It's not just just Verizon. AT&T, in particular, has a habit of locking important features (VoLTE, Wi-Fi Calling) to phones running AT&T-branded and certified software. So unless the device you want is sold by AT&T and you get the AT&T-branded version, you're SoL. They even do IMEI blocking, so even if your device could otherwise work...
I have the impression that Nokia had trouble getting into the US market because they refused to let US carriers modify phone firmware to disable features.
In particular when Nokia tried to introduce SIP support.
So when Google updated the Nexus dialer to include search-based "Caller ID" that was a bad thing? Or when Google upgraded Messenger to include RCS support?
- Someone said having multiple options for a phone dialer is a wonderful thing.
- Someone else pointed out that the article isn't about a choice, the dialer was forced on the user.
- The parent asks if it is bad that Google updates apps in a tone that strongly hints that they can't imagine how the answer could be yes.
Far too many conversations go like this here.
To (try to) get back on topic, of course the Google can update their apps. I'm pretty sure the number of people here who would answer this negatively at a rounding error away from zero. But that is entirely beside the point.
The point is the author of the article doesn't want a dialer that surveils them and spews their private conversation details (along with everything else of note stored on the phone) to the "trusted partners" of the surveillance firm who wrote it. And yet it was forced on him.
This is ironic and sad to anyone who considers phones to be things that one might have private conversations on. (Insert opportunity to talk about how old-school talking on phones is.)
And again, it is just another reason to be very, very careful with whom you "do business" (which includes third-party private-surveillance firms, the names of which you may not have a way of determining before purchase).
For me, this dictates I won't use consumer software from a large number of current producers. Google included. Not everyone has my requirements, I get that, and that's fine.
But there is exactly nothing wrong with wanting a phone that doesn't spy on you.
> - Someone else pointed out that the article isn't about a choice, the dialer was forced on the user.
If you want the phone to come with a dialer (I think most people do), then some dialer will inevitably be forced on people. And unless you think phone calls are an optional feature, it makes perfect sense that the dialer cannot be deleted.
The only complaint I can see here is that phone manufacturers can make bad choices for their default, undeleteable dialers. Well, yes, just like they can make bad choices for other software on the phone. The only reasonable remedy for that is to buy a phone from a manufacturer that makes software choices you like.
That phone manufacturers can make bad software choices is not an argument against having replaceable dialers. Quite the opposite. A manufacturer can make the exact same bad dialer choice if the dialer isn't replaceable. The only difference is that if the dialer is replaceable you might be able to do something about their bad choice some of the time.
> And unless you think phone calls are an optional feature, it makes perfect sense that the dialer cannot be deleted.
I don't see the connection here. Why shouldn't people be able to delete the dialer if they don't like the phone company's choice? I understand preinstalling one, but preventing people from choosing another if they want seems unnecessary.
As a practical matter, I don't think either the phone manufacturer or the phone company want to be in the position of certifying that every replacement dialer meets regulatory requirements (911, for example). If customers can always roll back to the preinstalled one, they don't need to.
The author explicitly chose to avoid Google because for him, the data protection was insufficient. So I'd say, yes, for privacy-conscious users, it was a bad thing.
I think you're missing large parts of Amazon's consumer-facing value.
First and foremost, they have Kindle. To a first approximation this means that "everyone" who reads ebooks uses part of their ecosystem (even people who mostly read on other platforms use Kindle for exclusives, past purchases, etc.). And that fortress has only grown with Comixology and Audible. All of which are still DRMed, so the platform lock-in is huge.
Second, I think you've missed the unique selling point of Prime Video. It's not just a crappy Netflix ripoff or an iTunes ripoff, it is the only platform that seamlessly integrates subscribed videos and purchased videos. So, for example, done with the free Season 1, but Season 2 is in the middle of its initial broadcast? You can catch up by buying the episodes you missed. Grumpy that something dropped out of Prime Video lineup? You can buy that too. And so on. My understanding is that this partially extends to add-on cable channels, but I haven't actually tried that.
Third, they have the same seamless subscription and purchased mix with digital music. That isn't as special as Prime Video because Google and Apple have that mix too and the triumph of DRM-free music makes platform-switching much less painful. To the extent that Amazon has a special advantage here (AutoRip), that does depend on the retail core.
I think you dramatically underestimate the advantages Amazon has. If Walmart et al go in for the kill, I would not like their odds.
This is shortsighted attitude that, in the long run, will be toxic for Apple. It's one thing to not give developers what they want because you can't ( doesn't fit the technology or the product, don't have the resources or whatever). It is quite another to do that simply because you won't (e.g. for strategic lock-in reasons).
Yes, the iPhone gives them all the market power they need with some developers, even many devlopers. But others don't care about the iPhone for various reasons. Those developers, grumble, moan and eventually buy computers that aren't Macs. And when those developers make great things they're outside of Apple's ecosystem, encouraging other developers and customers to leave it as well...
They've already lost a lot of high end UI, video, and game developers. Pretty sure they're going to lose the mass market audio developers on this android release. I guess audio latency is good enough now for many audio apps... and that's where all the users are (well, in a year after upgrades they will be). A lot of the existing apps have updated to use the new low latency APIs.
It's been good enough to support their Kindle Fire ecosystem without using Google Play (I don't think anyone else has succeeded with something like that outside China), but they're still propping it up on non-Amazon devices by tying Amazon Video to it, so...
> Desktop app stores never really took off with steam being the only exception. And steam isn't for apps.
Mobile app stores aren't for apps (or at least paid apps) either. If you filter out all the games, the frontends for external services and all the other free apps, how much is left? How significant is it?
