4 ms·

Android is losing a unique selling point. This will have an impact on what a techie may recommend to a non-techie in the future, because everything is beige now

Android is losing a unique selling point. This will have an impact on what a techie may recommend to a non-techie in the future, because everything is beige now. I have the feeling Google has given up on using nerds as beachheads. The market is saturated enough and they don't need us anymore to do grass roots spreading of their products. It's the same with Youtube. As long as there were enough people who were unencumbered by ads because of their ad block and kept spreading links, the importance of Youtube was growing. After market saturation that vehicle isn't necessary anymore and they can squeeze them out.

echelon 1y ago
This is unacceptable. Google needs to be broken up. Apple too. The lack of antitrust enforcement is a clown show. We have no choice in the most important computing category in the world. It's a duopoly and they have everyone in straightjackets - consumers, companies, competitors, governments, ... A huge percentage of the world's thoughts and economy flow through mobile. And two companies own it. Ma Bell was nothing compared to this.
- gizmo686 1y ago
  Breaking up Google will not help in this particular case. The problem is entirely within the Android unit; and would still be present even if Android were to be split off into it's own company. It certainly seems like there is problematic behavior in the restrictions Google puts on OEMs that want to use Android (or, more specifically, play services) on their devices. However, I think it would take a different enforcement mechanism to address that.
  - Palmik 1y ago
    Disabling the ability to install arbitrary apps, like ReVanced, etc. benefits other parts of Alphabet. In general, making anti consumer decisions is also easier when you know you can fall back on income from other units.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      Then why does Google make so few anti-consumer decisions? I mean, compare Google with Facebook. Surely we can agree Google is the better behaved of those two. Apple only allows software on their macbooks and mac mini, and every release of MacOS it's more locked down. Everything else, from iPhone to the watch, is 100% locked down. Likewise, every version of Windows tries, again and again and again, to lock down programs that can be run. People absolutely don't accept it, but they do try (remember when they tried to bury the ability to run unverified apps behind a price hike?) I'd at least give it a shot to simply appeal to Google on the justification they give. After all, the blogpost ... It is very strange for Google to do what they do in that blogpost, don't you think? https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-... "In Brazil, the Brazilian Federation of Banks (FEBRABAN) sees ..." "Indonesia's Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs praising it for providing a “balanced approach” that ..." "Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society sees it as a “positive and proactive measure” that aligns ..." "Developer’s Alliance have called this a “critical step” for ..." And it's easy to come up with other government requirements, like the DMA (yes, ironically) and ChatControl that require vendors are able to disable apps. Clearly there is more than a little government pressure on Google to do this, including US and EU lobby groups (Developer's Alliance). Clearly Google is unwilling or unable to resist government pressure to allow governments to control which apps get to run ... Has anyone even asked these groups why they push for this?
      - pg3uk 1y ago
        Ads.
      - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
        > I mean, compare Google with Facebook. Surely we can agree Google is the better behaved of those two. I'm not sure I agree, particularly with respect to their core businesses. Like Google basically own all parts of the ad stack and use that dominance to compete unfairly against basically everyone else, causing them to appear to be a better service. There was even an anti-trust case about it (up for sentencing at the moment, here's hoping for a breakup). Facebook have certainly done a bunch of nefarious stuff, but Google is just a more useful product to the people who come here (and I agree with this), so they get more of a pass.
  - goku12 1y ago
    A smaller company would at least be less capable of ignoring the fines or the loss of market share. Or in other words, "too big to fail".
    - ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
      "Too big to fail" usually refers to companies such as banks that are such integral parts of the financial infrastructure that governments must bail them out when they screw up. In Google's case I would rather call it "too big to care", because every fine they get is basically a rounding error.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        They are also "too big to be regulated", which I would include in the "too big to fail" category.
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    It would be great if open source could some how solve this better. Like it's a shame UX / UI seems to be difficult for open source people to master, because I would really love a great open source phone without android on it.
crossroadsguy 1y ago
Yes! Android doesn’t need an USP. Not anymore now that we have a stable equilibrium of this perfect duopoly.
Woshiwuja 1y ago
[dead]

echelon 1y ago

This is unacceptable. Google needs to be broken up. Apple too. The lack of antitrust enforcement is a clown show. We have no choice in the most important computing category in the world. It's a duopoly and they have everyone in straightjackets - consumers, companies, competitors, governments, ... A huge percentage of the world's thoughts and economy flow through mobile. And two companies own it. Ma Bell was nothing compared to this.

gizmo686 1y ago
Breaking up Google will not help in this particular case. The problem is entirely within the Android unit; and would still be present even if Android were to be split off into it's own company. It certainly seems like there is problematic behavior in the restrictions Google puts on OEMs that want to use Android (or, more specifically, play services) on their devices. However, I think it would take a different enforcement mechanism to address that.
- Palmik 1y ago
  Disabling the ability to install arbitrary apps, like ReVanced, etc. benefits other parts of Alphabet. In general, making anti consumer decisions is also easier when you know you can fall back on income from other units.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Then why does Google make so few anti-consumer decisions? I mean, compare Google with Facebook. Surely we can agree Google is the better behaved of those two. Apple only allows software on their macbooks and mac mini, and every release of MacOS it's more locked down. Everything else, from iPhone to the watch, is 100% locked down. Likewise, every version of Windows tries, again and again and again, to lock down programs that can be run. People absolutely don't accept it, but they do try (remember when they tried to bury the ability to run unverified apps behind a price hike?) I'd at least give it a shot to simply appeal to Google on the justification they give. After all, the blogpost ... It is very strange for Google to do what they do in that blogpost, don't you think? https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-... "In Brazil, the Brazilian Federation of Banks (FEBRABAN) sees ..." "Indonesia's Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs praising it for providing a “balanced approach” that ..." "Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society sees it as a “positive and proactive measure” that aligns ..." "Developer’s Alliance have called this a “critical step” for ..." And it's easy to come up with other government requirements, like the DMA (yes, ironically) and ChatControl that require vendors are able to disable apps. Clearly there is more than a little government pressure on Google to do this, including US and EU lobby groups (Developer's Alliance). Clearly Google is unwilling or unable to resist government pressure to allow governments to control which apps get to run ... Has anyone even asked these groups why they push for this?
    - pg3uk 1y ago
      Ads.
    - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
      > I mean, compare Google with Facebook. Surely we can agree Google is the better behaved of those two. I'm not sure I agree, particularly with respect to their core businesses. Like Google basically own all parts of the ad stack and use that dominance to compete unfairly against basically everyone else, causing them to appear to be a better service. There was even an anti-trust case about it (up for sentencing at the moment, here's hoping for a breakup). Facebook have certainly done a bunch of nefarious stuff, but Google is just a more useful product to the people who come here (and I agree with this), so they get more of a pass.
- goku12 1y ago
  A smaller company would at least be less capable of ignoring the fines or the loss of market share. Or in other words, "too big to fail".
  - ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
    "Too big to fail" usually refers to companies such as banks that are such integral parts of the financial infrastructure that governments must bail them out when they screw up. In Google's case I would rather call it "too big to care", because every fine they get is basically a rounding error.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      They are also "too big to be regulated", which I would include in the "too big to fail" category.
- bamboozled 1y ago
  It would be great if open source could some how solve this better. Like it's a shame UX / UI seems to be difficult for open source people to master, because I would really love a great open source phone without android on it.

crossroadsguy 1y ago

Yes! Android doesn’t need an USP. Not anymore now that we have a stable equilibrium of this perfect duopoly.

Woshiwuja 1y ago

[dead]