Apple's called Android a "massive tracking device" in an internal presentation
androidauthority.com
androidauthority.com
But "learning" about this public secret from Apple seems somewhat disingenuous. If Android is a cheap rip off device for collecting user data, what device is it a rip off of?! And doesn't Apple collect over 25 billion annually for offering similar services to Google?
[Added from article]
> Ironically, despite Apple describing Android as a massive tracking device, an internal Google email from 2016 about Apple and Google’s deal shows how Apple wanted data sharing with Google to be reciprocal.
> In the email, the Google exec notes that they told Apple that Google doesn’t share information about what users click on in Google Search.
> However, a reply to that email includes a redacted data exchange proposal, raising questions about what user data Google could be sharing with Apple.
The device is a rip off of iPhone/iOS, obviously, but the intent behind them is different. Gmail didn't invent email, Google Maps didn't invent internet maps, Google Drive didn't invent cloud storage, Chrome didn't invent the browser... Google cloning and offering these products/services up was done with tracking added for the purpose of boosting AdWords revenue.
Google has ripped off many products, from many companies, adds in a bunch of tracking, and it becomes another arm of their data collection beast. The products they rip off may have not been used for collecting user data, but Google ripped them off and continues offering the services, because of the data collection possibilities.
> In the email, the Google exec notes that they told Apple that Google doesn’t share information about what users click on in Google Search.
They don't need to share the information, because all the Google products collecting the data, and the services using it for profit, are all in-house. This doesn't mean they aren't collecting and using the data, just that it's their competitive advantage for AdWords and it's far more valuable for them to keep and use themselves.
As a developer I care a lot about intent, too: if we confuse what a program does with what it's supposed to be doing it gets hard to see what bug to fix.
And I also agree that in all those cases Google was motivated by the fear of being locked out. Locked out by open standards, ousted by Apple as they did with facebook, kept in the dark by Mozilla for refusing third party cookies or choosing a competing default search engine.
...Except that those fears in case of Apple were unwarranted. Apple sells "secure hardware" to customers, but is equally happy to sell those customers to Google, or anyone that pays a little to be in their app store. There are limits, but there are also limits to what Android allows.
So in practice, even though their intent might be different, the outcome barely is. I recently discovered about Stafford Beers' POSIWID [1] and I suppose that from that angle, Apple's attribution of Android is basically describing their iPhone just as well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
> Radio Yerevan was asked: "Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the USSR (in some versions, Russia), just like in the USA?" Radio Yerevan answered: "In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House and yell, “Down with Reagan!”, and you will not be punished. Equally, you can also stand in the Red Square in Moscow and yell, “Down with Reagan!”, and you will not be punished."
"America is so free, that I piss in front of Bush as he's passing by me."
"It's the same in Russia. I also piss when Putin passes by me. Except I don't take it out of my pants."
Microsoft has all the expertise in partnering with vendors and getting them to ship their operating systems, they have a rough idea about how to run an app store and they have access to developer. A de-Google, privacy focused Microsoft Android, with a Microsoft store, the ability to run native Android apps and perhaps .Net application, pushed by Microsoft sales and vendor channel seems pretty interesting to me.
But Microsoft doesn't care about neither privacy, nor mobile and practically no phone manufacturers really care to ship anything but Android at this point.
I sure as shit can't blame them - for a decade, Google tied Google Mobile Services (including things like Google Maps and the Play Store) to shipping Google's Android exclusively. If OEMs wanted to fork Android and drop Google for Microsoft, they'd (up until at least 2018) lose their license to GMS for all handsets sold. That changed in 2018 [0], when Google were told by the EU they would "... also need to stop preventing phone makers from using forked versions of Android" (from [0]).
I'm sure Google wouldn't pull any other licensing tricks to keep Microsoft or Huawei from making a competitive fork of Android now though! /s
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e...
Respectfully, I'm not sure it was entirely Huawei (the company)'s decision. Being a major multi-national from mainland China, calling them "an arm of the CCP" isn't really fair, but neither is it entirely false.
More to the point - I tried to avoid being misleading; the arm-twisting (we know of) ended in 2018. But between the precedent, and the dozen other proprietary Google frameworks and legal agreements that could be serviced to this end in confidential OEM deals, I'm completely unsurprised nobody else has really stepped up.
Amazon's Fire phones and Fire tablets were certainly another example at forking Android (and providing replacement versions of the services), but Amazon had to find a hardware OEM that didn't already make Android devices for anyone else, due to Google's anticompetitive licensing requirements.
Yup, the lack of a YouTube app (and Google actively blocking MS's attempt to create one) was a large factor in the death of Windows Phone.
The one exception is a waiting room or long train ride but really if I have any bigger screen available I'd go for that.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1173543/youtube-viewing-....
Consoles I don't use either, but I mainly use my PCs for watching it. I find it so extremely inconvenient to watch it on my phone that I never do that at home.
Apple is the antithesis of this. One company shows up and makes all decisions for you, and you have no recourse, and that's it. If you don't like it, sucks to be you, go buy something else (I did).
They never said anything about forced to use iPhone.
Apple is about image and status. A walled ecosystem to maintain that image.
https://projectsandcastle.org/
But it’s a mobile device — swapping OS is not a trivial feat, not even on the android side. Especially if you care about security (pinephones for example don’t care at all).
Their macs on the other hand allows safe booting of other OSs, see the Asahi project.
This is completely false. Care to provide any proofs?
If we use it is because they are useful.
Do not misunderstand me, I am the first person to not be satisfied with these things. That is why I self host things most of the time and I avoid using Cloud services of any kind.
Apple’s AirTag implementation is very elegant and does not result in user or AirTag location being revealed to Apple or other users. It’s hard to imagine Google shipping that kind of design.
It's worth noting that even a device is turned off these days, there's a good chance there's some small chip inside still on, likely connected to the radio.
Here is a list of Apple's services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Apple_Inc._services They are of value to most people with Apple hardware, and many without
> Clearly Apple does not combine iOS data with their search engine, which doesn't exist
That's ... correct? What was the purpose of this statement?
> Then oddly it goes on to imply that separate sign-on for iCloud and App Store and iTunes are somehow benefits to the user when in my experience those are clear anti-features
They don't _force_ separate sign-on, they allow it. As in, obviously it is convenient to use the same Apple ID for everything, but if you have reason to want to use a different ID (privacy reasons, or older hardware with different capabilities) you can. Google does not allow this because it would dilute your ID (and therefore worth in ads).
> I do not, ever, want to be prompted for my password when getting a free app from the App Store and that happens all the fucking time
Change that simple setting?
I'm not even an iPhone user, but man ...
Indeed you can still browse Gmail with the mobile web browser but it is very inconvenient, not ergonomic or limited and it is not like a email app. Also, btw, when you connect to Gmail or any google thing in the web browser, your whole web browser will use this Google profile for everything also.