Google has slowly but surely started approaching the walled garden approach put forth by Apple.
It is totally within their right to do this. I understand why they're doing this. I'm not happy with it.
It is totally within their right to do this. I understand why they're doing this. I'm not happy with it.
[1]: See the "custom ROM" thing at the bottom. There's a caveat that the current implementation has a limit of 100 device ids. There's some discussion/debate about what that will end up meaning. If it ends up meaning 100 devices, that's fine for any consumer use pattern. It may in practice end up meaning 100 flashes, which is/could be problematic for certain users (custom ROM developers, as an example).
This would be like Microsoft banning Lenovo from sticking unlicensed copies of windows on Lenovo laptops. Something which Microsoft already does.
Similarly, as a user (paid or otherwise) of Google's services, unless specific evidence is given that the user is abusing their services, Google is in the wrong here of blocking someone preemptively.
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.
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'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.
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.
FWIW, I'm not dismissing what you are saying, but I genuinely dont see how it changes anything.
> "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.
Now I really, truly am done. Best.
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.
There are also laptops where you can't install Ubuntu btw, still it's "more open" than Android.
Google has way enough power to dictate standards, for most companies, not having access to the Play Store is assured death.
> There are also laptops where you can't install Ubuntu btw
There's very few then, I don't know any personally.
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.
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?
> If you cannot even run the OS on the hardware without using some buffer overflows in the first place, that's another level.
Buy a phone which allows you to unlock the bootloader then ;) LG does that since since 2015 for example.
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.
Also there's the AOSP. And openness to use a custom launcher, browser engine, overlays, ...
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.
Apt sources don't require permission to use them with a particular device.
What? They are blocking the device from using Googles services. The device will continue to work just fine. Which leads to
> do whatever they want with the device they paid good money for
Yes, customer has the right to do whatever they want on their device, but that does not extend to (ab)use Googles service in whatever way they want.
That makes no sense. How have they abused it? There is no evidence of breach of terms provided.
FWIW, Google is allowing power-users a work around where you register the device to your own account, and then you can use their products. It seems as if they're targeting bootleggers who may be selling tampered products to non-savvy consumers, which isn't unreasonable imo.
They do, if they purchased the device (and have a legitimate account with google). Google AFAIK has not provided any evidence to affected users detailing how they have breached their terms.
The Google Play Store is a proprietary software package that is released on some devices which use a proprietary licensed version of Android.
Using the open source operating system known as Android does not entitle you magically to Google's other proprietary software. Google only gives the Play Store to some certified hardware handsets, that meet requirements they arbitrarily decide on.
There was an issue with vendors, who were using open source Android (legally), sideloading the proprietary Google play store without permission (illegal) and then selling that to Consumers.
Again, you can sideload your own different store that isn't Google Play. Your account isn't being banned or restricted - you can sign in on Google Play on a valid device that's allowed to have it - but this is Google's only recourse against manufacturers sideloading the Play store when they aren't allowed to.
Users are seeing this also with Google's own hardware.
https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=76004552&pos...
The more I read about it, the more I am against Google's actions here.
Why would your purchase of an unlicensed AOSP-fork device entitle you to a license to Google's proprietary apps?
Play Services have always been close source.
I am tired of awesome hardware that Verizon/Samsung/att decide to take a gigantic shit on with their custom garbage software
"Hey so let's make the user experience worse"
Many security-paranoid people I know run Lineageos/plain AOSP happily.