> Can't you see where they're going with this?

Can you see the slippery slope you're invoking? Apple owns the operating system you use. That is where it stops in your example. They don't force ownership of software, the network stack, the gym you visit (lol), where you work, etc. Where's your head at, other than "ApPlE BaD"?

Right, but it is almost impossible for anyone else to compete in the ecosystem.

If another major fitness brand wants to do the same the probably cannot because: - The tight integration is not possible, only Apple can build these kind of Apple Watch experiences. - They would need to pay Apple 30%, maybe making this not profitable especially against Apple's own offering that can have internal pricing where the 30% never comes into play.

Peloton’s doing a great job, they have an Apple Watch app, and I don’t believe Apple is getting 30% out of them. Peloton’s ecosystem is awesome.

I have a peloton bike and I love it. I also like to run with peloton outdoors, but I can’t do that with just the Apple Watch. It seems likely the Apple will offer something similar for their service that will work with watch only.

Probably not as tight as their integration, but we have a (far less polished, but effectively made by one person) workout app with Watch and Music integration. On Watch, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. One-time cost though as opposed to their monthly subscription.

Apple owns your operating system, your hardware. It sells networking devices, printers, misc. peripherals. It offers service as software replacements, for email, file hosting, navigation, speech recognition. Apple has a marketplace for software. It has a marketplace for books. It has a marketplace for multimedia entertainment. It has its own tv. You can handcuff an apple device to your wrist, and let them own your watch, your voice, your fingerprints. Get your head out of the sand.

> It sells networking devices, printers

They do not.

> It has its own tv.

The do not

> your fingerprints

Fingerprints never leave the device or stored in iCloud

You're not paying attention

Apple NAS: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Apple-AirPort-Time-Capsule-2TB-St...

Apple 802.11ac wireless AP: https://www.priceblaze.com/me918ll-a-Apple-Network-Routers?r...

Apple TV: https://www.apple.com/apple-tv-4k/

I was wrong about printers though. They just have their own proprietary printer protocol in air print

And how do you know those biometrics stay on device? How do you know they will continue to stay on the device? It's not your kernel. It's THEIR kernel. They can do whatever they want.

You're not paying attention. Apple discontinued the Time Capsule and Airport product lines in 2018: https://www.macworld.com/article/3269361/apple-discontinues-... And a media streamer box isn't a TV

They no longer make networking devices. The one in your link discontinued for a few years.

And the Apple TV isn't actually a TV :/

It's worse than a TV. It's a multimedia streaming device where they can promote their own subscription based multimedia streaming platform over all others.

This is nonsense.

I use an AppleTV every single day and their streaming offering is nothing more than an app that I have hidden at the bottom of the screen. At the top I have a dozen streaming apps e.g. Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime.

When you say "own your fingerprints" what do you mean? What does it mean to own my fingerprints, and how does Apple own them?

They collect our names and biometrics for multi-factor authentication.

Your fingerprints and face ID data never leave the device. There’s plenty of documentation about this.

Are you talking about on device authentication or iCloud authentication? The biometrics for unlocking are only stored on device. Your name is associated with your account, yes.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling? You also haven’t said what it means to “own” fingerprints.

In fact they do not collect biometrics. Not even under the NSA’s definition of “collect”.

That's a gross exaggeration of how much pull Apple has. I'm no fan of it or how much data these new devices will collect but saying "the school you attend, the church where you worship" is some Twitter-comments level of hysteria. Yes, we should be worried about corporations owning too much and having too much power. No, Apple isn't going to buy up schools and churches.

It would have been nice if Google hadn’t betrayed their promise of Android being open.

Then we’d have had a good alternative.

Google didn't betray their promise. Android is open source and Apple not Microsoft have open sourced their operating system.

With each new release, more and more parts of Android are reliant on proprietary Google APIs. It is known.

If you remove everything Google from Android 19, you'll be surprised how little it can do.

Little as in what? You're being very vague. Do you want to use official Google Apps without the Google APIs? At least the OS is open source, but I can have a very functional device without needing gapps. Same with COS on their cloud platform. Apple is actively preventing users from even installing apps outside their app store.

I think by now it is common knowledge in anyone interested in this subject. A good place to start is this ArsTechnica post from 2013 (updated in 2018) [1].

One nice user on Reddit made a list [2] of AOSP apps replaced by Google:

Google Services Framework removed in 1.1, replaced by Google Play Services

Search removed in 1.5, replaced by Google

Music removed in 2.3, replaced by Play Music

Browser removed in 4.2, replaced by Chrome.

Calendar removed in 4.4, replaced by Calendar (G)

PinyinIME removed in 4.4, replaced by Google Pinyin IME

Gallery removed in 5.0, replaced by Photos (G)

Messaging removed in 6.0, replaced by Messages (G)

Camera removed in 6.0, replaced by Camera (G)

LatinIME removed in 6.0, replaced by GBoard.

Contacts removed in 7.0, replaced by Contacts (G)

Phone removed in 7.1, replaced by Dialer (G)

Clock removed in 8.1, replaced by Clock (G)

Calculator removed in 9.0, replaced by Calculator (G).

This extends to APIs too. For example, Android Location API [3] has a very nice warning on the documentation page:

> This API is not the recommended method for accessing Android location. The Google Location Services API, part of Google Play services, is the preferred way to add location-awareness to your app. It offers a simpler API, higher accuracy, low-power geofencing, and more. If you are currently using the android.location API, you are strongly encouraged to switch to the Google Location Services API as soon as possible.

To learn more about the Google Location Services API, see the Location API overview.

Hope I removed some vagueness left by my previous comment.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/fossdroid/comments/c332yr/what_impe...

[3]: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/pac...

This is really nice listing.

Android Location API uses Google services to provide better location data using Wifi hotpsots and other devices. I wouldn't expect to be able to use Google services without Google. You don't have to use it and get accurate results without it as well.

As you can see they also provide examples of alternative apps that can be used that do not rely on Google, or you can install F-Droid and use apps from the open source marketplace that are open source as well.

This is much more than Apple, who won't even let you install apps outside their app store. While it would be nice for Google to open source their apps as well, they aren't necessary and there are plenty of alternatives and phone manufacturers who have built their entire reputation on providing an alternative to the Google experience while using Android.

> You don't have to use it and get accurate results without it as well.

And this can be applied to nearly every 'improvement' in all Android releases. Can you name any improvements to AOSP in the past five years? All I see on every their presentation is more and more Google Services, FCM, Assistant, etc.

Almost all of the items listed here are improvements to AOSP rather than to Google Play Services, including the changes in the last 5 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history

It doesn’t matter that it’s ‘more than apple’ or if some parts are open source.

Android as most people understand it is not open source.

Google promised an open alternative and have simply reneged on that promise.

It matters more than you think. No one expected Google to open source all their apps. Android has plenty of open source apps.

How does it matter?

Because they literally have an open source operating system that is being used by a multitude of phone manufacturers, kiosks, home security systems, developers, hobbyists, security experts, Amazon Kindle, etc without any licensing fees which can be audited by anyone.

This is simply false.

There is not a multitude of phone manufacturers using an open source operating system.

The Android that phone manufacturers use is largely closed source, and only part of it is open source.

This has been irrefutably documented elsewhere in this thread.

This thread is about phones.

The fact that you can use the open source components of Android to build a home security system, but not a phone, just proves the point, that Android as a phone operating system, as most people consider it to be, is not open source.

The operating system is open source. You are trying to say Google apps and services are part of the operating system, but they aren't. I take it you've never installed a custom Android ROM before, who frequently don't package gapps? Are you suggesting that before you have an operating system, you have to install the gapps APK?

Certainly some of the apps and especially services are considered part of the operating system by most people.

You only have to look elsewhere in this thread to see all of the features which have been moved out of AOSP into Google Play Services to see this proved.

So you're suggesting that without Google specific proprietary apps and services that Android doesn't boot up and the phone can't be used with third-party apps?

Third party apps won’t work if they rely on Google play services as many do.

Whether it boots or not is irrelevant if it doesn’t do what people expect a smartphone OS to do.

The claim that Android is open source has long been false.

Yes, there is AOSP, but that’s only a small part of what constitutes an OS these days.

Here’s a link to a post showing how dismal things are: https://bitcannon.net/post/finding-an-alternative-to-ios/

Does that mean that Linux needs to have Gnome to be considered an OS?

Why would it?

Because that is all the Google apps are really, are one iteration of a group of apps for functionality. You can always use F-Droid and install great open source alternatives.

The fact that you can install a different operating system on some android phones doesn’t mean that the Android that phone manufacturers actually use is open source.

Indeed the fact that you have to install a different operating system that isn’t even called “Android” proves that Android as people know it is not open source.

GP here. I agree with your point (and upvoted it to counter some downvotes). I am indeed concerned about the kind of power concentration that Apple has with its user base, and I certainly have disagreements with its App Store and its fight against Right to Repair.

At the same time, I also see a lot of value in the Apple products and services that I use, especially when combined with its stance on privacy (which is far ahead of any other large tech company). I’m just hoping, perhaps naively, that Apple doesn’t become like Google or Facebook or Amazon.

Please spell it out. I’d like to know which flavor of dystopia you’re picturing.

> Do you like the idea of Apple owning...

This is what bothers me. I think there is a lot of evidence Apple's claims that they keep as much of this data on-device as possible. Even so, Apple's increasing dominance in certain aspects of my life bothers me.

After watching Google progress from being a company I loved and respected into a gross corporation, I'm concerned will eventually follow suit. Even if you assume Apple's current management are a bunch of great guys, in 10 years Cook might get replaced by a corrupt douchebag.

It's concerning. But at the same time I appreciate the previous posters view as well, I'd rather not have my information painted across dozens of small companies who are easily acquired.

Honest question, when was Google any different than they are now. What would have been their business model?

When Google started they sold the platform based on better search results with an interface that didn't put advertiser content above organic results. Now you usutally don't see organic results without scrolling. When Google first started advertising, they didn't have the massive tracking network they have now. Advertising was based on surfacing advertising related to the terms you searched for and was often relevant to what you wanted.

They were profitable enough under that model to buy You Tube, Android, and many of the other services now under the Google umbrella. I would assume their business model would continue to be selling advertising based on relevant search terms.

Good answer, thanks!

I don’t think this comment should be downvoted because I think it’s worth addressing directly.

So, no. I don’t like that. Do you think Apple is going to start buying churches? Why?

That's a bit of hyperbole to go from fitness classes to owning hospitals/churches/food.

At least his comment contributed something to the discussion, agree with it or not. Yours (and now mine) is just noise.