Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrweasel | Hacker News Reader

> I still don't understand why people think in 2023 that Android can not be a viable alternative to an iPhone.

Because Google... I could live with not having iMessage or AirPlay, that's annoying but something I could live with. So it's either a de-googled Android phone or iPhone, and I do need a few apps which are only available in the App Store or Play Store, so I figure I'm limited to phones that can run something like CalyxOS, which basically limits me to Pixel or FairPhone.

The FairPhone isn't a terrible choice, but I'm not going to replace a functional iPhone with it... if it break maybe, or I can get a used iPhone.

It's not that I trust Apple all that much, I just trust them way more than Google at this point. I don't think Google is evil or bad, but their interest and mine doesn't really align.

View on HN

>I could live with not having iMessage

So, literally any messaging app, something that non-Apple users have to do anyways, and have to deal with your bullshit about only going through iMessage when they have to send you SMS.

>AirPlay

Chromecast is infinitely more ubiquitous. Also, if Apple didn't patent AirPlay and refuse to share it with anyone, you wouldn't be in this situation.

I will absolutely agree with Google being an absolutely dreadful steward of Android, but make no mistake: you gave Apple full support in locking themselves down in their own little playground, and now you're complaining you can't get out.

> Chromecast is infinitely more ubiquitous.

Chromecast is a device.

> Also, if Apple didn't patent AirPlay and refuse to share it with anyone, you wouldn't be in this situation.

Google Cast is just as proprietary as AirPlay. Both require licensing to be included in devices. I have an LG TV that supports both, an ancient Roku device that does the same, as well as supporting Miracast. I suspect you're confusing Chromecast and the Google Cast protocol with Miracast, an open standard; one dropped by Google in favour of their proprietary stack.

> Chromecast is a device

It's branded as "Chromecast built-in" when supported by a TV, not "Google Cast".

e.g. https://www.sony.com/image/89821bf64399cd4c34680e0988903e4b?...

Is that a recent rebranding? The SDK is still called Google Cast.

https://developers.google.com/cast.

It's probably a difference between developer facing and consumer facing, or software vs hardware branding.

Or maybe they just couldn't get a trademark for "Cast"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com