5 ms·
I would guess that the argument is that, on Android, you always have the option of rooting your phone or installing an alternative OS. So Google is a bit more l
by mumblemumble 4y ago
I would guess that the argument is that, on Android, you always have the option of rooting your phone or installing an alternative OS. So Google is a bit more limited than Apple is in how hard they can clamp down.
Personally, I don't know that that's true. It may be easier for Apple to do it because the ecosystem is more vertically integrated. But that's a coordination problem, not a technical one. I don't think there's a single major player in the Android ecosystem who wouldn't be willing to go along with a plan to lock things down just as far as laws will allow.
- doublepg23 4y agoAlways? I was under the impression it’s taking a lot longer for phones to get rooted.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- consumer451 4y agoI should have specified a non-rooted phone. Years ago I used to root androids, install cyanogenmod or similar, and sell them locally. People would pay a premium for that. But I am no longer in the camp where I want a rooted phone as my daily driver. I am also weary of giving "random" third parties access to my browsing. I think that my least bad option on iOS is Mullvad, with all blocking turned on. But the bad part there is no browser integration to whitelist sites. I wonder if it would be possible for Mullvad to present their system as an ad-blocker to Safari, if you are running Mullvad VPN.