8 ms·
>Google would probably do the same, but in this case they don't have to - because it is their OS. It is trivial to skip the google account if you want but it ac
by Xeamek 3y ago
>Google would probably do the same, but in this case they don't have to - because it is their OS. It is trivial to skip the google account if you want but it actually has its place in android.
No, it's not.
AOSP is free and open source OS that is completely functional without google's account or services.
>Samsung tricks you into depending on them for the same stuff as google.
Well yes, but either we give a pass to both of them or none. Giving a pass to google just because "they are the more popular one" is simply dellusional and puts unfair expectations on any1 who tries to challange the status quo of current market.
>Why on earth would I want to use one I didn't have to?
If you treat those companies as necessary evil, then you are correct, it's more logical to choose the path with the least ammount of "deals with the devils".
But at the same time, this aproach is anti-competative. You will always buy into the biggest vendor, because it gives you the most features.
>And above all, why would I tie my android experience to one vendor?.
But you are alrady doing that with google's experience. Samsung just gives you an alternative. Some people like it, others don't. But it's just a preference.
> Regardless, who should be bundling crap anyway? The OS vendor or the hardware vendor?
AOSP foundation is vendor of base android.
Google is vendor of google's android.
Samsung is vendoer of samsungs OneUI.
We are going to give google a pass literally just because they play a word game where they don't explicitly name pixels OS as "G-UI", like samsung does with their launcher? What?
>The hardware vendor is more than fine to write apps directly related to hardware features but other than that they should just fuck off.
But samsung doesn't markets itself as ONLY hardware vendor. They are software vendor as well, and their software is OneUI.
Just as google's software isn't AOSP, it's google android.
This whole distinction between hardware/software/OS is irrationall.
- tjoff 3y ago> No, it's not. AOSP is free and open source OS that is completely functional without google's account or services. That's just what I said. But most tie the android experience to the app ecosystem, which (not necessarily, but in practice (for most people)) is tied to the play store. Which requires a google account. > Well yes, but either we give a pass to both of them or none. WHY?! Google is honest about it. Why are they honest about it? Because they happen to be in a position where they can be honest about it. Samsung choose not to, because they rather trick people. Google is required for the typical android experience. Samsung is only required if you like to be abused. They are not the same. > But at the same time, this aproach is anti-competative. You will always buy into the biggest vendor, because it gives you the most features. No, you buy into the vendor that is required. Not the one that tries to bully you and sneak under the radar. > Just as google's software isn't AOSP, it's google android. Google makes both. Google is much close to AOSP. Doesn't matter at all huh? Google follows the typical android UX (close than anyone else at least), samsung tries to be different just for the sake of being different. The competition to android is not samsung, it is non-android OSes This is like defending tracking popups. They are abusive, illegal, user hostile and doesn't offer anything. But somehow avoiding sites that has them is anti-competitive?