[AnthonyMouse]

Why does it need to be Android? Make a phone that will send text messages and run a web browser and all the people who just need a phone will buy it to save $200.

Also, when software is poorly optimized that implies it is possible to optimize it.

[xienze]

> Why does it need to be Android? Make a phone that will send text messages and run a web browser

I think we're quite a ways past the point where most people would be satisfied with phones that only do voice, text, and web browsing. People have become quite accustomed to phones that can run arbitrary applications and games. There's quite a sizable population for whom phones are their only computing device.

[AnthonyMouse]

There is nothing stopping it from running arbitrary applications, those applications just wouldn't be Android apps. Which is just as well because 99% of Android apps are just a bloated skin over a web page anyway.

I can't actually think of the last time that I wanted to (rather than was forced to) use a non-messaging non-browser app on my phone.

[ChildOfChaos]

Because you need these apps to do almost anything.

I went to a music festival last weekend, ticket has to be on the ticketmaster app which is android or iOS, the official app for the festival has timings and updates for the event which are very important else you will miss stuff that is announced, even safety warnings.

My train tickets were on the app, I needed it to book the Uber as well.

20% off drinks and food if you use the paypal app. You just can't do things without Android or iOS.

Thousands of people parked in random fields, parked in daylight, need to find car at night = Airtag/ map.

Everything is an app these days. It's a lot harder to do everything without such things. You wouldn't have been able to attend without such a device.

[ta8903]

Are you sure you can't do those thing through websites? You can definitely order an Uber with the browser on your phone, for instance.

[citrin_ru]

Web browsing is the most resource intensive task given how bloated modern websites are. It’s easer to imagine a cheap phone with a set of optimised native apps but the problem is tech giants are not interested in reducing footprint of their apps at the same time actively hostile to 3rd party clients.

[ethbr1]

> given how bloated modern websites are. It’s easer to imagine a cheap phone with a set of optimised native apps

The age old truism in tech is that it's easier to hyper-optimize a single chokepoint (i.e. the platform) than trust distributed actors to each optimize their own thing (i.e. app developers).

Because optimization takes money. Sometimes lots. And distributed non-platform actors have their own priorities like features.

That's why you get enormous success stories like x86, TCP/IP, HTTPx, and Javascript engines providing increased performance, but the "developers as a whole self-optimize" dream remains a perpetual mirage.

(Outside of gaming console hardware, and even there arguably true before middleware)

[IshKebab]

For a start, most of the world does not use text messages. They use WhatsApp. (Apart from a few countries where WeChat, Telegram or Line are more popular.) As far as I know the US is the only country that still uses SMS/RCS.

[AnthonyMouse]

So write a WhatsApp client for your phone and convince the EU to make them interoperate with you.

[IshKebab]

Unfortunately that EU WhatsApp interoperation thing isn't really what we wanted. I assumed it would mean that you would be able to communicate with WhatsApp contacts using a non-WhatsApp app (kind of like Pidgin back in the day).

Meta obviously don't want that and they've done a sneaky thing to make it useless: if you connect a third party app to WhatsApp, from that third party app you can only chat with other WhatsApp contacts that have also connected the same third party app to WhatsApp. So if you write your own WhatsApp client that runs on this low power phone it will be completely useless because to chat with your friends they would all have to manually connect their WhatsApps to your client, which of course they won't do.

See https://developers.facebook.com/m/messaging-interoperability... - check the `WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability User Experience - Android`

I guess we'll see if the EU lets this stand but my guess is they will.

[jurgenburgen]

That’s pretty screwed up. So even if I setup e.g. Telegram as an allowed app in my WhatsApp account, I can’t communicate with friends on Telegram because they haven’t (why would they, they don’t even have WhatsApp) configured their WhatsApp to use Telegram?

[IshKebab]

You can communicate with your Telegram friends using WhatsApp. You can't (in practice) communicate with your WhatsApp friends using Telegram.

[mort96]

I don't use WhatsApp, I use Signal, Messenger, iMessage and Snapchat (yes I know but these things have inertia). I'm not exactly alone here. You'd need to write third-party clients for all those apps as well.

[lynndotpy]

I was about to say this already exists, but Meta discontinued the KaiOS client a year ago.

For all the EU does right, it's amazing that a reviled United States conglomerate owns their entire social sphere. I hope they can change that and show the world a model of how to do so, especially given how high the stakes are.

[rjsw]

Meta had a perfectly fine WhatsApp client for KaiOS phones, they disabled it.

[TFNA]

As already pointed out, your awareness is very geographically limited. In my country (and in a few others I’m familiar with), what I most need a smartphone for is as the obligatory second factor for strong authentication to all kinds of services both governmental and private. That’s done through a bank app that only runs on Android. Elsewhere, people might find that their local public transportation or similar things can only be paid using an app.