4 ms·

This is a specious argument. Allow competitors to deploy apps causing lousy battery life, and Safari should win easily on that basis. Apple's battery app makes

by yborg 5y ago

This is a specious argument. Allow competitors to deploy apps causing lousy battery life, and Safari should win easily on that basis. Apple's battery app makes it obvious when apps use a lot of energy.

r00fus 5y ago
It doesn't matter if Safari "wins" if all other players "required" Chrome browsers. Apple sets the rules for its own products. Why didn't "open" win? Why for whatever reason is Apple still #1 in the mobile space? Perhaps users agree with Apple.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Users are easily duped by marketing. Even technologists. You can see how easily technologists buy Apple's bald-faced lies that its actions are not about user lock-in throughout this comment section. I can write a browser using WXWebView that wastes battery outside the rendering code, and Apple won't stop me. I can write a maps application that wastes battery, and Apple won't stop me. But if I write a web rendering engine that wastes battery, I have crossed a line? A line that is so important not to cross that Apple won't even let me try to write a rendering engine that uses less battery than WXWebView? I cannot believe that anybody would buy that argument without marketing distorting their thoughts.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > Users are easily duped by marketing. Even technologists. Ah yes. Everything can be explained by marketing, and marketing alone. Poor, poor Google, and Samsung, and so on, who are struggling to find the money and the power to make people buy Android phones through the power of marketing. Perhaps, just perhaps, I'm going on a limb here, Apple actually makes a phone that people want?
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      We are, in this very thread, discussing a reason why Apple's phones are worse that people have been duped into putting in the pros column. They are also worse for privacy, yet Apple markets their devices' privacy. They are worse for security, yet Apple markets their devices' security. The shoe fits. Apple has been a marketing-driven company for decades now and is better at it than any other tech company by a country mile. It's why they bought Beats, not for their technology, but for their marketing prowess. The other companies you listed pick features that are better on their devices to market. Apple's marketing department figured out long ago that no such restriction is necessary.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > We are, in this very thread, discussing a reason why Apple's phones are worse Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion. > They are also worse for privacy > They are worse for security Worse than what? > The shoe fits. It doesn't fit, not really. It's gross incompetence and ignorance to explain everything by marketing and people being stupid. Because what you're saying, is that a good chunk of people on HN are stupid and are "duped by marketing". That I am stupid and am duped by marketing. However, I've seen and tried the alternatives, and I found them lacking.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        > Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion. Look at the first comment you replied to. It's about how Apple restricts how you can browse the web for user lock in but has convinced people it is for the sake of their battery. > Worse than what? Worse than Pixels, Android One devices, and ChromeOS devices currently. There are several open source focused devices in the pipeline that have better security design than iOS devices as well but are not yet ready. > That I am stupid and am duped by marketing. I did not say you are stupid. I said that people are duped by marketing, and I gave examples. I even pointed out that technologists can be duped, and they are smart in the field they were duped in. Apple's marketing department is smart, and Apple's other employees are smart for supporting their efforts, though when they get caught parroting marketing talking points that are clearly false, it can be embarrassing.

by yborg 5y ago

r00fus 5y ago

It doesn't matter if Safari "wins" if all other players "required" Chrome browsers. Apple sets the rules for its own products. Why didn't "open" win? Why for whatever reason is Apple still #1 in the mobile space? Perhaps users agree with Apple.

lern_too_spel 5y ago
Users are easily duped by marketing. Even technologists. You can see how easily technologists buy Apple's bald-faced lies that its actions are not about user lock-in throughout this comment section. I can write a browser using WXWebView that wastes battery outside the rendering code, and Apple won't stop me. I can write a maps application that wastes battery, and Apple won't stop me. But if I write a web rendering engine that wastes battery, I have crossed a line? A line that is so important not to cross that Apple won't even let me try to write a rendering engine that uses less battery than WXWebView? I cannot believe that anybody would buy that argument without marketing distorting their thoughts.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Users are easily duped by marketing. Even technologists. Ah yes. Everything can be explained by marketing, and marketing alone. Poor, poor Google, and Samsung, and so on, who are struggling to find the money and the power to make people buy Android phones through the power of marketing. Perhaps, just perhaps, I'm going on a limb here, Apple actually makes a phone that people want?
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    We are, in this very thread, discussing a reason why Apple's phones are worse that people have been duped into putting in the pros column. They are also worse for privacy, yet Apple markets their devices' privacy. They are worse for security, yet Apple markets their devices' security. The shoe fits. Apple has been a marketing-driven company for decades now and is better at it than any other tech company by a country mile. It's why they bought Beats, not for their technology, but for their marketing prowess. The other companies you listed pick features that are better on their devices to market. Apple's marketing department figured out long ago that no such restriction is necessary.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > We are, in this very thread, discussing a reason why Apple's phones are worse Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion. > They are also worse for privacy > They are worse for security Worse than what? > The shoe fits. It doesn't fit, not really. It's gross incompetence and ignorance to explain everything by marketing and people being stupid. Because what you're saying, is that a good chunk of people on HN are stupid and are "duped by marketing". That I am stupid and am duped by marketing. However, I've seen and tried the alternatives, and I found them lacking.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        > Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion. Look at the first comment you replied to. It's about how Apple restricts how you can browse the web for user lock in but has convinced people it is for the sake of their battery. > Worse than what? Worse than Pixels, Android One devices, and ChromeOS devices currently. There are several open source focused devices in the pipeline that have better security design than iOS devices as well but are not yet ready. > That I am stupid and am duped by marketing. I did not say you are stupid. I said that people are duped by marketing, and I gave examples. I even pointed out that technologists can be duped, and they are smart in the field they were duped in. Apple's marketing department is smart, and Apple's other employees are smart for supporting their efforts, though when they get caught parroting marketing talking points that are clearly false, it can be embarrassing.