zlacker

[return to "Google Pixels are no longer the AOSP reference device"]
1. freedo+H5[view] [source] 2025-06-12 17:23:29
>>tripdo+(OP)
Warning: Complete shots in the dark here so take with a truckload of salt

Watching Google's actions on Android over the past many years, they are clearly inching in one strategic direction, and that is toward being more iPhone like (i.e. locked down, user hostile, user distrusting, etc). There might be a few "two steps forward, one step back" points like the new Android terminal, but it feels like clear directional momentum away from user capabilities. It's an absolute shame too, because Google products could be hacker's delights (I mean owner-hackers, not grey/black hat).

In their defense they are far from alone. Since Apple proved that a closed and locked down model wouldn't affect sales (in fact you can use marketing spin to actually convince some people who are plenty tech savvy that they are better off having their own access to their device removed, a feat of mental gymnastics I still can't understand), the whole industry has moved heavily that direction.

The net result has been that I've become almost entirely disinterested in mobile phones and all the IoT things, which is a huge personal loss. It's not just disinterest, but is turning in to active hostility. I've started to hate my phone because of many of the things it can't do now (that it used to), though thanks to the proliferation and expectation of "always connected" I can't get away from it without suffering professional or social consequences that aren't worth it. It's become a required piece of equipment to function in everyday life, because of other parties. If I could go back to the days of a single landline phone in the house with maybe an emergency cell phone in the car, I truly think I would.

It didn't (and doesn't!) have to be this way Google. You have the market power to change this, and you wouldn't even have to do all that much. I get that big money interests (like DRM) are constantly pressuring you to remove user control and give it to them, but if you just said "no, our users are more important" they would just have to take it because they can't turn away 45 or 50% or whatever of the US market and 80+% of the global market.

I just hope that the rising generation of hackers will hear our stories from the glory days when compute was empowering to the owner of it, not restricting.

◧◩
2. bitpus+07[view] [source] 2025-06-12 17:31:19
>>freedo+H5
> Apple proved that a closed and locked down model wouldn't affect sales (in fact you can use marketing spin to actually convince some people who are plenty tech savvy that they are better off having their own access to their device removed, a feat of mental gymnastics I still can't understand), the whole industry has moved heavily that direction.

This is part that is unfortunate. You'd expect hacker types (folks who hang out here on HN) would be 100% behind an open-source operating system, and would freely allow a corporation burning money to make improvements to it.

Instead what you see is an odd (and counterintuitive) behavior of saying alternate app stores are bad, side loading is bad - mostly because of Apple's unique PR/Marketing spin.

◧◩◪
3. eptcyk+v9[view] [source] 2025-06-12 17:44:04
>>bitpus+07
Whilst there are some seemingly unpaid Google defenders here today, I am always surprised how many people come out of the woodwork to defend whatever Apple chooses to do.
◧◩◪◨
4. lotsof+zr[view] [source] 2025-06-12 18:55:49
>>eptcyk+v9
Ever since iOS and ipadOS came out, I haven’t had to do tech support or run malware removal software. A lot of my youth was wasted on that nonsense, and I see better uses of time.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. eptcyk+DS1[view] [source] 2025-06-13 10:00:12
>>lotsof+zr
Does that then mean Apple can do no wrong and every design decision they make serves the specific benefits you enjoy in their products?
[go to top]