Firefox is the alternative to a Chrome hegemony

Ah yes. That comment is obviously wrong, and your comment is obviously correct because you are right, and the other person is wrong. Is that how this works?

> Worse than Pixels, ... and ChromeOS devices currently.

So. Pixels and ChromeOS are made by Google. You know,

- 80% of Google's money comes from online advertising. And this advertising relies on far-reaching privacy invasive tracking

- Google's own employees admitted that they have no idea how to turn the various methods of tracking off. Among others location tracking is so intertwined in Google's products that it's impossible to turn it off at all

Yup. These devices are surely worse for privacy than iPhones which go as far as limit tracking at the OS level.

Can't attest to the devices current security. Given Android's spotty track record of updates, I wouldn't hold my breath for AndroidOne. Oh. And Pixel 3 which was released in the ancient times of exactly three years ago will no longer receive any updates. So yeah.

Meanwhile the iOS 15 which was released this September is available on iPhone SE from 5 years ago.

> There are several open source focused devices in the pipeline that have better ... but are not yet ready.

I yes. Imaginary non-existent phones. In that case I have a phone that's better than any of those, and better than iPhone, and better than Pixel 6. Care to buy one?

> I said that people are duped by marketing, and I gave examples.

No, you didn't. What you did, was make overly broad statements that are either pure speculation, or can be easily refuted.

Read my comment in the context of what it was responding to. You seem to have grossly misunderstood it.

> Yup. These devices are surely worse for privacy than iPhones which go as far as limit tracking at the OS level.

iOS devices do not support end-to-end encryption of message backups, do not support allowing a user to run apps on the device without telling Apple, and do not support getting a user's location without telling Apple. Despite what you may infer about each company's motives, each company's actual actions show a very clear difference in privacy on their devices. Apple is motivated to make money by any means it has available. If it can make money by charging users more for devices and violating their privacy by marketing their devices as being better for privacy, it will do so, and we can see that this is happening right now.

> Meanwhile the iOS 15 which was released this September is available on iPhone SE from 5 years ago.

So you admit an iPhone from 6 years ago is insecure. The fact that only recent devices from either vendor are secure is the same for both, so a user who cares about security will only use a recent device. The difference is that recent devices from Google are far more secure than recent devices from Apple.

> Imaginary non-existent phones.

I was just illustrating that there will be more options in the future. Apple knows about the security features offered by current and future devices but despite that hasn't tried to match those security features and instead contents itself with merely marketing security.

> No, you didn't.

Read my first post. You still haven't refuted it.

Where does it say that? I'll repeat the context right here:

"> Right now, in this very thread I see no such discussion."

The context is that I was pointing out that there is a discussion about what you claimed there was no discussion about. Nowhere did I say that I'm right and they're wrong (though it remains the case that none of my points have been refuted).

> applications which have location tracking disabled can use location tracking information from another Google application

Google does this on iOS as well. In respect to what information applications can share on the server, there is no difference between iOS and Android. The privacy differences that do exist between the platforms are the ones I listed, where iOS does a lot of data collection that cannot be disabled, while Android has no such problem.

> HN poster: see, they are the same.

A user who cares about security only cares about which device provides usable security. None of the Apple devices do. All the Pixels that are receiving security updates do. The choice for a user who cares about security isn't between some five year old iOS devices that provide limited security and other five year old Android devices that provide limited security (worse system updates but better application updates) but between any iOS device (including recent ones) that provide limited security and recent Pixel devices that provide superior security. How long they continue to receive system updates (or application updates) beyond replacement time is meaningless.

> I mean, your approach to argument is "I'm right just because I say is right",

I provided reasons why the battery excuse doesn't make sense. Why do you keep pretending I haven't given any reasons?

That site is counting mobile browsers too, which eat up a lot of market share. It's 3.9% (so more like 4% than 3%) counting mobile, and 7.9% if you don't. Considering the number of web users, that's absolutely a sizeable share. It represents hundreds of millions of people.

> it is based on the obvious fact that Firefox market share and usage is still declining

And that would have been a reasonable statement to make.