The thing people love forgetting is a huge part of the iPhone success is based on the North American cellular comms industry being a trustless disaster area. The deal Apple did with AT&T opened the floodgates.
Android was initially designed so that operators could customise it. The idea was apps were developed (and sold) only by operators, and everything else would be via the browser. If you had used a Nokia device in the EU in 2005 and then the exact same model in the customised form released on a US carrier you'd understand why this was such a terrible idea. The exclusion of carriers from being able to make modifications to the phone was, and remains, an active feature for end users.
People keep having to learn that developers cannot be trusted either, someone somewhere will always trend towards the very worst thing they can do, and you need look no further than this forum for the levels of avarice which have overrun the tech industry. The EU regulators live in a parallel universe where they're all dependent on WhatsApp as they've never truly internalised that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that people see them as easy marks.
> Android was initially designed so that operators could customise it. The idea was apps were developed (and sold) only by operators, and everything else would be via the browser.
I'm not sure where you got this information. The Android Marketplace arrived with version 1.0 of Android on the T-Mobile G1. Side loading has been available since the very beginning.
What you describe more closely resembles what iPhone did, except that it was never a given that Apple's carrier partners were going to be able to ship their own user facing software on the device.
Operators and OEMs can absolutely customize Android and it was more allowed in the beginning than now. As a way to reduce fragmentation and gain more control over the platform, Google started attaching more and more stipulations to allowing it's suite of software (including Marketplace, now known as Google Play) to be included on handsets.
Was there ever a case of a mobile operator launching their own software store on Android? Certainly OEMs did it, with the Samsung app store being the most prominent. Genuinely curious here, as others do note that (see the Japanese handsets post) OEMs have and even still do a bunch of customization and pre installed apps.
I was working in mobile games at the time and ended up working with Google on the Play Store launch, among other things.
But what I mentioned was not some big secret. Everyone knew Android was supposed to be the response to google having to keep stashes of j2me devices in drawers, which is ironically what everyone ended up needing to do with Android devices.
People have memory holed just what a shock the iphone caused, not just technically but strategically, and how it altered who has the power over distribution. The whole industry (google included) did not see this coming because of the power of the carriers.
> Everyone knew Android was supposed to be the response to google having to keep stashes of j2me devices in drawers, which is ironically what everyone ended up needing to do with Android devices.
It was still a better situation. An Android app might need tweaks but at least you're dealing with the same SDK/API (maybe with proprietary extensions?)
Those J2ME phones felt like you needed to start from basically scratch for each phone model.
Windows Mobile phones had apps distributed by wherever, you could go get them on a CD from Bestbuy if you wanted.
> I was working in mobile games at the time and ended up working with Google on the Play Store launch, among other things.
Well, mobile games are distributed via ads, not the "stores."
I don't know. This distribution, network effects story. It's sort of, whatever. People were using chat apps then, and people are using chat apps now. The iOS App Store and Google Play are such shit shows, they are glorified installation wizards for 99.9% of people. Whether you have to install-wizard via sideloading or via a deep link or whatever, it's not super material nor revolutionary. I think this comes from conflating Steam with the App Store, ultimately Steam is a real, bonafide store, and the mobile app stores are more like technical restrictions that someone is using to take a 30% cut of revenues. Which is what everyone is saying anyway.
> Windows Mobile phones had apps distributed by wherever, you could go get them on a CD from Bestbuy if you wanted.
This was also the case for Palm smartphones. Since they were an amalgam of a Palm PDA and a cell phone, they kept the app model of Palm PDAs. IIRC, you could even transfer apps from one Palm PDA to another through their infrared port, or through Bluetooth if both were fancy ones.
I think a lot of people forget that the iPhone was not the first smart phone. I was downloading apps, checking email, and sending IMs over the AIM network with Verichat on my Treo 650 well before the iPhone was a thing.
The two huge innovations of the iPhone were decent web browsing (I had a Treo, it sucked for the web) and the multitouch screen with corresponding gestures. Nobody else was doing anything like this yet, and I remember this being the thing that blew everyone away at the keynote.
Multi-touch was such an enabler, because it meant you could do an on-screen keyboard properly, which meant you could replace the physical keyboard with more screen.
I remember everyone scoffing at the "lol you can't type on it" dramatically missing this point.
Also the keyboard wasn't.stuck with QWERTY! You could swap keyboards. You could have big numbers when typing phone numbers, and letters when texting. You could type Californian street names correctly! Write math! Etc.
Previous versions Android were nothing like T-Mobile’s G1. It was more like if Nokia made a BlackBerry device.
Just something else I was thinking about with Android. I love the Android OS but Google’s implementation is far and away the best version and while you could technically run Android with just the bare necessities and without google apps, it may as well be unusable. So, google has “technically” made it available without their services but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze to get it working how you want it.
Yes, before it was launched it was a different OS. The iPhone forced a pivot.
Nonetheless, the very first phone that shipped with Android on it was the T-Mobile G1 (also branded as the HTC Dream).
> Just something else I was thinking about with Android. I love the Android OS but Google’s implementation is far and away the best version and while you could technically run Android with just the bare necessities and without google apps, it may as well be unusable. So, google has “technically” made it available without their services but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze to get it working how you want it.
Yes, it's unfortunate that AOSP is a shell that is missing so much-- it's more an OS framework than a complete OS at this point.
> People keep having to learn that developers cannot be trusted either
The problem with this is that Apple is also a developer trying to sell you things. I would feel better if Apple's goals and the user's goals were aligned all the time instead of just some of the time.
Admittedly, Apple's real priority is just to make money on every transaction that occurs upon an idevice.
Yes businesses are in the business of making money. Apple is a business. The hope for you (a consumer) is that your needs and theirs are aligned sufficiently well that they solve problems you benefit from while minimizing how much they exploit you. It’s capitalism.
Accurate. Businesses that show consistent good will towards their users often just haven't become successful enough to afford to exploit you yet. Pointing out that Apple only really cares about extracting your money is mostly an admission that they've found we will let them do it.
Or, Apple gives you your time back, and for that, you are happy to trade a bit more money and a lot less time, to be a customer.
Apple makes hardware enabled platform experiences for end users who don't want to tweak and people who value their own time more than money. That's a big reason Apple causes so much resentment -- not everyone can value time over money.
It's also resented by devs who don't understand or value what a hardware enabled platform experience for end users can mean to their income if they grok it.
> That's a big reason Apple causes so much resentment -- not everyone can value time over money.
Is it? I have been buying apple products for over 20 years now, and like most people here make a lot more money than the people who behold an iPhone as a status symbol lol.
I still see Apple's desire to get a kickback for every transaction on an iPhone nefarious nickel and diming, and I see their "ecosystem" as deliberate vendor lock-in - and I think that "ecosystem" actually holds Apple's OSes back in terms of innovation.
I regularly disagree with Apple's choices. Not all of em? I was ok with the vision pro - not buying one, but sometimes you need to experiment with things like that. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I have to all-or-nothing it.
Per all the smug "just get an android phone" comments, I DID. I have a galaxy fold 4 and an iPhone 13 sitting on my desk. Yea, I can afford to do silly stuff like that, and I'm a goofy nerd that likes trying different things. I don't have a steadfast attachment to one platform - another reason I find the "ecosystem" stuff obnoxious.
Or, the two things we’ve said about Apple aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m talking about how they behave, you’re talking about the philosophy for the products they create. I like and consume Apple products too, and my willingness to buy their updated model every few years is how they know they have me right where they want me.
What Apple's done is also violating antitrust laws, which has gotten them in trouble with the DOJ recently. And it's about time. They are a business, but an abusive anti-competitive one that has serious lock-in that bars competitors from their platform for no good reason other than to make even more money. They also forbid some apps because Apple releases something similar, and they don't want any competition. If they did allow competition they might not have made so much money, but they also wouldn't be the subject of major lawsuits in the US and in the EU.
Um, there’s something called Android. No need to be on the Apple platform at all. You can switch to it if you’d like. When I walk into a Tesla dealership I don’t expect to be able to buy a Chevrolet.
Um, whataboutism isn't a valid defense with the DOJ. Go read the many counts the DOJ is suing Apple for. It's extensive and points to a systemic problem at Apple stifling competition in many ways. Microsoft lost their antitrust case and they weren't doing 1/2 the shady stuff Apple is doing.
They also forbid competition in many ways - forcing Safari browser no matter what browser you install, Chrome is Safari, Firefox is Safari, Opera is Safari. That's far worse than what Microsoft did to get sued by simply bundling IE with Windows. No, Apple forbids any other browser but their browser, and this is done for anti-competitive reasons. That's just one example. It's a lot more than "Android bubbles green". But you're a fanboi and a troll, and you don't really care what the DOJ lawsuit says, that much is clear.
Oh go switch to Android. Until very recently, iOS had a minority share of the market and still does worldwide. It’s in no way comparable to Microsoft 25 years ago which then had an overwhelming market position. Were you one of those guys who spelled Microsoft with a ‘$’ btw?
Neither platform is great at everything really, but being able to use ACTUAL firefox on an android phone is pretty sweet. I can use ublock origin, get firefox bookmark syncing which works with EVERY SINGLE device and computer I own! It's awesome. I love it. It also works better with 'request desktop website'.
Likewise, automatic photo syncing with onedrive works better on android than it does on iOS (although this may be a configuration thing).
But when it comes to smartwatches, I do really like my Apple Watch. The problem is, Apple Watches only work with Apple iPhones. And Apple iPhones only work really well with Apple Watches because Apple doesn't allow anyone else to do half the things that Apple iOS can do with Apple Watches. And frankly, none of those things that Apple does as "vertical integration" are special or unique - it's just obnoxious vendor lock-in. They could have made a good smartwatch API and vetted smartwatch vendors the same way they vet apps. But no. We get Apple Watches or a shit experience on 3rd party watches.
The "don't like it? buy something else" attitude is obnoxious as hell. Apple could do better with iOS (and with their Macs). I don't know why some people can't accept that.
>Android was initially designed so that operators could customise it. ... The exclusion of carriers from being able to make modifications to the phone was, and remains, an active feature for end users.
Japanese Android phones bought from carriers are fucking horrible because they have modifications both from the manufacturer (eg: Sony, Samsung) and the carrier.
I wonder if this is partially why Japan is among the few markets led by iOS rather than Android. I hate iOS, but Android from Japanese carriers is such a hellscape it might just be worth tolerating the former.
If you think about it, this is one of the reasons I like macOS. Back then, buying a PC with windows meant having a lot of crap installed by default. Not sure if it's still the case because I haven't bought a PC in ages, but I remember that formatting my computer and reinstalling windows was step 1 when I was buying a brand new laptop/PC.
What you describe is the main reason I like Linux, but at last check the reinstall trick doesn't even work anymore because a lot of the preloaded software can get reinstalled automatically even if you install from non-OEM media. Its still probably better than trusting the preinstalled OS in the world of state sponsored spying and supply chain attacks.
Windows still comes with a lot of crap installed by default, the difference is that Microsoft has decided to cut out the OEMs and preload the crap themselves (a clean install of Windows 11 Professional comes with apps for Roblox, TikTok, and Disney Plus among others) so the "install from retail media" trick no longer works unless you also pirate the LTSC or Education editions of Windows.
1. Format a flash drive with two partitions
2. Burn the Windows installer ISO to the first partition
3. Download all the drivers to the second partition
4. Flash the BIOS with the latest version
5. Ensure you are NOT connected to the Internet and boot flash drive
6. Install Windows, disallow the metrics they let you opt-out
7. Creating a local account works because offline
8. Install drivers avoid add-on software from manufacturer
9. Edit local group policy - enable "Turn off Microsoft Consumer Experience"
9a. Alternatively, edit the Registry, DisableWindowsConsumerFeatures in HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\CloudContent
10. Connect Internet, check for updates reboot a few times
11. Open Microsoft Store and uninstall any junk apps (stubs)
12. Install whatever other software you desire
13. Configure your update settings so it is less annoying
It's a needlessly esoteric, bad guide. The first three steps can be simplified into "Obtain an installation media.", and the fourth step of updating your BIOS has nothing to do with Windows specifically.
Creating a local account is basic sense (no, not common sense; we aren't common people), and not connecting to the internet during install is recommended but not a hard requirement.
Installing drivers while avoiding their bloatware is, again, basic sense.
Disabling "Microsoft Consumer Experience" does nothing as far as I've experienced (and it shouldn't, the setting is only effective on Windows 11 Enterprise and Education); I never modify that setting myself.
On the other hand, I turn off Automatic Updates (automatic Windows Update) and Microsoft Store's ability to automatically download and update programs via the Group Policies. This is probably what you want if Disney+ keeps bothering you.
This all said, if you're getting pestered by third-party crapware you are probably using Windows 11 Home. Just pay up for a Professional license and save your time and nerves. The cheaper price of Home licenses is offset by third-party crapware.
especially if you just buy a single pro license and keep it across all your pc upgrades. i havent paid for a new windows license in years and all my copies are legal, dont keep nuking and buying new keys and its not expensive
I agree its a concern. You could argue everything on XDA forums and any modified Windows should have the same problems.
Personally I use the community of version of Arch i3, not going to check the source on that, but will trust that community might keep an eye on anything nefarious.
Doesn't seem like Linux is completely immune from that either(i.e. XZ Utils).
But the build is amazingly stable and fast, and I will have to take it good faith that they didn't do anything that would harm me.
I can at least track down the author in various communities and seems to be semi-open about their identity. There is a forum thread any concerns I can bring up with the person responsible.
They are also taking donations. I would hope that exposes them to some liability and financial trail if they are found doing something illegal.
>(a clean install of Windows 11 Professional comes with apps for Roblox, TikTok, and Disney Plus among others)
It does not, I've been working with fresh installs a lot this year for one reason or another and no fresh Windows 11 Professional installation has had third-party crapware pre-installed. That includes an install I just did a few days ago using an ISO downloaded straight from Microsoft.
PCs generally still have a lot of bloatware installed by default and most Android devices have modified versions of Android. I won’t buy a pre-built windows PC anymore.
Honestly, I think this situation is worse for consumers than anything Apple is doing. Technically you have more choice with Windows and Android but it can be difficult for the average consumer to make an informed decision because the device manufacture cram so much stuff onto these devices without your knowledge.
Its even worst now. My work PC is unfortunately running Windows 11 Enterprise edition or something like that. Our main product is still .NET Framework with winforms, so I am rather locked into Windows on my work machine. I constantly get pop-ups of, 'hey about you you try using our <insert windows software> with co-pilot now!.'
>Back then, buying a PC with windows meant having a lot of crap installed by default.
Maybe in the US/West when you bought prebuilt form the likes of Dell. But in my home of EE, most PCs we had for sale in shops were locally assembled with no OS, or just vanilla OEM Windows installed (sometimes even pirated).
Crap installed by default on PCs is not something I ever encountered where I live.
In west europe PCs were riddled with crapware if you bought a prebuilt windows machine in the 90s and early 00s. Wipe and reinstall windows was first thing I would do with a new PC, it was a necessity.
I don't know about intervening 20 odd years, I used linux, but I recently installed win 11 home and had zero crapware. Windows ISO from microsoft, harder to install than garden variety linux (not hard, just more annoying and takes way longer), but no tiktok, roblox, disney etc.
Maybe it's an EU thing that stopped all the preloaded crap, no idea.
This reminds me of Brazil here! Was pretty common to buy PCs at the time with Linux. Almost no one obviously were going to use Linux at the time. Most people I do say, installed later pirated versions of Windows.
This happened because no OEM license = cheaper. These days I don't think it matters anymore, because probably the OEM license is much cheaper than it was back then.
To add to that, Japan still has that horrible structure where phone makers sell to carriers, which then sell the phone to customers. For instance newer Samsung phones can't be bought outside of a single carrier (docomo/ahamo etc.).
Subsidies are also stil the wild wild west, with the regulators teppidly trying to do something about it but with no real change in sight. Buying from a carriers will reduce the real phone price up to a quarter depending on how you do it, and the carrier will have buy backs to sweeten the deal further, so you'll be eating what the carrier feeds you.
And that's all compound with the same phone supporting different network bands depending on where they're sold, and resale value plumetting because of that (even if you carrier unlock the phone, it won't support all of other carriers' network bands)
The iPhone winning so big is in no small part thanks to Apple not getting in bed with the carriers.
I remember it used to be and may still be the case that Android OS updates would be held up on both the OEM and the carrier. So Samsung may have finished their version of the update, but your carrier can't be bothered reapplying their bloatware to it so you aren't getting the update.
yall have to remember, there was a time you couldn't hook up your own landline telephone without it being one manufactured by Ma Bell herself (western electric) and rented out through an installment plan on your bill.
Culturally the phone company (and the descendant cellular operators) were very much of this philosophical outlook.
This page goes into particulars about the historically closed nature of the phone system and the cases that led to the eventual opening of bring your own equipment (Hush-a-phone, Carterfone etc):
>What made the PC era work as well as it did was a strong base of power users
No, power users rarely influenced mainstream adoption of any tech. Apple and the rest didn't become trillion dolar corps by catering to power users. Power users are niche and very picky market not worth catering to if you want to make it big.
What made the "WIntel/IBM" PC gain majority mainstream market share was that is was all open(not to be confused with open source) which allowed everyone, not just power users, but regular users too, and also any HW vendor and SW developer to decide what HW and SW they can develop and sell to users, and what users can install on their system, without the consent or added 30% tax from the original vendor or manufacturer of the system.
It was basically an open bazaar and a cost race to the bottom, where the free market decided the winners and losers based on consumer preference, but there was no global authority to say "I'm not gonna allow your SW/HW to run on the platform we developed". Microsoft or Intel couldn't gatekeep what you installed or ran on the Intel/Windows platform.
Sure, the PC platform had it's own set of issues due to overabundance of cheap low quality HW/SW that caused poor UX, and anti-trust issues from the Windows and Intel monopolies, but it was overall a net benefit due to the open playing field. Can you imagine 3dfx, ATI and Nvidia GPUs not being allowed to run on the PC platform because Intel had a closed PCI standard that only worked with their own GPUs?
That's a nice history lesson but sideloading alternate appstores (namely F-Droid) on Android works great and Apple shouldn't be allowed to forbid the same on iOS. And I don't give a damn about the "grandma conned into sideloading scam apps" scenario. Grandma is getting scammed over regular phonecalls already anyway.
> Grandma is getting scammed over regular phonecalls already anyway.
This is not a good argument. Yes things aren't perfect in many areas of technology, but that doesn't mean we should give up.
The better version of this argument acknowledges that there are tradeoffs: allowing side loading may introduce risk but the risk is low relative to the other risks users face and the benefits outweigh the costs.
Or I don't think computing freedom has to be completely abandoned to protect someone's grandma.
Put tight controls in place. You can make it extremely difficult to bypass. You could have a recovery mode like Android and bury the setting in there. I think that makes it sufficiently hard that you don't have to worry about a grandma being tricked into rebooting her phone while holding down a specific button combination and then navigating through a bunch of arcane menus without touch controls to enable side loading. But its enough that someone that is technically inclined and who wants that control over their device can have it.
Scams exist because the scamming industry is a large fraction of gdp in some countries and the byzantine financial system doesn't allow for reversing charges.
My grandma has an android phone and I'm fine with her having a phone that could permit her to sideload an app. Having a phone number at all is a far more serious threat, and I presume you are fine with your grandmother having one even though a scammer could talk her into giving up her bank details or buying dozens of gift cards and reading out the codes.
The solution to the grandmother scenarios is to have a trusted relative that works closely with them, who they trust to copilot or handle completely all business dealings. If that's not possible, then they're at risk whether they have an iphone or android.
So what you want is to remove the option of safety from those that want it because you personally do not see the need for it.
iOS is not close to a monopoly. People are perfectly free to have Android devices and side load apps on to them. It is curious that the campaigning focuses so strongly on destroying the high trust part that exists and not on promoting a trusted setup on Android.
That's like talking about "removing the option" of slavery. Nobody is proposing keeping you from working for free, or from strictly using apps approved by and distributed from Apple.
Grandma doesn't have to install an alternate app store or sideload apps, and she can sill rely on the same "high trust" environment that allows for apps like "LassPass" to scam her in the Apple App Store.
Hell, when she is scammed, Apple apologists will tell her it's not really that bad, and to get off Apple's case about it...
Gruber:
> Instead, the scam LassPass app tries to steer you to creating a “pro” account subscription for $2/month, $10/year, or a $50 lifetime purchase. Those are actually low prices for a scam app — a lot of scammy apps try to charge like $10/week.
(emphasis mine)
Lucky people, I guess? They could have been scammed for more?
He also claims, without any way to know, that "it doesn't look like this was made to steal LastPass credentials".
The whole article is very much a "yeah it sucks and shouldn't happen, but this is no big deal, really, why are you getting all up in Apple's face about it?" vibe.
Erm, what? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
It's perfectly reasonable for the default setting of a phone to forbid sideloading apps. And anyone who doesn't want to can leave it that way. That's the 'option of safety'.
Until such time as a big player like Epic or Facebook decides that the only way you’re getting their apps is by using a store they control and can bypass all permission controls on. When that happens it’s going to become 2000’s browser toolbars all over again
Oh no! People will have to install a store from a developer they trust which contains products from that developer they trust in order to install those products from that developer they trust! How unsafe! This is absolutely removing options from the user!
It has already happened on android in the case of Epic. They require that you side load their launcher/store in order to play games such as Fortnite. There was a big lawsuit about google’s fees which precipitated this.
My hypothesis is that it’ll happen to both iOS and Android once iOS has been forced to allow third party app stores in most major markets.
Why? Because historically, iOS has been the more profitable platform for mobile developers by a large margin. The payoff for building and maintaining an alternative app store for Android only is questionable, but improves significantly if the store can exist on iOS too.
OEMs ruined Android with their "improvements". While stock Android has many issues of its own, the firmware that most users see is significantly worse.
You have neatly summarized why I feel strongly that the Internet has become a liability to humanity. I have no illusions that we can shut it down or walk away… but on a personal level I am trying harder than ever to remove it from my own life. If I can stay off Reddit, well, I can eventually remove it all I think!
It’s still too much of a time sink and even staying away from the bad parts brings so much distraction that we forget how to enjoy the simple things in life that make it worthwhile. Reading a book or watching a movie offline are cherished experiences many forgot how to savor in peace. Or leaving some questions unanswered for a while without wanting instant responses.
Not to mention many forgo the outdoors entirely just in favor of time spent doing one thing or another online.
I am down to Hacker news, local weather updates when I remember and the occasional wiki look up. A few podcasts . The local library is now more my jam.
I have been tracking my data use and last year it was only 70GB. And I have trimmed a bit more out of that since, especially on the podcast side which was the bulk of the data. It is getting to the point where I might just use my photo data plan which now has 120GB a year as it is more than enough.
The only thing Apple cares about is Apple making more money. they will gladly gouge the end User so that their executives can line their pockets. there is nobody here you can actually ”trust”.
Such a bad take, please go back to Reddit where you might be congratulated for garden variety “everyone else is greedy and evil, but I can see through them and speak truth to power”. People here have higher standards on their takes.
If all Apple cared about is making money, would they have spent upwards of 10 Billion+ on an Apple Car only to cancel it later. At its height, Vision Pro R&D cost 2 billion per quarter, yes you read that correctly, almost 25% of their yearly net profits went into development of Vision Pro Alone. Does this sound like gouging the customer to line their executive pockets to you?
If Apple executives had lined their pockets, then why is the top Apple Executive only worth 2 Billion when Apple is worth close to 3 Trillion, that is less than 0.1% of Apple’s valuation. Apple’s top executive does not even make it to the world’s top 100 by wealth. Does that not make you think?
No thanks, I don't want your fake "higher standards".
>Does this sound like gouging the customer to line their executive pockets to you?
Yes, it does, when they lobby to fight against right-to-repair. Yes, it does, when they price gouge the customer on storage upgrades. Yes, it does, when they hide defects in their products and push people to buy new products. Yes, it does, when they use child labor.
repairing increases its lifetime and prevents things from being dumped into landfills. some of the highest selling products are screen protectors, and cell phone cases. Clearly the consumers don’t believe your argument about durability.
They were price gouging even before unified memory so your argument doesn’t really hold water. I am sorry.
Apple is a corporation that exists to make money for its shareholders. It spent $10 billion to develop an Apple Car because it thought it would make a nice ROI by doing so, but failed. Do you think the money was spent altruistically? LOL
Wait you call making a bad bet not caring about money?
I’m so confused, your reasoning is just dumb.
Please explain how putting money into R/D has anything to do with gouging customers?
Is it because companies that tend to be more purely oriented on extracting profits often don’t put money into product R/D? So then therefore companies that do are not price gouging customers?
So how much money a company spends on researching a product suddenly makes that product have any real value? And if that value turns out less than profitable you think the business is basically a charity?
Like yes I’ll gladly go back to Reddit to be rid of this faux expert bullshit y’all got going on.
Only worth 2 billion?
I find it amazing how so many adults are still just children with more numbers.
However for Apple to keep making money they need to satisfy their users, so as with all commercial relationships there is a direct commercial incentive that aligns customer and vendor interests. The interesting question is how and why those interests align, and when and where they diverge.
The answer to that will be different for different customers, or potential customers. A lot of iPhone customers like me are quite happy with the devices more or less as they are. The vast majority of people complaining about iPhones aren't iPhone customers. Frankly I don't really see why I should care what they think.
I'm more sympathetic to actual iPhone customers, or former customers that left, but looking at the numbers satisfaction levels with iPhones are through the roof. This is a teeny tiny proportion of customers. The case for Apple harming the interests of customers directly is super thin.
The other main dimension to this is Apple's commercial relations with other companies, mainly app store developers. I'm sympathetic to the idea that such relationships should be regulated to at least some extent. I'm glad controls on links to external payment options are being opened up, and there's pressure towards more equitable revenue structures. I think this is the main area Apple's control of the platform is open to abuse, but IMHO that doesn't extend to third party app stores. The current app store should be properly regulated, I think third party stores are a complete distraction. They'll never take off, and are probably going to be a worse experience for users.
The vast majority of people complaining about Apple aren't Apple customers because they don't agree with Apple's business practices or treatment of customers, I don't think that's surprising or invalidates those opinions.
I tend to agree that the focus on "3rd party app stores" is stupid, I'd much rather we force computer vendors to have unlockable bootloader's and focus on consumer rights legislation, ensuring people can own the things they buy.
> The vast majority of people complaining about Apple aren't Apple customers because they don't agree with Apple's business practices or treatment of customers
Given that a very large number of these people buy Samsung products of all companies, the idea that they’re avoiding Apple on ethical grounds seems somewhat unlikely.
Satisfying your users - particularly, satisfying them only enough that they don't spend significant effort and money to leave - is an incredibly, laughably low bar.
It’s dead simple to switch from Apple to Android and vice versa. Or are you trying to say Android is such a significantly more difficult platform that Apple users are too stupid to figure out and thus locked into iOS? Otherwise your argument applies to Android as easily as it does to iOS.
Dead simple until you consider that you have to (a) buy a new phone (b) transfer all your passkeys (c) transfer all your apps (and find replacements for those that don't exist on both platforms) (d) transfer all your data/log in to all your accounts... etc.
It's anything but dead simple. (And I went from Android to Apple back in 2020 and back to Android in 2021. It sucked, both ways.)
Most people buy a new phone every few years as it is, app passwords are the same between platforms, and the average user only uses about a half dozen apps. No one is locked into iOS nor Android. We are talking about 2-3 hours of effort to switch, hardly a ‘anti-competitive’ burden. Get real.
> Most people buy a new phone every few years as it is
Yep, which is unlikely to coincide with the latest screwover from their platform of choice, giving them much less motivation to switch at that time. But you're right, the expense only prevents some people from switching.
> app passwords are the same between platforms
Until they're not. Heck, I've encountered apps that didn't support any way of transferring your progress across platforms, although the example I can think of (Clash of Clans, or maybe Clash Royale) fixed that many years ago. But there's still plenty of instances where I needed to add another login method to my account because some methods just weren't supported on the other platform.
Meanwhile if you keep using the same platform odds are you'll just be logged in because it will either be in iCloud or your Google account.
> the average user only uses about a half dozen apps
I doubt that very much. I guess maybe the average user is old people who still only use their phone for calling, texting, and maybe directions? Yeah you're right it doesn't affect them too much. Other than remembering to turn off iMessage if they switch away from Apple.
Just because I bought an iphone, doesn't mean my interests align with Apple when they price gouge me for extra storage, or when they use child labor, or when they continue to create products which fill up landfills due to their anti-repair stance. Apple will suck up as much money as they can get away with - which is capitalism. I would argue there is no "alignment" of anything here. Its up to each individual to examine the facts, and decide for themselves what their own personal threshold is.
I want to say that this was deliberate. The iPhone was a new product that needed the general population to adapt, and mental models around its use. An App Store at launch would have been hot garbage. Touch apps at that point were shittacular PocketPC apps.
The HTML5/Web Apps recommended by Jobs were also deliberate in order to get developers to move toward formatting sites for mobile.
This is neithere nor there. Apple not submitting to US carriers greedy customizations and Apple allowing users to customize their devices are two completely different matters. You are throwing everything in the same bin which is the same Apple wants everyone to believe
> Apple executive Eddy Cue pushed for an Android iMessage app in 2016, but Craig Federighi responded in an internal email that “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.”
This conversation happened 8 years ago and it was about a product released 12 years ago. If anything, this shows how slow regulators are before they take any action and how they are effectively contributing to building the garden walls, through inaction.
The truth is, all businesses do what Craig suggested.
AirBnB isn't opening up their platform to Expedia. Meta isn't allowing your Instagram data to be accessed by another platform. Your own company isn't voluntarily making it easier for its customers to leave.
Well, yes. It's a great reason to not let businesses decide on these things, because their petty interpretation will always override a communal solution. Once you reach Apple's scale, you shouldn't expect to start replacing stuff like SMS with a proprietary alternative and get away with it.
Apple didn't replace SMS. It is still there on every iPhone, and they expanded SMS reach for iPhone users who have other devices like iPad and macOs systems.
In what universe do you exist where SMS was removed?
HN tells me that there's only one more step left after embracing and extending. Apple didn't make some mistake putting iMessage and SMS in the same app, they want you reliant on their service so that SMS seems (rightfully) poor by comparison.
There would be nothing wrong with that if Apple wasn't equally as miserly with that power as the carriers they want to valiantly protest against. I'm no fan of cell carriers either, but now that we see Apple's end-goal I don't think their cause is righteous at all. In the friendliest of interpretations, they are a competing alternative enabled by disproportionate first-party integration on Apple's behalf. It doesn't take long to extrapolate their motives for deliberately neglecting cross-platform interoperability to bolster their market presence.
If it harms the market, prevents fair competition, and doesn't benefit the general public, there is no rational reason to let iMessage persist the way it is today.
The problem with "prevents fair competition" with regards to iMessage is that there were plenty of chances for fair competition and others (particularly Google) kept messing it up. How many chat platforms did they blow through?
I can absolutely install other messaging apps (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc.) on my iPhone and contact other people on an Android device using that app. The thing that keeps me from doing so isn't the fact that said applications are locked out of a decent percentage of the phone market, but that the network effect helps Apple. Most of my friends don't know, or care to know, what Signal is, even though it's a better application re: privacy than iMessage.
Which, to me, demonstrates the core problem: Apple succeeded by remaining focused. Google failed because it has some form of institutional ADHD when it comes to messaging services. Google even had a six year head start on Apple with Google Talk, and still managed to fail because they couldn't remain focused.
People are upset that Apple succeeded, but they aren't even running the most popular messaging service out there.
It is so funny how differently the Messages app is viewed.
In NA, Messages is the true source of Apple’s power and the key to their evil anticompetitive empire, the only ones who can stop their masterplan are the men in suits from the DOJ.
Outside of NA, it’s the app you use to get TOTP codes and phishing attempts.
You’re right that the real story isn’t that Google missed out competing with iMessage, it’s that they missed out competing with WhatsApp despite having control over the OS and being able to bundle their own messaging app!
Google is not even competitive with third tier apps such as Viber which is really funny. I read HN compulsively yet I don’t know what the name of Google’s current chat app is or even if they have one.
Google isn't really part of Apple's messaging roadmap aside from RCS (which is also not great). For the most part, for better (and absolutely worse), Google's default messaging app on Android has always been SMS. There were no cheeky attempts to weasel Google Talk or Hangouts into my texting app; they were separate things.
It's a mistake to assume that Google wants to pick a fight with carriers just because Apple does. Their goal isn't to replace SMS or use it as an obtuse marketing stunt, and whether or not that's the right or wrong decision is a hilariously irrelevant distraction to the actual problem. SMS sucks, and replacing it is either a community effort or a regulated one. Apple chose "regulated" a long, long time ago by making an insular service their replacement candidate.
WhatsApp too is a problem in it's own right; but again, it's a strawman when we're discussing Apple's specific damages (which neither Google nor Meta copy in-full). Apple uniquely uses their vertical integration to create a less competitive environment for third-parties, which is damned for scrutiny everywhere they try it. There is no reality where Google announces that WhatsApp comes preinstalled in the messaging app without immediate and legitimate antitrust bundling accusations.
Generally companies need to do something wrong before being regulated, as self regulation is the goal. There’s a lot of opinions in this post as well, with “extrapolating”. Have you asked the actual customers how they feel? I’m an Apple customer, and really wish the Android customers would focus on their own wants and needs. Blue bubbles are not a need.
> HN tells me that there's only one more step left after embracing and extending.
It is a wild projection, a common one amongst members of this esteemed congregation.
Removing SMS supports invalidates and revokes the 3G/4G/5G network compliance with standards and certification, whether you are Apple or an invisible fifth column. It also voids the right to display the very same 3G/4G/5G sign in the upper part of the smartphone screen and opens a very expensive path to litigation from all sorts of patent holders from the 3/4/5G patent pool.
You don't have to remove support to extinguish a protocol; just sufficiently degrade it to the point that it's unusable.
With that in mind (and how outrageously useless SMS is in 2024), I think you can absolutely accuse Apple's reluctance to standardize as extinguishing. Unless they correct course, iMessage's greatest contribution to text-messaging will be making it a proprietary affair. That would be the lamest way to go down in history, which is why I really hope Apple does the right thing and either a) commits to a better standard than RCS or b) extends iMessage to some more reasonable and open protocol.
I am not following the train of thought. All I am reading is yet another wild projection.
SMS is the lowest common denominator across all mobile networks and is the ultimate fallback option for a smartphone if more modern messaging standards or extensions (RCS, iMessage or whatever) are not supported. Degrading SMS means losing 3/4/5G certification and losing the telecommunication authority certification in every single country around the world, consequently instantly losing sales. No sane company that is in the business of selling phones would dare to lose the certification on a global scale. SMS messaging has worked like a charm on iPhones, and I am not sure what the insinuation is all about.
GSMA, the governing body of 3/4/5/6G, has neither adopted nor endorsed RCS up to date, and it is supported at the core network layer only by a fraction of mobile operators across the world. SMS, being a 21st century rotary dial phone equivalent, is supported by every mobile network today however outdated it is. RCS is not.
The original spat over RCS, however, concerned a few sticking points:
1. Google becoming a gatekeeper and holding messages until they could be delivered to the recipient;
2. RCS not being end-to-end encrypted;
2½.Google providing a proprietory encryption protocol with no open source implementation and – *at first* – encryption only being available to P2P conversations (aka FaceBook Messenger style secret chats but not to group chats[0]);
3. Owing to (1), Google gaining the ability to track users via the use of metadata;
4. Only a limited number of Android handsets supporting RCS in the beginning.
I have no stake in the game, but, if I were Apple, I would have not agreed to RCS, either, considering the constraints.
As of May 2024, RCS is still not part of the GSMA portfolio of standards. From the mobile network perspective, it does not exist.
> I don't see that removing or crippling an option a lot of users rely on improves the market, or competition.
It certainly doesn't need to be removed, just expanded. Apple can't have their cake and eat it too, you either replace SMS and the multiplatform commitments that come with it or you don't. Pretending to hold down a halfway-house to keep selling iPhones is not only a bundling tactic, but combined with Apple's negligence towards alternatives it's genuinely anticompetitive.
> Are happy iPhone users that rely on iMessage every day including it's SMS integration not benefited, or not the public?
...no, those are happy iPhone users. The public inherently means people that are not paying customers of Apple; regular citizens with no outstanding obligations to any corporation.
I don't understand how you could possibly interpret "the public" to mean "satisfied iPhone customers" in this situation.
> Apple can't have their cake and eat it too, you either replace SMS and the multiplatform commitments that come with it or you don't.
You keep suggesting that Apple replaced SMS. They didn't. So per this new statement, they have no multi-platform commitments because they haven't done anything to warrant it.
Is there an example of Microsoft ever actually "extinguishing" something? The extinguish bit is more about making the competing services non-viable. Microsoft's whole strategy was built around making it so a user on its platform either couldn't or wouldn't want to use a particular technology without their proprietary extensions. That perfectly describes iMessage if we're to believe all the commentary on social media about how iPhone users get the "ick" from seeing a green bubble.
In fact, I'd argue that iMessage has been one of the most successful implementations of EEE ever. Maybe only behind ActiveX and Microsoft's slow adoption of web standards in the late 90s - mid 00s (but MS never actually replaced HTML or JavaScript with its proprietary stuff).
> In fact, I'd argue that iMessage has been one of the most successful implementations of EEE ever. Maybe only behind ActiveX and Microsoft's slow adoption of web standards in the late 90s - mid 00s (but MS never actually replaced HTML or JavaScript with its proprietary stuff).
Is it? Globally, iMessage is far from the most popular messaging application. If it's an attempt at EEE it's not a great one. IE was far more successful in degree and longevity of impact.
And no, they didn't. They just implemented CSS and other things exactly counter to the spec in a number of spots, along with other incompatibilities in order to make developers have to choose: 80% to 90% of the market, or conform to standards?
> That perfectly describes iMessage if we're to believe all the commentary on social media about how iPhone users get the "ick" from seeing a green bubble.
The only people who care about that their own messages on their own phones show up as green bubbles are children. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit. They see green bubbles because they use WhatsApp.
> Is it? Globally, iMessage is far from the most popular messaging application. If it's an attempt at EEE it's not a great one. IE was far more successful in degree and longevity of impact.
I basically already said it was second to IE. What else did MS do that was more successful than iMessage? There were definitely many attempts by Microsoft that were not as successful like Visual J++. They also had a similar strategy to iMessage with MSN Messenger embracing and extending AIM and they had a lot of success with that but most of that success came right before desktop messaging was superseded by mobile messaging.
> The only people who care about that their own messages on their own phones show up as green bubbles are children. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit. They see green bubbles because they use WhatsApp.
Thats just just not true in America. There are literally adult Android users that who post about how using Android is a barrier to their dating life because other adult iPhone users (which is the majority for certain age groups) will just simply refuse to date someone who doesn't use an iPhone.
I've also heard personal anecdotes from single men that I know who use Android (it definitely goes other way too but I know more single men personally than women).
All this over green bubbles. Life has gotten so good in the US that all that’s left to focus on is green bubbles. We’ve solved homelessness, wealth gaps, housing crisis, so now it’s time to take down Apple because those green bubbles need to die.
I wish this current generation would learn what’s actually important to fight for. Green bubbles are not on the list.
The problem is that Apple, the world's largest tech company, is reluctant to create or join messaging standards.
I'm not sure if you're very familiar with the prevalence of texting (or Apple) in the 21st century but it stands to reason that this is a rather important thing to regulate. It certainly was worth regulating when Ma Bell tried monopolizing communication protocols 50 years ago.
So tell us; what is worth fighting over? I'd be tickled pink to hear what consumer harms you'd prioritize over something as supposedly-diminutive as Apple's actions.
No the problem is not Apple refusing to join messaging standards. The problem is you thinking this is a problem worth fighting when there are many many many other more serious problems to address first.
Apples actions are not keeping people from living the one life they have. They are keeping people from having blue bubbles. Blue bubbles are not a necessity in life. Food, jobs, money, housing, these are all required.
Take that same energy and focus it on something that will let more people live instead of a nonissue. You are defocusing actual issues to solve a petty fight and force control. Stop.
If you continue to be blind, and focus nonissues, you are the problem.
> You are defocusing actual issues to solve a petty fight and force control. Stop.
> If you continue to be blind, and focus nonissues, you are the problem.
You are the one that has refused to furnish anything more important.
Also, somewhat obviously, food, jobs, money and housing are not distributed arbitrarily. Blue bubbles are.
It sounds like you're really upset over this whole thing, which is concerning once you consider how likely Apple is to lose their case here. Are you going to still be okay in the event that Apple is legislated for this behavior? Are you going to protest in the street against the DOJ for ignoring the real problems, like PB&J distribution at the local middle school?
> You are the one that has refused to furnish anything more important.
I have said many times what is required for life and therefore what is important. You even acknowledged it in your next sentence.
> Also, somewhat obviously, food, jobs, money and housing are not distributed arbitrarily. Blue bubbles are.
Wrong. We are not communist. Food is purchased and people with more money purchase better quality food. Apple iPhones in fact are just as cheap as Android phones. It’s a users choice to choose one or the other.
> It sounds like you're really upset over this whole thing
Yes, because I’m a veteran that has been to war for this country and this is what your generation focuses on? Do you feel like you’re wasting peoples lives at all? Do you feel like you’re wasting the gift given to you by everybody that has died for you? Because you are.
> Are you going to protest in the street
Protesting is a waste of time. You know what works? Having politicians on speed dial and calling them daily. So no I will not be protesting anything much less this. What I will do instead is focus on making housing cheaper and fixing wages not keeping up with inflation.
Again, stop defocusing the work of many thousands of people. Use your energy on solving anything required for life. Or have people like me fight your efforts and force refocusing on actual issues.
> HN tells me that there's only one more step left after embracing and extending.
Perhaps you should read HN less then. Along this line of thinking, any business adopting any open standard is a bad thing. Don't you think it's a very weird take?
> All they did was put an optional message service in the same app.
They did a bit more than that. There were the glory days that if you ever left the Apple ecosystem, but iMessage ever had an awareness of your number, no other iMessage users could reach you until or unless you did some incantations that Apple didn't make obvious, ideally from an Apple device (that you may not own anymore), to allow your friends to keep sending you even green bubble messages?
I know multiple people who had to go to Apple stores to try to do this process.
However, the same thing happened to me when I switched from my pixel 3a to an iPhone. I wasn't able to text from my iPhone for a week. I ended up contacting Verizon and they actually had their network engineers investigating. What they ended up discovering, and sent me a contact number for it, was that some how Google's RCS was still holding a lock on my number or something.
Maybe so; it doesn't really matter when you're looking at damages. It's Apple's job to solve interoperability with their own platform, and not only have they failed to provide SMS-levels of interop, they actively work against it to promote ulterior products. It's exactly the sort of anticompetitive bundling that harms the market without improving competition.
Maybe Ma Bell's success was in-part due to their free long-distance calls. It's kinda moot speculation when you look at their top-down business strategy though.
Nobody provides SMS levels of interop on unrestricted internet messaging platforms because the experience sucks.
Running the IM equivalent of an open SMTP relay is a ghastly experience for users. You literally have to gatekeep because the alternative is going back to circa-2000 levels of spam.
Deep down you know exactly what would happen because we’ve all lived it with spam voice calls again recently - we’ve been trying to reach you about your car’s warranty…
Destroying a working, positive experience on the apple platform and dragging it down to 2000s level is the explicit goal for a lot of people. The pain is the point - not to bring android up but simply to tear things down and walk away.
> You literally have to gatekeep because the alternative is going back to circa-2000 levels of spam.
The vast majority of spam is explicitly permitted by Google. What are you talking about? Do you not use e-mail? They have a Promotions tab, they could make spam - that is, marketing emails - go away in an afternoon, if they wanted to. They just don't, because those same companies are Google Ads customers.
Marketing email subscriptions you were tricked into signing up for isn't what people consider spam. In fact, Google provides a nice feature to unsubscribe from those without looking for a link in the email.
Now, the spam argument for iMessage makes little sense IMO - you're still going to get the same message via SMS. However, with Apple in charge, there is a chance that there will be some kind of "report + temporal ban" feature. Carriers have no incentive to create such feature.
> The vast majority of spam is explicitly permitted by Google. What are you talking about?
It is certainly not lmao - try sending mail to google from your own smtp server on your own doma
Seeing some spam occasionally doesn’t mean the vast majority isn’t being rej
> They have a Promotions tab, they could make spam - that is, marketing emails - go away in an afternoon, if they wanted to.
opting into newsletters is explicitly not spam, so either you don’t understand the basics of being on the internet or you’re arguing in bad faith.
Which is probably also implied by the “I saw a spam once therefore google runs an open SMTP relay” take honestly. You know that’s not true either. We both know you know. Why are you doing this?
again:
Google doesn’t provide your desired standard of openness either, in their own oligopolistic fiefs/gatekeeper domains like gmail. And everyone understand why it’s a bad idea. Forced open interop is an unworkable idea and forcing an unworkable idea on iMessage is the whole goal. Flooding iMessage with spam 2000s-style by forcing an “open relay” into the system is the whole point, whether you realize it or not.
Just like forcing “choice of browser” was never about giving users freedom either - but about wiping away the last counterbalance against chrome’s dominance/monopoly in the browser market. Hence the flood of shit like web integrity and adtech ever since.
C'mon. Signing up for a store to buy a thing doesn't grant permission to bother me with a newsletter, you very frequently just can't opt out until they've sent you something.
That's the "I'm not touching you" of compliance and spam-in-spirit should have a mudhole stomped into it--and yet does not.
Store newsletters that you sign up for are not spam. Nobody is making you click the "allow marketing emails" checkboxes. If they do it anyway, yes, that's spam, but that's not what actually happens.
You sound like me, when I was 22 and worked on a virtual slot machine game, trying to convince people that a virtual slot machine game was a real game in some sense.
Anyway, I think what everyone wants is an email tab called “Personal and Transactional,” which would omit all emails of all other categories, including marketing or spam or whatever you want to call it. And even then, I find it so fucking annoying that my ISP and my bank sends me marketing emails via its transactional domains, obviously with the blessing of Google, because people mark those as spam and yet their domains are not blocked. Google already has the capability to do this easily, and chooses not to because email marketers are part of their customer ecosystem.
> Nobody provides SMS levels of interop on unrestricted internet messaging platforms because the experience sucks.
Maybe Apple should lead the charge on that, or instead they'll be forced to use something truly godawful like OMEMO or RCS. I'd prefer they didn't, but it would be pretty funny if they were forced down that path in the long-run. It takes a haughty spirit before the fall.
> Destroying a working, positive experience on the apple platform and dragging it down to 2000s level is the explicit goal for a lot of people.
A more believable motive than being one of the millions of non-Apple customers that are subject to using an inferior messaging standard? Apple made their bed by believing they could proprietate a public resource; now you've got to lie in it because you're their customer. Frankly I (and regulators) could care less what iMessage looks like once it's all done. It's apparently not our platform.
Exactly. Apple has more influence over the cellular industry in America than any single company including the carriers themselves.
They could completely design the spec by themselves with all the pro-consumer features that one could imagine including things like distributed spam filtering and then force the carriers to adopt it either by using the stick (force adoption by X date or lose the iPhone) or the carrot (shift proprietary iMessage features to the new standard so that users demand the carrier adopt it -- basically green bubble any carrier that doesn't use the standard). No other company in the country could do this.
But of course, complete control over a proprietary iMessage protocol that they can lock competitors out of is apart of the business strategy.
Why shackled to SMS?
I don't have an iPhone don't use iMessager and haven't sent a SMS in the past 10 years.
Everything these days is What'sApp / Telegram / Signal
I’m torn on this. Where does it stop? Must Apple open up every single part of the phone because of their scale? Should it allow access to the raw data of FaceID? Does it have to provide an alternative to OS notifications? Does every single feature have to be cross platform?
I’d argue that a much more urgent matter is opening up “accounts” so that they can never lock and delete my online data without recourse. This is way more important than iMessage on Android, to which there are plenty of options already.
If you don't "let business decide on these things", the result isn't better more communal solutions getting made, the result is no solutions getting made because they're not worth making for the business.
You'd be a lot closer to the truth if Apple didn't spend the last 10 years of their corporate existence resisting message standardization like it was a plague. There were alternatives, even solutions Apple found acceptable, but they refused to adopt them.
Better question; why allow them access to the market if their only intention is to abuse it?
Apple can create whatever they want, but they're going to get the scrutiny they deserve. iMessage should be an on-ramp to better communications for everyone; instead it's become the flaming symbol of Apple's deliberate negligence. This is absolutely the point regulators should be stepping in and ensuring Apple isn't headed down an anti-consumer pathway that ensures market harm.
Companies shouldn't be expected to individually make suboptimal decisions in order to preserve the health of the market. They should be regulated by a functioning government.
Let's just say that the government decided in the year 2005 that no private company can ship something that will replace SMS as the defacto messaging system because it wants interoperability.
We would have never had iMessage, Whatsapp, Messenger, etc. Other countries would have far surpassed us in messaging communication tech.
It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or interoperable".
The web is what it is today because its open. The telephone network is what it is today because its interoperable. Imagine if the web was bifurcated based on the operating system you wanted to use (that was Microsoft's vision in the late 90s and early 00s: to create a large section of the web that required Windows). Imagine if a Verizon customer had a limited feature set when calling an AT&T customer (like the inability to leave a voicemail for instance). No one would tolerate these things. But yet people will argue in favor of this with messaging (as long as its Apple doing it)
> It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or interoperable".
It doesn't seem the same, but that's effectively also stifling to innovation.
For one thing, if the whole reason something like iMessage got created was to ensure an Apple monopoly, if they couldn't use it to do that, they just wouldn't build it, not build it open instead.
For another, what does "open and interoperable" even mean? There isn't necessarily a defined protocol for these things already. So who would come up with one? Almost certainly, the big companies would have to be involved, and they could steer the standard to benefit themselves, even just by making it closer to something they've already built (which makes total technical sense too - of course you want to base the protocol on existing tech!).
But that means that compliance is much harder for smaller companies, which would mean you're giving a huge advantage to a big player anyway.
As opposed to the no-regulation world, in which Whatsapp was a startup that could do whatever it wanted, and ended up being the default messaging platform that half the world uses.
SMTP, IMAP and POP did not prevent gmail or outlook from launching products
2G/3G/4G/5g did not hinder the mobile industry it only fostered it .
Standard payment interface like UPI did not stop apps for payments being built , India didn’t need a Venmo or WeeChat to innovate here before standardization
Innovations happen despite or without regulations if there is market demand for it . FRAND patents exist for a reason.
I can’t think of any common example where interoperability killed innovation
That's a poor option to regulate from. They could just as easily have required messaging apps to make their protocols open, allowing for competition in the app space messaging over them and not facing lock in.
So what's the financial incentive for companies to develop & maintain open standard messaging protocols? For example, I'm sure it costs Meta a pretty penny to facilitate messages with central servers, store historical messages, and pay engineers to maintain and develop new features. If they have then be forced to open up Messenger for free, they might not have started Messenger in the first place.
Also, SMS is the open protocol so we have at least one interoperable standard for people to choose from.
So... Meta might not choose to develop a messenger? Or maybe they would choose to use someone else's system (since again it's open and interoperable)? I'm sorry, where's the issue here?
We had lots of progress despite regulation of technical standards in the past. And the regulation doesn’t have to force a particular communication protocol, it could simply be forcing a separation between hardware and communication providers.
bad example? you can book hotels etc on AirBnB and everybody offers listing services which crosspost across the booking sites. There are few exclusives in the travel industry.
It's almost like having the rental market controlled by Airbnb instead of myriad local hotels is a bad thing
(Or to take another example of the operate-blatantly-illegally-until-you-bribe-your-way-to-legalization and loss-lead-til-monopoly industry, it's almost like having the taxi market controlled by Uber and Lyft instead of myriad local cab companies is a bad thing)
(Or to bring it back to the point of the thread, it's almost like having the mobile phone app market controlled by Apple and Google is a bad thing)
I’m struggling to see what’s wrong with Federighi’s argument. Why should he not want to protect Apple’s position? Apple has no monopoly on mobile messaging or hardware, and they didn’t 8 years ago either, so they can do what they like here.
What is Apple supposed to do? Spend time and money on interop to better the lives of Android users? There’s nothing wrong with them doing so if they like, but I fail to see any obligation they have.
You’re going to have to be much more specific if you want to make any sense. All cell phones can already call other cell phones. All cell phones can already message other cell phones.
You ignore that for a while that actually wasn't the case. If you left the Apple ecosystem, for multiple years the steps to get your number/account disassociated from iMessage so your contacts could reach you by SMS again were not default, not obvious, and not disclosed.
what "correct thing"? i can text people who use android phones just fine. TBH this all boils down to the ridiculous blue / green bubble thing. that's the ONLY difference in texting between devices. i honestly have no clue why apple would be regulated in any way over this!
> China Mobile, China Telecom and China Unicom yesterday (8 April) released a 5G messaging white paper outlining their commitment to mandate all compatible handsets sold in the country support Rich Communication Services (RCS).
> They obviously have no motivation to do the correct thing, so the solution is government regulation.
The solution to what? Apple supports SMS/MMS. They've pre-announced (something they rarely do) RCS support. They support VoLTE for HD voice calls.
Let's say the federal government eminent-domains iMessage protocols. Then what? Do you really think Apple's just going to carry traffic from untrusted devices, and for free?
Lots of Apple customers wanted the ability to send and receive rich media messages with their friends and family on Android devices. What they got instead was a monopolist who insisted on being able to monetize both sides of every human interaction.
> “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.”
This statement says a few extra things that Craig Federighi probably didn't realize he was saying.
1) It suggests that the iPhone wouldn't be able to hold its own in a market where interoperability with Android was easier. That demonstrates a lack of faith in it.
2) I've noticed that any time a corporation starts to clutch its fingers around its flagship product and make it less open, it starts to die. Oh sure, there's an upfront benefit perhaps in sales, but you're literally selling the future of your thing to profit from it today, by doing this.
> It suggests that the iPhone wouldn't be able to hold its own in a market where interoperability with Android was easier
It is just a statement of the obvious. Price tends to trump every other consideration, unless the difference is pretty big. See also airline ticket pricing and the race to the bottom in comfort & features. If there is no differentiator, a lot of people will just get Android phones because they cost less. They'll put up with quite a lot of abuse as long as they save a few bucks. It'd probably end up like gmail.
> It is just a statement of the obvious. Price tends to trump every other consideration, unless the difference is pretty big.
But, huge swaths of the public regularly pay much more than the minimum required to have better:
• Cars
• Clothing
• Restaurants
• Theater seats
These are just the first few that come to mind.
Now, is the difference between high- and low-end clothing "pretty big"? I guess it depends on what you mean, but both will fundamentally cover your body.
For airlines, people just want to get from point A to point B, and nothing else really matters at the end of the day. Even on higher end airlines, flying is unlikely to be a truly pleasant experience, unless maybe you pay almost an order of magnitude more for first class or something. People just want to get it over with.
I mean, I think we're saying the same thing here. But whereas I feel you're framing this as a "bug" in how consumers operate, I think they're behaving quite logically. People will pay more for things they actually care about. When they don't care, they choose the cheapest option.
Regarding No 2. That is very true but it is astounding just how much inertia is in the system that keeps iPhone going.
Turns out that the curated experience of iPhone combined with a lot of fumbles from various android vendors has kept iPhone image of being the best and most desirable phone.
It is very vaguely feeling like if another big player was to come in they could actually make some waves that causes everyone else to jump. To the benefit of the users. But I doubt that will happen.
Well, I've been an iPhone user since the OG iPhone until 2017 when I've switched to the first gen Pixel. I stopped liking the iOS look & feel when the home button got removed.
At that time, the only thing to keep me on the iPhone was iMessage - not that I didn't want to be a green bubble, it just the SMS experience sucks in general, RCS wasn't a thing you could use at that time. However, once I've met my future ex-wife, that stopped being an issue because we used fb messenger to talk.
Fast-forward to summer 2023, I'm in a process of divorce, watching Apple event. Get possessed by Steve Jobs, pause presentation, order new iPhone and Apple Watch Ultra for self-pickup, finish watching the presentation, drive to pick up my new phone and watch. Quick migration and up and running.
Android (Pixel) Pros:
- back button, the thing I knew I will miss a lot
- all pixel exclusive features like call screening
- I prefer stock android control center
- sideloading (i've made my own reddit client for android tv and used it for loooong time)
- kotlin > objc (irrelevant since swift)
- fingerprint scanner on the back of a phone was a genius decision
Android (Pixel) Cons:
- google inconsistent web interfaces
- apps have much lower quality
- Google wants you to use Chrome Cast, so you can connect your phone to a monitor
- Most non-stock android makes me want to vomit, specially Samsung
- Google didn't know how to position Pixel (is it a flagship? is it a mid-level? is it a low-end? wtf was pixel 5?)
- Watch experience is meh
- under screen fingerprint scanners suck
- Wired Android Auto sent me to therapy a few times (jk, but it was frustrating)
iPhone Pros:
- Apps better quality
- Better watch integration
- iMessage (won't elaborate)
- AirPods switching experience is near damn perfect
- idk just look and feel subjectively better
- Wireless Car Play easier to find than Wireless Android Auto
iPhone Cons:
- control center, so many times I've turned off wifi or bt instead of what I wanted to do
I think this article is overstating the effect that Apple's walls have on lock-in effect.
I'm an Android user, and a little less than a year ago I actually bought an iPhone, specifically due to Apple's iMessage lock-in (nearly all of my friends have iPhones, and the especially broken group messaging between iMessage and Android was the primary driver of my desire to get an iPhone).
Except the problem was that, after over a decade on Android, I had zero desire to switch over all of my data and apps over to iPhone. For better or worse the "Google ecosystem" is where all my stuff lives and I just didn't have a desire to spend a bunch of effort just to switch. I ended up giving the iPhone as a gift to an iOS-loving family member.
That's the thing about both iOS and Android platforms - I think you'll find anyone who has been in those platforms for more than a couple years will be extremely reluctant to switch just due to the effort. Our cell phones are often the center of our digital lives now: apps, headphones, watches, etc. The lock-in I think is more from that "ecosystem effect" than any amount of particular lock down.
As a European, it's baffling to me that your friend group wouldn't simply switch to a messaging app with good group chat support. WhatsApp, Signal, Messenger (FB) - these are all great alternatives that are extremely popular, and all have more features than iMessage.
For example, in Scandinavia the current marker leader on all platforms is Facebook Messenger, despite this also being one of the only markets where iOS is the dominant platform compared to Android. Further south on the continent, WhatsApp is the undisputed leader.
People have all of these apps, and it's my impression that using iMessage exclusively is extremely rare. Cross-platform support is a feature that impacts which app people use, and they are perfectly free to use a different messaging app.
In the United States, if your friend group is using FB Messenger, all their messages are* readily pullable by police looking at someone two or three times removed from any one of them without a warrant “investigating” whether someone in their network asked a friend what to do about an unplanned pregnancy.
That's less likely to happen to you in Scandinavia, perhaps since Puritans found it safer to set sail for New England than keep trying to evangelize Vikings.
Also, yes, everyone's perfectly free to use a different messaging app, and in different cohorts everyone does, which suggests it's not Apple's "walled garden" causing these difference.
* This has been true at various times, including times FB has said it isn't true. I did see the WhatsApp founder walk away from a billion dollars over various issues, and stopped using it then too.
I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, except to say that, yes, the situation in the US is completely different than Europe, and nearly every time I comment about this situation, everyone who says they don't understand is European.
The fact of the matter is that in the US, especially for specific socioeconomic groups, iOS is by far the dominant platform, and for many people since iMessage is the default, their definition of "texting" is simply iMessage. You state, "it's baffling to me that your friend group wouldn't simply switch to a messaging app with good group chat support" - except that completely ignores network effects, and many times I am literally the only person on Android. If I'm, say, going on a vacation with friends and literally 10 of them are on iOS and I'm the only one on Android, it's a losing battle to try to convince the other 9 to switch, especially since nearly all of their other contacts are on iOS/iMessage. A restaurant in Austin, TX, famous for their funny signs, even had a joke about it: https://www.instagram.com/p/CwLKeGRLieb
The reason the situation in Europe is different is primarily due to 2 factors:
1. iOS was never as dominant in the EU as the US
2. Perhaps more importantly, what is often forgotten is that in the EU and elsewhere about ~15 years ago, per-SMS rates from telecoms were egregiously expensive, while in the US by that time they were mostly unlimited with a flat monthly rate. So there was never a huge drive to get off SMS in the US (this is why WhatsApp first took off much faster outside the US than within it). In a pretty brilliant "Embrace/Extend/Extinguish" move, iMessage initially simply because the default SMS app on iPhone. Users never really "picked" any messaging app, they just continued to use the "texting app" that had always been on their phones.
You're right that lock-in isn't just about one application. Like a wall, it's made up of multiple bricks. But different bricks matter more to different customers: for some people (usually teenagers who have relatively little data invested in other apps) the blue-bubbles iMessage is the most important brick, for older users it's usually the piles of data in cloud services, password manager, photo library or purchased media. Typically companies use some features to bring people into their ecosystem, then gradually them in with all the others.
Unfortunately our anti-trust laws were written in the 19th century, so they deal with very specific types of anti-competitive behavior. Modern tech firms basically grew up in an environment where the goal was to maintain the absolute minimal level of competition and user choice that stays within the law.
> broken group messaging between iMessage and Android was the primary driver of my desire to get an iPhone
I'm not a group messenger, and basically mute any group messages I'm a part of, so please excuse my ignorance. What's actually broken between iOS and Android with group messaging? Are Android-only group messages better? Will RCS improve this at all?
I realize the apps are all on iOS, but to say "there is no barrier to switching" is a bit annoying as it pretends my experience, where I actually got an iPhone but decided not to keep it due to the barriers to switching, didn't exist.
I'm not saying is impossible or something, but it's just way more effort than it was worth to me. E.g. so many iOS apps by default are set to use iCloud. All of my photos for years were in Google Photos. There is a Google Photos app for iOS, but it is in no way as seamless an experience as on a Pixel (e.g. camera integration). And I think a lot of people would say that if you get an iPhone but specifically avoid Apple's services like iCloud for photos so you can stay on Google's services, that defeats a huge part of the value of being on the iOS ecosystem in the first place.
I'm a recent convert to the iPhone and I'd say Google's apps are definitely worse on iOS. Many of them are missing features, buggy or plain weird. Big ones being Search, Home, Gmail, Calendar and Photos. Overall I get the sense that iOS apps are an after thought at Google.
I’ve been a recent convert to the iPhone. It gives me a unique perspective since I’ve spent almost my entire life in the Android ecosystem.
I first bought an iPhone 5c on a whim, which is well out of support by apple, 5 versions behind the modern iOS. If you turn it on, all the default Apple apps work, in 2024.
You can stream Apple Music and download podcasts with no App Store whatsoever. It’s a powerful little device, more then ten years later.
Compare this to the Android system, where google has wholesale deprecated their podcasts app. You’ll have to find a 3rd party one if you want to access that functionality.
The point I’m trying to make is that for Joe Consumer, everything on an iPhone just works. Modification isn’t even something they consider doing.
In the end, Epic and Spotify get a fat 30% boost in revenue and nobody notices anything different.
Guess what? Joe Consumer lives in a society that has an economy. And that economy thrives on open markets and competition. US antitrust law knew this from Teddy Roosevelt all the way until Ronald Reagan gutted that notion, and began to focus only on consumer harm. But consumers aren’t the only part of an economy! They’re probably not even the most important part. Open competition is vital for a diverse and open economy where all sorts of market entrants can participate, and create companies that pay taxes, and create jobs for people who are also, in turn, consumers. Sometimes higher prices are worth it if an economic sector is open and thriving. We know this intuitively when it comes to trade protections, as countries like Germany go to great lengths to protect domestic manufacturing at the expense of cheaper cars.
You make no sense. Germany protects domestic manufacturing to keep their engineers and workers employed, admirable. Who exactly is US trying to keep employed? Please tell me something concrete, don’t use Orwellian terminology like Open markets when you mean Govt Regulated markets.
Without Apple’s introduction of the smart-phone, millions of app development jobs would not exist. Apple’s 30% tax is reducing profits of some developers, the biggest ones are complaining but none of it is gutting the economy, app development is not being shifted overseas because Apple made the cost of development too high. If anything it is the literal opposite, SWE salaries are still increasing because the demand for app developers still outpaces the supply, and people are more than willing to pay 6 figures+ for a good SWE.
The funny thing is your frame has some truth to it, it’s just your entire thinking is hopelessly muddled that you focus on everything that doesn’t matter. There is case, where the government can step in, raise the price of the iPhones to employ more people, cause net consumer harm but still be better for society. That is in iPhone manufacturing where all the jobs have been shifted overseas and no trade worker in US gets employed to make iPhones. This is a real problem, and yet no one in the FTC cares about this, they may not even know this problem exists in their desperate bid to grab power and come up on the front page of NYT with a big win. And what will they achieve? They will let some other app developers make more money, but no offense to 99% of HN, you guys are highly paid and a 30% higher potential margin really doesn’t matter. They will dictate design decisions to a company that is probably 100000x better at design than the FTC is and get fawning reviews from NYT, get invited to talks at universities, maybe even get called to a late night show (has happened before) and that is probably all that matters to them.
If my comment didn't make sense to you, read it again, slowly. "Open markets" is not an Orwellian phrase - it's well-understood by anyone with any economic literacy that competition in markets requires those markets to be regulated in order to avoid monopolies and other trusts. Apple introduced a great product in the iPhone, no question about that. And Apple is rewarded through its efforts by enjoying large profit margins on the handsets it sells. This should be obvious. What Apple isn't entitled to is to charge rents for the right to simply exist on its devices. Anyone who understands the power of open systems in the technological revolution over the last thirty years can grasp this easily. It's what gave us the web, and spawned trillions of dollars in economic growth as companies developed for the web and for hundreds of millions of personal computers. It isn't economically productive to have one or two or three gatekeeping companies capture a slice of that revenue just because they can. That 30% revenue that's lost to Apple is paid for directly by the consumer, obviously.
To help unmuddle your thinking, Apple doesn't subsidize the cost of the iPhone with its services revenue. Apple makes blockbuster profits on every phone it sells, and always has. I'm not an app developer, and I'm not even in the technology industry. But I understand economics and antitrust law, and don't wear my ignorance of either as a badge of honor while shitposting replies to people's comments.
Compare this to the Android system, where google has wholesale deprecated their podcasts app. You’ll have to find a 3rd party one if you want to access that functionality.
My Galaxy S1 still plays podcasts just fine....I keep it hooked up to bluetooth speakers just for that.
Google disabled the ability to download new/updated apps that could run on this phone long ago, but the apps already on the phone still work. Indeed, it works better than the iPhone 5c, since I can use any micro usb connector to charge my phone, but the 5c is stuck with a proprietary connector that isn't made or sold anymore.
The point I’m trying to make is that for Joe Consumer, everything on an iPhone just works.
This hasn't been true for years, if it ever was. Siri never worked properly, and most people complain about the horrible accuracy of the fingerprint and face unlock. Text messages sent to/by Apple users frequently disappear into the ether, discovered only when the communicants physically meet up. The cloud software is prone to overwriting files or accidentally deleting them. And don't even get me started about all the people holding their phones the wrong way...
This has nothing to do with the classic Apple vs Android debate. It's about Apple's practices of pushing people to purchase the iPhone even if they might not want to.
Just an example I had recently, my friend replaced his iPhone 8 because after two years of it functioning perfectly fine, apps started crashing/closing out of nowhere. Not to mention he constantly complained about apps being slow.
His Apple maps frequently pointed to slightly wrong places (like 50 meters off) when given coordinates shared by messaging apps. Sometimes closing the maps app and reclicking the link fixed the position. It got to a point that he started sharing destination coordinates with me so I could open Google Maps on my phone so we could navigate confidently.
Also he complained that Canva and Instagram apps were slow or broken for some operations on the phone. For example trying to share a longer video in reels resulted in app crashing. But those are not Apple apps so I'm not even counting all these third party issues. But it was like death by a thousand cuts.
Since replacing his iPhone for a newer model, everything was fixed. For now.
HomeKit fails a lot for me, as does Safari syncing of favorites, including sometimes the wrong icons being shown for a given favorite. There are bugs in Safari browsing history, such as when you select some history entry, the underlying links of other entries sometimes get shifted (with respect to the displayed labels). Apple Mails takes multiple minutes to sync read/unread status between devices, and sometimes doesn’t sync at all until you open the app. Even on the same device, the Mail app badge only updates half a minute or so after having read an email. When editing text and cutting and pasting around, the text suggestions tend to see a different internal state than what is displayed (you get suggestions for terms you have cut out or deleted concatenated with words that are still there or that you pasted). Apple services have regular hickups. Just today we had https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40177617. ICloud backup requires a subscription beyond 5 GB, or else you have to backup via Mac or PC, which at least on PC Apple doesn’t allow you to automate. (You have to manually authorize each new connection to the PC, even after a small interruption. There used to be a persistent “trust this PC”, but that’s gone.) That’s from the top of my head.
“Force”? No one is forced to give in to peer pressure by buying something.
It’s one thing to want to fit in, but then we should also force clothing to not have visible brands so kids can’t compare what clothes they have, and youth sports teams so kids can’t exclude non-sports playing peers.
Yes, it would help US teens were convinced to use another communication app that treated people equally in a group regardless of their phones. But they are teens and culture from network effects is hard to change.
Or a much easier approach, Apple could fix that, if they wanted. But they don't because iPhones would lose their status symbol (blue bubble) and teens could then buy other phones without suffering rejection in groups. Apple can't have that.
If culture among teens is hard to change and Apple values income above all, it's up to regulators. But US regulators aren't as active than EU.
> In the end, Epic and Spotify get a fat 30% boost in revenue and nobody notices anything different.
Well, let's be clear here: Neither Epic nor Spotify are selling anything with Apple today. Epic's games are not available on iOS, and Spotify requires you to make all purchases through their website.
Spotify's motivation for wanting change on the iOS platform is primarily due to how limiting Apple's profit share and App Store rules are toward expanding its lines of business. Spotify wants to be able to sell one-off audiobooks; but the margins are already razor thin, and would become impossibly thin if Apple had to be paid 30% of every sale. In the most egregiously and obviously monopolistic thing Apple has ever done, they also sell audiobooks via the Books app, where I'm (wink) certain they're paying the 30% fee to (wink) themselves.
One alternative Spotify hasn't tried is marking audiobooks up 30% to account for the fees. Maybe this is something that is contractually extremely difficult to do? Like, authors and publishing agencies don't assign pricing rights to Spotify, they have to sell the audiobooks at the same price they're available for sale on Amazon/Apple Books/etc. I don't know. But, regardless of that, it's a shit card to deal consumers, anyone with half a brain would just buy the audiobook from Apple Books where its 30% cheaper, and Spotify is very reasonably trying to drive traffic to platforms they have higher agency within.
This isn't really about boosting revenue by 30%. Its about unlocking fundamentally different business models from Apple's grasp; business models which Apple has found extremely profitable for itself, yet refuses anyone else to share in.
No one I know uses Apple audiobooks, I thought it was only Audible in this market.
Spotify is a loss making company finding reasons to blame its problems. What annoys Spotify is that Apple Music exists, this is the age old problem between vendors and distributors, where vendors hate it if Walmart comes out with its own peanut butter jar to sell. The fundamental problem with the vendor here is their product is not differentiated, Apple isn’t worried if Walmart sells other smartphones, they don’t care but Reese’s is extremely worried and will make a huge hula about private labels and such. Spotify as a technology has nothing unique, their audio isn’t even lossless yet, their music is now available through Apple, Amazon, YouTube, Tidal and who knows what else. They basically have some network effects due to social media and are living off a first mover advantage, meanwhile as their see their dominance erode they are trying to find boogeyman’s to blame. If Apple removes 30% tax, Spotify won’t magically become a successful business, Spotify still needs to find something more differentiated than the sea of music streaming apps out there. Netflix kind of did it with originals and superior efficiency, Spotify won’t be able to do anything until they take a hard look at their business and truly diagnose why it’s such a trash heap.
> No one I know uses Apple audiobooks, I thought it was only Audible in this market.
Yes, I'm sure Apple keeps it around out of the goodness of their heart and not because its used and is profitable.
> Spotify is a loss making company
Spotify is profitable [1].
> as their see their dominance erode they are trying to find boogeyman’s to blame
19% YoY MAU growth, 14% premium subscriber YoY growth, 20% YoY revenue growth, 31% YoY profit growth... Spotify is a strong business, in quite a lead over Apple Music [2].
But, none of that matters to you. You've got your narrative you need to construct to support your worldview. Before your misinformation was corrected, it was "Spotify is a trash business, Apple is a great business, go Apple". Now that you've learned that Spotify is a strong business, your narrative will shift: "Spotify pays artists poorly, no wonder their profit is up, Apple Music pays artists more, go Apple". You struggle to imagine a world where Apple might not be the good guy. Metaphor, like mortar on the foundation of your tech worldview.
The Walmart metaphor is interest-- no, I can't even fake cordiality, as proud as you may be to have came up with it, you're roughly fifty-ith in line on claiming originality on that one. My god, Epic sued Apple in 2020, four years ago, your intuition if its worth anything should be screaming at a hundred decibels that there have been infinite conversations on this very site, every argument permuted a thousand times, torn apart, countered and counter-countered, and you trot out something so banal as the "well, Walmart has the Great Value brand" line? Wake me up when Walmart has 60.8% of US citizens exclusively shopping at their stores, and the remaining 39% exclusively shops at Kroger, there's zero other places to buy food (by design, its for Food Security), and as I rub the sleep from my eyes I say "Wow, I guess that guy on HackerNews was right. I bet the food economy Walmart and Kroger gatekeep is a super fair and balanced market which suppliers super-enjoy participating in! Man, I bet there's so much sick innovation happening!"
Do you just blatantly lie thinking no one will click on your links or are you just absolutely ignorant and have no understanding how to read company financials? Here’s the net income on statista : https://www.statista.com/statistics/244990/spotifys-revenue-...
They’ve lost 532 million in their most recent year, the lowest they’ve lost is 32 million. They’ve not had a single profitable year in their entire public history and it seems to only be getting worse for them. I just cursorily follow the stock market and the second you told me Spotify is profitable all the red flags in my head blew up, glad that you confirmed my bias, they are even worse than I thought.
Then you talk about Spotify user metrics, either you are willfully ignorant with no understanding of how to read metrics or you’re just hoping I won’t respond? The obvious metric that you need to judge Spotify by is market share, which Spotify has been on a slow decline on since at least 2019 where they went from 34% to 31% according to tech crunch. The internet is growing, their MAU, revenue etc will all grow, most internet companies can boast that. I literally don’t need to shift my narrative, I know Spotify pays artists poorly, Apple Music does too, any system that pays by stream count is a winner takes all that benefits the biggest artists in my view, Tidal does a much better job.
Probably the fact that I actually know what I’m talking about, and am not falling for your ignorant citations and stats, might be a crack in your world view, you might have been under the comfortable delusion that everyone who doesn’t agree with you has not done the research and is not smart when it turns out that you are actually incredibly ignorant in your research. In fact if you take this as a learning lesson for your life and maybe probe further you will find that for most complex issues, at the highest levels everyone deeply understands the facts, but still can turn out with radically different interpretations of them, consensus on anything other than pure math is hard to achieve. I reckon you’ll be stuck in Plato’s cave forever though, I heard it’s quite comfortable down there.
Net income on Statista? You know you don't need to rely on that shoddy site, right? Spotify is a public company. I linked their Q1 2024 public disclosure. Did you even click on it?
Statistia is more accurate in this case. You didn’t link to a public disclosure per se, you linked to an investor marketing statement formatted like a financial statement. Spotify’s 20-F at the SEC shows that any “operating income” is more than offset by share-based compensation expenses which your investor presentation doesn’t adjust for at all. When counting the liquid stock Spotify pays employees as an expense, they are unprofitable.
When my Android phone broke in the past I was lent an iPhone 6s to use in the meantime. It was absolutely slow and many things didn't work. I ended up getting rid of it because having no phone was better than using it.
Android was initially designed so that operators could customise it. The idea was apps were developed (and sold) only by operators, and everything else would be via the browser. If you had used a Nokia device in the EU in 2005 and then the exact same model in the customised form released on a US carrier you'd understand why this was such a terrible idea. The exclusion of carriers from being able to make modifications to the phone was, and remains, an active feature for end users.
People keep having to learn that developers cannot be trusted either, someone somewhere will always trend towards the very worst thing they can do, and you need look no further than this forum for the levels of avarice which have overrun the tech industry. The EU regulators live in a parallel universe where they're all dependent on WhatsApp as they've never truly internalised that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that people see them as easy marks.