3 ms·

>> That’s what gets people interested, inspires devs to contribute and fill app gaps. Alas, no, sorry. It's really not the number of apps that matters. Any pho

>> That’s what gets people interested, inspires devs to contribute and fill app gaps. Alas, no, sorry. It's really not the number of apps that matters. Any phone OS could have less than 500 apps and be wildly successful. On the other hand you can have a million devs cranking out apps and the device would still be useless. Turns out the only apps that matters are the ones everyone actually use. Your banking app. Facebook. Whatsapp. Uber. Airbnb. Etc. All the product of big corporates. And my bank (to pick just 1) is simply not interested in developing their app for yet another platform. The effort in building it, supporting it etc simply makes no sense. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, ESPN, and the next 40 "must haves" simply don't care. And independent devs simply cannot fill these holes. Without these the phone is simply useless as a daily driver for anything other than complete techno fanatics. Crumbs Microsoft couldn't convince this cohort to get on board. Some random Linux phone certainly won't. I don't say this with glee. They're nice toys. But Joe public doesn't reject them because of the hardware specs. He rejects them because they're functionally useless in the actual world.

ge96 1y ago
That is true, you have to have two phones
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
I think this is wildly more individual-dependent than you may think. Speaking personally, while I do have a number of big commercial apps installed, the number that couldn’t be filled either with a web app or the Android version via a compatibility layer is tiny. The native apps I find most difficult to replace are those by small to midsize devs, which are exactly the ones most likely to be the primary contributors to a new platform early on. I don’t think this is particularly unusual, either. Plenty of people have absoutely no need for video streaming on their phone outside of maybe YouTube for example, which works well enough on the web. Microsoft’s not the best example here, because they had momentum with both devs and users but shot themselves in the foot repeatedly on both sides of the fence: warring internal factions reset Windows Mobile development multiple times consecutively and burned through dev goodwill and poor strategy on the consumer side killed things there. Mozilla’s foray into phones failed because they insisted on sticking to entry level devices which were both not interesting to most of the market and not powerful enough to handle a new unoptimized OS.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  For what it's worth, I don't have a single one of the apps GP mentions installed on my phone. No Netflix, no Facebook, no WhatsApp. I am aware that I am an outlier, though. I need either Anki or AnkiDroid. I need a somewhat decent text reader, preferably one that properly highlights and folds Org mode files. I need a voice recorder that timestamps the file name. I don't think I know anybody else who needs any of those three, other than those I've introduced to Anki.
- codedokode 1y ago
  > Mozilla’s foray into phones failed because they insisted on sticking to entry level devices which were both not interesting to most of the market and not powerful enough to handle a new unoptimized OS. I think that was not a bad idea. Other open source OSes target expensive devices like Pixel and as a result many people are not buying them because paying a premium for a non-standard phone with buggy software and lacking features doesn't make much sense.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    As low as the number who buys a flagship or uses one they already have to run an immature OS may be, it’s still going to be higher than the number who buys a budget device with an immature OS, especially if your goal is to stoke developer enthusiasm. Think about it. The everyday Joe who might be interested in a cheap phone is going to be looking for bang for buck, which something untrusted doesn’t get them. For this person something like a budget Android phone from a proven company or a used iPhone is more attractive. Technical people aren’t going to be interested in a budget phone because they know it’s not going to meet their standards just by looking at its specs, before even considering the OS. They wouldn’t have bought the equivalent Android phone either, and the OS just detracts further. Lots of people buy flagships, on the other hand. It’s too not unusual for mobile developers in particular to have multiple. An OS that targets them can be put on a phone that these people already have laying around. If the OS is intriguing enough, yes, some will buy a flagship to be able to run it, because it’s low risk. Worst case scenario they have a nice Android device, which is vastly better than buying a low end phone that ends up going unused because the hardware+software combo is intolerable.

ge96 1y ago

That is true, you have to have two phones

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

I think this is wildly more individual-dependent than you may think. Speaking personally, while I do have a number of big commercial apps installed, the number that couldn’t be filled either with a web app or the Android version via a compatibility layer is tiny. The native apps I find most difficult to replace are those by small to midsize devs, which are exactly the ones most likely to be the primary contributors to a new platform early on. I don’t think this is particularly unusual, either. Plenty of people have absoutely no need for video streaming on their phone outside of maybe YouTube for example, which works well enough on the web. Microsoft’s not the best example here, because they had momentum with both devs and users but shot themselves in the foot repeatedly on both sides of the fence: warring internal factions reset Windows Mobile development multiple times consecutively and burned through dev goodwill and poor strategy on the consumer side killed things there. Mozilla’s foray into phones failed because they insisted on sticking to entry level devices which were both not interesting to most of the market and not powerful enough to handle a new unoptimized OS.

dotancohen 1y ago
For what it's worth, I don't have a single one of the apps GP mentions installed on my phone. No Netflix, no Facebook, no WhatsApp. I am aware that I am an outlier, though. I need either Anki or AnkiDroid. I need a somewhat decent text reader, preferably one that properly highlights and folds Org mode files. I need a voice recorder that timestamps the file name. I don't think I know anybody else who needs any of those three, other than those I've introduced to Anki.
codedokode 1y ago
> Mozilla’s foray into phones failed because they insisted on sticking to entry level devices which were both not interesting to most of the market and not powerful enough to handle a new unoptimized OS. I think that was not a bad idea. Other open source OSes target expensive devices like Pixel and as a result many people are not buying them because paying a premium for a non-standard phone with buggy software and lacking features doesn't make much sense.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  As low as the number who buys a flagship or uses one they already have to run an immature OS may be, it’s still going to be higher than the number who buys a budget device with an immature OS, especially if your goal is to stoke developer enthusiasm. Think about it. The everyday Joe who might be interested in a cheap phone is going to be looking for bang for buck, which something untrusted doesn’t get them. For this person something like a budget Android phone from a proven company or a used iPhone is more attractive. Technical people aren’t going to be interested in a budget phone because they know it’s not going to meet their standards just by looking at its specs, before even considering the OS. They wouldn’t have bought the equivalent Android phone either, and the OS just detracts further. Lots of people buy flagships, on the other hand. It’s too not unusual for mobile developers in particular to have multiple. An OS that targets them can be put on a phone that these people already have laying around. If the OS is intriguing enough, yes, some will buy a flagship to be able to run it, because it’s low risk. Worst case scenario they have a nice Android device, which is vastly better than buying a low end phone that ends up going unused because the hardware+software combo is intolerable.