer couldn't care less if the platform is opened up or not.
      - parasubvert 6y ago
        By consumers I mean the people that vote with their wallets by buying iOS devices. If it helps you sleep at night, keep thinking it’s a very small minority. It’s really not.
madeofpalk 6y ago
Let’s not pretend they do these things as charity. Chrome is open source because, as a fork of WebKit, it has to be. For other things, they use open source to drive adoption.
- ajayyy 6y ago
  This is not true, webkit is BSD license. If that were true, then Edge, Opera, etc. would also be open-source.
  - josefx 6y ago
    Going by the wiki entry only Apples additions are BSD the original project is LGPLv2.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  Chrome is not open source.
  - Gaelan 6y ago
    Sure, but Chromium, which is ~identical, is.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  This kind of logic is so annoying. If it's so easy / good for profit / advantageous / smart business, then why doesn't Apple do it? The whole "they only do X for profit" is such a lazy argument, because it can be used to argue any side of the argument if you try hard enough.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    idk, Apple does have open source? Swift is *incredibly* open, but probably a outlier for Apple. It's operating systems aren'tt, but kernal is (right?). None of these companies are open sourcing their core competencies. Google Search isn't open source.
wluu 6y ago
There's AltStore, but it's obviously not as straightforward as the Apple one. https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/ Came across it while following the development and distribution of iSH (https://ish.app/ https://ish.app/), which has now made it into the main app store. Prior to publishing to AltStore, iSH was only available on Test Flight, which has a limitation on the number of users who can join (10,000). So they'd periodically have to kick inactive users off the TestFlight so others could try it.
- camhart 6y ago
  AltStore requires a software developer to set it up and use it. Not anywhere close for non-tech people, let alone elderly.
  - wluu 6y ago
    Yeah, I said it's not straightforward.
bern4444 6y ago
I view this in a different light. We have two options for platforms, one for each idea. One idea being a platform that allows for third party app stores (android) and another platform that does not (apple). We already have a choice, between these ideas, some prefer one over the other. I personally prefer the platform that is better integrated, designed, and backed by the company already making the hardware and software. If I have an issue, I know who to go to. If the other option were more obviously beneficial, why haven't alternative App Stores on Android succeeded yet? What's holding the maintainers of those alternative stores back from growth? Maybe the answer in this case is that it really is just better (in a relativistic way) for the majority of people to interact with the same entity producing the rest of their phone's core software and perhaps even easier for developers to not have to contend with varying rules and policies across multiple App Store platforms.
- thefourthchime 6y ago
  I think it’s a bit of a false argument. The walls to entry are high. Thanks think if users had to enable “unsafe” apps on the App Store than that would be fair. The whole “Benefit” from these walled gardens was that they would have some validation. In reality their walls are revenue funnels.
bogwog 6y ago
This is a bad take. Google is just as guilty of anti-competitive behavior as Apple. Sure, a third party store can exist in the Android ecosystem, but what are the chances that it can be commercially viable? It's practically impossible. * Google shows countless scary warning dialogs to users who even think about installing a third party store. Any competitor trying to run an alternative store needs to somehow educate potential consumers on the process of enabling "unknown sources", and convincing them that doing so won't actually kill you (translates directly into higher business expenses, and is probably an impossible obstacle to overcome to reach the majority of consumers) * Google regularly monitors apps installed outside of the Play store with their "Play Protect" thing, which is an opt-in virus scanner, except not really. When you install an APK, they ask you for permission to enable Play Protect. If you decline, they'll just keep asking you again and again until you accept either by accident, or do it so they stop annoying you. Through Play Protect, Google is able to arbitrarily block any app they consider to be "potentially harmful". Consider that they regularly ban apps by accident on the Play Store using their broken AI, and that those registered developers struggle to get those erroneous bans reversed. I'd imagine getting a ban from Play Protect reversed is nearly impossible. * Google has a full time hit squad of penetration testers called "Project Zero" which goes around checking competitors for vulnerabilities so they can make big scary press releases about how unsafe the competition is (even though Google Play itself is riddled with malware). And also, this isn't related to the anti-competitive stuff, but I feel compelled to point it out: > Android is open source Yes, Android is open source. The operating system on your Android phone is not open source. Pretty much the only people who benefit from Android being open source are: * Device manufacturers, who don't have to develop an OS to sell phones, and can install whatever they want on it, like spyware, ads, keyloggers, etc that can't be uninstalled by the user * Power users and mod developers who are fighting the good fight against that kind of thing (but are hopelessly outgunned) Saying that something is "open source" usually comes with the understanding that it's a good thing for users and freedom, except in this case it's not. Say what you will about Apple, but at least they're honest about what they are. Google is still stuck in that cognitive dissonance phase from when they first became 100% evil.
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  > Google shows countless scary warning dialogs to users who even think about installing a third party store. Any competitor trying to run an alternative store needs to somehow educate potential consumers on the process of enabling "unknown sources", and convincing them that doing so won't actually kill you (translates directly into higher business expenses, and is probably an impossible obstacle to overcome to reach the majority of consumers) It is a single setting/message about allowing you to install apps from unknown sources that you can grant for that specific app. You can enable/disable anytime. > Google regularly monitors apps installed outside of the Play store with their "Play Protect" thing, which is an opt-in virus scanner, except not really. When you install an APK, they ask you for permission to enable Play Protect. If you decline, they'll just keep asking you again and again until you accept either by accident, or do it so they stop annoying you. Through Play Protect, Google is able to arbitrarily block any app they consider to be "potentially harmful". Consider that they regularly ban apps by accident on the Play Store using their broken AI, and that those registered developers struggle to get those erroneous bans reversed. I'd imagine getting a ban from Play Protect reversed is nearly impossible. I have multiple apps installed from F-Droid and I have never got a single message from Play Protect warning me of anything. > Google has a full time hit squad of penetration testers called "Project Zero" which goes around checking competitors for vulnerabilities so they can make big scary press releases about how unsafe the competition is (even though Google Play itself is riddled with malware). I've never seen Project Zero act unethical or unprofessional to gain a market advantage. > Yes, Android is open source. The operating system on your Android phone is not open source. Depending on the phone you get. Many people specifically pick manufacturers that are more friendly to open source.
PostThisTooFast 6y ago
Come on. The Android "open-source" fraud has been exposed by a decade and a half of orphaned devices, as millions of users wait months, years, or forever for their telcos to dribble out hacked and essentially proprietary versions of Android for each device, ONE AT A TIME. And you continue to hear about people having to "root" their devices to do things. WTF. In the 2000s, Google managed to produce an OS without a proper hardware-abstraction layer or driver model, so users can't simply install updates as they come. Meanwhile, ancient Windows runs on millions of disparate hardware combinations without breaking the software running on top of it with every release. And even if you allow for different mobile CPUs, that's still only a few builds that should have been needed. Google should stick to what it does best: hiding from customers and behaving like douchebags.
yc12340 6y ago
> You can have third-party Android app stores. This is only half-true. Google allows users to install third-party stores. Because only handful of geeks do that. But if your competing app store gains enough adoption and you make deal with device vendors to preinstall it, the negotiations will mysteriously break down and the other party will grow quiet... Reportedly, because their (NDA-covered) contract with Google does not allow them to preinstall software from Google competitors. See also: Google fined in Russia for prohibiting vendors from installing Yandex applications on devices [1] But court decision apparently wasn't enough, so Yandex had to lobby the government to force smartphone vendors to preinstall their apps or get booted out of Russian market [2] 1: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million-settlement-in-its-android-antitrust-case-in-russia/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million... 2: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-technology-software-idUSKBN2BO4P2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-technology-softwar...
- ehsankia 6y ago
  How come this never happened to Amazon and Samsung app stores?
  - yc12340 6y ago
    Because the laws of corporate mob don't apply to everyone equally? There is a huge difference between treatment of different parties, even if the their contracts are same (and I doubt, that Samsung has the same contract with Google as everyone else). For example, do you know, that some Android devices aren't allowed to use a different launcher, other than supplied by Google? Or that Google Play Terms of Service prohibit publishing there alternative app stores? There are many such draconian restrictions in all Google's contracts. They are ignored until it is convenient for Google to enforce them. Back to your question, — neither Samsung nor Amazon are Google's competitors. Their app stores are garbage. Samsung was trying to jump off Android for years. And Amazon devices don't come with Google's software, so Google has no leverage against them (except YouTube).
0xDEEPFAC 6y ago
Open source has nothing to do with it when it is difficult / impossible / highly unlikely that anyone actually has a free device. What kind of developer would make something for an alternative app store which would be installable on 0.001% of devices? If anything they took more from the community in terms of the Linux kernel etc then they have given back with useful technology when it comes to phones.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
You can have third party app stores in Android, but you can't have third party push notifications. And without them there is no way to deliver data to your app without making it persistent, which is increasingly difficult with every new Android version
- fragileone 6y ago
  Not exactly. There is MQTT, Server Side Events, WebSockets, plus Gotify[1] which has been discussed on HN before. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19347848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19347848
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    And how are you going to deliver a message using any of these if the application on a mobile phone is terminated by an operating system? Check https://dontkillmyapp.com/ https://dontkillmyapp.com/ for more information.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Nor can alternative stores provide automatic background updates.
MINPOOL 6y ago
> You can have third-party Android app stores It's just completely unrealistic that a classic consumer will install any other app store on their device, they just use what is there and that's for the majority of Android phones the Play Store. If Google would truly be open for competition, they would let the consumer choose the app store, the search engine and everything else when they first turn on the device.
- marticode 6y ago
  Sure, but at least you have that option of installing what you want on the hardware you paid for. In contrast, Apple retain full control of the phone. You buy it, but you don't control it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
bongobingo 6y ago
Android has an 87% market share. I don’t really care what the minority players are up to.
joelthelion 6y ago
> Android is open source It is not. Android without the proprietary Google Play Services is utterly broken for non-technical end-users.
trapped 6y ago
It's HW made by private corporation with their own SW and they can insist rules to make sure HW and SW systems are not abused so that most of the users get better user experience. They (Apple) are doing this to protect their users. If you don't agree with it don't buy their HW. Can you install applications from third party providers on other app bases HW? such as Gaming (XBox, Playstation, Nintendo) Cars (Tesla, Benz, Nissan) Or in non SW/HW world can you force stores such as Walmart, HomeDepot, Macys, Nordstorm to sell goods from third party seller? And, even these stores charge fees for selling items made by other manufacturers. If you don't like ecosystems made by Google and Apple don't buy their HW/SW.
- osrec 6y ago
  Thanks for the advice. I don't agree with Apple, and don't buy their hardware or software. When I'm buying a general purpose computing device (which is what smartphones have become), I expect a significant degree of flexibility in how I can use it, and don't need the vendor to arbitrarily start placing limits on that flexibility to "protect" me. Especially when those limits happen to coincide with the financial goals of the vendor.
EricE 6y ago
If third-party app stores with Google's version of Android (you know, the one everyone wants that has all the Google applications - not the open source version that you can't legally load Google's stuff on) were on an equal footing than why is Epic suing them the same as they are suing Apple?
RealStickman_ 6y ago
Third party stores are extremely limited on Android. * Install dialog pops up every time you want to install an app * No automatic background updates These things can be changed with root, but you shouldn't have to root your device to gain this basic functionality.

hugi 6y ago

Google is an ad company. I do not understand why people would choose to use an operating system created by an ad company, designed to harvest their personal information. I'm happy to use an iPhone, knowing my personal information is safe and it reduces my chances of being Harvested by Google.

sneak 6y ago
The iPhone and iPad transmit their fixed and unchangeable hardware serial number to Apple every time you open the App Store, like a permanent supercookie. Apple has just as much reason to harvest your personal information and track you in their App Store as anyone else.
diogenesjunior 6y ago
>I'm happy to use an iPhone, knowing my personal information is safe and it reduces my chances of being Harvested by Google LOL. Instead of bowing down to one master, you chose to bow down to the other?
- hugi 6y ago
  I choose to spend my money on devices from a company that's explicitly and repeatedly stated that their mission is privacy. But if you choose to buy phones from ad companies, it's your decision.
  - harry8 6y ago
    They'll flip the nanosecond it suits them. Their commitment isn't valuable or enforceable or anything other than a dodgy sales pitch. Really. They can encode it in contact in a second and choose not to.
    - hu3 6y ago
      > They'll flip the nanosecond it suits them. Like when Apple dropped end-to-end encryption on iCloud because FBI asked them politely. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
      - meepmorp 6y ago
        https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-fbi-and-iphone-backup-encryption-everything-you-wanted-to-know/ https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-fbi-and-iphone-back...
        hu3 6y ago
        "The encryption keys are stored at Apple’ own servers" Thanks for confirming that there's no privacy in iCloud.
        meepmorp 6y ago
        You should actually read the article, perhaps after first setting down the axe you're grinding. The details are interesting, and they discuss the Reuters piece you linked to.
        hu3 6y ago
        I did read the article. It nitpicks on Reuters article but the point still stands. Apple has the keys to iCloud backups. There's no axe to grind because the lack of end-to-end encryption is a fact. Your own link states that. Nitpicking Reuters won't change that. I don't understand this mentality of religiously defending something that's clearly wrong. It will only make the platform you use worse. By the way you should read HN guidelines. Don't comment whether someone read an article. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
encryptluks2 6y ago
You may feel you're safer, but there is no proof that Apple implements better privacy practices than Google. There are a lot of different vendors that provide Android without Google services and you can also unlock your bootloader and install a custom ROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib... Last, Google allows you to disable their activity history and other options that may be concerning from your Google Account. Apple has very few options to limit your amount of data sharing.
- fnord77 6y ago
  there is proof - recently researchers showed google phones send an order of magnitude more data to the mothership than Apple does. Of course that's at this point in time. Tomorrow Apple could turn around and be worse.
  - NorwegianDude 6y ago
    Are you referring to this one that says Apple is collecting more personal details, but is communicating less than Google? "Android sends 20x more data.."? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/android-sends-20x-more-data-to-google-than-ios-sends-to-apple-study-says/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/android-sends-20x-mo... Take it with a huge grain of salt, but also note that Apple sends more personal data to themself than Google according to that article. Not in the amount of bytes, but in they amount of different data send, according to the article. I think most people would agree that fewer personal details being shared is more important than the amount of data used to communicate. So in that regard Apple is worse. All in all, I think this whole discussion is pointless. Both are collecting as much as they can get away with and both suck when it comes to privacy.
paxys 6y ago
It is possible for a company to do multiple things, sometimes even conflicting with each other. Google is an ad company, and a hardware/smartphone company, and an enterprise collaboration company, and a cloud hosting company, and lots more. Similarly Apple is a hardware company which is getting more and more of its revenue from digital sales, subscriptions and even advertising every year. They can and do track their users exactly like Google. It is naive to think that any company at that scale has your best interests at heart. They will do whatever it takes to make more money, period.
- hugi 6y ago
  > It is naive to think that any company at that scale has your best interests at heart. They will do whatever it takes to make more money, period. Exactly. And Apple makes money of privacy. It's their thing. Google's business model is based on abusing my privacy. Apple's business model is based on securing my privacy. That's why I use Apple stuff and won't touch Google with a 10 feet pole.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Exactly. And Apple makes money of privacy. It's their thing. Apple makes money by (among other things) appealing to a certain set of privacy conscious consumers. That's different than "making money off of privacy".
    - hugi 6y ago
      How so?
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      only if you think consumers are idiots.
      - encryptluks2 6y ago
        I thought by making the argument that users shouldn't be allowed to install apps themselves you were making that insinuation and that people supporting Apple's anti-competitive behavior are willfully ignorant.
fnord77 6y ago
I have a couple of friends who worked at google. they're always baffled why I would want to block trackers and data harvesters. And I'm baffled why they're baffled. Is the koolaid that strong and that permanent there?
- rleigh 6y ago
  Yes, it is. I went to interview at Google (a few years back now). Frankly, I was disturbed at the cult-like behaviour and attitudes of the majority of the employees I interacted with. For most of them, it was clearly their first job out of college, and they had no prior experience of working for a large corporate, or any objective perspective about what they were doing, or why. One hopes they will gain a little more maturity along the way, since such people are going to be exploited by their corporate masters without them even realising it.
  - fnord77 6y ago
    "why wouldn't you want your ads personalized?" - that came out of a xoogler's mouth.
TheDong 6y ago
It's not quite so black and white as that. It's possible to run open source android phones (including without google play services) which protect your privacy pretty well. As part of android allowing more consumer control, there's a larger culture of open source apps, so you can get further with fdroid. Open source apps are usually pretty unlikely to compromise your privacy and harvest data. On iPhones, it's true that the phone itself doesn't track you as much, but there's other downsides. You're unable to use firefox+ublock origin, so far more websites on iPhone will track you. There are fewer open source apps, so it's quite plausible you get tracked by more apps individually. There's no ability to uninstall default services whatsoever, again unlike android. I think for the default user who doesn't make an effort to search out privacy-preserving software, an iPhone will probably harvest less data. However, for someone who knows how to run LineageOS, install ublock on firefox, and install apps from fdroid, I think you can get a phone that harvests less of your data with android. I also think that there are enough distinct data-points on each side of this argument that it's difficult to claim either is better with certainty.
imperio59 6y ago
Apple runs its own Ad network for app advertisements. They conveniently do not need to deal with iOS 14 requirements when it comes to using their users' data to target ads and track app installs in their own network. Can you say monopoly power?
sfifs 6y ago
If you're like the majority of people on HN, you're likely (relatively) "rich" - perhaps in top 5-10 percentile of income globally. The other 90% use Androids. They could use "second-hand" iPhones - but those don't work quite as well and stay compatible with the latest apps whereas the latest cheap Androids do.
8note 6y ago
How do you know that apple isn't using your information to sell you things? They sell plenty of things, including these apps
fogihujy 6y ago
I'd love to buy an iPhone that is waterproof, has decent battery life, durable screen (that part apparently has gotten better recently, though), can run Firefox (the actual one with proper ad-blocking options) and is generally made to withstand punishment from being used in the field. Until such a beast is released, I'll stick with my (admittedly) crappy and de-googlified Android phone; I simply can't afford to buy a new iPhone 3-4 times a year because they keep breaking.
arvinsim 6y ago
Please check your privilege. Not everyone can afford iPhones even if they want to buy one.
marticode 6y ago
Your data on iPhone aren't safe from Apple though, a company that relies increasingly on selling subscription and content. As long as you use cloud-hosted service, you trust a company to store your data.

insert_coin 6y ago

> You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple? You can buy an Android Phone, and install whatever app store you want.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Elidrake24 6y ago

As a user of iOS, this is precisely why I go with Apple, and why I push my family to do the same. Particularly for the more elderly in my family, Apple's setup (by and large) prevents them from doing anything that would screw themselves over. Removing Apple's control removes my desire to be apart of that ecosystem, and I know that is true for many others outside our insular little community here.

fossuser 6y ago
I agree - Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements. I like Apple forcing use of in-app-payments, I like Apple giving me subscription control to make canceling easy. I like Apple blocking app tracking and forcing design constraints. That said, the 30% weakens their entire argument about this and is a racket. If they want to charge a yearly deployment fee or something fine, but 30% of a company's income via IAP? That's obnoxious and anti-competitive, particularly in cases like Spotify where they directly compete and undercut them in the same market. Apple is skimming a tax off the top and they're forcing everyone to pay the toll. It weakens their entire argument. I wish they would stop, because I think a world with multiple stores and such would be a huge pain and customers would suffer because of it. If you think it's a pain to have 15 streaming services or 10 different game distributors all with their own shitty incentives - it'd be that on the phone.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- echelon 6y ago
  > Apple needs the control to have the leverage that makes their ecosystem better. It's in the interest of their customers for them to have this leverage and it requires that their 'store' is the only available store so app devs can't bypass their requirements. I don't understand this argument at all. You're almost certainly taking more risk driving in a car than downloading an app, yet you're probably willing to embrace the full degrees of freedom of the roadway. We shouldn't be afraid to use computers. Security is possible without an app store. Apologizing for Apple's exploitive system is doing us all a disservice. It's making it harder to do business, launch a startup, use your own device, refurbish your device, and compute freely. Technology wasn't always a locked-in time share. We're witnessing a hostile takeover. An invented scam, sold to us by the Jobs and Ballmers of the world. The Apple and Google stores make us serfs in their kingdoms. We're renting, not owning. Your choices are impinging upon my freedoms. The more people that accept this, the more companies are willing to take. A Department of Justice breakup is looking like the only solution at this point.

tracer4201 6y ago

I specifically buy Apple products because I trust their App Store. I trust Apple with my information. I’m counting on these guys to get out software I download from the App Store. And I trust them to protect my privacy, better than anyone else. You’re calling them anti consumer. But that’s wrong. This is why I give them my business, and if they bowed to pressure so people can execute whatever software on my device, I’d exit the Apple ecosystem and buy a $300 phone instead of a $1000 phone. It’s actually that simple. Edit: Sitting at -2 votes because people don’t approve of my consumer habits. Censor people you don’t agree with instead of having an actual response. Okay.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
I seek this asinine take everywhere around here. Opening these platforms doesn't kill them, it forces them to compete.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- parasubvert 6y ago
  It is not asinine just because you disagree. They already are competing. There is Android, and there is iOS. Apple certainly could be hemmed in on clear areas of conflict like Spotify. Opening the platform is not traditional antitrust because consumers like it this way - it’s more about charity for the competition.
  - twitch-chat 6y ago
    By consumers do you mean the loud but very small minority that defend Apple in comment sections of online articles? Because if you ask me, my guess is that the average Apple consumer couldn't care less if the platform is opened up or not.
    - parasubvert 6y ago
      By consumers I mean the people that vote with their wallets by buying iOS devices. If it helps you sleep at night, keep thinking it’s a very small minority. It’s really not.

madeofpalk 6y ago

Let’s not pretend they do these things as charity. Chrome is open source because, as a fork of WebKit, it has to be. For other things, they use open source to drive adoption.

ajayyy 6y ago
This is not true, webkit is BSD license. If that were true, then Edge, Opera, etc. would also be open-source.
- josefx 6y ago
  Going by the wiki entry only Apples additions are BSD the original project is LGPLv2.
ryukafalz 6y ago
Chrome is not open source.
- Gaelan 6y ago
  Sure, but Chromium, which is ~identical, is.
ehsankia 6y ago
This kind of logic is so annoying. If it's so easy / good for profit / advantageous / smart business, then why doesn't Apple do it? The whole "they only do X for profit" is such a lazy argument, because it can be used to argue any side of the argument if you try hard enough.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  idk, Apple does have open source? Swift is *incredibly* open, but probably a outlier for Apple. It's operating systems aren'tt, but kernal is (right?). None of these companies are open sourcing their core competencies. Google Search isn't open source.

wluu 6y ago

There's AltStore, but it's obviously not as straightforward as the Apple one. https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/ Came across it while following the development and distribution of iSH (https://ish.app/ https://ish.app/), which has now made it into the main app store. Prior to publishing to AltStore, iSH was only available on Test Flight, which has a limitation on the number of users who can join (10,000). So they'd periodically have to kick inactive users off the TestFlight so others could try it.

camhart 6y ago
AltStore requires a software developer to set it up and use it. Not anywhere close for non-tech people, let alone elderly.
- wluu 6y ago
  Yeah, I said it's not straightforward.

bern4444 6y ago

I view this in a different light. We have two options for platforms, one for each idea. One idea being a platform that allows for third party app stores (android) and another platform that does not (apple). We already have a choice, between these ideas, some prefer one over the other. I personally prefer the platform that is better integrated, designed, and backed by the company already making the hardware and software. If I have an issue, I know who to go to. If the other option were more obviously beneficial, why haven't alternative App Stores on Android succeeded yet? What's holding the maintainers of those alternative stores back from growth? Maybe the answer in this case is that it really is just better (in a relativistic way) for the majority of people to interact with the same entity producing the rest of their phone's core software and perhaps even easier for developers to not have to contend with varying rules and policies across multiple App Store platforms.

thefourthchime 6y ago
I think it’s a bit of a false argument. The walls to entry are high. Thanks think if users had to enable “unsafe” apps on the App Store than that would be fair. The whole “Benefit” from these walled gardens was that they would have some validation. In reality their walls are revenue funnels.

bogwog 6y ago

This is a bad take. Google is just as guilty of anti-competitive behavior as Apple. Sure, a third party store can exist in the Android ecosystem, but what are the chances that it can be commercially viable? It's practically impossible. * Google shows countless scary warning dialogs to users who even think about installing a third party store. Any competitor trying to run an alternative store needs to somehow educate potential consumers on the process of enabling "unknown sources", and convincing them that doing so won't actually kill you (translates directly into higher business expenses, and is probably an impossible obstacle to overcome to reach the majority of consumers) * Google regularly monitors apps installed outside of the Play store with their "Play Protect" thing, which is an opt-in virus scanner, except not really. When you install an APK, they ask you for permission to enable Play Protect. If you decline, they'll just keep asking you again and again until you accept either by accident, or do it so they stop annoying you. Through Play Protect, Google is able to arbitrarily block any app they consider to be "potentially harmful". Consider that they regularly ban apps by accident on the Play Store using their broken AI, and that those registered developers struggle to get those erroneous bans reversed. I'd imagine getting a ban from Play Protect reversed is nearly impossible. * Google has a full time hit squad of penetration testers called "Project Zero" which goes around checking competitors for vulnerabilities so they can make big scary press releases about how unsafe the competition is (even though Google Play itself is riddled with malware). And also, this isn't related to the anti-competitive stuff, but I feel compelled to point it out: > Android is open source Yes, Android is open source. The operating system on your Android phone is not open source. Pretty much the only people who benefit from Android being open source are: * Device manufacturers, who don't have to develop an OS to sell phones, and can install whatever they want on it, like spyware, ads, keyloggers, etc that can't be uninstalled by the user * Power users and mod developers who are fighting the good fight against that kind of thing (but are hopelessly outgunned) Saying that something is "open source" usually comes with the understanding that it's a good thing for users and freedom, except in this case it's not. Say what you will about Apple, but at least they're honest about what they are. Google is still stuck in that cognitive dissonance phase from when they first became 100% evil.

encryptluks2 6y ago
> Google shows countless scary warning dialogs to users who even think about installing a third party store. Any competitor trying to run an alternative store needs to somehow educate potential consumers on the process of enabling "unknown sources", and convincing them that doing so won't actually kill you (translates directly into higher business expenses, and is probably an impossible obstacle to overcome to reach the majority of consumers) It is a single setting/message about allowing you to install apps from unknown sources that you can grant for that specific app. You can enable/disable anytime. > Google regularly monitors apps installed outside of the Play store with their "Play Protect" thing, which is an opt-in virus scanner, except not really. When you install an APK, they ask you for permission to enable Play Protect. If you decline, they'll just keep asking you again and again until you accept either by accident, or do it so they stop annoying you. Through Play Protect, Google is able to arbitrarily block any app they consider to be "potentially harmful". Consider that they regularly ban apps by accident on the Play Store using their broken AI, and that those registered developers struggle to get those erroneous bans reversed. I'd imagine getting a ban from Play Protect reversed is nearly impossible. I have multiple apps installed from F-Droid and I have never got a single message from Play Protect warning me of anything. > Google has a full time hit squad of penetration testers called "Project Zero" which goes around checking competitors for vulnerabilities so they can make big scary press releases about how unsafe the competition is (even though Google Play itself is riddled with malware). I've never seen Project Zero act unethical or unprofessional to gain a market advantage. > Yes, Android is open source. The operating system on your Android phone is not open source. Depending on the phone you get. Many people specifically pick manufacturers that are more friendly to open source.

PostThisTooFast 6y ago

Come on. The Android "open-source" fraud has been exposed by a decade and a half of orphaned devices, as millions of users wait months, years, or forever for their telcos to dribble out hacked and essentially proprietary versions of Android for each device, ONE AT A TIME. And you continue to hear about people having to "root" their devices to do things. WTF. In the 2000s, Google managed to produce an OS without a proper hardware-abstraction layer or driver model, so users can't simply install updates as they come. Meanwhile, ancient Windows runs on millions of disparate hardware combinations without breaking the software running on top of it with every release. And even if you allow for different mobile CPUs, that's still only a few builds that should have been needed. Google should stick to what it does best: hiding from customers and behaving like douchebags.

yc12340 6y ago

> You can have third-party Android app stores. This is only half-true. Google allows users to install third-party stores. Because only handful of geeks do that. But if your competing app store gains enough adoption and you make deal with device vendors to preinstall it, the negotiations will mysteriously break down and the other party will grow quiet... Reportedly, because their (NDA-covered) contract with Google does not allow them to preinstall software from Google competitors. See also: Google fined in Russia for prohibiting vendors from installing Yandex applications on devices [1] But court decision apparently wasn't enough, so Yandex had to lobby the government to force smartphone vendors to preinstall their apps or get booted out of Russian market [2] 1: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million-settlement-in-its-android-antitrust-case-in-russia/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million... 2: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-technology-software-idUSKBN2BO4P2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-technology-softwar...

ehsankia 6y ago
How come this never happened to Amazon and Samsung app stores?
- yc12340 6y ago
  Because the laws of corporate mob don't apply to everyone equally? There is a huge difference between treatment of different parties, even if the their contracts are same (and I doubt, that Samsung has the same contract with Google as everyone else). For example, do you know, that some Android devices aren't allowed to use a different launcher, other than supplied by Google? Or that Google Play Terms of Service prohibit publishing there alternative app stores? There are many such draconian restrictions in all Google's contracts. They are ignored until it is convenient for Google to enforce them. Back to your question, — neither Samsung nor Amazon are Google's competitors. Their app stores are garbage. Samsung was trying to jump off Android for years. And Amazon devices don't come with Google's software, so Google has no leverage against them (except YouTube).

0xDEEPFAC 6y ago

Open source has nothing to do with it when it is difficult / impossible / highly unlikely that anyone actually has a free device. What kind of developer would make something for an alternative app store which would be installable on 0.001% of devices? If anything they took more from the community in terms of the Linux kernel etc then they have given back with useful technology when it comes to phones.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

You can have third party app stores in Android, but you can't have third party push notifications. And without them there is no way to deliver data to your app without making it persistent, which is increasingly difficult with every new Android version

fragileone 6y ago
Not exactly. There is MQTT, Server Side Events, WebSockets, plus Gotify[1] which has been discussed on HN before. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19347848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19347848
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  And how are you going to deliver a message using any of these if the application on a mobile phone is terminated by an operating system? Check https://dontkillmyapp.com/ https://dontkillmyapp.com/ for more information.
anoncake 6y ago
Nor can alternative stores provide automatic background updates.

MINPOOL 6y ago

> You can have third-party Android app stores It's just completely unrealistic that a classic consumer will install any other app store on their device, they just use what is there and that's for the majority of Android phones the Play Store. If Google would truly be open for competition, they would let the consumer choose the app store, the search engine and everything else when they first turn on the device.

marticode 6y ago
Sure, but at least you have that option of installing what you want on the hardware you paid for. In contrast, Apple retain full control of the phone. You buy it, but you don't control it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

bongobingo 6y ago

Android has an 87% market share. I don’t really care what the minority players are up to.

joelthelion 6y ago

> Android is open source It is not. Android without the proprietary Google Play Services is utterly broken for non-technical end-users.

trapped 6y ago

It's HW made by private corporation with their own SW and they can insist rules to make sure HW and SW systems are not abused so that most of the users get better user experience. They (Apple) are doing this to protect their users. If you don't agree with it don't buy their HW. Can you install applications from third party providers on other app bases HW? such as Gaming (XBox, Playstation, Nintendo) Cars (Tesla, Benz, Nissan) Or in non SW/HW world can you force stores such as Walmart, HomeDepot, Macys, Nordstorm to sell goods from third party seller? And, even these stores charge fees for selling items made by other manufacturers. If you don't like ecosystems made by Google and Apple don't buy their HW/SW.

osrec 6y ago
Thanks for the advice. I don't agree with Apple, and don't buy their hardware or software. When I'm buying a general purpose computing device (which is what smartphones have become), I expect a significant degree of flexibility in how I can use it, and don't need the vendor to arbitrarily start placing limits on that flexibility to "protect" me. Especially when those limits happen to coincide with the financial goals of the vendor.

EricE 6y ago

If third-party app stores with Google's version of Android (you know, the one everyone wants that has all the Google applications - not the open source version that you can't legally load Google's stuff on) were on an equal footing than why is Epic suing them the same as they are suing Apple?

RealStickman_ 6y ago

Third party stores are extremely limited on Android. * Install dialog pops up every time you want to install an app * No automatic background updates These things can be changed with root, but you shouldn't have to root your device to gain this basic functionality.