It's been awhile since I used an Apple device. Do they still forbid people from using bluetooth to send stuff to android phones?
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
175 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
12 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah. It's not even the fact that they don't implement Nearby Share themselves that's bad, it's that the restrictions they impose on apps means that an app can't even implement Nearby Share themselves
Yes.
I forgot this is still true.
I don't understand why people are still buying Apple products. The first few iterations of the iPhone were fantastic; I even owned an iPhone 2 or 3. iPhone is still a great device, but you can get an Android phone with similar specs for the same or less of a cost. Android in 2024 is just as user-friendly as iOS; as far as mobile devices go, there's no advantage to going with Apple. There's even less justification for buying an Apple computer. A PC with an AMD or Intel chip can be purchased or built with far better specs for much less than what an equivalent Apple computer would cost, and you have more upgrade and expansion options.
Apple produces good hardware, but it isn't any better than the competition. I truly believe that a large part of Apple's success is that they have marketed their devices as a status symbol. People buy Apple devices for the same reason that they buy a Rolex instead of a Fossil watch.
I’ve used both Apple and Android and I highly prefer Apple. There’s plenty of stuff that Android can do, but despite that, I still prefer my iPhone.
This isn’t some ignorant sheep-think. I’m aware that I could get a phone with relatively similar hardware for half the cost of an iPhone. I prefer Apple. I love how iPhone and iPad integrate together and it is why I’ll continue purchasing those products.
For more intense computing, however, I highly prefer PCs because I dislike the MacOS environment. Everything that I enjoy on iPhone and iPad ”feel” stifling in a desktop setting. When it comes to gaming or getting work done, I have more flexibility through Windows or Linux than I “feel” I have on a Mac.
What I don’t understand is why it is so hard for other people accept that preferences are fine, and if someone is willing to accept what another person considers a restriction or an “upcharge”, it is their prerogative.
Because Apple bad, obviously. How dare you go against the Lemmy hivemind?
Sent from my iPhone
the fact you got 11 upvote and 6 downvote is interesting to say the least. where are all the android naysayer people at ? 😂 time to downvote.
I switched to iPhone around the time honeycomb came out. I switched from Windows Mobile 6.5 on an HTC shadow that I adored. When the Google g1 came out, I switched to it immediately. It was amazing and I was so excited about the better experience than winmo.
I went through about 6 or 7 android phones over the next few years. HTC, Samsung, Motorola (the Cliq, it was fine until I was stuck on cupcake and everyone else had eclair).
I had two galaxy s 2s die in the same year. I’ve never broken a phone physically. I had an htc espresso (i really liked hardware keyboard at the time) that got capped at froyo. I naturally installed CyanogenMod on it so I could get my that sweet sweet Gingerbread animated wallpaper functionality. Then the keyboard died. By that point I could type on a touch screen fine. Nbd. Then the power button died.
Obviously my warranty wasn’t honored, as I had changed the software, despite my phone being less than a year old, and having had a hardware failure. I couldn’t reflash it because the power button didn’t work.
These aren’t even all of the failures I had. I eventually decided to go iPhone, and I’ve NEVER had an issue. I have kept my iPhones for a minimum of 3 years.
Price? I got the iPhone 15 pro for $170 (free and clear, not that rented bullshit) when I traded in my 3 year old iPhone. I’m not stupid. I’m not illiterate. I just would like my phone every now and then. I don’t use it for all the crazy shit other people do. It’s a gps with texting and sometimes calling/Lemmy usage. It works amazingly.
I’m sure Android is much better now. But why switch when what I have works and is honestly cheap. I could get a new one every two years for free if I didn’t want to own my phone. But Apple bad so I must be brain washed.
I had a similar experience as well. I exclusively used android for over 10 years until I starting having to replace phones yearly, sometimes even more frequently. After I had to take my pixel 6 to the repair shop for the 4th time in under a year I bought an iPhone 14 and couldn't be happier. Everything works so much more smoothly and it all just makes sense.
Yeah everyone talks about how cheap android phones are for the specs, but specs aren’t important if your device doesn’t even work. The market is too fragmented, and that is where Apple’s iron fisted approach shines. You will have the same experience on every iPhone, and you don’t have to worry about manufacturer, service provider, or anyone putting software on it that the average user can’t remove.
I’m not gonna pretend iPhones are perfect. They have their own issues, and I’ve recently learned that setting up parental controls requires a second Apple device (I’m certainly not going to intentional have children, so this doesn’t affect me, but it’s messed up), which definitely seems like it should be illegal. I have never had an iPhone die on me, however.
I don't understand why people are still buying Apple products.
That's what the article and lawsuit are addressing. Apple deliberately uses tactics meant to lock users into the Apple ecosystem and create artificial barriers to switching to competing devices and services.
I bought my mid-2015 Macbook Pro in 2021. I've never been this satisfied with a (now) almost 9 year old laptop.
When this thing dies (in a couple more years), I'm definitely buying a second-hand M1 model. A lot of people buy second hand apple products. Even people that buy new, know they'll hold their value better than most other brands.
Still using my 2011 MacBook Pro… I’ve added 16GB RAM and a SSD, but it still works amazingly!
I understand that some may view it as a status symbol, but in my opinion, iPhones are more practical than they may seem.
For me, the cost and specs of an Android device would need to be significantly better for me to consider switching from an iPhone. Additionally, iPhones tend to have a better resale value, which is a factor to consider.
While I won't argue about the user-friendliness of Android versus iOS, personally I prefer to stick with iOS due to my familiarity with it and the lack of added benefits that switching to Android would bring.
In my line of work in the creative/visual industry, I find that using a Macbook Pro is more beneficial not just because of its specs, but also because of the widespread use of Macs in my industry. It helps streamline my workflow and ensures compatibility with others.
When it comes to purchasing a device, I prefer to have a seamless experience without needing to worry about updating drivers or adjusting settings. The ease of use and reliability of a Mac is important to me in order to focus on my work without unnecessary technical issues.
I don't have time or energy to get into a debate, but as someone also I the creative industry, your points are just fallicy. You may have your preference to use a Mac, but justifying them with your perception of "it's just better because I don't need to think about anything" is just wrong.
I use Apple hardware because it's made by a company that has a business model based on high margins. Google is an advertising company and their business model is selling my data.
Google doesn't sell your data. They sure as hell collect it, but they sell targeted ads based on that data. Selling the data itself would undermine their ad platform.
Your position is otherwise fair. Some people (especially on Lemmy) value privacy over everything else. That doesn't mean Apple isn't guilty of a bunch of other anti consumer bullshit though.
Google sells your data: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and
I definitely don't idolize Apple, check my post history :p
Ah, yes. Because a publicly traded company would never look for additional revenue streams atop their high margins.
In terms of overall revenue it's a side hustle for Apple, unlike Google they can live without it.
Justifying why Apple does it compared to Google doesn't make it better. That's like saying, "Well, they didn't hit me THAT hard so it's okay. The other guy would hit WAY harder." Neither is okay
Yeah, but I have to use some kind of phone. And TV box. And computer. Apple is definitely better than the alternatives in terms of data brokerage and serving me ads, which is important to me.
Can you walk me through your logic that Google would sell your data? Who would they sell your data to, exactly, and how would that be financially advantageous to them?
Google makes money predominantly on ads.
What question are you answering?
Ad business is centered around profiling people, trading this data with other ad companies to enrich those profiles, and using it to shove ads down your throat. Thought it was common knowledge, sorry. Here's more in depth explanation: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and
I know ad business, I don't know what question you're answering. Clearly not the ones raised.
It's common practice in a conversation to respond to the questions asked, not to the ones in your head. sorry if you didn't knew that
This one:
Can you walk me through your logic that Google would sell your data? Who would they sell your data to, exactly, and how would that be financially advantageous to them?
No, you're not answering that at all.
Google is an ad company. They sell ad spaces. They use the data to give you "tags" that the companies that want to buy ads will use to know how interesting you're for them and bid on that ad. They don't get the data, they don't know who you are. They know an age range, estimated income level, and interests. That's all. That information is what's used for targeted ads.
But it's fine, keep pretending you know what you're talking about. I'm sure you know first hand all of this
Have you considered taking a look at EFF report that I linked?
As somebody who is very deeply integrated with ad integrations that include the ones listed in the article—AdWords and AdMob—there are no insights provided to me as an advertiser or any other bidder regarding individual data. Perhaps the EFF would like to research this topic in some more detail.
There is simply no data for me to obtain, no insights for me to dig into, no aggregated collections for me to unpack, no anonymized groups for me to attempt to drill into. With honest sincerity, I just don't know what the EFF is trying to accomplish with that article. I genuinely feel that this article is taking a native approach to the creative use of "sale" and undermines their credibility.
If an advertiser like me can't obtain this data that's supposedly for sale, then where is it being sold? We instead begin to navigate down a path regarding the choice of the user: do you prefer personalized ads or non-personalized ads? If you have chosen for personalized ads, then it will be Google and Google alone that will bucket you into groups to perform bidding towards interests that you group into.
Then coming back to the original question: where exactly does Google sell your data?
I switched over because I preferred Apple's encryption decisions over Android's at the time. Apple drops your keys from memory while locked vs. Android unlocks once and then holds keys in memory. I hope that has changed since then.
I also could not find a way to activate biometrics for Play Store without also activating biometrics for unlocking the phone. I don't want the phone to easily unlock but if someone has my unlocked phone I am already fucked anyway so I may as well enjoy some convenience.
I mean, it's not a fortress, but it would be nice if a common thief cannot get in there just by stealing both the phone and a glass I was touching. (It was still fingerprints for everything when I switched.)
I’ve paid for a few apps and I don’t want to find and/or pay for Android versions
That's exactly the lock-in. To be fair, Android are trying similarly to lock-in their users, but at least Google isnot locking their apps to one mobile OS, plus we still have F-droid and a lot more freedom and power over how to use our devices.
This isn’t an example of lock-in by Apple though. Developers are free to develop android apps but most of the independent developers don’t because of the different android versions and manufacturers, at least initially.
That is not a lock in though? It's just personal preference to avoid paying double for apps.
No, it is lock in. If apple allowed for multiple app stores other than their own, then users could pay for an app on one app store, and then not have to pay again on another, potentially even on non-apple devices.
I encountered this when I first purchased minecraft bedrock edition on the amazon kindle. Rather than repurchasing it on the google play store when on a non-amazon, I simply tracked down the Amazon app store for non-amazon devices, and redownloaded it from there. No lock in to Amazon or other android devices, both ways.
Now, the Apple app store would still probably not work on androids... but now they would actually have to compete for users on the app store, by offering something potentially better than transferable purchases across ecosystems.
I suspect the upcoming Epic store for iOS and android may be like that... pay for a game/app on one OS, get it available for all platforms where you have the Epic store. But the only reason the Epic store is even coming to iOS is because Apple has been forced to open up their ecosystem.
Erm, that's not the same thing that the comment was referring to. We're talking about paying twice for essentially the same app on two different operating systems.
That's different from the lock in that you are referring to. Your explanation involves installing the same purchased app on two devices running Android.
Also, I have a lot of apps and games that only require me to make a one time purchase on either Android or iOS.
All you’ve been talking about is the hardware. And you’re right about that. But the software is where everything gets turned on It’s head. Android releases continue to remove features and have issues. MacOS is much better in nearly every regard to Windows 10/11 or Arch/Ubuntu/younameit. I have been a user of every Windows version since 3.11 and Linux for a couple decades now. I recently got a macbook and holyshit. Plus it works better with my phone and watch and airpods. Really tight integration with all of their other products. Family integrations are way ahead of Microsoft, Android (at least the google and Amazon variety, I swore off Samsung years ago), and until the recent beta even Steam. If you’re going to sing the praises of Android and notamac, do yourself a favor and take a deepdive into the software space because as anyone can tell you about AMD vs nVidia, no matter how good the hardware is, if the software isn’t there it’s worthless (AI/ML, video drivers in general until last several years).
i switched to android a few month ago, still can't find a good enough pdf viewer, modern ebook reader, reminder app that is modern and syncs with whatever service i want (not only google). i mean stuffs that is preinstalled on every iphone and available for free. and people wonder why others buy iphone ?
People buy iphone despite being it so locked down, expensive, hard to repair, having a thunderbolt port. because the alternative is even worst.
but you can get an Android phone with similar specs for the same or less of a cost.
i did the mistake of buying chinese xiaomi 12 phone, 100$ less than iphone mini but god this sucks ass. It's awesome for the kid playing video game because of its processor watercooled whatever the fck but people who need simple phone to do work quick ? fck that.
why people are still buying Apple products
For me, unmatched user experience.
From day one, the focus and sensibilities have all been on making things that are intuitive, useful, and pleasing to the eye. Things that feel, “engineered by designers,” instead of “designed by engineers.”
Yeah. We have to transition to a consumer society that's ready to learn. It's not hard to root an Android phone, you can even let it done. Or whole family runs on perfectly great rooted Xiaomi phones. How do people even consider to buy ANY product and just don't learn about it. It's fkn easy. Any child could do it.
One thing, though: Rolex isn't just a status brand, the watches are actually awesomely made, the real quality of a Rolex is invisible: no Windows in the back, no tourbillon, but a real hand made movement in it. But you were talking about the diamond/gold bricks, right?!
Because we have higher priorities in our life than that. Why don’t most people just learn my hobby of woodworking and make their own furniture instead of buying overpriced cheap crap at most furniture stores? It’s literally the same scenario.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It turns out that’s a big reason why Apple landed in hot water today with the US Department of Justice, which alleges that the company went too far in locking down messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets to intentionally hobble its rivals.
What the DOJ is saying is that, altogether, this series of protective policies makes it extremely difficult for an iPhone user to leave its walled garden, limiting competition so much that it breaks the law.
But on top of that, it cites the fact that a third-party smartwatch misses out on features like quick replies to texts, accepting calendar invites, and interacting with app alerts in the same way as with an Apple Watch.
With digital wallets, the DOJ’s beef with Apple is that the company blocks financial institutions from accessing NFC hardware within the iPhone.
Again, the DOJ asserts that it’s feasible for Apple to enable tap-to-pay access but that it won’t because it would “be one way to disable [A]pple [P]ay trivially” and encourage other types of payment apps.
Apple says it disagrees with the DOJ’s lawsuit, framing all of these decisions as choices it made to protect consumers — particularly with regard to privacy and security.
The original article contains 968 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›