If you were right, Apple wouldn't be printing money as much as they do.
Android users will ditch google and switch to... What? Apple? Where you can't install anything at all except through the tightly controlled Apple app store?
They refuse to show me how my data is being used. They refuse to allow me to control my own data. They refuse to set up their system in such a way that they can't abuse my data. They also have really close ties with at least one group that blatantly disregards privacy.
Dont get me wrong, Android is a dumpster fire, but at least they give me some control over my OS.
In other discussions we've had, I know you've chosen not to use Apple (and not even using Google's services, IIRC). That's fine, and completely your choice. In the interest of keeping the conversation as civil as possible (we all know how inflammatory OS and privacy matters can get even without added fuel), can we lower the rhetoric level a bit? You want the option to compile and install your own OS. You choose not to trust what Apple says they do (such as encrypting most (admittedly not all) of the data in flight and at rest, making it inaccessible to them. I don't think there are any reasonable people that would disagree with your choice to not use Apple because of your priorities.
You can choose to phrase these things in the much more aggressive "They refuse...", or, if you're interested in reasonable, constructive discussion, you can choose to phrase it in a way that shows a bit more respect for the choices others may make based on their priorities and values, that they might reasonably make those decisions, just as I think you would want them to consider yours. As one HN member to another, please? (Don't worry: this is the last time I'll ask. I just hate watching conversations derail into people talking past each other.)
I guess I dont see what is wrong with what I'm saying. Apple does refuse to do these things.
I'm not at all saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose. In fact, I stongly agree that if someone does want to use Apple's software, they should, and damned what I say.
I'm just pointing out that the poster was continuing to spread a myth that we have no proof of, and in fact we have evidence pointing in opposition of.
I stongly want people to make their own choices, but more importantly, I want them to be properly educated before making those choices.
This, and then I'm out: The way one phrases things can be just or more important than the content of what one is saying. "Shut up" and "Please, be quiet" can have very different effects. "Apple refuses to ..." as opposed to "I want to do ... because ... and I can't with Apple" can convey the same content while producing very different results. And the medium makes a difference as well: tone of voice and body language can temper otherwise aggressive language in person, but we don't have those extra channels online. And this can be even more important on contentious topics.
You feel strongly about the topic, right? Likewise others do as well. And if you want them to actually listen to what you have to say, it's important not to put them on the defensive. It's even more important to pay attention if you want to have a reasonable, constructive discussion. That's one of the things that's good about HN, and one we need to protect.
I guess that I dont see how "Apple refuses to let me manage my own data" is different from "I would like to manage my own data, but Apple refuses to let me".
FWIW, I'm not dismissing what you are saying, but I genuinely dont see how it changes anything.
Responding because of "I guess that I dont see how..." for some specific examples.
> "They refuse to show me how my data is being used."
Apple includes a lot of information about what and how data is stored for their services. Nearly every service is optional, with the exception of getting OS updates and using the App Store for third-party apps. I can understand people who choose not to either believe Apple or want to connect to Apple for OS updates or apps, but that's pretty limited in terms of data. Reasonable people can believe that they do show you how your data is stored, so it's important to be more specific about what you're getting at.
> "They refuse to allow me to control my own data."
They refuse to allow you to control your data in arbitrary ways. Again, you don't need to use their services to store data, and you could chose to install your own software that manages your data pretty much how you see fit. Reasonable people can believe that they allow you to control your own data if you want to.
> "They refuse to set up their system in such a way that they can't abuse my data."
If you don't trust what they've documented, and require compiling your own software, yup, you're stuck. But if you do trust them, they encrypt nearly all of the data (if you chose to use their services) in flight and on disk, so they can't abuse your data.
> "They also have really close ties with at least one group that blatantly disregards privacy." I think you should just come out and name whatever it is you're getting at here.
In each of these cases, if you're specific about what you want to do, it does make a difference in how it comes across.
Based on this and our previous discussion, I think it's more clear and accurate for you to say "I want to be able to audit and compile from source to confirm how my data is being used, and Apple refuses to allow me do that." Hard to disagree with that, if that's your position. Also makes clear your criteria for privacy and trust, without people possibly (incorrectly) thinking you're being deliberately obtuse or ignorant about Apple and privacy.
> Apple includes a lot of information about what and how data is stored for their services.
Apple says a lot of things. Just like FB said that they were being responsible with our data. I'm asking Apple to show me what they are doing with my data. If they've been designing their systems properly, this should be simple to do.
> Nearly every service is optional, with the exception of getting OS updates and using the App Store for third-party apps.
But there's still a lot of data that goes back to Apple, which doesn't have to go through them at all.
> Reasonable people can believe that they do show you how your data is stored, so it's important to be more specific about what you're getting at.
But AFAIK, they don't show. They only tell. And I think reasonable people would be distrustful of Marketing-Speak.
> They refuse to allow you to control your data in arbitrary ways.
It doesn't matter how they refuse to allow me to control my data, it matters that they allow me to control my data.
> Reasonable people can believe that they allow you to control your own data if you want to.
But those reasonable people would be factually wrong. It's a fact that their products refuse to decouple themselves from Apple's servers.
> it's important to be more specific about what you're getting at.
Any data. Updates, documents, telemetry data, logs, etc.
I believe that reasonable people would look at what Apple says, then seeing that their actions don't follow, would distrust them. If Apple is spending a lot of effort protecting my data, then why do they work so hard to hide that away from me. To me, that seems like it could have huge marketing potential.
Until I can download an iso and reinstall any phone with it like Ubuntu on a laptop, we might as well call it not open. The current situation is just a hacky Windows XP-like mess which still has some open-source bits in it for legacy reasons.
> Google has way enough power to dictate standards, for most companies, not having access to the Play Store is assured death.
Still it would require the hardware to change, not Android. But you're right that Google could do something about it if it wanted to. So blame Google, not Android ;)
> There's very few then, I don't know any personally.
The Lenovo Yoga 900 was an example. Linux was (or still is? Dunno) missing the required RAID drivers to boot at all.
Also keep in mind that Ubuntu requires binary blobs to work correctly, how many depends on the hardware.
This means that Ubuntu isn't 100% open either and that "openness" isn't binary, otherwise Ubuntu would be "not open" in the same way Windows and macOS are, which obviously isn't the case.
> Still it would require the hardware to change, not Android. But you're right that Google could do something about it if it wanted to. So blame Google, not Android ;)
That's a bit of semantic but yeah Google is 100% responsible of the hacky mess of the Android landscape nowadays. Also the ROMs themselves (even official ones) are looking more like the hacking days of WinXP themes than anything remotely well designed.
> This means that Ubuntu isn't 100% open either and that "openness" isn't binary, otherwise Ubuntu would be "not open" in the same way Windows and macOS are, which obviously isn't the case.
Yeah for sure Ubuntu isn't 100% open, but at least the proprietary parts tend to reduce in the long run and there's ways to debug it. If you cannot even run the OS on the hardware without using some buffer overflows in the first place, that's another level.
I would like an Android distribution which could run on 98% of the Android smartphones without much work, we're pretty far from that.
> 100%? What about the hardware manufactures which release closed source and buggy drivers?
They should just be rejected from the Play Store as part of the guidelines. In Windows, the drivers cannot make blue screens anymore, they are sandboxed, they should follow the same model and enforce it with their agreements.
What percentage of apps are available on third party app stores? Openness isn't zero with Android, it's just an obscene fractional portion that might as well be zero.
AOSP is crippled/barely functional due to parts being abandoned in favor of Google Apps. And as far as sideloading, where are you supposed to get the apps? The Play Store won't let you download them off the web, because that would let them out of the walled garden. Most companies won't link their APKs, they just link you to the Play Store.
You might get lucky and it's popular enough to be on APKMirror, but there's really not a "good" way to sideload.
Oh, and most apps require Play Services to run now, and won't work even if you do sideload them.
Its close enough to zero and getting worse not improving. Its time for people who care about making things stop trying to make things with android and ditch the platform.
Android users will ditch google and switch to... What? Apple? Where you can't install anything at all except through the tightly controlled Apple app store?