|
|
|
|
|
by jackstraw42
266 days ago
|
|
Listen, I don't disagree with any of that. I think a lot of confusion is happening because people think I'm talking about how to inform consumer choices better or what exactly about either OS to fix to make them meet the standards that I'm trying to describe. What I think is very important if not one of the most important things facing us as a species is that we need a better mobile OS option than what we have. And you don't have to convince me on GrapheneOS. I am in the process of moving to Android and F-Droid until I can afford a Pixel phone with GrapheneOS. What I am attempting and apparently failing to describe effectively is that this excellent option we have now (GrapheneOS + F-Droid) was in NO way accessible to any general user of mobile phones since their use has become widespread. What we have had since 2008 is two shitty options, and my point was that Apple has actively done more to keep users safe than Google has. No one seems to be arguing on that at all, but there are many people pointing out the failing of Apple's efforts over the years. Does that make them a complete failure? Absolutely not in my eyes, but I'm not going to tell you what to think. So, I feel like Android's ecosystem set us up for a HUGE minefield from various entry points from an American's perspective by allowing such an open system into the wild. It has been Early Access level of quality up until recently I would argue. GrapheneOS + F-Droid is safe enough to protect idiots from themselves, probably. If not now, then with time. How in the world anyone here is saying Google's hands-off approach was the way to go... well it is how we got our acceptable option, finally, but surely you don't think that every mobile phone company with a custom fork of Android kept its users more safe than Apple did? |
|
I mean, yes, graphene is fairly recent getting traction and I can understand why you felt that apple did a better job at saving the end user than google did.
That is partially because imo google is essentially an ads company and there are lots of ads of spyware/malware that google does nothing about and also they are esssentially spying on you yourself for selling ads.
Apple takes a more on hardware approach in the sense that they don't want to spy on you as much because they have less incentives to do so because they don't have an advertisement system aaas much as google y'know, so they definitely took a bite at apple = privacy which has worked for many people.
Google bought android and android was always an open system and it had both its pros and cons. There is also an open system of marketplace called aptoid which was literally apt + android but it also might have malware sometimes and f-droid is the best option for most use cases.
Apple had never really had an open system and it had both its pros and cons and google is seemingly shifting into it which is like a nightmare because now we have very less choices of sorts.
And android has sort of innovated/transitioned into grapheneos for general public privacy imo.
So, yes I do think that we are in agreement that grapheneos is now here to stay and I can understand why you atleast appreciated apple for not being as privacy invading as google for some time which you were pointing out
We are in unison, I agree with your points. Its just that I thought that you were just fanboying over apple for the sake of it in the original comment and glad we understood each other points as really we are talking about the same thing and agreeing at essentially everything.
Thanks for explaining your original comment better through this comment and have a nice day.