Hacker News Reader

Comment by nottorp | Hacker News Reader

> Android has created more choice for everyone, not less

Did it? I can choose between an iOS phone and an Android phone.

I may be able to choose from different manufacturers on the Android side, but on the software side there are just two options.

View on HN

Remember when Google refused to put Youtube on Windows Phone and when Microsoft made their own client, Google forced them to take it off their own store? Truly advocating for more choice.

(Press at the time: https://www.theregister.com/2013/08/16/windows_phone_youtube... )

The Microsoft YT client didn't play ads. All it did was cost YouTube bandwidth without bringing any revenue - there was no way Google was going to let that slide.

More broadly, that was also the time Microsoft was going after Android OEMs - never Google directly - threatening them with a secret list of patents that Android allegedly infringed[1]. The settlement almost always resulted in the OEM agreeing to manufacture Windows phones (HTC and Samsung, off the top of my head). As an outsider, it appeared to be part of a mobile marketshare shadow war.

1. I'm guessing to prevent invalidation or work-arounds.

Far from me to want to put Microsoft on a pedestal, but it always felt like neither liked playing fair. WP eventually got a third party Youtube app that kinda stuck for a while, but it was paid (and actually decent) and AFAIK it never got any attention from Google, which to me always felt more like Google was trying to be an ass and protecting their revenue... but mostly their Android revenue.

I was around when Project Astoria almost saw the light of day and I assume Google came back to shoot it down in a similar way (which would be really nice karma given MS patent story)

Project Astoria had weird timing, considering Microsoft initially submitted an amicus brief in Oracle v Google on Oracle's side, i.e. supporting the notion that APIs are copyrightable - which was awkward as Astoria implemented Android APIs. Sometime later, after both sides appealed, MS submitted another amicus - this time on Google's side. Possibly after seeing the light with WSL and Astoria

Oh, and if Google had lost its case against Oracle, they could have gone after Microsoft for Astoria, and the amicus would have been first exhibit to prove willful infringement.

I had a Windows phone. The web version of Youtube worked fine. The Youtube app on Android is such a pain in the a* that sometimes I use the web version of Youtube on an Android tablet I have!

You should check out Vanced / ReVanced. Vanced is basically a modified Youtube app with ads removed and a lot of the other annoyances fixed. It's gotten trickier to find since google sent them a nastygram, but they posted the SHA256 on https://vancedapp.com/ so if you find a copy floating around, you can quickly determine if it's legit or not.

ReVanced is a WIP set of tools to patch Youtube and other apps - https://github.com/revanced

Vanced and Iceraven (Firefox with more addons enabled) are two of the main things keeping me on Android.

Newpipe is another good alternative client. Bypasses ads, plays audio in the background, allows downloading videos and even subscribing to channels without an account (the app simply monitors updates on that channel)

I have only used the android version once and what a pain that was. Clearly designed to only push content on the unsuspecting user and nothing else.

Yes, I do remember. You, however, seem to have conveniently left out the fact that they illegally reverse engineered the protocol and filtered ads. Microsoft got what was coming to them.

And before that you could choose between multiple brands that wouldn't run the same software and could only download apps on a proprietary carrier app store.

Someone built an app for Nokia Symbian phones and released it with O2 UK? Well, go to hell if you had Sony Ericsson Symbian phone because that phones Symbian was incompatible on API level with the Nokia, despite having the same OS. You could even have the same Nokia, but good luck if yours had the T-Mobile DE bloatware and their own store with their own profit sharing deals.

Google enforces compatibility between Android phones with CDD/CTS/VTS which ensures that the phones support a consistent set of working APIs that application devs can rely on.

Before CTS/CDD/VTS tests grew enough, we Android devs had hellova time making sure our apps worked across Samsungs, LGs, Nokias and whatnot.

EU attacking Google for ensuring the Android ecosystem is actually compatible is just ensuring that Apple will dominate with it's lack of choice in the mobile market. The fact that EU officials excluded Apple from consideration of how mobile markets work is telling just how disconnected from reality they are. Apple swept away all the old competitors BECAUSE it didn't have the fragmented mess of lacking cross-device, cross-region and cross-carrier compatibility.

And just to be clear - I'm not against EU issuing out fines to big tech (god knows I've defended that a lot of times), but in this case it's actively toxic for us Europeans.

What they did with their manufacturers is a different issue, but in general they offer a lot more options than Apple. Android allows Manufacturers (such as Amazon and Samsung) to have their own app stores and allows for side loading apps, both of which are impossible with Apple.

You have it backward, Amazon and Samsung's own appstores are desperate attempts to get enough traction out of Play Store so that they are not forced to succumb to Google's demands. The issue here isn't Android not being open (which it is), the problem is Google having a lot of control (including full veto power) on devices shipping with Google Play Services, while making them an increasingly necessary part of Android. You can make an Android device without having to let Big G call the shots, but they're banking on you NOT doing that because no one wants a phone without the Play Store and its related services.

Well also, and note its been a while, but when I used non-Google software on the various other phones I've tried (such as Samsung), the first thing I used to do was uninstall all of their software and (if a available) get the Google versions, because they were usually much better. But this isn't new -- back when I was still purchasing Windows machines it was the same way. For whatever reason I just never found an OEM for laptops or phones whose software seemed to add any value.

Now that I work in Software I get it. Most companies are just really bad at making it.

It's hard to find value in something that you immediately uninstall.

Apple strictly prohibits any apps outside their app store. Google does not. Yes Google abuses their popularity, but it's leagues better than Apple.

It's not good. Google should let people opt out. Breaking the trust of it's users makes people rabid for a feasible opptuntiy to leave. Apple starting to monetize data doesn't make a great argument for jumping in that walled garden. Holding your users hostage is not a good look.

> I may be able to choose from different manufacturers on the Android side, but on the software side there are just two options.

What do you mean by "just two options"?

The AOSP ecosystem has a healthy range of ROMs to choose from on many devices. The process of installing alternative firmware may not be for everyone, but the choice is there, which is pretty much nonexistent for iOS devices.

  >The AOSP ecosystem has a healthy range of ROMs to choose from on many devices.

But it's not true choice is it? It's just the same old same old with a different skin on top. Much the same as the similarly claimed 'choice' in Linux distros pretty much boils down to the same old same old collection of apps running on the same old same old collection of desktop environments. But with eleventy billion superficial skins layered on top, to choose from.

I'm not clear on what you want? There are two mobile operating systems, do you want some company to make another one? What is stopping them?

Anticompetitive practices are stopping them. That’s the point of these fines. Google controls the predominant non-Chinese marketplace for apps that are compatible with android-based operating systems, and they use it as a hostage to force other device manufacturers to arbitrarily force other google products upon their uses, for the purpose of unfairly expanding their market dominance.

Isn't that a whole other level though? Google is being asked to stop forcing distribution of their software so other Android software can compete.

Either way, you're still going to have 2 operating systems: Android and iOS.

It’s a bit of a self reinforcing loop, though. Top apps are all on Google Play because everyone using Android (on this side of the GFW) is all but forced to stay in Google’s ecosystem.

The diversity of *nix based OSes are a testament to what could happen in the absence of monopolistic powers.

If it weren’t for Google’s stranglehold, Android probably would already be #2 to a fork made by Samsung.

> The diversity of *nix based OSes are a testament to what could happen in the absence of monopolistic powers.

You mean how they all died and Linux became king?

The market cannot support diversity of operating systems -- users will flock to where the applications are and developers flock to where the users are. Only a small number of choices are ever sustainable.

If Android disappeared tomorrow and 10 operating systems were designed to replace it eventually there would be only 1 or 2 surviving.

If Samsung forked Android it will still need to run Android apps and therefore be Android. That's pretty much exactly what they do now.

Darwin and FreeBSD have huge install bases, and can run many *nix applications, as android can too. OS developers often think about compatibility, at least, when they’re not contractually prohibited from creating their own OS to begin with.

There’s no technological reason that you can’t run popular Android apps on other OSes. Other OSes already support running Android apps. The primary reason this isn’t more common is anticompetitive.

> But it's not true choice is it?

Compared to what?

Apple?

You can fork AOSP in arbitrary ways and have a pretty great OS. Most companies don't do this because they don't have any particular ideas about how to do Android's core differently - UI is one of the places where you can actually innovate and users will notice, so that's where the effort goes. But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core.

  >But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core.

Of course not. But that's the point I'm trying to make. The illusion of choice. Out of all eleventy billion versions of Android you can get, who has actually produced something that is truly different, as opposed to just another skin on top of what everyone else has, or a slightly different layout of the same functionality everyone else has?

Here's one example: text editing on mobile. I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds this excruciating. Especially things like selecting text / copy & pasting etc. And, it's 2022 and we still have no 'undo' function. But, every single variant of Android [and iOS] uses the same horribly flawed text editing functionality. Do any of the eleventy-billion 'alternative' versions of Android address any of this? Of course not. It's so much easier to throw a new skin on top of the same old crap than to actually innovate and make real changes.

I agree, but again, that's not Android's fault. Android is necessary but not sufficient for innovation in mobile OS'. You still need people who are willing to take risks and come up with better ideas.

> But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core.

One of anticompetitive restrictions identified was:

> ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google;

So no, Samsung can't just fork AOSP.

But Google approves forks that are AOSP compatible as checked by an automated test suite. And if Samsung wanted to, they could stop selling phones with the Google apps and switch to their own AOSP fork. They've already laid much of the groundwork after all.

Are you seriously trying to argue that all linux distros are the same except for their UI?

Yep. That’s pretty much the case. They are functionally the same for 99% of users.

Are they not?

No, the package management differs between distros

As someone who makes a living partially by doing custom distros for arm custom boards (and apps on top of them)... no. There is no difference between linux distros.

Same for Android flavors for that matter.

If there are no differences between linux distros, why does anyone need a custom distro?

That's like saying the Phoebus Cartell was fine because you can make your own lightbulb.

Before I could choose the same manufacturers but things were tied to those. I knew if I switched from Nokia to Sony for example, it would be completely different. In a way Android resulted in the choice to switch between manufacturers to be painless. Realistically, now you can choose whatever non apple device you want and know everything will continue to work.

Easy to switch between giving all your data to Google and giving all your data to Google, sure. Bear in mind, Android hardware is no longer unique or distinctive, every glass rectangle is the same, so those choices are pointless, but our lack of privacy is pervasive.

Steve Jobs pointed this out along time ago. No one cares about the hardware. Nice hardware is nice but what we care about is the software.

Previously, we would switch from Nokia to Sony we would lose our ringtones, our games, our apps, our photos, etc. When each phone operator had their own operating system, it was honestly terrible.

And honestly, shoehorning privacy into a conversation about choices in phones is a poor show. Feel ashamed.

Privacy is the top concern I have with phones. The fact that 80% of them globally are compromised by default is a huge deal. Nobody informed should be rolling with Android, anywhere, and yet here we are.

Also, I care about hardware... when it matters. Sell me a keyboard slider, the DROID 4 was the last compelling reason to care about hardware and we've all been bored senseless since.

If privacy is a top concern why are you walking around with a tracking device. Even without Google. It's literally a tracking device.

This is a defeatist justification for using Android that fails to account for the fact that neither Apple nor anyone whose app is on my phone knows where it is right now.

My cell carrier has a non-precise idea of where it is, but may not be able to tie it conclusively to my identity.

Your cell carrier will be able to pinpoint your location very accurately in a urban location. If you look at people getting convicted of various crimes you'll see the location data they're able to extract from the phone number.

Also, they will almost certainly be able to tie it to your identity even on a burner phone by who you contact. If you have a contract then obivously they will tie it. If you have a pay as you go and make payments via non cash methods then that will be tied. Cash payments and the location you made them from will help conclusively tie it to your identity with a half decent amount of work.

You are able to disable gps hardware on some Android phones. But as previously noted, no matter who your phone manufacturer is, it is a tracking device.

But what did Google do that's worse than what Apple did? It's a bit ironic that by making their OS opensource, they somehow are more guilty than Apple for keeping their OS locked down.

Android allows hundreds of companies to have a business and make millions or billions, many of which are in EU and wouldn't exist if Android had gone the Apple way.

If you're looking for a phone without ads/spyware, there is less choice because the EU sees Android as a similar product-category as iOS, thereby not identifying iOS as a monopoly (and Android as well, in its own category).

I think you can argue that iOS/Android are a duopoly but I'm having a hard time seeing how iOS is a monopoly.

Mobile OS: iOS Android (third options from Korea/China?)

Hardware: iPhone Pixel Galaxy etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com