[davidy123]

I've been an Android user since day 1, but am very impressed by some of these features. I'd love to have the half-click to focus feature and other dedicated camera button features, macro, a few other things that put this generation in a next category. I'd like to see them catch up and surpass all of Google's onboard AI features, and it looks like they're working on it. Being able to find a section of a video by a vague description, all on-device, is incredible. And they're finally improving their photo app. If Apple offered call screening, ambient song identification/logging, and allowed browsers to support extensions, I'd be tempted to switch, especially since they have a clearer privacy story. I'm glad strong competition is continuing, especially around privacy.

[makeitdouble]

> I'd love to have the half-click to focus feature and other dedicated camera button features

That would be Sony's phones for you. They're great for raw photography, especially if you process it yourself from raw.

Downsides behind...it's a Sony. And they also don't have any interest in AI and advanced software features.

[GreenWatermelon]

Lack of interest in AI is a pro for me, not a con.

[steve_adams_86]

Likewise. The only thing I strongly dislike about the 15 pro is the brutal post processing smell on the photos. It’s almost like how you can tell when an image was AI generated. You can tell a photo came from my phone (or any other iPhone 15). The processing is HEAVY and there is a whack load of ML going on.

[makeitdouble]

I'm in the same boat regarding generative AI.

The sad thing is image processing is also basically machine learning when it comes to noise management, and computational photography is still what pushes the envelope when it comes to sensors these sizes. Sony handles the whole stack, from the sensor to the color management, and still can't have great photography on their phones almost solely because of that.

I'm curious how Xiaomi does with their phones with actual larger sensors, but given the price I won't be touching one anytime soon.

[bitwalker]

iOS does support a form a call screening, called live voicemail, which transcribes the message being recorded by the caller and lets you pick up the call if you want. iOS also supports ambient song identification, with history, which I use frequently. Safari supports extensions, and I believe other browsers can as well, but can't speak to that as I really only use Safari in my phone, even though it's not my primary browser on desktop.

Figured I'd drop a comment to let you know about the others though!

[76SlashDolphin]

> iOS also supports ambient song identification, with history, which I use frequently.

Does it? I can't find any info about this online and all I can find seems to indicate that you can run Shazam and it scans for some amount of time afterwards but iOS kills it to save battery. It doesn't seem like you can get Google Pixel-like "Now Playing" which I sorely miss on my iPhone 15 Pro.

[davidy123]

Right, the person saying "they use it" as opposed to "refer to it" is an indicator. It's a great feature, using on-device "AI" (privacy preserving), and available since Pixel 2 (2018).

[davidy123]

That's great news, I didn't know they had rolled out those features. I don't really want to rewrite my extensions for another browser, but I'll see how applicable the others might be.

[talldayo]

> I'm glad strong competition is continuing, especially around privacy.

Until Apple releases an iOS platform equivocal to AOSP, there's really not any competition at all. Apple claims to care about privacy, Google proves they do.

[njbentley1]

I disagree.

Google’s entire business model is dependent on personal data. AOSP may have privacy features that are verifiable but Google Play Services is not open source and undoubtedly collect lots of data for Google. Most AOSP-based phones all largely include GPS. Sure, you can limit what access GPS has but then you’re sacrificing features. The majority of people probably opt-in.

In contrast, Apple doesn’t need your data for most of the products / services they sell. Privacy is a selling point, so they’re incentivized to build robust privacy features. I’d love to see more commitment to open-sourcing underlying technologies but imo Apple is way more privacy conscious than Google.

I will however give Google credit for their privacy initiatives in recent years. They seem to be taking it more seriously.

[talldayo]

> Google Play Services is not open source and undoubtedly collect lots of data for Google

Google Play services is not everything though, and Android being what it is, you can actually replace and spoof most of these features to your heart's content. Having used Android without Play Services for a few years now, I honest to god do not notice the difference. microG coming preinstalled on most Android derivatives helps a lot there.

> Privacy is a selling point, so they’re incentivized to build robust privacy features.

Problem is, that's a tautology. Apple says that, and certainly stand to gain quite a bit from claiming it. But nobody is holding them accountable besides themselves; if Apple was asked to compromise their privacy by a third party, their users may never know. Nobody can earnestly say that iOS is a comparatively private operating system, because we literally cannot see how it behaves!

Apple's approach to "privacy" is publishing whitepapers and then absolving themselves of real accountability. That's how they approached iPhone security, that's how they approached Mac security, and lord only knows how they approach iCloud security. When you say that Apple is "privacy conscious", you mean to say they market privacy better. You don't know how conscious Apple is of privacy, you only know what they claim to be true.

As I said; it's not a competition. Marketing-based security is not a threat model; transparency is.

[fsflover]

> In contrast, Apple doesn’t need your data for most of the products / services they sell. Privacy is a selling point, so they’re incentivized to build robust privacy features.

This is not even funny:

1. "macOS sends hashes of every opened executable to some server of theirs" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959

2. https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveil...

3. Apple fined $8.5M for illegally collecting iPhone owners' data for ads (gizmodo.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433

4. Google collects 20 times more telemetry from Android devices than Apple from iOS (therecord.media) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261

5. Keeping your data from Apple is harder than expected (aalto.fi) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39927657

[fsflover]

Why is this downvoted? Any counter-arguments?

[kanbara]

i actually dont know how you can say this with a straight face

[talldayo]

I don't know how you can include "Apple" and "privacy" in the same sentence without some kind of source code to back it up.

[veber-alex]

How does source code backs Google privacy claims?

AOSP so different than even Google own pixel phones it's code is basically irrelevant.

[talldayo]

It's an option. AOSP isn't identical to OEM-distributed ROMs, but it's certainly a great basis for private OSes like CalyxOS and GrapheneOS. For individuals that are serious about privacy, there aren't any options to compile your own iOS with Apple services disabled.

I'm not saying that the AOSP absolves all of Google's server-side behavior (or even that it proves they're benevolent; neither company is). My point is that Google presents a realistic threat model to their users, that takes them seriously and even provides escape hatches for any potentially concerning features. iOS presents a comparatively cartoonish outlook that relies more on the strength of their marketing than the self-evidence of their security. Apple's position is indefensible but claims to be altruistic; Google's position is honest, so much that it treats themselves as a threat.

[teaearlgraycold]

Are you running AOSP without GMS?

[fsflover]

This is a false dichotomy. They both are terrible at privacy (see my other post here with links). Try GNU/Linux phones if you actually care about it.

[talldayo]

GNU/Linux cellular devices are not more private than an appropriately secured Android handset. Given the modem vulnerabilities and poor support for Linux ARM SOCs, I would much rather trust an OS designed from the ground-up to incorporate cellular security. There's a reason Linux was forked to create Android, and not built as an upstream effort. Linux is perfectly secure for a physically secured server rack. It is a nightmare scenario for GSM privacy.

[fsflover]

> Linux is perfectly secure for a physically secured server rack. It is a nightmare scenario for GSM privacy.

What is the difference?

[talldayo]

Endpoint security, IP-based GSM networking vs RIL telephony, isolation measures, ISP trust and fingerprinting mitigation, modem transparency, privledged baseband access and SIM vulnerability, to name a few big ones.

Again - Linux for desktops and servers can be great for privacy. For pretty much every single smartphone-based threat vector, it is a free lunch for attackers. We're talking off-the-shelf CVE exploits versus blowing a multi-million dollar zero-day here.

[fsflover]

This is all very theoretical and unclear. For example, on Pinephone, the modem runs FLOSS software (except for a small blob managing the tower connections). Also, it's connected via USB, so there is no privileged access for it. I have no idea what ISP trust has to do with that. You can install Tor on the phone. And so on.