Hacker News Reader

> So android isn’t cool with teenagers, but it’s mostly because Android devices just suck now.

You may be right about Android phones sucking more than they used to regarding replaceability, customizability, rootability, etc., but I don't think that's why Android isn't cool. I think it's because teenagers that have iPhones make fun of people who show up with green colored text bubbles in their texts, and make fun of Android as something for poor people.

That, and convenience. Android simply can't provide the same coherent, seamless ecosystem of experiences that Apple can. People can't be bothered to deal with the annoyances of separate systems from separate providers anymore, and I feel that, especially in HN circles, that's a very undervalued thing.

If that were true why is Apple laptop / desktop market share not 50% in the US like phones are?

For most iPhone users, the iPhone is their only Apple device. Maybe a few have an iPad (about one in 30 or so), but that's it. Most don't have a Mac, HomePod, etc, and so the "seamless ecosystem" is not a factor.

Talk to any teenager or young adult. It really is the green bubbles.

>If that were true why is Apple laptop / desktop market share not 50% in the US like phones are?

People care less about their computers/PCs. That market has peaked over 10 years ago and has been on the decline ever since, minus the temporary pandemic peak, while they are far more emotionally attached to their computer in their pocket (their phone) rather than the computer sitting on the desk at home.

Plus, computers being more open means you can do most of the stuff on a PC that you can do on a PC, it's very little you can gatekeep in that market software wise.

So Apple has "fixed" that "mistake" and not allow the iPhone to be nearly as open as Macs were, therefore more easily gatekeep features valuable for social interactions and keep customers tied.

No, I think it's still true. As another commenter said, teens might be into PC gaming, so they have to buy a PC to guarantee they can play all the games their friends play.

But those same kids will have an iPhone, Watch and Airpods which also let you show off very visibly that you're in the Apple ecosystem when you're in public.

Its not so much that they're making fun of the poors. It's that green bubbles break the group chat, so Android users are usually excluded from them. And this is 100% by design. Apple could support RCS (the SMS replacement introduced in 2007) or just release an iMessage app for Android. But they have chosen not to in order to alienate Android users from their iOS contacts and create pressure for Android users to switch for the most petty reasons.

I say fuck all that noise. The correct response to this behavior is to switch to Telegram or Whatsapp or whatever and just be free of vendor lock in for something as basic as messaging.

> Apple could support RCS (the SMS replacement introduced in 2007) or just release an iMessage app for Android. But they have chosen not to in order to alienate Android users from their iOS contacts and create pressure for Android users to switch for the most petty reasons.

I never understood why everyone thinks that it's on Apple to open up their ecosystem and allow inferior devices to use their services that are offered for free to their customers because they're better.

Nobody expects KFC to share their secret blend of herbs and spices with other fast food restaurants because people prefer KFC over them...

If you want to beat Apple, then you need to provide something better, not think you get their cake too.

Because interoperable communication systems are supposed to be core to getting to use all that government-allocated public infrastructure (like phone networks, wireless spectrum, etc). That Apple intentionally degrades the experience for interacting with non-customers is "malicious compliance". Only implementing the oldest standard at the minimal level is worthy of ridicule.

If AT&T started introducing delays, message duplication, degrading image and video quality, etc whenever you messaged a non-AT&T customer, HN would be up in arms. But because the world's most valuable company does it they get a pass?

I don't care if Apple let's me use iMessage. I care that they won't implement RCS or let users change the messaging protocol handler on their phone purely for anticompetitive reasons.

> If AT&T started introducing delays, message duplication, degrading image and video quality, etc whenever you messaged a non-AT&T customer

Except Apple isn't doing any of that. I have zero issues texting with my non-iOS friends, only difference is I don't get the extra goodies that iMessages brings to the table with them.

> I care that they won't implement RCS or let users change the messaging protocol handler on their phone purely for anticompetitive reasons.

Uhhhhh they don't discourage any of that. I have Google Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Slack, WhatsApp, all those options. I just can't send them from a single app.

You are totally free to change your messaging handler by choosing the app of the messaging platform you prefer to use.

You're literally upset because you can't use Telegram inside iMessage? lmfao.

They want Apple to let people use SMS in Telegram. Not Telegram in Messages.

Telegram can't send SMS?

iOS restricts SMS to the Messages app.

More specifically, Apple does not allow other apps to access the SMS capabilities of the device.

Technically, if you have a tap in for SMS sending say, via a server relay, you can absolutely use other apps to send SMS messages.

I think Apple has good reasons for not allowing 3rd party apps to directly use the SMS functionality, namely prevents issues with 3rd party apps maliciously using the functionality to send spam messages, for example

Technically a 3rd party app iOS app could control Messages running on a remote Mac. But it would be misleading to say 3rd party iOS apps are allowed to send iMessage messages.

Apple should ban SMS relay apps and 3rd party email apps by your logic.

What wireless frequencies were allocated to Apple?

The inferior product here is Apple's iMessage. Apple is using decades old technology (SMS, introduced in 1992) to poorly pass messages with Android devices over cell service. They could update iMessage to use RCS and alleviate a lot of the green bubble issues without "opening up their ecosystem" (whatever that means).

Instead, Apple has chosen not to update iMessage because the poor experience they are creating for their own users makes their users believe that messaging on iPhone is superior to Android. Which it obviously isn't, you just have to look at any other messaging app like Telegram that runs circles around iMessage.

If Apple actually cared about this "ecosystem", they should just stop supporting SMS messaging all together, and have it so iMessage users can only communicate with other iMessage users.

> The inferior product here is Apple's iMessage.

Yet ya'll want them to open up iMessage for Android users. Sure sure sure sure sure.

> Instead, Apple has chosen not to update iMessage because the poor experience they are creating for their own users makes their users believe that messaging on iPhone is superior to Android.

Again, if you knew anything of the reason people "look down on you for having green bubbles" it's not about SMS, but about not having the extra goodies that people enjoy with iMessage when communicating with you.

> you just have to look at any other messaging app like Telegram that runs circles around iMessage.

Then whats the problem? Don't want to use iMessage then start your chats with your friends on Telegram, it's available on all platforms including iOS.

Oh yeah nobody wants to use Telegram even though it apparently "runs circles around iMessage"

> If Apple actually cared about this "ecosystem", they should just stop supporting SMS messaging all together, and have it so iMessage users can only communicate with other iMessage users.

So nothing changes other than to send an SMS to non iMessage users they change to a different app? That is absurb and a terrible UX.

> Yet ya'll want them to open up iMessage for Android users. Sure sure sure sure sure.

Where did they say this?

> Again, if you knew anything of the reason people "look down on you for having green bubbles" it's not about SMS, but about not having the extra goodies that people enjoy with iMessage when communicating with you.

RCS supports the features iMessage users complain most commonly green bubbles lack. In other words most complaints about green bubbles are about SMS.

> Oh yeah nobody wants to use Telegram even though it apparently "runs circles around iMessage"

I don't think Telegram runs circles around iMessage. But probably some of Telegram's 700 million monthly active users like it.

> Then whats the problem? Don't want to use iMessage then start your chats with your friends on Telegram, it's available on all platforms including iOS.

> So nothing changes other than to send an SMS to non iMessage users they change to a different app? That is absurb and a terrible UX.

You answered your own question. iOS restricts SMS to the Messages app.

> If Apple actually cared about this "ecosystem"

Hate to break it to you, but history has proven many, many times that all Apple cares about is separating you from your money.

Show me a for profit company, including your favorite device manufacturer who doesn't want the same thing. I'll wait here.

Another thing to keep in mind: RCS does not support end to end encryption by default either, which is something iMessage gained early on.

Google as of Aug. 8 of 2023 will now E2EE all messages via their messages app, but 3rd party apps that accept RCS (notably, Samsung messages) do not do this (at least by default) last time I looked.

Is iMessage better?

Sorry, not an iPhone user, so I genuinely don't know. I do my group chats with Google Chat, which seems to work fine. Are there things that I'm missing out on? (Perhaps because it's not an SMS-based service?)

Every time Apple vs Android comes up, someone pops up trying to stump for RCS...

I don't recall the precise details at the moment, but there are very good reasons for Apple not to prefer RCS—I believe one of them was that it is too heavily tied to the carriers.

In general, I am very much a proponent of not allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good; however, there are times when that breaks down in practice, and I believe this is one of them. In particular, if RCS is adopted as "the next messaging system" tomorrow, and then next year a much better open cross-platform messaging protocol is developed, it is vanishingly unlikely that it would be adopted. In fact, it's unlikely that any other system would be able to replace RCS for several more years, simply because everyone had just changed, and would be unwilling to change again for some time.

Do you believe Google would not work with Apple on a compatible protocol if Apple would work with Google? Or block Apple from shipping iMessage for Android? Apple's strategy of using iMessage for lock in is public record.[1]

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...

Well google does not allow any access to Android's RCS API, and basically uses a non open source extension for encryption. So yes, if they wanted RCS to not be their own little fiefdom, they would've just done so. Theres absolutely no reason to not allow access to the API except for lock in. I think only Samsung has a deal with them to actually be able to use RCS in their messaging app.

I didn't ask if they thought Google were reliable champions of openness. I asked if they believed Google would not work with Apple to diminish Apple's lock in. Screwing 3rd party apps long after Apple did doesn't show Google would have not or would not work with Apple.

> The correct response to this behavior is to switch to Telegram or Whatsapp or whatever and just be free of vendor lock in for something as basic as messaging.

My hope is that EU regulations will return us to truly lockin-free state of messaging we had in the 00s with modern analogues of Pidgin and Adium and people can use whatever messaging app they like. To me that’s a far better outcome than switching to e.g. WhatsApp, which is just as bad about lock-in even if that’s hidden by its ubiquity and cross-platform nature.

Yea, that’s a big factor in the “coolness”. But IMHO the root cause of this in/out group mentality is a feedback loop:

* android phones offer fewer meaningfully distinct features (or as another commenter said, apple catches up)

* people don’t see value in android due to lack of distinct features in flagship phones

* majority of android becomes cheaper models

* iPhone market share increases among rich and influential teens

Just my 2c :)

A big part of the appeal of Android stuff back in the early days was definitely the gee-whiz factor with whacky features. The wide variety of manufacturers (and thus, designs) also played a big part, since it made phone choice more about which design and featureset suited you personally.

Fast forward to today, and phones have homogenized into roughly the same featureset, with “gee-whiz” being limited to models with prices exceeding that of iPhones (e.g. foldables) and the number of manufacturers has dwindled down to a handful of giants that are all aping each other. That bit of appeal is gone, with the appeal that remains being dampened by Android’s mediocrity.

Indeed -- never mind that a brand new Pixel or high end Samsung phone costs MORE than the equivalently new iPhone in many cases.

In the 90s, kids rebelled against the system. In the '20s, kids just want the approval of it.

When I was a kid, we'd have been fighting tooth and nail to get a Pinephone -- especially with some of that hardware you can add on to them.

> but it’s mostly because Android devices just suck now

How do they suck now?

> Would you buy a $1000 android phone when it’s just a worse iPhone?

How is an android phone a worse iPhone? Genuine questions, my opinions are entirely opposite and I would like to understand your perspective.

he's saying that all the better stuff about Androids like replaceable batteries are gone on 1000$+ models, so you're left with a device that has iphone like capability... with worse apps and UI.

I think there's also now less of a gap in features between the two. My Galaxy S7, when new, had tons of features I could flex on iPhone users with (water resistance, always-on display, 1440p OLED screen, wireless charging, etc.) but now iPhone Pro models have basically caught up, with iPhone "Normal" models only losing out on things that the average consumer doesn't care about. With this happening at the same time as the "feature drain" that you've described, it means there's fewer and fewer reasons to buy an Android.

I feel like you might be attributing more technical savvy to the average teen than they might be due.

I just don't understand why I have to buy midrange phones to get the features I want. It's the market force equivalent of dark energy.

I'm pretty sure the biggest problem the phone vendors are trying to solve is you being able to recover from dropping your phone in the toilet. Most people cannot afford a $1200 loss like that, so getting rid of all water ingress points is the priority. That means the case is superglued together and there are as few I/O ports as possible. (I am surprised phones still have a speaker and microphone for making phone calls with; who does that?)

While unlikely to be true for readers of HN, for many people, their phone is the most expensive thing they own. So it has to be protected against accidents, and that's what the sealed design is for. Sure, it's probably good for planned obsolescence or whatever, but that's a secondary concern.

Another controversial aspect is that phones can't be repaired or sold for parts. This is another "loss protection" feature. Nobody steals mobile phones anymore because they are completely useless on the black market. The phone can't be used without the consent of the original owner, and the parts from that phone can't be put in other broken phones. The incentive to steal an easily-concealable $1200 brick of metal and semiconductors is nearly zero. I think that's amazing.

>So it has to be protected against accidents, and that's what the sealed design is for. Sure, it's probably good for planned obsolescence or whatever, but that's a secondary concern.

Sorry, but this reasoning that sealing a phone shut is first for water protection is just bs. No mate, it's 100% first and foremost for planned obsolescence justified by other fluff.

You know why? Go to your nearest store and pick up a 20-40 $ Casio watch that's 30m-200m water resistant, and check out the mighty innovations that make this happen while allowing you to operate its buttons under water and replace the battery and repair it: tiny rubber gaskets around the steel pushers and between the plastic body and the steel back plate screwed down with 4 screws. That's it.

Surely the likes of Apple, who has more money than God and a mastery on cutting edge silicon innovation, can copy this unfathomable innovation from the 20$ Casio F-91W, and engineer a similar gasket solution to mount the back panel on a phone with screws and allow for easily replacement of the battery while staying water resistant.

Heck, Samsung already makes a phone with a replaceable battery (like phones had in the old days) just by popping the cover with your fingers, that's also water resistant, also by using a gasket.

https://www.samsung.com/us/business/mobile/phones/galaxy-xco...

I don't think it is relevant to complain about lack of a headphone jack in a discussion of young people. Young people want wireless earbuds, those are very fashionable now, so the lack of a jack hardly matters. Generally people complaining about the headphone jack are comparative oldies.

It's a mystery to me that I keep reading online how it's such a big problem that phones don't offer SD cards or rootability, but literally never heard that in real life.

The "rootability" thing can be due to the own efforts from OEMs to lock their bootloaders and stuff, and electronic payments not being possible with a rooted phone - which is a major issue for places where people no longer use cash.

And maybe the SD cards thing is because people just don't care anymore about running out of storage (they'd delete their stuff or store it on a cloud service somehow). One of the reasons I wanted a Sony Xperia 1ii (and could get ahold of one of them) was it, but since I do not listen to music from my phone anymore I replaced the SD card with a second SIM card.

Whereas the "rootability" thing is actually great in my case, since Sony just gave two years of major Android releases to it - I can use Android 13 thanks to LineageOS and its battery life is even better than with the stock firmware. And with my previous phone, a Sony Xperia Z1, I could make it to go with me for +7 years.

But yep, I do wish Android OEMs offered more major releases to their phones.

The removal of SD cards always just felt petty, but at the end of the day, you can either plug in external media, use a wireless hard drive/SD reader, or just access your content remotely on self hosted servers (or use "the cloud" if you must).

Rootability is easy -- the real issue these days is how many things stop working with a rooted phone which makes it much less desirable than it used to be. Though, it's also a lot less important than it used to be, as many of the old functions that required root just don't any more, either because of changes to the system design, or because of workarounds.

I was watching clips of LinusTechTips' podcast, and he said that speaking to people who he trusts in the mobile phone space, that SD removal was primarily because SD flash is worse than the onboard stuff and they lose more customers who complain/think the phone is bad because of the SD card being worse, than customers who wouldn't buy the phone in the first place because it lacked it.

Personally, I think it's a little of both. It probably helps that less customers complain about the SD card not working, but being able charge an arm and leg for extra storage is icing on the cake.

Teenagers are thought that "bigger price= better quality". One told me that Apple is very secure (when Apple is closing holes only after they are made public and iMessages being a can of worms when it comes to security).

iPhones had headphone jacks initially, too, BTW.

This is a solid post. The Nexus 5x showed us what the future of Android phones was.