| ▲ | kuhsaft 2 days ago |
| This is a very HN view of Android. The "openness" of Android was for mobile device manufacturers, not app developers and end-users. Android's prominence was driven by the myriad of low-cost Android devices by multiple device manufacturers, whereas iOS is only available via iPhones. The vast majority of users don't care about "openness" of the OS. They care about the utility of their phone in everyday life. Can I access digital payment systems, social media apps, and entertainment apps? How's the camera on the phone? How big is the screen? Is it waterproof? How expensive is it? These are the questions the majority of phone buyers care about. Not, can I download an app off of a random website and install it? --- I would say that the majority of developers don't care about the "openness" either. They care about accessing a wide audience and getting revenue from their work. Free apps without ads or in-app purchases (zero-revenue apps) are the minority. Google is also fine with losing the zero-revenue app developers because they provide no value for Google. Actually, they are probably a loss for Google, since Google provides Google Play Services. |
|
| ▲ | wiseowise 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > This is a very HN view of Android. Just because you're HN dweller doesn't make it HN view. The openness, freedom, customizability and accessibility (money wise) were the tenets that differentiated Android from Apple devices. |
| |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >The openness, freedom, customizability and accessibility (money wise) were the tenets that differentiated Android from Apple devices. i have never heard someone outside of tech circles (e.g. HN) mention openness, freedom, or customization, even as a passing comment. they use a phone to access mainstream apps (youtube, instagram, reddit, maybe their bank) and text/call. mention "apk" or "fdroid" and their eyes start to glaze over. cheaper devices, sure, i agree with that as being the differentiator to the average non-techie. the rest is, at least in my experience, absolutely a "HN view". | | |
| ▲ | someguyornotidk a day ago | parent | next [-] | | My brother, who's relationship with tech barely extends to the latest samsung flagship, threw away his iphone because he couldn't get all the apps he wanted. I think _your_ impression of people outside tech circles is as HN-centric as it gets :) | |
| ▲ | dartharva a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > i have never heard someone outside of tech circles... mention "apk" or "fdroid" and their eyes start to glaze over My no-tech middle-aged uncles and aunts know what apks are, and that you need to install apps from somewhere apart from the main Play store if you want them to have no ads. | |
| ▲ | jMyles a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > i have never heard someone outside of tech circles (e.g. HN) mention openness, freedom, or customization, even as a passing comment. And how do you qualify "(e.g. HN)" for this purpose? Places where people value openness? These feels like a no-true-scotsman. | | |
| |
| ▲ | kuhsaft 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Android is developed by the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of mobile industry giants. https://web.archive.org/web/20260420021444/https://www.openh... Openness for end-users was never a tenet. It is a very HN view to think that open-source equals freedom for users, and to state that it was a promise when it never was. | | |
| ▲ | classified a day ago | parent [-] | | Freedom for users was the motivating factor that created open source in the first place. Rewriting history to serve your own ends doesn't help your credibility. | | |
| ▲ | kuhsaft 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t know what you’re going on about “rewriting history”. I never mentioned the history of open source. From the Open Handset Alliance: “The Android platform will be made available under one of the most progressive, developer-friendly open-source licenses, which gives mobile operators and device manufacturers significant freedom and flexibility to design products.” Give mobile operators and device manufacturers freedom, not consumers. If anything, the people claiming that Android was created for freedom for consumers are rewriting history. | | |
| ▲ | Andromxda 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's perhaps because typical consumers don't build their own operating systems? | | |
| ▲ | kuhsaft 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right. Phones won’t be built open for consumers because they aren’t built by consumers. They’re built by corporations for consumers. The software may be built by consumers for consumers, e.g., AOSP distros. But, the hardware and mobile infrastructure, probably not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wasting_time a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > can I download an app off a random website and install it This is a straw man. This change hurts third party app stores such as F-Droid the most. I vastly prefer it to Play Store for the same reasons I prefer GNU/Linux to macOS or Windows (discounting the fact that Linux no longer needs hacks to "just work"). |
|
| ▲ | functionmouse 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| nah it was considered more open for users. |
| |
| ▲ | kuhsaft 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This is the initial press release for the Open Handset Alliance, the collaborators for the creation of Android: https://web.archive.org/web/20260420021444/https://www.openh... Nowhere is their goal to allow users complete control of their device. Android was built as an open-OS for the mobile device industry, not end-users. Android might have been considered more open than other mobile OSes by users, but it was never a promise or goal. | | |
| ▲ | Worf 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Nowhere is their goal to allow users complete control of their device. Android was built as an open-OS for the mobile device industry, not end-users. The fact that having root access is not the default supports that. Without root we're just "consumers" and that's how they see us. There's a lot of discussion about the security model of Android and how root is bad. But we've come to the point to argue that having root access is not only less secure but that we don't need root at all. A lot of replies, even on HN, are like: > Why would you even need root access? What is it you're trying to accomplish? That's a much bigger security smokescreen than the one in TFA. Sure, having root may be dangerous, especially if you don't know what you're doing, but it's still a choice. Having no phone or doing banking IRL or not downloading apps from the Play Store you haven't heard of before would also be more secure. But these 3 options don't align to the financial gain the consumers would bring to the providers. The consumers having no root, on the other hand, benefits the providers. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | classified a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| When a platform ditches openness, you lose more than a seemingly insignificant market segment that makes no money. Using money as the only metric is stupid and myopic. |
| |
| ▲ | kuhsaft a day ago | parent [-] | | > When a platform ditches openness, you lose more than a seemingly insignificant market segment that makes no money. Openness for users/consumers was never a goal for the Open Handset Alliance. > Using money as the only metric is stupid and myopic. Publicly traded companies will be publicly traded companies. |
|
