Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep Android Open

keepandroidopen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 907 posts

Re: Keep Android Open

#611

Post by jama211 »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #450
jeena wrote: post #58

Back in the 2007 or when it came out in Sweden I bought the iPhone and started developing for it. This was cool, new and exciting and it was fine as long as my company was paying the $100 fee every year. But then I switched jobs and worked at a company which produced mostly open source code. Suddenly I would have to pay $100 every year just to be able to put my own software on the phone ... This is why I switched to…

Yeah, I don't understand why people put up with Apple for this. I would love to write small personal apps for my iPhone. But, I don't want to use a mac, I don't want to pay a fee every year and I don't want to use the apple store (yes there are convoluted work-rounds for the last one).

It’s precisely because it’s a filter, they _want_ to filter for people who take it seriously and/or are seeking app sales. This is a company that chooses to pay people to review every app submitted to the app store, they don’t want millions of apps by tinkerers being submitted, and it reduces total crapware in the store.

I’m not necessarily advocating for this approach, just explaining why they do it.

Doesn’t the play store also charge a fee? It’s smaller from memory but it isn’t free

Re: Keep Android Open

#612

Post by ryukafalz »

Flere-Imsaho wrote: post #513
BeetleB wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Most of us do not want to carry two phones around. The reality is that there is strong utility for those non-open apps and they will never be replaced by open ones. In some parts of the world, WhatsApp is as necessary as the phone itself. Official business is conducted via it.

I've not managed to read all the comments in this post, so apologies if I'm repeating other people, I also have only a passing understanding of how Google Play works, but couldn't we have: Linux based phone, running Anbox to support Android apps running within containers. Effort would then have to put into support Play APIs within Anbox. Not a small amount of work, but I compare it to the state of Linux 20 years ago…

Yes. This already exists (though usually with Waydroid rather than Anbox I think). My Ubuntu Touch phone can run Android apps via Waydroid.

The integration isn't perfect (some important things like forwarding notifications to the host system are still missing) but it's already further along than you might have imagined.

Re: Keep Android Open

#613

Post by jama211 »

fainpul wrote: post #163
thecupisblue wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, somewhere around 2014, Google was doing the exact same style "keep Android open" campaign, recruiting developers around the world - including me, to help lobby for keeping Android "open" and tell the horror stories of issues that random OEMs caused by forking Android, breaking compatibility and security. Made sense to me at the time and they were really into "Android should be open source" vibe, so I supp…

Apple pisses off many HN users who then swear to switch to Android, Google pisses off many HN users who then swear to switch to an iPhone – so for both companies, in effect, nothing changes. Aside from that, the masses don't care or know about any of this. A couple of HN users don't make a dent in the revenue of any large company. What we can do is work on alternative ecosystems or at least support the small companie…

People who switch are a vocal minority too.

Re: Keep Android Open

#614

Post by jama211 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #553
jwr wrote: post #122

Oh, the irony. I still remember how in the early days of Android vs iOS discussions, the main point was "but it's OPEN!". The word "open" was used as a comma by Google people. It was The Thing. The Difference. Good vs Evil and all that.

And after the change Google is doing now, it will still be more open than iOS.

And still less secure and less trusted.

Re: Keep Android Open

#615

Post by array_key_first »

jb1991 wrote: post #542
array_key_first wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I am sure it cuts down on spammers Okay, just so we're all on the same page: that 100 dollar fee IS NOT for publishing your app. That's not what that is. That's a separate thing with its own costs. That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only. It's just extortion. It cannot be justif…

> That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only. This is incorrect. You make it sound like you cannot even get started unless you pay a $100 fee. You do not need to pay Apple any fees to make an app and put it on your own device. You have to pay the fee once you want to distribute it on the…

This is incorrect.

If you want to load the app on your own phone WITHOUT the app store, you MUST pay Apple 100 dollars.

Unless you want to rebuild the app every 7 days, which any reasonable human will conclude is a stupid ass arbitrary limitation.

Again, it cannot be justified with any technical means. Please, don't even bother trying.

Re: Keep Android Open

#617

Post by array_key_first »

aaron_m04 wrote: post #474
Steltek wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a question, what if the executable was thoroughly sandboxed? Like Firecracker level with virtualization? And once you're there, what's the difference between that and a webapp? I don't think apps are going away so users need to have a switch that says, "I don't trust this company with anything". Extremely limited Internet access, no notifications, no background activity at all, nothing. It needs to be like app…

Google is a step ahead of that, with their device attestation technology. Now apps can make sure they are only running in an approved environment.

This is the inverse of what he's saying. Attestation takes control away from users. Permissions give control to users. The ultimate user control is not using the software at all.

Re: Keep Android Open

#618

Post by array_key_first »

Steltek wrote: post #370
array_key_first wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact this is a thing is part of the problem. We should not be downloading executables and running them from random third parties in order to do mundane tasks. If they absolutely must have an app, it should be a web app, end of.

Here's a question, what if the executable was thoroughly sandboxed? Like Firecracker level with virtualization? And once you're there, what's the difference between that and a webapp? I don't think apps are going away so users need to have a switch that says, "I don't trust this company with anything". Extremely limited Internet access, no notifications, no background activity at all, nothing. It needs to be like app…

There is beyond zero incentive for either Apple or Google to provide something like this. Google HAS network permissions on Android. You just can't access them. They're hidden from you, presumably because Google prefers more malware and spyware running on your phone.

The reality is that both Google and Apple are not just in on this, they created this situation. They not only don't care if you download 1 million apps from the app store that may or may not be malware, they actually prefer that model. Going as far as to sabotage the web to maintain that model. Going as far as developing their own browser which is broken to maintain that model.

Which, relatedly, is why any type of argument of "safety" around the app store or play store is complete and utter bullshit. Apple and Google want you to download as much malware as possible. All their actions demonstrate that.

Re: Keep Android Open

#620

Post by andoando »

davisr wrote: post #567
dns_snek wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but how do you build a consumer software business on top of a licensing scheme that legally allows anyone to share their copy of the software with anyone else, and allows other businesses to resell your software at half the price?

I charge for copies of free software I wrote, an AGPLv3+ desktop application, and earn about $2k MRR from it. Most people don't care about your choice of license, they just want software that conveniently solves their problem(s). If they want to share it, that's fine. They're giving it to people who wouldn't have bought it anyway. If those grantees ever want an official copy, with updates and support, they come back…

The problem is with someone taking your whole software, branding and marketing it as their own and undercutting your service for half the price, not individual using it for personal reasons.
Post reply on HN