Nvidia doesn't have a fantastic record for long term support on their SoCs. It usually ends up stranded on some outdated out-of-tree kernel. If they've shared the support task with Microsoft (and if MS remains institutionally capable of support at this point...), that's a reason for cautious optimism.
I don't think this is likely to truly pan out though. I can't imagine Nvidia making the kind of afffordances that would allow it to develop into a successful market segment. They're inevitably going to gatekeep documentation and aggressively encroach on their partners' margin like they always do.
Windows has a stable hardware abstraction layer for kernel drivers. Unlike on Linux, once Nvidia writes the drivers, the same code can just keep working without requiring constant updates to deal with breaking changes. I don’t have experience with it myself, and I’m sure some ongoing maintenance will be required to deal with bugs, but probably a fraction of what is needed on Linux.
Meanwhile, if Nvidia is writing its own drivers then documentation isn’t an issue.
The flipside is that stable APIs make it harder for Microsoft to improve the kernel. And once Nvidia decides to stop maintaining its drivers, without public source code or documentation, nobody else can maintain them in its place. Still, there’s something to be said for Microsoft’s approach.
It doesn't matter whether you can prove it. ICE's current position [0] is that their face scanning app supercedes documents like birth certificates to determine status.
Do regulators come up with SCADA safety standards? I would have assumed it was IEC.
Regulators coming up with engineering standards is pretty rare in general. Usually they incorporate existing professional standards from organizations like SAE, IEEE, IEC, or ISO.
Google's long term strategy with Android is baffling to me. Apple has had better mobile hardware for years. Apple has higher consumer trust. Apple has better app selection (for most people). Apple has been increasingly implementing the core features that differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS. Every Android user lost to the increasing iOS market share is another customer Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a competitor to access.
And Google's strategy is to continue removing differentiating features from Android that also help them mitigate the threat of antitrust? Surely the marginal revenue from the inconsequential number of sideloading users isn't attractive enough to justify that kind of strategic blunder.
I don't see any iOS advantage with the apps anymore. That was maybe true in the very beginning, during the gold rush time of the app store. But not since then. In which category are there better iOS apps? Browsers? No, strictly worse. Youtube app? No, worse. Texting? Worse or equal (Whatsapp). Podcast client? I assume worse, since there is no Antenna Pod. Social media apps? The iOS variants of those apps are afaik in no way better. What else is there, where is the advantage?
Also, while the Play store is an equally ad-riddled and unsearchable hellhole, at least Android does have with F-Droid a high quality alternative. iOS has nothing.
But sure, removing the F-Droid advantage can only hurt Android, the direction of your comment still stands.
I don't know about categories overall, but I'm attached to my iPad and won't switch to Android in part because Affinity is not available there, nor is there any near equivalent as far as I can tell.
I still think Overcast is nicer to use than Antenna Pod.
Microsoft Office apps work much better on iDevices, in my experience. (I know they exist for Android, but I've never had much luck editing there, where it actually works pretty nicely on iDevices.)
I don't game much, but my kids like gaming on iDevices much better than Android. (I have an Android tablet that I use for testing things, and they consistently reject it in favor of iPhone or iPad.)
Flowkey (music instruction app) works much better with my MIDI keyboard on iDevices than on Android (where it doesn't work and has to resort to microphone, which is buggy as hell).
I'm sure some of this is just a matter of the platform being more polished in general, but these are some apps that keep people in my house on iDevices despite having plenty of access to Android. The quality of the Youtube app doesn't move anyone, nor do the browsers.
Correct. Brave on iOS is worse than Brave on Android because Apple forces it to be a Safari skin, but they're still able to achieve some UI improvements over Safari, and achieve their built-in adblocking.
As a mobile Firefox with ublocker user I'm not sure I would call it high quality. I regularly have to force stop it to get pages to load properly. I suspect it might be the hostile google based os at fault but not sure
Almost all of the prosumer apps on iOS offer a consistently better experience. This is maybe less relevant on phones than on tablets, but music production, video editing, digital painting and drafting, etc...
That isn't saying much. Even the best possible music editing (etc) app on a tablet is still crappy, by virtue of the form factor. Tablets simply are not suitable for getting actual work done.
While I can't speak to the editing side of things, the live music apps for ios are exceptional. My dad is a musician and I'm a sound engineer. The sheer number and quality of the apps dwarfs the android offerings.
By that token, touchscreen laptops will replace the iPad any day now.
I think the preeminent issue is that touch-native UIs are very imprecise and clunky by nature. The iPad makes a great MIDI controller; it's an awful mixer or plugin host compared to a regular laptop running regular PC plugins. Buying a mouse or keyboard won't port Omnisphere or the U-He plugins to iPad. I doubt the market will ever "catch up" in that regard.
I mean, as someone who is mainly a programmer, same. But high-end cameras, big touchscreens, and an excellent pencil input is sort of the optimal device for a whole bunch of creative tasks
I make the superior picture with my camera but then it sits there on an SD card in the camera. I have to boot a desktop, hope the USB connection works today, find a folder, create and name a folder in the folder, copy the pictures there, find and open something to view and edit the images with, find and open something to upload the images. OR open the camera, take out th SD card, boot up a computer, plug the card into a reader or a laptop and do the same ritual.
People pretend this is a perfectly acceptable workfow. It is not.
The pictures would have to be dramatically better than those made by phones. They are not.
I shoot, review on the much larger phone screen, click share and chose from countless options to publish immediately. OR edit it a bit and enjoy the same.
I also never consciously bring the phone, it's just there in my pocket. Interesting things happen, you unholster it and start shooting. The real camera is more like guard duty. You sit there waiting for the interesting shot. Sometimes that works out and some of those times the extra quality is actually visible and some of that time it is totally worth it. The rest of the time I wonder what it is I think I'm doing.
> but then it sits there on an SD card in the camera. I have to boot a desktop, hope the USB connection works today [...] OR open the camera, take out th SD card [...]
We are apparently very spoiled with how smooth some things work on smart phones.
I want dedicated cameras to offer a superior experience. In stead it is quite bad.
In order to publish one should first disconnect the internet?
I have to put down the camera and pick up the competing device?
My absolute favorite annoyance with my cameras is the lack of charging over USB. After taking a good amount of pictures I have to guess if there is enough battery left to transfer the images to the computer.
Not that PCs or laptops offer very good charging power. This because there is little demand.
It seems in order to make the superior experience the camera maker should also make phones and/or laptops? I have no idea really.
All I know is that my phone has 100W charging. I can almost immediately return to the front. The camera does have swappable batteries going for it but that I have to remove it from the tripod to reload it won't win the war.
I don't know about Canon's offering... but Sony's is lackluster to say the least. On my A6000 (and possibly other older models), you can't import RAWs, only JPEGs. Not to add that manual connection to the camera's wifi is a rather "annoying" process, having to go into the camera settings, manually turning on wifi, going into the phone's settings/quick menu to connect to said hotspot, then open the app, etc...
It's just a plain worse experience to just some extremely good phones like the iPhones with pro camera apps
They're good enough to have displaced the vast majority of camera purchases, and be used by professionals (e.g. influencers, photojournalists, pro photographers).
There are benefits to larger sensors, but the best camera is the one you have in-hand.
The multiple lenses and the processing power make smartphones wildly better than almost any consumer camera, particularly for someone without professional photography skills. A professional camera in the hands of a professional photographer can do better, but that means the market has changed from "consumers buy consumer cameras, professionals buy professional cameras" to "consumers use the camera that's always in their pocket and get surprisingly good results, professionals buy professional cameras".
The iOS prosumer apps are, frankly, pathetic. I produce music and every single DAW/plugin on iPad is very clearly a "lite" version of something that would run better on a full-featured OS. There's really no workflow I can imagine that doesn't entail using a real PC for basic mixing and arrangement.
> I produce music and every single DAW/plugin on iPad is very clearly a "lite" version of something...
I agree in several cases, but the question here wasn't "are they better than PC equivalents", it was "are they better than what's available on Android"
There's a saying in mobile development that in most companies the Android version of the app is a second class citizen. It usually brings substantially less money and so less money are invested in it. As a result the Android team is often understaffed and the app is almost always behind in feature development, less polished and with overall worse UX and more bugs compared to the iOS app.
Also iOS still has a community of iOS only indie devs that publish polished apps for iOS, it's very common to find very popular iOS app with very curated UX that are exclusive to that platform and have a good fanbase.
This is more because the barrier to entry is so much lower.
Android: have laptop that can do virtualization (...so basically ever laptop that can also do this:) and have enough ram to do run Android studio. Then you theoretically also need an Android device but even that's just because I assume you want to use the app you're making. That's it.
iOS: $100/yr entry fee, plus you need Apple hardware, plus a "server" mode Apple hardware (Mac mini?) if you want to alt store and I assume your main device is a laptop.
Just the money thing and the hardware thing is a huge stumbling block. I know it's rounding error for any even semi serious business but also let's be real, a ton of very important software is basically run on the budget of "the software devs main job and/or EU welfare state benefits".
The www wins. All you need is something that can run a browser. You edit a line, save, refresh and there it is, the real finished product, not emulation.
Apps have terrible reliability too. I just wanted to order a pizza, the restaurant website offered a button for the play store and app store.
There it said the app was for an outdated version of Android.
Perhaps it had been like that for a long time? But lets imagine it happened today. Where are you to get your orders from? Ahh yes, the website.
If apps didn't get the icon on the home screen 90% wouldn't have a reason to exist.
Bunch of pictures with descriptions and an add to cart button. One shouldn't even need to write code, it should be as simple and obvious as serving a document. In stead you need a full time carpenter to keep the store running. The counter and shelves spontaneously collapse, doors regularly get stuck, light fixtures rain down from the ceiling.
People trying to sell pizza deserve better, we can do better.
Since Android has 70% of the world market share, and there are countries where iOS is hardly a presence other than the country's elite population, those are quite a few customers they will be missing on.
Maybe they can keep the lights on with those 30%, I guess.
> Meta devised an ingenious system (“localhost tracking”) that bypassed Android’s sandbox protections to identify you while browsing on your mobile phone — even if you used a VPN, the browser’s incognito mode, and refused or deleted cookies in every session.
That's only one example, and as I explained in a sibling comment[1] doesn't even seem like something iOS designers were specifically defending against. In light of this, I think it's fair to say this example is poor and that another one is warranted. For instance, I'd consider the app tracking transparency changes to be something where iOS was doing better than Android on, but Android has since reached feature parity on that because you can delete your advertising id, which basically does the same thing.
> The IOS versions of social media apps extract way less data from the device than on android, and is thus more privacy friendly.
I seriously doubt this. I agree that this is the perception but anyone working in the mobile space on both platforms for the past ~2 years will know Google is a lot more hard nosed in reviewing apps for privacy concerns than Apple these days (I say this negatively, there is a middle ground and Apple is much closer to it - Google is just friction seemingly in an attempt to lose their bad reputation).
Last time I tried Android I had to sign my rights away to everything the app wanted just to install it.
In contrast, on iOS I get prompted to allow or deny access to my information when the app tries calling Apple’s API to fetch that information.
For example, if an app wants access to my contacts to find other people using the app. On iOS I can simply say “no” when it prompts me to allow it to read my contacts. I lose out on that feature to find other people using the app, which I don’t care about, but I can still use the rest of the app. On Android it seemed like by installing the app, I had already agreed to give up my contacts… it was all or nothing. If I don’t like one privacy compromising feature, I couldn’t use the app at all.
Android may have improved this in the last few years, but I found it to be a dealbreaker for the entire platform.
> Last time I tried Android I had to sign my rights away to everything the app wanted just to install it.
Sounds like it was years ago... I remember that it was being introduced like... more than a decade ago? Of course maybe it took longer than iOS because of how Android works. iOS can just force everybody to use liquid glass with one update, Android has to think more about backward compatibility.
You still have the same things on android. If an android app requests eg exact location it can refuse to run and there’s nothing you can do.
That sort of behaviour is prohibited on iOS and an app won’t be approved if it does that sort of thing. They have to allow declining location permission or at least approximate location
Not sure I understand. So you're saying that a bad app on Android can request all permissions and tell you that it will refuse to run unless you give them, and the same app would be declined on iOS?
I could agree with that, Apple is more picky. Now personally, if an app does that, I uninstall it.
But technically, the Android rules are that you shouldn't do that, and when you request a permission you need to explain to the user why you request it.
It was there for the launch of the App Store with iOS. They didn’t have to worry about backward compatibility, because they took the time to worry about user privacy and app developer overreach from the very start.
A difference is also that Apple has 100% control over the hardware and can enforce their updates much better than Android.
Android has to deal with tons of devices, and allow developers to update their tooling while supporting older devices. I actually find it quite impressive how they manage to do that. Must be difficult.
All the more reason to get the design right out of the gate, instead of throwing something out there and hoping to fix it later. Especially something so fundamental, like privacy.
It would be nice if the app stores offered different levels of requirements. Let the market decide how much it cares about privacy (and security, and ...), reduce the friction for developers who want to do a particular thing, and give end users more confidence in the entire system.
Unless you're running Graphene or a similar security minded distro the sandboxing isn't very good. Okay let's be honest it's fairly abysmal at preventing fingerprinting. It could almost be accused of not even bothering to try.
Even with graphene I don't believe it mitigates much as far as apps collecting data. The idea for more privacy is you run open source apps instead that just don't collect data.
AFAIK Graphene is oriented towards strong device security with privacy as more of a side effect.
One thing with the sandboxed Play Services being that Google has fewer permissions on the device, so presumably they can collect less data.
Which I believe is GrapheneOS' argument when people praise microG: microG being open source does not fundamentally add privacy: apps using microG will phone to Google's servers (that's the whole point of microG). What microG solves is that it removes the Play Services that are root on your device, and it turns out that sandboxed Play Services do that as well.
> The idea for more privacy is you run open source apps instead that just don't collect data.
Yep exactly, I just wanted to add about the sandboxed Play Services, because it was not obvious to me at first :)
> Unless you're running Graphene or a similar security minded distro the sandboxing isn't very good. Okay let's be honest it's fairly abysmal at preventing fingerprinting.
Hmm... the sandboxing is a security feature, it's not there to prevent tracking (not sure what "fingerprinting" includes here). The sandboxing of Android is actually pretty good (a lot better than, say, desktop OSes).
There is pretty much nothing you can do against an app requesting e.g. your location data and sending it to their servers. Fundamentally, the whole goal of apps is that they can technically do that. Then you have to choose apps you trust, and it's easier to trust open source apps.
What GrapheneOS brings in terms of sandboxing is that the Play Services run sandboxed like normal apps. Whereas on Android, the Play Services run with system permissions.
Color me surprised. But if you run the app using the sandboxing feature that it provides surely it will only be able to see other apps installed within that same sandbox?
What is "the sandboxing feature" you're talking about? The standard app sandbox built into android allows apps to discover each other for various purposes, and grapheneos doesn't do anything to attempt to plug this.
Apologies. I was thinking of Android user profiles which are available from mainline and (AFAIK) prevent the linked workaround from revealing any apps not installed in the same profile. So it's an example of an unfixed leak in Android but not (as I had previously implied) something that Graphene corrects.
Honestly the state of anti-fingerprinting (app, browser, and otherwise) is fairly abysmal but that's hardly limited to android or even mobile as a whole.
>Apologies. I was thinking of Android user profiles which are available from mainline and (AFAIK) prevent the linked workaround from revealing any apps not installed in the same profile.
But there's no evidence that stock android leaks apps installed across profiles? The link you provided doesn't discuss profiles at all, and stock android also has private space and work profile just like grapheneos.
You'd think this would be more known! I feel like general sentiment says the opposite is the case.. What can one point to in the future to show what you are saying here?
> apps nagging to get updated is annoying in fact.
There is no nagging. Apps auto-update on iOS, and have for years. I had 15 apps update in the last week. There was no nagging or notifications. It just happens.
My only gripe is that they seem to want to update right after I take it off the charger in the morning, instead of at night. But I only actually notice this once or twice per year, if I go to use an app that’s in the process of installing within the first few minutes of waking up.
Apps also auto update on Android. Frequently though, the updates reduce functionality or make it more annoying (basics like messages, calculator, photos, calendar, etc have been 'done' for a decade+ and can only really be made worse), so personally I've turned that off for most apps (and I suppose the other poster has too). Of course Google being aggressive assholes, they then have some of their apps start showing popups every time you open it telling you to update when the entire point was to have it not change in functionality and not introduce that sort of thing.
To add more examples, a game I play on my phone got an update that adds controller support on iOS, with controller support on Android expected 6 months down the line.
There are plenty examples to the contrary. It's almost like one of the platforms has the supermajority of phones in most countries, so there are plenty of apps only targeting a single one.
I've never understood how Google was able to get PR for the most trivial coding stuff any child coder can do.
"...support for a dynamic light mode. Instead of always viewing photos with a black background, Google Photos will use the light mode or dark mode background that you have set for your device's system theme."
This is literally one IF statement. The sentence is longer than the code.
The iOS and Android app teams at Google don’t coordinate their releases. They ship it when it’s ready for publication. Why inconvenience the other base just because the other team has other priorities and schedules. That said, Google apps have always been superior on Android than iOS. Just look at Keep.
Everything else I agree with, but the Android camera APIs do not allow developers to build good device independent camera apps the way they are available on iOS.
I'm only familiar with this as a user and not a developer, but I've had multiple Android phone where not all camera features available in the Camera app were available to other apps via the APIs:
The iOS YouTube app is not worse than the one in Android. Texting in iOS is arguably better or, at the very least, there is one more app to choose (Messages). And I’m curious to know what makes Antenna Pod so much better than the thousands of other podcast apps out there.
Social media apps have historically been worse in Android, because of lax app and privacy controls.
> What else is there, where is the advantage?
Personally, I’d rather not have Google buried deep inside all aspects of my phone.
Everyone I know on iOS just uses Messages, they don’t feel a need for other apps.
People on Android I’ve run into seem to have a half dozen apps and use anything but the built in messaging.
A few months ago while on a trip I ran into an older couple that wanted some picture I took in a place they weren’t physically up to going. They were not tech savvy at all. Had they been on iOS, they would have just been using Messages and it would have been easy. They had Android, and the guy opened about 5 or 6 different messaging apps, not really knowing what any of them were, it seemed like a real mess. I sent them using Messages over RCS, assuming they’d go to Google Messages, or whatever the default equivalent standard app is for Google (they seem to have changed it a dozen times). It could be that the pictures were taking a while to send, my phone showed they sent, but he had no idea where to look or where they might have went, despite having so many messaging apps. I hope he is able to find them or they came through with a notification once he had a better single.
Having one good app that everyone uses is better than the default app being sub-par, or so constantly in flux that the users and smattered about to dozens of different apps that can’t talk to each other.
> Texting in iOS is arguably better or, at the very least
Since some updates ago, my keyboard is still broken if I type too fast, and autocorrect been essentially broken for the same amount of time. Must be happening for ~years now, still waiting for a new update to finally fix it.
At least on Android you can change the keyboard to something else if you'd like, instead of being stuck with what your OS developer forces on you. Wish I had that option now.
A lot of the apps, not just the banking apps, but food delivery etc, restrict using alternative keyboards, leaving you with a default one, which is especially jarring for a multi-lingual countries where you typically need keyboards for English + language 2 and 3.
I had to give ap on a swiftkey iOS for that reason
You could say that there are Apple devices that do not work well or don’t work at all without another Apple device, and off the top of my head I would say the only ones are the Watch and the HomePod, but most alternative devices work fine with Apple ones, e.g Chromecast, Garmin watches, Google Home hubs, etc.
And even so, the same could be said about Android only features and devices, e.g. Samsung Watch doesn’t work without an Android phone, Google Earbuds are feature capped on iPhone, etc.
IMO, if we are looking at rent seeking behaviors, Google shoving Gemini down the throats of Google Home users, with no chance of rolling back if they don’t like it, is way worse.
The difference between Apple vs Google is that with Apple you ARE the ad. They don't need advertising when they know people will adopt them and then be forced into their ecosystem.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Even if that was true, my point was that an ad driven business like Google, would be incentivized to monetize all the aspects of my life they could have access to. If that’s not what Apple is doing, compared to Google, then that’s a win I guess?
Google most profitable business line is ads. They profit from literally knowing everything about you, then selling access to that to ad bidders. Apple makes the most money from devices. It is not the same.
Then why is it that they advertise? We just last week had a thread about how the Apple app store is making ads blend in more with organic results. So not only are they advertising to users (which admittedly was news to me), they are engaging in dark patterns to make those ads more enticing. It doesn't seem like being locked into the Apple ecosystem (and paying their tax on hardware) is actually benefiting the users.
The iOS version of most social media apps is better. IOS simply has better API integration to it's hardware, where with android, many OEMs (hell this was even the case to a certain extent with older pixel phones), do a number of things that make the hardware not as easily accessible as quickly from the OS API for said feature.
This is especially relevant for the camera, but also various other sensors and hardware modules that exist inside these phones.
That said, in recent years there are just a number of other areas that android is much better at such as deeper AI integration, which goes back to even prior to the current LLM craze.
Cubasis and Blackmagic Camera are cross platform, not that "most people" would use these over whatever was preinstalled or the camera interface in their social app.
The Android audio latency issues were solved long ago with Pro Audio. Whether Android audio apps chose to use it is on them and the significance of latency on their audio app.
If you’d like an example, every single person who flies has an iPad to use an app called FOREFLIGHT. It doesn’t exist in android. Other EFBs exist on android but they are not as good. To a point that among things a new pilot student has to buy, like headsets and such, is an iPad.
For one, I can actually use gesture controls without constantly triggering backswipes. Even something as droll and first party as Google Photos suffers this problem, where, say, cropping a photo and pulling too close from the screen edge will result in a backswipe detection instead.
Another example is Sonos, where the iOS app contains TruePlay to tune your speakers. They can do this because there is relatively few iPhone models (microphones). But this is a general, noticeable trend, where developers will add more / better / polished features to the iOS app.
>I don't see any iOS advantage with the apps anymore. That was maybe true in the very beginning, during the gold rush time of the app store. But not since then. In which category are there better iOS apps?
I researched iOS vs Android last year so some of my info may be out of date but this is what I collected.
Apple iOS exclusives (or earlier app versions because devs prioritized iOS):
ChatGPT iOS app -2 months before Android
Sora -2 months before 2025-11 Android
Bluesky iOS app -2 months before Android (February 2023 iOS invitation-only beta; April 2023, it was released for Android)
Blackmagic Design camera 2023-09-15 -9 months before Android 2024-06-24
Halide camera app https://old.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/17klq40/what_are_some_good_examples_of_iphoneexclusive/k7efznt/
Zoom F6 https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/software-product-page/software-sub-cat/F6-control-app/ https://apps.apple.com/us/app/f6-control/id1464118916
Godox Light https://www.diyphotography.net/godox-finally-launches-android-app-for-the-a1-but-only-for-some-phones/
ForeFlight Mobile https://support.foreflight.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004919307-Does-ForeFlight-Mobile-work-on-Android-devices https://old.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1883eya/the_authoritative_answer_to_why_isnt_foreflight/
Adobe Fresco
Procreate
FlexRadio SmartSDR SSDR 2023-10-27T13:15:09+00:00 https://community.flexradio.com/discussion/8029186/smartsdr-for-android-device
Google Android app exclusives
TouchDRO for milling
Kodi media player
There really aren't many popular/prominent Android-only apps that's intended for direct consumer download from the Google Play Store. Instead, Android dominates in OEM use as "turnkey" and "embedded" base os as the GUI for their customized hardware devices:
Amazon Fire Stick, car infotainment, music workstations, sewing machine GUI, geology soil tester, etc
If it's a typical mainstream user (browser + Youtube/Tiktok + WhatsApp etc), they won't see any iOS ecosystem advantages over Android.
>Also Android has a bigger market share in the world than iOS, by a lot.
The tone of that seems like you thought I was taking the discussion into fanboy evangelism and therefore Android needed to be defended. That wasn't the intent and I already tried to downplay my comment by stating the iOS ecosystem specifics do not matter to 99% of mainstream users. Yes, everybody on HN already knows Android has a much bigger market share.
The point was simply to inform the gp asking the question about iOS that there are apps and niches he may not be aware of. Nobody's trying to convince any reader of switching to iOS or that "iOS is superior" ... or vice versa!
Wow I don't get all the downvotes I'm getting for that.
You answered to:
>> I don't see any iOS advantage with the apps anymore.
With a list of apps, some of which only listed because they got Android support a few months later. And some of which I have never heard of (SmartSDR?).
I get why those apps matter to you, but it feels a bit arbitrary. While the quote refers to something that was more general (which suggests that "at a point, iOS had a lot more quality apps"). I am just saying that the answer "no but I checked the app I like on iOS and a handful of them don't exist on Android" was kind of one anecdotal data point in the discussion.
And my point about Android having a bigger market share was that my intuition is that probably popular apps end up on Android eventually, or alternatives exist.
I honestly really don't care if people prefer iOS, Android, GrapheneOS, or a Linux for mobile distro.
>I get why those apps matter to you, [...] I am just saying that the answer "no but I checked the app I like on iOS and a handful of them don't exist on Android" was kind of one anecdotal data point in the discussion.
No, you don't get why it matters to me. You assuming my comment was just a personal list of my favorite apps is way off base. To be clear, I have never installed nor used any of those apps on either iOS nor Android.
So if I don't have any personal connection to those apps, why do I have that list handy?!? Because I was researching possible coding strategies for a new smartphone app:
- have 2 separate native mobile codebases (Swift AND Kotlin) from the start and therefore can release at the same time on both Apple App Store and Google Play. Difficult and expensive. Finite time and funds means both native apps suffer from less features and polish.
- or start with deliberate handicap of just 1 native codebase (e.g. iOS-only for initial launch) and see if it can attract revenue/funding to pay for the other native codebase (e.g. then Android). Or do the reverse of Android-first-then-iOS. Focusing on just 1 native platform means the app is higher quality. However, the risk is a clone app could quickly show up on the other platform I didn't code for.
- or 1 cross-platform toolkit with something like React Native which is what Meta and Microsoft Office apps like Outlook did.
That was why and how that list was created. The purpose was to get enough industry examples to form a generalization of what others did. I often do software research and my notes let me make lists about it. (Another one of my comments listing software I don't personally use but I do know the monthly costs : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42331312)
I thought the iOS apps list was a neutral comment full of factual information and also counterbalanced with the areas where Android has an enormous influence. Yet somehow, my comment is still interpreted as some type of smear on Android. If you're confused about downvotes, I am too!
If you go back to the gp's comment I replied to, he literally asked: >"What else is there, where is the advantage?"
This thread is full of people replying with examples of the "what else". How could any of us seriously answer that question without the answers being criticized as "arbitrary" ?
> You assuming my comment was just a personal list of my favorite apps is way off base
Well I am saying that it is a list of apps I have never used (if I have heard of them at all), so it sounds arbitrary for a comparison between iOS and Android.
> Because I was researching possible coding strategies for a new smartphone app
Sure, yeah, it makes sense there. I just don't feel like "ChatGPT released their Android app 2 months after iOS means that iOS is better in terms of apps".
Ads running on premium devices are worth more to apps (and therefore the platforms). Users on premium devices pay more in subscriptions and in-app purchases.
That made me realize how little I go to the Play store these days to just browse compared to the early days of Android.
I personally can't stand Apple products ... dbut with Google doing their crap and Samsung acting like Microsoft with all the crap they load in I have to disable just to make the phone usable; I've seriously thought about moving to iPhone the past couple of years.
I switched from Android to iPhone last year, and this just isn’t true. There’s so many tiny issues with android apps that just don’t exist on iPhone, because the android apps have to work on all these different devices. You don’t even have to look for the kinds of apps you’re talking about because things like Safari and Apple Podcasts work really well. I know people have a lot of complaints, but things on the iPhone really do “just work”.
Are we living in the same universe? We manage a fleet of tablets (both Apple and Android) for a healthcare company whose EMR is web-based. And because of that Sarafi has made our lives miserable. So much so that we're migrating to Chromebooks.
I've been developing for the web for 15 years. The first half was spent battling Internet Explorer. Now it's Safari.
There are some proprietary Chrome APIs but if you’re not using those it’s been pretty rare to have major problems in recent years. I open a couple of bug reports a year against Chrome, Firefox, and Safari—mostly accessibility related—but most of the time it’s been a problem with code written specifically against Chrome rather than code which couldn’t work in the other browsers.
The people complaining about Safari often are running enterprise crapware that requires some esoteric Chrome API or bug to operate correctly and should actually be an app on iOS but cannot be funded as such because its creators don’t care about its users.
Then again, if a company can't polish a web browser app, then the native app they'd produce will be even worse.
Now you have a crappy app that only works on some devices, and now with no tabs, no links, text you cannot select anymore because they used the wrong component, etc.
Well, formerly you would have been right, but WebUSB and whatnot are gaining a lot more traction.
I didn't take WebUSB seriously until I steered someone to flashing a small firmware onto something and they could do it straight from the browser! And it was a nice workflow too, just a few button and a permission click.
Two other examples I can think of are flashing Via (keyboard) firmware and Poweramp using WebADB via WebUSB to make gaining certain permissions very easy for the layman. I imagine it's gonna get more and more user in enterprise too.
Firefox is seriously behind by refusing to implement it.
WebUSB is a giant gaping hole in the browser sandbox. Innocent use cases are really nice, I've used WebUSB to flash GrapheneOS on my device, but the possibilities for users to shoot themselves in the foot with nefarious website are almost endless.
Consider the fact that Chromium has to specifically blacklist Yubikey and other known WebAuthn vendor IDs, otherwise any website could talk to your Yubikey pretending to be a browser and bypass your 2FA on third party domains.
I'm conflicted on WebUSB because it's convenient but on the balance I think it's too dangerous to expose to the general public. I don't know how it could be made safer without sacrificing its utility and convenience.
It really isn't. Chromium (since 67) does USB interface class filtering to prevent access to sensitive devices. Then there is the blacklist you mentioned.
On top of that, straight from Yubico's site:
".. The user must approve access on a per website, per device basis .."
This isn't any more a security hole than people clicking "yes" on UAC prompts that try to install malware.
> ".. The user must approve access on a per website, per device basis .."
Of course, but a phishing website "fake-bank.com" could collect user's username, password, and then prompt them to touch their yubikey. This wouldn't trigger any alarm bells because it's part of the expected flow.
> This isn't any more a security hole than people clicking "yes" on UAC prompts that try to install malware.
Yes it is. The only reason why Yubikeys are immune to phishing and TOTP codes aren't is because a trusted component (the browser) accurately informs the security key about the website origin. When a phishing website at "fake-bank.com" is allowed to directly communicate with the security key there's nothing stopping it from requesting credentials for "bank.com"
Again, that exploit factor is irrelevant now because WebUSB is blacklisted from accessing, among other things, HID class devices. So no site, even with permission, can access U2F devices over WebUSB. There is no special blacklist needed per vendor or anything.
You are right that it was a security hole in Chrome <67. Which is almost a decade in the past by now.
I’m a developer too, but the developer experience doesn’t matter to users. As a user of the app, it’s fast enough, cleanly designed, seems to be reasonably private and secure, and I haven’t hit any website with it where I’ve had to download chrome to view it or something.
You're a developer but you can't connect the dots between features being hard to build and the inconsistencies between other browsers vs Safari to how that might effect the user?
I can be a user separate from being a developer. The user experience of Safari is basically perfect for a browser. The development experience is completely irrelevant from that perspective.
I mean… what do you want me to do, list problems I don’t have with it? As a user of the app, Safari fades completely into the background for me, I don’t know what else I could ask for from a browser.
Make a picture, connect with a Windows PC, iOS needs a password, then the picture is not visible to the PC, disconnect, go with Apple photos to look at the picture, repeat connecting, with password, now it is visible.
Try to set up a hotspot, there is no button to turn the hotspot on/off.
You can find your hotspot button in the control center. Swipe down from the top right of the screen. It’s in the same section as airplane mode / WiFi / cellular data, and takes another tap to access.
You actually don't even need to set up hotspot more than once if the phone and the computer are both yours (and apple-brand). You can just connect to the iPhone with the Mac (if they're on the same iCloud account) and it works without entering a password.
> Try to set up a hotspot, there is no button to turn the hotspot on/off.
There is. You can even put it on the settings drawer. Look for "personal hotspot".
I don't have a mac anymore, but IIRC you could even turn it on from the paired mac. This definitely still works between iphones. When I take out my old iphone from the drawer to use as a GPS on my bike, with no sim card, it will connect to my regular iphone's hotspot automatically.
iOS has less device models to target for. This makes it easier to support and deliver a more consistent experience, especially for gaming. I have also heard a few other points back in the day, but I am not sure how true they are now. One is that some social media apps might offer better quality in app camera experience. Another is that iOS userbase is more willing to spend money so devs are more likely to target iOS.
So many amazing open-source developers just don't want to publish their app to app store because of the fees. On android, this is way way easier. If google keeps making this difficult, then i'll just have to switch to linux phone
For this particular exploit, it's not really because "iOS apps are truly sandboxed", it's because iOS is more restrictive with background activity, so you you can't keep a server running in the background. If your app is in the foreground it can create a listen socket just like in android.
There is not a single android app that is ever better than its iOS counterpart. At the very top margin, the android app is equivalent to its iOS counterpart. But there’s really only Gmail, photos, and Google Maps, and the big tech co apps that this small exception covers. Android apps don’t have to be worse from a technical standpoint, but in reality they are always worse than the equivalent iOS app.
I personally wrote an app where the android version was better than the iOS version (because of background tasks and notification limitations on iOS). Your "not a single android app" is an absolute statement and thus absolutely wrong.
There's many iOS only apps that either don't have anything comparable on android or the alternative is just nowhere near as good (a lot of it is more creative-focused stuff)
Would you mind mentioning at least one? Not something niche (as there is lotso of niche apps in Playstore which appstore will never see) but something sizeable userbase would install?
I don't understand how, almost 20 years after the release of these platforms, there are fully grown adult mobile OS fanboys still out there that either consciously or unconsciously spread lies about the difference between the platforms. Not just the parent comment, but this entire comment tree. For both iOS and Android. It's an almost religious cult-like type of behavior that reminds me of teenagers back in the early 2010s engaging in flamewars in YouTube comments arguing in favor of whichever gaming console they happen to own.
In that context, it made sense because they were kids, but also, these platforms were new with not much information out there, and the users were basically forced to pick one platform or the other because of the diminishing returns from owning both. 15 years ago, a PS3 or an Xbox 360 cost around $500, which adjusted for inflation is around $800 today. Not worth dropping an extra $800 for a few exclusive titles.
In the context of Android and iOS, you can gain access to both of these platforms quite easily... I mean, presumably, you already own an Android or iOS device already. For $150 you can get a decent device on the used market. Not state-of-the-art, but pretty good, all things considered. And with that you can gain a holistic perspective.
I seriously just don't get how you can stay faithful to either Android or iOS. They both are awful. I sort of see it as a necessary evil, pick your poison sort of thing. But some people get Stockholm Syndrome and never bother to try the alternatives I guess? I find that really odd.
iOS has the advantage of having a more closed app store, google play will shove whatever ad infested slop in your face and show you thousands of generic ad infested solutions to your problem, whereas iOS will usually have an easier to find not as sucky solution
This is a really ideology driven push. I don't think you really think the iOS browsers are worse, there's just less choice, because they all fundamentally use WebKit. Having to use Chromium is a worse experience, and not being able to use Gecko under Firefox is not a clear upgrade - particularly as WebKit is so tightly integrated with the hardware, leading to less battery use. If you really don't like WebKit for whatever reason, I get it. But that's not worse.
Whenever there is an app with full feature parity (WhatsApp) you assume at best it can be equal, based on nothing. You have specific apps that work for you, and that's great, but my practical experience is much different: whenever I haven't had a choice in an app (think banking apps, carrier apps, local library apps, the Covid apps) the experience has been much better on Apple. Whenever there is a choice in apps, they're often cross-written in something that allows easy porting, and very similar, or the native Apple solution is much smoother. It's rare that an app just feels better on Android, and usually limited to cases where a specific app is only available on Android or, you know, Google.
iOS isn't particularly open source friendly, but mostly people don't do it because of personal incentives, not because it can't be done.
It's subjective, and I get that, but what you miss is that features are subjective too. Missing parity apps are only relevant when you care about that feature; at no point in my life have I ever thought my life would be better or more convenient if I could only torrent on my phone.
But having an app that is responsive and works well has made my life better. Standing outside a bar in the rain trying to get a stupid Covid app to work, not work well, just work, on Android has made my life worse.
(Ironically, I've kind of noticed this is part of the Unix ethos writ small: do one thing and do it well. It's not exact, and iOS for sure has tons of crud everything apps. And they sure don't work together! I just think it's amusing.)
You say that they are ideologically driven when they say browsers are better on Android, and then go on to defend that having LESS features is not necessarily bad. Honestly, you are the one sounding ideologically driven. Having more options is good, specially if there are better options out there (which is the case). Firefox on Android is a better browser than Chrome or whatever, and having the option to use it IS better than not having. You have the right to say that Safari is great, but you cannot say that Gecko on iOS would be worse because, well, you don't have that option.
I'm just gonna put it out there, more choice always being good is the ideology, but when you measure user experience, they consistently rate smooth, fast experiences over feature count unless it's a feature that's important to them.
I don't think iOS is less feature rich except in some specific areas, like web browsers, but you can see in the extreme example that if you could use any web browser for 20 minutes before running out of battery vs safari for hours, one is clearly better. Then you're just haggling over scale. Having the choice to use bad options is not really a choice, unless you have to eg for certain functionality.
And like, in other contexts this isn't even a debate. You talk about the useless feature bloat of Microsoft Word and the associated UI crud, and people are like 'yeah'. But in this context people will straight up make an argument that n+1 features better than n features.
Synctrain is an open source (MPL2.0) iOS Syncthing client (which I made) with full native mobile-first UI and tight iOS integration (shortcuts, background processing, etc).
As an Android power user (I’ve ran Lineage, Graphene, rooted with Magisk and passed safetynet) that’s moved to IOS this last month. My subjective opinion: app quality is the same.
It very much depends. These days most apps are developed so that they’re equally trash on both.
The apps that are more specialized to reach OS tend to prioritize iOS because if you look at app revenue, iOS users wildly outspend Android users. At least this was true when i was doing mobile shit a couple years ago
That doesn’t mean the android app sucks, but it’s usually given lower priority. New features and updates will usually hit iOS version sooner and things like that
Honestly, you’re so wrong about the app situation that it’s almost staggering. iOS apps tend to be more stable, better polished, have better integration with system features (like the Dynamic Island), and even often have more features. This isn’t even an unfounded opinion, it’s a material problem for Google and led them to vastly investing in automated testing and quality efforts
App addressable user base is another problem for Google, one that they have mentioned in developer conferences. It’s a big part of why they’ve been trying to ship a tablet and unify android and Chromebook. If Google isn’t careful they could find themselves in a downward spiral situation, stuck between apple on one side, and android forks on the other.
And the last answer is, as always, money
- browser is deemphasized on iOS, and so it’s weaker feature set matters less
- iOS is generally easier to develop for because of less device differentiation
- on average iOS has significantly wealthier users who tend to be higher return or paying customers (seriously, look it up). This in turn leads companies to invest more heavily in iOS.
- easier integration due to a narrow system services ecosystem (no Google vs Samsung slapfights)
- unified platform advantage (apps written for iOS easily port to the watch and tablet, unlocking larger markets, and justifying greater spend in developing apps)
- apples review process is significantly stricter (for better or for worse)
Yes, Apple doesn’t have something like fdroid, and that’s really disappointing and honestly a legitimate dealbreaker for a lot of people
> iOS apps tend to be more stable, better polished
It's been a while since I was last using Android, but first-party Apple apps no longer meet my standards for "polished".
e.g. type this sequence into the calculator:
[2] [-] [4] [=] [x²] [=]
The answer should not be negative, but the app says "-4".
The desktop Contacts app has been putting invisible LTR and RTL codes around phone numbers for years now, breaking web forms when auto-entered. The mobile version refreshes specific contacts several times in a row to add no new content, preventing copy from working while it does so.
The MacOS Safari translation button appears on the left of the omni-bar, until you click it, at which point it instantly moves to the right and your click turns out to have been on the button that the left-side translation button had hidden. Deleting a selection of items from browsing history is limited to about 5 items per second, as it deletes one then rebuilds the entire list before deleting the next.
If I'm listening to a podcast on headpones and an alarm goes off, it doesn't play the alarm through my headphones, it plays on device speakers only.
Podcast app's "Up Next" is a magical mystery list that can't be disabled or guided.
The "Do Not Disturb" mode can be activated unexpectedly, leading to missed calls, and cannot be deleted.
Localisation is inconsistent at every level, including system share sheet and behaviour of decimal separators.
I could go on, but you get the point. Apple's quality control just isn't visible in the software at this point.
-4 makes sense if you understand that the input -2 is a unary minus operation. So typing -2 then hitting square only squares 2, not (-2). This is the same in eg Python so I'm not sure it's very controversial. I agree it's unexpected, though.
At no point in the current expression you wrote "-", though. It may make sense that if you type [-] [2] [x^2] [=] then you get -(2²) = -4, but if your current answer is already -2, then tapping x² should result in (ans)^2 = (-2)^2 = 4. Splitting your current answer into a separate unary [-] as in - (2²) makes absolutely no sense.
Most calculators, even CAS ones, simply get this always right. But sadly this is not the first "desktop" calculator that I see getting this completely wrong. And it makes some results outright wrong!
"-4 makes sense if you consider that the calculator is so damn stupid it ignores every convention every single calculator has made in the past hundred years and instead copies behavior of a dumbass language" isn't exactly the praise you think it is.
> browser is deemphasized on iOS, and so it’s weaker feature set matters less
That's precisely the OP's point. They gimped their browser so there's bigger incentive to use their proprietary system frameworks.
> iOS is generally easier to develop for because of less device differentiation
That's nonsense. What year are you from? I've heard this like 10 years ago when there only 1 or 2 current iPhone models in circulation.
> on average iOS has significantly wealthier users who tend to be higher return or paying customers (seriously, look it up). This in turn leads companies to invest more heavily in iOS.
If you offer subscription service, like Netflix/HBO/Nest or whatever, your main goal is volume, not how wealthy your demographic is.
> easier integration due to a narrow system services ecosystem (no Google vs Samsung slapfights)
Easier integration with what?
> unified platform advantage (apps written for iOS easily port to the watch and tablet, unlocking larger markets, and justifying greater spend in developing apps)
That's like Android's moat from the start, not bolted on during some 10+ major versions like on iOS. And it works much better, Android apps are truly the same apps. Not gimped, cut off things like Instagram on iOS (is it even fixed now?).
> apples review process is significantly stricter (for better or for worse)
Both are shit these days due to volume of shovelware produced.
Re: iOS apps being easier to develop: device sizes are the minuscule of the problem.
The real problem is that Android vendors mess up with the OS in weird ways by adding custom ultra battery savers, removing APIs etc. which is much less predictable than dealing with a few Apple devices, that are more homogenous.
Then many vendors ship their own apps which are buggy and you need to know that vendor's Z Calendar app has a weird bug to account for.
Really almost every rebuttal you offer is factually incorrect while demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the modern developer experience.
For example
> That's nonsense. What year are you from? I've heard this like 10 years ago when there only 1 or 2 current iPhone models in circulation.
What? Models? Is that how you think? Screen sizes? Resolution? That’s so… 2015.
Apple has kept consistent scaling factors across their phones, laptops, and tablets. That alone counts for a ton of saved data effort. Device ratios are also generally consistent.
Android… well, not much needs to be said. It impacts the developer experience in a substantial way.
> If you offer subscription service, like Netflix/HBO/Nest or whatever, your main goal is volume, not how wealthy your demographic is.
Ironically making my point for me without realizing it (wealthier users sub more) AND dismissing the massive market that smaller services exist in. Incredible two for one miss.
> That's like Android's moat from the start, not bolted on during some 10+ major versions like on iOS.
A moat they squandered. Look at platform tablet adoption. It’s dire for Google now.
As for “bolted on”? lol.
I know the mobile os holy wars always activate posts like this, but for some people it’s simply impossible that despite some visible missteps, Apple has been out executing Google for quite some time now.
FWIW, starting a sentence with "Honestly ..." always makes me think the rest of what this person has to say is dishonest.
Your BIO on HN is:
> I HAVEN'T SHOWERED AT ALL! THAT'S WHY I REEK! WORKING IN FINTECH! AIN'T SHAVED IN WEEKS! POUR CRUMBS FROM MY KEYBOARD! THAT'S WHAT I EAT! WROTE A CURRENCY LIBRARY! 3RD TIME THIS WEEK! LURKING HN! I PREFER /b/! IN MOM'S BASEMENT! I'M THIRTY THREE! IT'S 3'O'CLOCK AM! THAT'S WHEN I SLEEP! AH!!!! COME ON FUCK A GUY!!!!
"Honestly" is a colloquialism used to indicate disbelief with the previous statement or to preface candidness. Choosing to interpret the colloquial use of "honestly" as an indication that everything else that person says is dishonest is a very weird trait I've only seen show up in grammarian literalists and pedants that only makes yourself seem like a disingenuous person.
For context, I'm a long-time iPhone user, who switched to a Pixel 8a about 18 months ago.
> Apple has had better mobile hardware for years.
I can't say I noticed a difference in quality when switching. Maybe some people can, but for me it was just a different, but still well-made phone.
> Apple has higher consumer trust.
I can't speak for consumers in general, but this is certainly no longer the case for me.
I also used MacOS for 20 years, and switched to Linux about a year ago because I didn't like the direction Apple was headed. It may be my choice of reading material (HN), but I receive almost daily confirmation that this was a sound decision.
> Apple has better app selection (for most people).
Not selection, necessarily, but certainly quality.
As a side note, my iPad (my sole remaining Apple device) quietly updated to iOS 26 a few days ago. Despite having spent months reading about how bad it is, I was still genuinely shocked.
Again, I can't speak for "consumers", but for me Apple now has a far worse user experience.
I’ve been an iPhone owner for a while, but recently was required to get an Android phone to be a secondary work device. I got a Pixel 10 Pro—- brand-new, Google’s flagship device—- and within about a week there was a rattling noise from the camera module any time the phone moved.
The consensus online appears to be “oh, yeah, that’s the OIS module, you have to expect it, they all do that”. Well, iPhones also have OIS and they don’t do this.
Android might be “good enough” in hardware now but it’s definitely still behind.
Why the surprise, they do the same with search, they do the same with their Google workspace (the degree to which they are pushing AI is really hurting the product).
Google stopped being aware of their customer's needs a really long time ago, they are so arrogant they think the audience is now fully captive.
> Google stopped being aware of their customer's needs a really long time ago
Google's customers are advertisers. They cater to that segment very well. They only need to attract users with "free" and cheap services so that advertisers think their campaigns are reaching enough eyeballs. Whether or not that's the case, and whether or not the end user has a good experience, is hardly relevant.
Which is still a valid argument, the number is just lower. And the UX on these sub 600 devices have definitely gotten worse over the last 5 years too... Likely because Google isn't really targeting that price point anymore, so Android isn't getting enough optimization to be viable on underpowered devices.
This market still exists and is pretty strong, especially outside of US. It's all on Android so Google doesn't need to try to compete here.
This is why with Pixel they're focusing on competing with the iPhone, they want people to use Android so there is no point in competing with other Android manufacturer.
The chinese are mostly adding skins on top, not developing the core of the operating system.
There is however a chinese fork of android (state sponsored), but it has not gotten wide market adoption in china either to my knowledge, but i dont live in china so i'm open to be corrected.
Finally, even if that OS has gotten widely adopted in china - it IS a fork. the changes are not being upstreamed to android, hence irrelevant to the discussion on this forum.
I'm talking about the Google services which is where Google profits. Chinese phones ship without them. When I said "Google's Android", I meant Android+Google Services. The people buying cheap Android phones are most likely not buying Pixels. Even Samsungs aren't exactly cheap anymore. I'm not talking about Android forks. I'm talking about customized Android without Google services.
The biggest Android market (internationally) are Chinese phones. If Google suddenly decided Play Store should be the only way to install apps, that doesn't affect Huawei and Xiaomi phones at all, they don't ship with Play Store and Play Services in the first place.
That's false. The ones you can get here in Slovenia don't have them. I've personally helped quite a few friends sideload them. I also remember how shocked people were to find out there's no YouTube or Play Store after buying a Huawei or Xiaomi phone when that first came into effect.
I don't think that picture indicates in any way that there are no Google Services on those phones. I've had multiple Chinese phones, and all of them had both their in-house app store (every brand seems to have their own) and also the Google Play Store. And obviously things like Google Play Services and Google Maps are installed too, way too many Android apps wouldn't work without them
This isn't even a China-exclusive strategy, Samsung does the same with their Galaxy Store.
Aurora Store is not a separate app store but is an alternative front-end to the Google Play Store. Combined with microG it should be possible to get all the Google apps.
There must be a reason why Aurora Store is being advertised, though. Why would they do that if they could just pre-install Google Play Store and standard Google applications.
Update: End of 2018, I bought a Huawei phone with GApps. I remember that two or three generations later, Huawei was not allowed to include GApps anymore.
So the national carrier importing them and selling them in their brick-and-mortar stores is "bootleg imports"? Not to mention that the EU is, legally speaking, a single market so the same rules should apply everywhere.
The reason they probably have them preinstalled over there is because they don't care about licensing so they can freely preload whatever they want. At least that's how it was with netbooks in the early 2000s that they were selling loaded with MS Office, Windows, even Adobe, of course with no COA stickers.
the audience is captive. Do you have a choice to move from android, if you didnt want to have an apple device? Do you want to use a different search engine other than google? Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-technical person - i know you can run your own). Is there another browser other than chrome (and dont say firefox or edge - because both don't compete)?
Google behave in ways that they think makes them more profit. When users cannot migrate (nor even threaten to), then it simply means they can do this.
I'd agree if you picked Google Docs or something like that, but Gmail? Chrome?? Come on! Edge is just Chrome with extra features, plenty of people use Bing without even noticing and many even non-techy people are fine with DuckDuckGo, good free email providers are everywhere (yahoo, hotmail, proton...).
> Do you have a choice to move from android, if you didnt want to have an apple device?
Not wanting and not having a choice are two different things.
> Do you want to use a different search engine other than google? Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-technical person - i know you can run your own)
My wife uses ddg and outlook, she's non-technical. I convinced her to use ddg but she's always used outlook/hotmail.
> Not wanting and not having a choice are two different things.
As a general statement, sure. But if we are talking about mobile phones this is a very privileged and unrealistic point of view.
According to chatgpt, 70-80% of mobile phone sold worldwide every year cost less than the cheaper iPhone.
Some people could probably stretch their budget and get the cheapest iPhone, but otherwise it seems safe to conclude that more than 50% of people simply have no choice.
I see poor looking people with iPhones all the time.
People do stretch their budget when they really feel the need for it (and the poorest you are the more you'll want to prove you're not poor by buying a status symbol), also the second hand market is an easy way to get a cheap iPhone. Sure, it won't be the latest model...
In the US it's very common to get your phone financed via your carrier, too. It's so common that most people probably don't even think of it as financing, it's just an extra monthly charge they pay on their bill which lets them upgrade to the latest iPhone or Android model every two years.
In Chrome on Android (and yeah, on desktop too) you just go into "Settings" and change your default search engine. I can choose between Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yandex, or DuckDuckGo.
There are also custom searches through Wikipedia and other resources. You can use little shortcuts to get to almost any custom search you set up in advance.
This has been configurable by the user for a long, long, long time. This is not a surprise or a concession. This is built-in stuff by Google for Chrome. (Edge too, of course.)
Changing your browser, you can do, but it won't be comfortable. I have Edge installed on my Android, but it is not possible to run natively on Chromebook and the Android emulation is bad. I will not set Edge to my Default Browser because it messes things up. It is not a great experience to change your Default Browser on Android. I just go with Chrome and use Edge for specific tasks and topics.
You can set up all kinds of email services in the Gmail app, or you can install a native app. I use Outlook in both of those ways, and it's fine.
There are lots of non-technical users who navigate purely by doing a "google search" on whatever domain they're aiming for, too. Nobody said they were efficient about it.
Why are saying that Firefox or even Chrome reskin can't compete with Chrome? I haven't been using Chrome for maybe 10 years or more, so I'm genuinely interested. Even if you hate Firefox, something like Brave is felt the same way but without google's garbage. I heard there are new guys in town like Helium and other Chromium based browser which choose to remove telemetry, support manifest v2, adblocks and so on.
The browsing experience without constant upselling some trash and proper adblockers are magnitudes better.
> or even Chrome reskin can't compete with Chrome?
reskined chrome are still ultimately taking google's changes downstream. For a while, it may be OK, but what happens when google changes the web standards to suit themselves? Will those reskinned browsers fork the standard?
Firefox _is competition_, but not competitive based on market share.
> Do you want to use a different search engine other than google?
I've been on Kimi now for 3 months. I rarely used Google in that time. Kimi is largely free though sometimes when I run of the free quota I fallback to DeepSeek/Perplexity. I have no idea where they are getting their index from though.
> Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-technical person - i know you can run your own).
There is microsoft/apple/yahoo mailboxes. However, I think most people should pay for their email especially that it's cheap and also critical (2FA).
> Is there another browser other than chrome (and dont say firefox or edge - because both don't compete)?
Firefox is a solid fallback and also webkit (Apple) is now basically a different browser (ported to Linux on GNOME Web). Not the best situation though it could be worse (given Firefox situation).
For me personally, the only two things I still use Google for are chromium and maps. I am unlikely to move from Chromium anytime soon but might consider alternative for maps (though might still need maps for reviews/photos/street view).
I am the most bullish I've ever been on Google losing its monopoly especially after they botched AI and hyper-scaling.
There are non-google android OS's you can install (it's easy these days). Kagi is nice for search. Fastmail is nice for mail. Brave is a fine browser (though I'm aware that it's a chrome derivative). It just takes a bit of determination.
Maps is the last hold they have on me. I haven't yet bothered to find an alternative.
Google's search engine domination is nearly over, they are constantly making it worse to the point using ai is preferable and literally anyone can spin up an ai
the move don't have to be permanent, there are alternatives and as we increase our usage and give active feedback and commit to invest even little money in them, they will improve too. I've seen this pattern a thousand times the monopoly gets worst and worst until a revolutionary new tech will rise it applies to social concepts, business sectors, companies, mother-in-laws, etc.
Once an alternative to one of their things, like immich, becomes viable, people run as fast as they can.
The strategy of doing everything you can to make sure your customers truly and utterly despise you and want to spit in your face is probably not productive.
Google's AI in their docs suite is so bafflingly bad. I wanted their AI to automate a sheet for me and it just choked. I switched to Claude for making a sheet that I ended up hosting in my local NAS using Microsoft Excel format.
Embedded AIs always suck. It's a dead end, long-term. By its nature, AI subsumed software products, reducing them to tool calls for general-purpose AI runtime.
Realistically a 200 euros Xiaomi phone, to most users, is as good as they need it for seeing videos online and chatting.
If you want to spend more, at each price tier you have plenty of choice including: better hardware, better cameras, more memory, etc.
E.g. I do need dual (physical) sim phones. So I ain't buying iPhones ever for this very need.
Consumer trust is very debatable: I have been locked out of my apple id for 2 months in 2021, and that was a work machine I was locked out from. Tragic. Apparently it's not my hardware if Apple decides it's not.
Nowadays I only own an M3 Max because my employer gave it to me. But I don't even use it unless on the move, as I have a way more powerful desktop computer.
It's true, but the main reason I haven't just switched to an iPhone is the ecosystem that lets me write apps without having to pay Apple money or use their computers.
If Google is narrowing their moat on this, there are a lot fewer reasons for me, personally, to stay on the platform.
I'm not quite sure I catch your meaning; "it" is an unbound pronoun in that sentence.
If I assume "it" means "programming on a mobile device": yes, it is. Apple cares an awful lot about the developer experience, has massive support, and a deep well of shareable knowledge. Google is about the same (the developer experience is a little patchier; I'd generously call Google's approach to devex on Android "bag-of-cats vision" and since one is not developing on, generally, a vertically-integrated tech stack, one has to struggle a bit more to get the tools set up and maintained).
The big selling point for Android is freedom of that stack, and if they throw sand in those gears, the benefits of the vertically-integrated stack that you have to pay-to-play start to become actually enticing.
Price hasn't been a particularly compelling difference between iOS and Android for a while. Here in the states, you can get a new iPhone 13 for $200 USD, which is 170 euros at today's exchange rate.
That's a prepaid cell phone company (no contracts); not sure how many months (if any) you have to pay for to unlock the phone. Renewed and unlocked ones are about $270 on amazon.
Why would you buy a 5-year-old iPhone for the same price you can get a new Android with comparable specs though? If I'm gonna spend 2-3 hundred on a phone, I'd like it to last at least a couple more years. Regardless of OS, you're more likely to get that on a new phone vs any phone 5+ years old.
If Apple's still selling it, they'll almost certainly support it at least as long as an above-average Android manufacturer.
The current iOS supports things back to iPhone 11 and the SE2, so you can expect the SE3 and iPhone 13 to get at least two more years of support (no real guarantees, but they're still selling new stock of both, and they have a reputation to protect).
""Apple has better app selection (for most people). Apple has been increasingly implementing the core features that differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS.""
You mean Apple has been forced by regulators to implement core features like USB-C and RCS?
Sure, but uninformed consumers won't see it that way. Maybe in their circles it just sounds like a great idea and they thank Apple for implementing it.
Saying they were forced to implement USB-C is really overstating things. Apple loooved USB-C - so much so that their ill-fated butterfly switch laptops went all-in on it. They also helped design it. It's highly likely they were planning a move to USB-C anyway and the EU just pushed it forward a year.
This is untrue. Apple was fighting EU the entire time trying to avoid a switch to USB-C on iPhones. EU representatives were publicly critical of Apple, eventually Apple was forced to give in.
I realize a conspiracy narrative gets more clicks but … you know Apple started the development of USB-C and shipped some of the first devices in 2015, right? People whined about the MacBooks requiring new hubs, etc. for a couple of years and got over it. The same thing happened with the iPad in 2018, AirPods, etc.
When they introduced Lightning in 2012, they made a commitment to all of the third-party hardware developers that iPhones would support it for a decade. I’m sure the EU pressure helped but USB-C iPhones shipping in 2023 is right on that original timing.
But why would Apple, the company that famously hates backwards compatibility, make things easier for third-party accessory manufacturers, instead of making things easier for users bought into the ecosystem who had USB-C on their iPads and Macs?
Sure, I’m not saying they’re altruists. I just think the most likely explanation is that they promised compatibility under the “Made For iPhone” program and kept that promise because they’ve been in business long enough to know that screwing people who supported your last product is a great way to ensure they don’t support your next one.
I’m not: each thing I wrote is common knowledge—read the Wikipedia pages for the Lightning and USB-C pages if you don’t believe me—and it’s a little silly to spin this as something other than large companies not making massive supply chain changes quickly. I’m glad USB-C has won but you don’t change things deployed in the hundreds of millions in a year–I saw an original iPhone connector in the wild as recently as last year!
Truth is, apple didn't want to migrate their phones due to some internal decision not relevant for us, and the fact some other devices were on it doesn't change this. Users comfort was never part of the equation, its politics, sales projection, stabs at competition and similar.
Truth is, apple fought EU hard, we saw it from inside quite well. Backstabs, some cheap tricks trying to delay and evade this, even when it was clear how things will be. Not their best days to be polite.
Why giving some heartless mega corporation free moral credits if they are not well deserved?
People can and do fight things they agree with on the principle of not wanting to do something because they were told to. You fight it just to say “you can’t tell me what to do” (for precedent) not just to actually defend a position you believe in. Even if the other side wins, they had to pay a cost that may discourage or at least raise the floor for future regulatory efforts.
"Google's long term strategy with Android is baffling to me. "
How does one know there is a long-term strategy
History has shown that so-called "tech" companies often act in a reactionary manner^1
1. Often, the act is of one of copying what someone else has done. Other times it might be response to regulation
One could argue Android itself was a reaction to iOS
This is one example of the reactionary copying phenomenon but HN replies may choose to focus only on this one example and not on the overall "tech" company phenomenon of reactionism as exhibited through endless copying
> One could argue Android itself was a reaction to iOS
It quite literally was a reaction to iOS considering it was originally a copy of the BlackBerry OS (the older one in their keyboard phones) until the iPhone came out and they pivoted to copying iOS instead.
EDIT: to get ahead of any negative replies about them copying iOS, I’m fully aware that they work quite differently under the hood and Android has had various features before iOS, etc. I mean they were creating from a UI/UX standpoint a copy of the BlackBerry when Google bought them, and then when the iPhone came out they completely changed the UI/UX paradigm to match.
IDK what you could possibly mean by saying it was "a copy of the BlackBerry" and further I don't see how that validates the claim that "Android itself was a reaction to iOS".
The actual truth seems to be that "Android's introduction of touchscreens was a reaction to iOS", which is WAY different than saying that the entire operating system was spun up just to compete with iOS.
Android was in development well before iOS was released, really the only big change was the touchscreen, which is obviously revolutionary, but that's a long-way from "Android is a reaction to iOS".
Android has a reputation for being unsafe precisely because of sideloading (as well as low Google Play fees, looser app review, accessibility services and remote access).
This policy is bad for us HNers, but objectively good for the 95+% of people who will never sideload a legitimate Android app, but are extremely likely to get caught by scammers.
The heavy US skew of HN really distorts the arguments here, as Android-based scams aren't as common in AMerica due to the prevalence of iOS in that region.
The Play Store was riddled with scam apps last time I used it. Be it fake apps that pretend to do something while doing at best nothing ("system optimizers", "antivirus" apps) over user data mining apps (often targeted at children or young people) to hundreds of clones of commercial or open source apps - you do not have to search very long to find the real scams.
Making sideloading harder has only one goal - growing the wall around the garden a bit higher, piece by piece, layer by layer, while everything within slowly grows more toxic.
Which is why I said sideloading is only a part of the problem, I expilicitly pointed out insufficient Play Store verification and insufficient app sandboxing in my original comment.
If they actually cared about scams on Android, when I explicitly searched for <App I'm going to pay for anyway> in the Play Store, they wouldn't put <Some other random app that pays money to appear above the app I searched for> at the top instead lol
If there's a reputation, that means it's reasonably widespread. 5% doesn't seem like much.
Does this mean there are so many advanced users sideloading apps to compromise them?
Except users aren't so advanced that they are getting scammed because of side loading?
Or might it be the cascading delays in security updates that don't seem to reach devices between Google, manufacturers, and telcos? This is a much more massive (the 95%) of security hole and backdoors for scams to enter.
These arguments don't really seem to fit together or make sense.
Happy to get some links to read more about all of the statements.
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Google is doing this to protect users from scams. It is purely driven by their desire to control the platform and eliminate things like ad-blocking youtube apps. You're far too credulous of evil corporations' stated motives.
Scams are the justification, F-Droid hasn't had any scam apps throughout it's existence, and it's not clear every functionality it currently has will be preserved with this change like auto-updating apps and easy installation of the store itself.
Google could let users add their own signing keys (like browsers allow), and it might be they will let students or power users do this, or they could do what F-Droid does in packaging FOSS apps without developers having to provide extra PII information. If they do neither of these things, it de facto means they're only after control at the expense of normal users.
To resolve the problem, scammers would deceive the victims into downloading a malicious app, in an Android Package Kit (APK) file format, sent through WhatsApp.
On the topic of looser app reviews on the Play store vs the App store. I can give you a long list of fake iOS apps where you enter a 4 digit code to watch free movies. People who think Apple is manually reviewing apps are delusional.
Apple only implemented USB-C due to pressure from the EU.
One area Android has a clear advantage is Android TV devices verified by Google, because there is a much wider array of streaming apps of all kinds available. However google doesn’t seem to focus on this very much, and if you look for forum recommendations for google android streaming devices it’s very often the NVIDIA shield pro from 2019. Hopefully that device will I’ll be supported for a few more years because there seems to not be good easily available alternatives.
Sure, but the claim that "Apple only implemented USB-C due to pressure from the EU." is simply ridiculous.
Apple implemented USB-C at a steady pace across their entire product lineup, as is demonstrated by the timeline below:
2015: 12in MacBook with USB-C released
2016: MacBook pro switches to USB-C
2018: iPad Pro switches to USB-C
2020: iPad Air switches to USB-C
2021: iPad Mini switches to USB-C
2022: iPad switches to USB-C
2023: iPhone switches to USB-C
If Apple only implemented USB-C because of pressure from the EU, you'd presumably be able to see a gap in that list during the period of Apple allegedly not implementing USB-C. There is no gap, because Apple was steadily moving users to USB-C since 2015.
It feels really silly to be spending time defending Apple over this, but the EU certainly does not deserve credit for iPhones having USB-C. I'm sure there are politicians who'd love for you to believe that, but it's simply dishonest propaganda.
Because antitrust laws are strong in a few countries. While most of the 2nd or 3rd world antitrust laws are non existent. Google's strategy is to squeeze those markets. They have higher population too and hence many more advertising to sell and much more control of the "online experience" in those countries.
> Surely the marginal revenue from the inconsequential number of sideloading users isn't attractive enough to justify that kind of strategic blunder.
If the rumors are true that the whole anti-sideloading thing is mostly because some governments complained, it might not have to do with a business strategy at all.
Why not limit these restrictions to these specific locations? Surely there's already lots of location-specific and carrier-specific customizations like shutter sound in Japan, different radio frequencies and many more. It still sucks for those who live in these countries, but at least they know who to point their finger at.
I'm similarly baffled for the reasons you state but your breakdown of the market differentiations is a little hyperbolic.
> Apple has had better mobile hardware for years
Apple has never had better hardware (on mobile). Apple has had better software support & integration for their hardware that has lead to e.g. strong camera quality advantages (iOS camera app has been able to use the hardware better to produce photos people want despite some Android OEMs having objectively better camera modules since those OEMs have to work through a lot of Google contracts & software extraction).
The hardware has never been better - their holistic ecosystem has just made integrations with it smoother.
> Apple has better app selection (for most people)
This has been true but it's always been marginal, & the "for most people" qualifier has contracted significantly in recent years. Both Google's & Apple's 1P offerings have declined in quality & popularity, but Google have increased lock-in & reliance on theirs in ways Apple can't, while the 3P offerings on Android have improved significantly relative to iOS. Gone are the days of companies releasing exclusively on iOS, or the Android version being an afterthought with missing features - if anything it's swung in the other direction.
To be clear, I think your points still stand: Google's recent strategy doesn't make sense for Google. I just don't think it's as glaringly clear cut as you make out.
One aspect that's worth keeping in mind is the non-US market. Apple has a 58% market share in the US but it's 28% worldwide. Outside of the US market the impact of that "every Android user lost to the increasing iOS market share" is significantly diluted (tbh I'm not sure it's even increasing outside of the US at all) & emerging markets are growth areas.
This is just straight up false. Qualcomm's current top of the line processors are about 3 years behind what you can get in Apple's cheapest product (that being the 16e), and the budget phones (and by "budget" I mean "the 600 dollar ones") are another 3 years behind that.
iPhones don't generally become too slow to realistically use until their support lifetime expires. Androids are like that out of the box unless you spend over a thousand dollars, and those only last for about half the time (a combination of inferior hardware and inferior software). It doesn't matter if you have a 120Hz screen if the UI only updates at 20.
This is why the only killer feature for Android (outside the cameras) is adblocking- which, of course, is what Google wants to prevent. They don't want you to run real Firefox (with the only effective adblock remaining), and they want you to pay for YouTube Premium rather than using NewPipe (or some other ReVanced successor) so you can't get out of paying 10 bucks to listen to a video with the screen off.
Cost? Apple stuff is expensive and unaffordable or inaccessible to a lot of the world. Google'd Android is the only option if you can't shell out for an iPhone (assuming you don't want to buy an unsupported 5+ year old device second/third-hand).
I have a feeling, despite Google's communications, this is all an attempt to thwart the numerous ad-free YouTube apps.
Another reason it should have been broken apart years ago. It's laughable that the biggest ad company in the world owns the largest video site in the world, largest browser in the world, largest search engine in the world, and largest mobile OS in the world.
NewPipe (FOSS available on F-Droid) is nice alternative to ads-infested YouTube. I disabled YouTube and YouTube Music apps on my mobile, and I use NewPipe instead. You can even download YT videos or audio from YT videos using it.
Pipepipe stopped downloading audio or video when I was using it a couple of years back.
I switched over to NewPipe as it was better maintained and worked well.
Since past few months, NewPipe is not automatically showing latest YT videos, but it opens the video if I type in the video's source url. Downloads are working fine though, which is what I mainly use it for.
Will try Pipepipe again next weekend if it fares better.
Google is trying to suppress all these FOSS alternatives to its ads-overloaded apps.
What's going on with NewPipe? Their F-droid repository is down. Their domain is down. Their github repository is up, but it links to their domain, which isn't. Are they dying?
Google pays content creators so little they have all started including ads in their videos. Si technically as long as you are counted they get paid. Meanwhile, Google is more and more aggressive with their own ads interrupting videos and pushing you to subscribe to their expensive offer.
Some people, like me, have just stopped watching YouTube. Other are turning to blocking ads.
It's the usual tug of war between revenues and UX but I don't think consumers have to feel bad about not playing by Google's rules.
I will be downvoted, but I'm not fooling myself. I don't care. As long as uBlock and yt-dlp still work, I'll use them. If Google breaks them, I'll resort to some automated screengrabbing + maybe some AI automation to click "skip" in a virtual machine or something.
People will use all sorts of excuses, like the ads are about gambling, or contain viruses, or are detrimental to mental health, or whatever. No, don't use these excuses. You just don't want ads, and it is still possible to not see them. That's respectable.
I'm not sure how those are "excuses". They are reasons to not want ads. Ads are fundamentally malicious, so you should remove them from your life. I don't view attempting to "influence" me as a valid way to make a living, and am unconcerned with those who want to do it in the same way that I'm unconcerned about what would happen if someone tried to scam people with early wins in a shell game, but people just took the early win and walked instead of placing a big bet. That's just comeuppance.
That website will have an IP address and a registered owner. Taking down piracy websites is routine for governments, server providers, and domain registrars now, and they don't care whether the site is actually illegal. You can only get away with this long-term if the site is hosted in Russia, but Russia is sanctioned so how will you pay them?
Eh, somehow The Pirate Bay, Fitgirl Repacks, Anna's Archive, Sci-Hub etc seem to manage it.
The real challenge is delivering good enough performance that your site is better than waiting through 30 seconds of ads; and making it worth your time to run the site: there's hassle, legal risk, and it's not like you can run ads to make some cash.
The biggest differentiator is price. An entry level Android phone is about $300 while an iPhone is in the $1000 range. And to be honest, anything more than an entry level Android is luxury these days. I say that because that's what I have and I have never felt held down, except maybe for pictures, but it is good enough for my (lack of) skills as a photographer.
So, Android may actually benefit from a lack of differentiation: like iOS, for a third of the price seems like a good value proposition.
I think they are worrying about antitrust, and believe (probably correctly, unfortunately) that whether they get hit by antitrust or not is entirely political. There's more than enough evidence, for any justice department which wants to. They're not going to change that by keeping Android moderately open.
What they can do, is make themselves politically useful to whoever will be in charge. Right now the war on general purpose computing is in high gear, due to panic over AI models, social media manipulation and (as always) kids. That's the only ticket to avoid an antitrust crackdown.
Well you misunderstand enshittification. It will never get better again. Both Google and Apple have enshittified their phones. You can verify this on the App Store, on the Play Store, both of which have now more than 50% of search result screen space dedicated to ads, more when it comes to scams [1]. AND you can verify this in the financial statements of Apple and Google, where you see what we've always seen in Google: steadily increasing at a fixed rate profits from ads on the play store in Google's case, and steadily increasing at a fixed rate profits from "Services", which is App Store ads.
In Apple's case this has been the only Apple business to grow at all in several of the recent years. In fact there's quite a few Apple businesses that look like they are "revenue neutral", most famously iPads. Google is better, but not by much. Cloud is growing fast ("but why?" is a question that's unanswered. I mean, "because of AI", of course, but ... seriously?)
So not only are they enshittified, and you see them getting worse and worse over time, but the financial statements show: if you're expecting this to get any better either in the Apple or Google case, you're insane. Because clearly ads for scams are worth it for advertisers, and most other types of ads are not worth it. The situation evolves more and more towards the cable channel situation of 20 years back.
You could also reverse the view. The simple question: "are people willing to compromise on hardware quality to get less ads?" has a very clear NO answer. "Are governments/institutions that are totally dependent on these systems willing to pay to either improve phones or make an alternative available?", again has boatloads of evidence that the answer is NO, in all caps.
[1] Search for "credit card" or "lose weight" and judge for yourself. Top results are promoting Apple or Google themselves, everything else are ads, and very bad deals that trivially will neither accomplish the promised financial independence nor weight loss. Or should I put it like this: the credit card deals advertised are so bad they might achieve weight loss. By the way ads designed to mislead, which the top ads for either search obviously are, are what both Google and Apple promised time and again never to do.
I don't know how it works at Google, but unless they're giving away Pixel phones for free to their employees (or at a very, very strong discount), they have no business forcing their employees to use their products.
Here is how a job works: worker works, company gives money. Workers do whatever the fuck they want with the money they earn.
You're typically issued a corporate phone, it's the only phone that can open work email. You have a choice between an Android (something like a Pixel and a Samsung) and an iPhone, with some companies incentivising Androids with things like a faster upgrade cycle or more premium trims. The culture is split between having just the one free corporate phone and having two phones - one personal, one corporate.
There are lots of examples of Android team employees who are proud of using only Apple phones.
Check the "socially inept tech roast show" - where people from those teams demonstrate their ignorance and hatered towards own products and users.
Since they dont use them, they dont see nor care about bugs.
Meanwhile if you work for a cola company and they catch you drinking competing product you will get fired (your contract bans you fron that). Same for many other products.
I understand using an Apple phone to learn what it does / its featurs, but those Android employees dont use Android at all. And it shows
Android gets a bad rap because of security and Apple has exploited this in their marketing campaigns to the max. So the moment Google does something to address this glaring hole in their security model the 1% vocal minority throws a fit. You’ll still be able to side load, but because it has extra friction they’ll threaten to switch to iOS. To which I say - go for it. Google doesn’t care about people who side load apps like an automatic reloading the chamber. You’re an insignificant percentage of their base.
Personally, I would rather see Android only run signed and sanctioned apps to prevent the technologically illiterate from getting pwned. If you want to be able to side load then sign up to be a developer and go to town on your device.
Their strategy is growing markets, especially in india, and africa, and of course China. It's where the chinese oem dominate. Beside chinese OEM, i think the only other player is Samsung. So google strategy seems to be to circumvent people from misusing their OS by blocking certain services (mainly ads). This is done via apps from fdroid, and rooting and what not. If google can control how people uses their devices (block vpn based adblocking, or rooting all together), they have better grip on the market. At the end of the day, Android is front for an ad platform.
> [Google's] strategy is growing markets, especially in india, and africa, and of course China.
Really? China? Where Google services are banned and Android phones come with local OS versions that cut them out? "High-friction sideloading" won't affect anyone in China. It won't be part of their experience at all.
I think OP is suggesting that the ability to sideload is what is preventing their phones being distributed in China.
If you can present a "locked down" phone to regulators, you might be more likely to get permission to sell large volumes of them - like iPhones in China.
> I think OP is suggesting that the ability to sideload is what is preventing their phones being distributed in China.
This comment is insane in several different ways.
There's nothing preventing Google's phones from being distributed in China. They already are distributed in China.
Those phones won't come with the vendor OS installed; they'll come with an OS that works without a hitch in China.
One of the modifications to the local OS will be to make sideloading trivial, since that's how you're expected to install apps.
If you did start selling phones with a stock Android OS in China, those phones wouldn't work because their connections to Google services would all be blocked.† The reason for that block has nothing to do with sideloading or even with phones. It's going to stay in place.
† In my experience, it's still possible to receive pushes from Google while you're in China. For example, you can't connect to the Play Store, but if you visit the Play Store in a browser on a different device that can dodge the Great Firewall, and tell it that you want to install something to your phone, Google will reach out and make the install to your phone even if your phone isn't dodging the firewall.
But there still won't be Google Services so what extra money is Google to make there? The markup on hardware. But they have to compete with local manufacturers with the very same OS. At least Apple is the only manufacturer selling phones with iOS.
I gave an iPhone a shot fof like a week but had to return it because it didn't have alternatives to the apps I was using on Android. Apps like BitCalculator, Convertbee, Aegis, a decent calculator with sin/cos/log and the ability to write expressions like the default on Android, Wireguard and a decent browser with an ad blocker. No Safari doesn't qualify.
It’s incredibly sad to watch Google abandon the values that inspired so much trust and belief that there is a better way to build a company.
Long time Pixel user here who has always believed the story that Apple has the closed, but refined, higher quality experience and Google has the slightly freer, but coarser UX.
I was convinced to make the switch this year and the Apple iPhone 17 Pro + whatever iOS version is, by far the worst phone I’ve ever owned.
Photos are worse, low light is worse, macros are worse, the UI is laggy, buggy and crashes.
The keyboard and autosuggest is shockingly bad.
Incredibly popular apps on iOS (YT, X, etc) are just as bad and often worse.
iMessage is a psyop. The absolute worst messaging app in history with zero desktop access for non-Mac users?!
If you’re on Android, and especially pixel, please know that Apple has completely given up and no longer executes at the level you remember from 10-15 years ago.
The whole software world is shit now. The foundations were stable decades ago. Like Windows kernel, WinAPI, .NET, WPF, Linux kernel. But end user software is so terrible. Windows 11 with ads and unhelpful AI. macOS which is a bit less terrible, but still too bloated. Linux with its eternal changes between X, Wayland, Alsa, Pipewire, Pulseaudio, sysvinit, systemd, and endless choices. Both iOS and Android are terrible. iOS was perfect 10 years ago, it's absolute clownfest now. I would blame AI vibe coders, but it started before. I don't know who to blame. Why can't we just build solid minimal non-bloated OS that will last for decades without major rewrites. We've got so good foundations but so terrible end product.
The lock in with Safari is horrifc though, the browser on a $20 prepaid android phone is better than the browser on your most expensive ios device. Apple says well you need to write a native app, stop using the web and PWA's. Allow Apple to mediate absolutely everything.
While I agree with the principle, and we as tech professionals and enthusiasts should be lobbying hard for law makers and regulators to open iOS up to allow for different browsers, there’s a couple flaws here without these precedents or activism.
The alternative here is not Firefox gaining more market share, it’s further encroachment of Chrome and derivatives. You’re not getting this big win for browser diversity. I’m not sure what you really gain here as Safari works fine for near most everything most people do.
Also I don’t think PWA’s have proliferated on desktop or Android despite Google’s efforts in raising awareness for them. It seems to me like consumers largely aren’t into web app shells. They either visit a web app in their browsers or use the App Store apps, by a large margin
Well no, Chinese phones are above Apple material-wise (better battery, better cameras, better cooling) and on par SoC-wise since last year. That's what makes Google's strategy so baffling.
> Apple has better app selection (for most people).
It's entirely the same. I have gone back and forth regularly for the past 10 years. Android is completely on par app-wise. Apple has the iMessage lock-in in the US obviously but not in the rest of the world. Apple might have a slight advantage on the pro segment with the iPad but I don't think it has a huge impact on phones.
The really baffling thing to me is that while they lock down Android, they pay to put Gemini on iOS. Google has a real competitive advantage with IA and they just gave it to Apple.
It's clear to me that they are two companies fighting each other inside Google: the ex-Motorola who wants to be Apple and the service side who wants to be Microsoft.
I personally fear that they are making the bed of the regulators who will probably come for Play Protect at some point to open the door for alternative OS providers at least in Europe. But maybe they think it's coming anyway and are strengthening their position and trying to milk what they can in the meantime.
Both Qualcomm and Mediatek have caught up on the phone SoC market.
The Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 has a slightly better CPU than the A19 Pro but a slightly worse GPU. Apple has a very slight advantage in watt usage but that's more than offset by the battery gap. Same thing with the Dimensity 9500.
One, you are entirely moving the goal post. Nothing was said of winning. The discussion was about catching up and catching up they did. As I said, the market is competitive.
Two, because the actual power consumption is not 65% higher - that's peak - and high end Chinese phones have batteries significantly bigger than the iPhone so you still get better screen time between charges in the end.
I think it’s fair to say that a SoC should perform better at higher wattages, so my comment is definitely relevant.
Regardless, I don’t understand how you can say that I’m moving goalposts when I mention performance per watt, which is absolutely relevant when talking about smartphone SoC performance, and then you bring up battery capacity, which is not.
Your initial question was "How are they on par SoC-wise?"
They are on par because they now sometimes beat Apple top of the line A-chips on performance be it single core, multicores or GPU and do so within a power budget which allows the phone they ship in to be competitive screen-on time wise.
Apple doesn't have a one generation lead anymore which is a huge change compared to only three years ago.
You are moving the goalposts because the discussion was always about the gap between Apple and its competitors and you have entirely shifted to peak consumption when it was clear the conclusion would not be the one you want/expect.
The whole claim that Qualcomm is on par with Apple predicates upon results from benchmarking tools, which stress CPU and GPU and thus induce peak power consumption.
If we were to look at more thorough reviews, e.g. Geekerwan, they always include TDP and power consumption, because that gives the necessary context to understand the results.
And obviously I’m not denying that Mediatek and Qualcomm have massively improved their designs, but they aren’t on par when we account all the things that matter.
Your argument is that, since manufacturers are putting larger batteries in phones, SoC power consumption shouldn’t matter. That is moving the goalpost, because you introduce a variable that should be irrelevant to SoC performance testing to dismiss my observation.
That hasn't been true for years. Both Oppo and Xiaomi ship with very usable software nowadays, very inspired by Cupertino in the case of Oppo but still ok.
Better mobile hardware is highly specific. Crappy batteries worse than literally all competition? Check for first what, 5 or 6 generations? For many people, battery life is single most important attribute of their phone.
Also USB-C ain't some differentiating feature of android, rather rest of the world and electronics. Fully apple's fault here, it could have been their standard as the one, but greed is greed.
Screens were always better on Samsungs flagships (apple buys screens there too) - mildly higher resolution, refresh rate and contrasts but these are rather unimportant. As an non-apple tech user, apple phone hardware has very few things that interest me or put them above the others.
Its better integration with software that did put them above, since it was optimized for a very narrow band of hardware so could get far even with subpar hardware (till M chips came but these days they are almost on par with Snapdragons). But that software has a list of issues much bigger than hardware above so no, thank you.
AnkiDroid, a fully self-contained version of Anki for Android, not requiring pairing with a desktop app and completely free, does not exist or iOS. Or did not, last time I checked. So that would be a deal breaker.
Maybe by now there is some Android emulation for iOS that can do it?
> Surely the marginal revenue from the inconsequential number of sideloading users isn't attractive enough to justify that kind of strategic blunder.
Or you could analyze this at the actual face value: the damage to Google’s brand caused by malware campaigns, especially faux-banking apps robbing people in some regions, is greater than the damage from making sideloading harder for some edge case users.
Not everything is a giant conspiracy; this move has always looked pretty clear cut to me from Google’s standpoint and I’ve never really seen any evidence to the contrary.
I think what is happening here is the moat is breaking. With llms getting good enough to make a program, how long until it is a whole OS...? And then how long until regulars figure out play store and play appa not needed???
Except only a few countries in the world have wages where their citizens can afford Apple.
While I can afford Apple, out of principle I am not buying anything above 300 euros, that requires me to also buy another computer for hobby coding, and a dev license.
All my use of Apple hardware is via projects where pool devices are assigned to the delivery team.
Mobile providers usually offer loans ("service contracts") where people get phones outside their financial standing (I regularly see high end iPhones and foldable phones of €1-2k run by people in a country where average monthly salary is less than €1k): if a highly visible device like your phone can be had for 10% of your monthly salary, people will, unfortunately, opt for it.
I tend to not use Apple not due to cost (I honestly believe it's OK to pay a premium for quality; I might disagree they offer it today though, as I do use a couple of their devices at work), but because of how closed their ecosystem is (and yes, all my personal devices are running some sort of Linux, and Android phones are rooted and with bootloader unlocked).
In my country, for example, buying phones from carriers as part of your plan just isn't a thing. As in, you couldn't do it even if you wanted to. Same for postpaid plans and contracts.
As a result, quite a lot of people use the "I can't believe they could make and sell an entire phone at this price" Xiaomi and similar phones.
I've only seen the carrier locked phones and long-term contracts in a handful of countries. I've lived in a lot of countries on three continents.
In many places the default is prepaid SIMs with separately purchased phones. Sometimes the prepaying can be automated (e.g. in Russia), sometimes it involves you physically going to a shop once a month or so (e.g. in Egypt).
Agreed. The only thing they have going for them is that you can degoogle your android device, but you can't deapple your iphone, and here they are making moves that suggest they may back off from that position.
> core features that differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS
It's obvious you've never used Android if you think these are core features LMAO. No one cares that much about connector type, more the fact it's using an industry standard versus proprietary. No one cares about RCS, everyone uses WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Messenger, Line, etc...
Core features are stuff like being able to search for a business through the phone app, Maps telling you where you parked your car, unprompted, compatibility with the casting protocol, the ability to make ANY app the default for a particular task, the ability to sideload, the fact you can switch phone brands and get whatever hardware you want but your core OS with all your accounts stays the same. Basically the ability to do what you want win your OS and no one restricting your phone's features.
As for Google's strategy, it's the same as Valve's. Having a platform they can't be locked out of since both MS and Apple have shown they'll abuse their market power.
Thinking Apple hardware is better is utterly laughable when you look at non-US Android devices.
Much better camera sensors, much better silicon carbon batteries etc in Oppo, Vivo, Honor and Xiaomi devices than anything Apple produces. Form factors Apple still hasn't figured out, such as 7th gen Foldables, Flip foldable phones etc, Camera zoom lenses that can be attached...
Apple's certainly been working to destroy their consumer trust though!
At least on my end the political knee bending by Tim Cook and their recent iOS and MacOS updates have me firmly on the side of not giving any more money to Apple. (Sadly, I still pay for Apple One for hy family, so I'm not perfect. But... hey, it's a start. Speak with your wallets).
And I will be considering alternatives when my machines which I will be running to their end stop working.
It's really such a shame cause I really liked their privacy stances, accessibility work, and focus on user experience.
Now I say, screw Apple, and encourage people to boycott and be wary of upgrades.
Not from me and my peers. All nerds/devs/sysadmins.
> Apple has better app selection (for most people).
Again, based on what?
> Apple has been increasingly implementing the core features that differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS.
Only when forced.
> Every Android user lost to the increasing iOS market share is another customer Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a competitor to access.
What are you even talking about?
Don't get me wrong, iPhones are great devices, but I prefer the Android ecosystem time and time again.
"Slow phone with slow animations" is a crazy assessment, I switched from Galaxy S7 to iPhone XR in 2018 because the Galaxy was (like every other Android I had) slow to do everything, applications would crash randomly and my phone would just give up and reboot without warning. Not to mention all of the killer Android features that Google had gotten rid of up to that point (RIP notification ticker, I miss you so much). What's the point of being able to sideload and customize when none of it works on a day to day basis? And when Google/other Android phone manufacturers insist on their phones being more and more similar to iPhone/iOS, the reasons to stay on Android go away too.
> No Aux port, no usb. Slow phone with slow animations. But maybe this is fixed, its been 10 years.
It has been 10 years and none of this is true today, also the average person doesn’t care about an aux port.
> Solid no here. Being able to install stuff from fdroid is amazing.
Not sure if you’re serious here, the app selection is far better on the App Store (and also Google Play Store) due to the nature of not being restricted to purely FOSS apps.
> You forgot to mention how poor iPhone security is.
Citation needed, iOS has the second best mobile security and is at worst equivalent to stock Android. The only OS that surpasses iOS by a large amount is GrapheneOS.
> People have died due to Apple's poor security.
This could also be said for any other OS/maker? Nothing is 100% secure/private.
Oh come on fanboy, Apple doesn't have meaningfully better hardware, consumer trust, or app selection (for most people the opposite is true!)
Oof, Apple adopting core 'Android' features... Yea, finally? Increasing iOS market share? Where? Not most places
I think it's weird you come at this from an antitrust angle when I would totally make the argument the other way.
If there's pressure to remove this feature, then it's from companies that make apps that anyone can pull up in Revanced and they can patch it and can be running a version of a piece of software that shouldn't exist with "premium" features enabled. I don't think there's an argument against it really besides that. At least not an honest, intelligent argument....
Ultimately, I doubt many would jump to Apple. Inertia would insist: People just won't upgrade. Which is already occurring, people are keeping their devices longer, especially Apple users. And they wonder why their battery stops working... Oy vey!
>Apple has had better mobile hardware for years.
Classic Apple glazer take. This is why I still made another 100% with Apple stock over past 5 years because stupid people got gaslight into buying their overpriced stuff that is marginally better if at all.
Yeah, at no point has Apple ever had meaningfully better hardware than the competition. They have always been a more expensive version of the same hardware you can get from their competitors, just this one has an apple logo. But a lot of people, even smart people, are fooled by the marketing.
Are you joking? Look at the latest Xiaomi, Oppo and other Chinese manufacturers, Apple would love to have the hardware they are shipping right now. From batteries to cameras and screens, apple is way behind on hardware tech. Yeah they are better than Samsung - but Samsung has also massively fallen behind what's the state of the art.
>>is another customer Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a competitor to access.
Last time I checked, it's apple paying Google, billions of dollars a year? And it will be even more now that Apple announced they are going to use Gemini as their AI base model.
> Last time I checked, it's apple paying Google, billions of dollars a year?
You checked wrong. Google pays Apple on the order of $20 billion to be the default search on iOS - this is so significant it accounts for ~5% of Apple's annual revenue
> Look at the latest Xiaomi, Oppo and other Chinese manufacturers, Apple would love to have the hardware they are shipping right now.
If any of these manufacturers decide to include an EMR pen in the body of the phone, like Samsung's S-Pen, they'll have me as a customer. The S-Pen so completely changes the experience that I am unwilling to go back.
Shame Samsung decided to nerf the pen by removing bluetooth, I was one of those users who used it all the time to take photos with, now that they removed that function in the S25 Ultra I traded in my S24U and bought an Oppo instead. And I'm very glad that I did, it's a superior phone in many aspects.
You could use the button on the pen and use gestures with it at a distance. So for example I would put the phone somewhere, take the pen with me and use the button as camera trigger. Now they removed bluetooth from the pen so it only acts as a pen - while the button on it still works, it only works when the tip is touching the screen.
> Look at the latest Xiaomi, Oppo and other Chinese manufacturers, Apple would love to have the hardware they are shipping right now.
This is true, but their phones don't ship with Google services out of box (at least the last time I checked). So in reality, "Google's Android" is really mostly Samsungs and Pixels.
They don't in the EU. Not in Slovenia, so not the entire EU. I've seen it first hand. It's also not some special law that we'd have invented here so I'm pretty sure there are other EU countries where it's the same.
Contractor estimates are just as prone to schedule slippage and cost overruns as anything estimated by software engineers. I doubt anyone's ever argued that giving wrong estimates is hard or impossible. Only that approximately correct ones are, and other industries seem to struggle with that just as much as software. Authors don't finish books by deadlines, so fans are left in the cold. Tunnels take twice as long and cost twice as much. Renovations take a year instead of 3 months and empty your bank account.
Saying "I don't know" is arguably more honest, even if it's not useful for budgets or planning.
> Contractor estimates are just as prone to schedule slippage and cost overruns as anything estimated by software engineers
I completely agree. That's why I chose that example: They're also awful at it, especially these days in North America in particular. But any contractor that tried to put in a bid claiming "it'll be done when it's done and cost what it costs" would not be considered professionally competent enough to award a multi-million dollar budget.
- Prioritize whatever is most valuable and/or can stand on its own
If you just say “I don’t know” and have no target, even if that’s more honest, the project is less likely to ever be shipped at all in any useful form.
We should probably differentiate between trying to run a profitable farm, and producing any amount of yield. They're not really the same thing at all.
I would submit that pretty much any joe blow is capable of growing some amount of crops, given enough money. Running a profitable farm is quite difficult though. There's an entire ecosystem connecting prospective farmers with money and limited skills/interest to people with the skills to properly operate it, either independently (tenant farmers) or as farm managers so the hobby owner can participate. Institutional investors prefer the former, and Jeremy Clarkson's farm show is a good example of the latter.
When I say successful I mean more like profitable. Just yielding anything isn't succesful by any stretch of the imagination.
>I would submit that pretty much any joe blow is capable of growing some amount of crops, given enough money
Yeah in theory. In practice they wont - too much time and energy. This is where the confidence boost with LLMs comes in. You just do it and see what happens. You don't need to care if it doesn't quite work out it its so fast and cheap. Maybe you get anywhere from 50-150% of the result of your manual research for 5% of the effort.
You'd need a test for every random chemical someone can use to get high. This story piqued my interest a few years ago because I didn't realize people got high off bug spray.
I think the best alternative solution is to get better e-books on the tablets the prisons already have, as airstrike said.
Even in construction, feet/inches/yards kinda sucks. 1:10 scale drawings are painful to do manually, division by 2 is a bit erratic, and bolt sizing is a horrible mess. Metric bolts are nice and consistent.
My wife was a surveyor in a past carreer. We have a tape measure in the garage that measures to the nearest hundredth of a foot. It is just so weird to see. Forcing decimal on a measurement that does not normally have it just makes me uncomfortable.
The tension that you experienced is common in imperial and traditional systems of units. Here's another example for you: Carpenters working with wood use mixed feet, inches, and fractional inches (like 2' 5 3/8"), but machinists working with metal use exclusively decimal inches (like 29.375"). Both hold steadfast to their traditions and won't consider adopting the other system.
To dissect that product: It's a pack of 40× 500 mL of bottled water. I have zero problems with the metric labeling. But for the US customary units, you can see a jumble: decimal fluid ounces, decimal pints, a large number of fluid ounces, and decimal gallons. Note that the gallons can be broken down into mixed units (and some packaging does that); 676 fl oz = 5 gal 1 qt (0 pt) (0 cup) 4 fl oz exactly. The US units are basically "whatever I feel like using" (don't forget tsp and tbsp, which aren't used in the current example). The metric units for liquid consumer products are always mL and L, which greatly simplifies learning and comparison for the consumer.
Note that ft/100 is almost exactly 1/8", which is also the most standard resolution used in construction. I love decimal feet (it's worth noting that there used to be a survey foot, but it has been deprecated).
I was an archaeologist, but use a similar tape measure. It's fantastic. It also works very well with GIS systems, since decimal degrees almost perfectly correspond to metric powers of 10 at tropical latitudes.
What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait? US naval ambitions in the Arctic are limited by the US' weak shipbuilding capacity, which it's relied on Canada and Europe to compensate for. Those are also the nations most pissed off by the US' nonsense.
> What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait?
Denial to others? If you're going to the Arctic from the south, you have to come up through either the Bering straight (next to Alaska) or through the waters around Greenland.
Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.
By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does
So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument.
Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
Moscow has been in range of US ICBMs since the cold war. The US also has an agreement with Canada allowing use of their airspace for nuclear weapons as well.
> So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission?
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection.
It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was).
Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that?
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
If we're talking polar missile defenses, Canada is quite important. They're half of NORAD already and Greenland is only 500km closer to Moscow.
I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now.
Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. It also has two arctic ports already at Utqiagvik and Prudhoe Bay with substantial infrastructure already. I've visited both.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
It really isn't. Greenland is a logistics nightmare. That ice is dangerous and the weather is fun for planes. The US uses much more sensible bases in the UK for patrolling the Greenland/Iceland straits.
An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.
> Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
> With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs.
I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
If your enemy is China, Greenland is in the wrong direction. If your enemy is Russia, you can probably put them in Ukraine or Poland for free. If you want less detectable missiles, then you fund that directly. If you just want missiles as close as possible, there are subs.
There's a million different strategies with different tradeoffs here. I'm asking what set of plausible reasons point to Greenland as a local optimum.
re: ships, the two leading countries for arctic ship design (excluding Russia) are Finland and Canada.
I don't think this is likely to truly pan out though. I can't imagine Nvidia making the kind of afffordances that would allow it to develop into a successful market segment. They're inevitably going to gatekeep documentation and aggressively encroach on their partners' margin like they always do.
reply