5 ms·

I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should be seperate companies and

by xphos 5mo ago

I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should be seperate companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is. OSs are few in number and are special pieces of software supported by extreme network effects and locking in effects. Its virtually impossible to abandon mainstream OSs even in the desktop world which is much more permissive their are basically 2 OSs. You can count Linux as a third but its not a serious market share competitor yet! EU and France might change that. But essentially total OS control allows a type of anti competitive behavior that is unavoidable. You either need 10s of options which are different in the services which isn't viable because modern OSs are some of the most complex pieces of software in existence. Your only other option is to regulate them like the power company because its not practical to build your own grid to have fair pricing and access

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
"I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should seperate[sic] companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is." Was this under a different HN account I went through all replies by xphos and found nothing that discussed removing IOs and running some other OS on an iPhone What I want is for Apple to sell hardware that has no OS installed. This is actually how I prefer to buy computers today, with no OS. I just want the Apple hardware, not the Apple software The AirPort Extreme was the closest I have seen to this wish for Apple hardware without Apple software coming true. It included Apple software, but it could be operated using a NetBSD 6.x kernel
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
  s/IOs/iOS/
kuhsaft 5mo ago
Ironically, I think regulation is what keeps them in power. They are major companies that comply with government regulations. Why would the government regulate to allow people to have devices that forgo government regulations? If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators. These small grassroots operating systems fail because, to do all those things, you need to be pragmatic. The next major operating system will be backed by a business or government.
- palata 5mo ago
  > If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators. Which can be done with a small team by building on top of AOSP, like GrapheneOS does. How is that not pragmatic?
  - kuhsaft 5mo ago
    I would group GrapheneOS with Android. If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android. But considering it as a separate OS, I wouldn’t consider it mainstream. It’s not on any device by default. And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users, or 0.0064%. It might seem mainstream for the tech community, but it goes to show how small the tech community is. It might be mainstream once Motorola, a corporation, starts releasing phones preinstalled with it.
    - palata 5mo ago
      > If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android. Agreed, that's exactly it! The pain points of GrapheneOS/LineageOS are due to the fact that device manufacturers don't allow proper support (typically the bootloader story) and that big companies like bank choose (more and more) to ban whatever is not signed by Google (through Play Integrity). I argue that those things should be regulated. > And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users I think it's more than 250k, but let's go with that. There are Android manufacturers that are in the same order of magnitude. What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem. Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right? It's not "Google vs alternative Androids": there are many Android flavours, from Samsung to Sony through Xiaomi and Fairphone. We don't tell Fairphone that they have to be mainstream before they get the right to sell Android phones. The very reason alternative Androids are (slightly) harder to use is that they are not mainstream, so banks ban them for no reason because they can, and Google is happy to do nothing about it because those are competitors. We need to regulate that.

by xphos 5mo ago

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago

"I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should seperate[sic] companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is." Was this under a different HN account I went through all replies by xphos and found nothing that discussed removing IOs and running some other OS on an iPhone What I want is for Apple to sell hardware that has no OS installed. This is actually how I prefer to buy computers today, with no OS. I just want the Apple hardware, not the Apple software The AirPort Extreme was the closest I have seen to this wish for Apple hardware without Apple software coming true. It included Apple software, but it could be operated using a NetBSD 6.x kernel

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
s/IOs/iOS/

kuhsaft 5mo ago

Ironically, I think regulation is what keeps them in power. They are major companies that comply with government regulations. Why would the government regulate to allow people to have devices that forgo government regulations? If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators. These small grassroots operating systems fail because, to do all those things, you need to be pragmatic. The next major operating system will be backed by a business or government.

palata 5mo ago
> If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators. Which can be done with a small team by building on top of AOSP, like GrapheneOS does. How is that not pragmatic?
- kuhsaft 5mo ago
  I would group GrapheneOS with Android. If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android. But considering it as a separate OS, I wouldn’t consider it mainstream. It’s not on any device by default. And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users, or 0.0064%. It might seem mainstream for the tech community, but it goes to show how small the tech community is. It might be mainstream once Motorola, a corporation, starts releasing phones preinstalled with it.
  - palata 5mo ago
    > If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android. Agreed, that's exactly it! The pain points of GrapheneOS/LineageOS are due to the fact that device manufacturers don't allow proper support (typically the bootloader story) and that big companies like bank choose (more and more) to ban whatever is not signed by Google (through Play Integrity). I argue that those things should be regulated. > And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users I think it's more than 250k, but let's go with that. There are Android manufacturers that are in the same order of magnitude. What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem. Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right? It's not "Google vs alternative Androids": there are many Android flavours, from Samsung to Sony through Xiaomi and Fairphone. We don't tell Fairphone that they have to be mainstream before they get the right to sell Android phones. The very reason alternative Androids are (slightly) harder to use is that they are not mainstream, so banks ban them for no reason because they can, and Google is happy to do nothing about it because those are competitors. We need to regulate that.