They project that they’ll make more money by forcing people to accept surveillance so they can run their apps, even if they lose a few users and app developers by doing so.
I’ve always been of the opinion that apps are almost always useless because there is usually a way to do it through a web browser and if there isn’t I don’t need it. And its usually better because then I have more control (in firefox anyway).
For example the youtube app is entirely unuseable but if I open firefox and use ublock and no script then suddenly I can actually use the website.
The problem is that systems like this have strong network effects working in favor of the established options, nobody develops for platforms without users, nobody wants to use a platform without apps, development has more resources (existing libraries, tutorials, reference documentation,…) on existing platforms,…
So, help break the circle. You can target any of the nodes you mentioned.
develop for the platform even if it has no issues (file it as “future-proofing”, “engineering concept”, whatever).
use the platform while waiting for apps to come up, provide feedback on what apps are needed (and provide feedback on what can be done app-less, which is even more important).
provide resources for develpopment (this one is somewhat more restricted).
None of the technologies that are abusing the network effect today started with a full charter of users.
Their goal is to ensure OEMs only bundle Google-approved Android for which Google charges licensing fees and which funnels users into Google services. If a phone won’t run your banking app, you probably won’t buy it.
Mobile check deposit is a moderately important use case in the USA. It would be possible to do that via the web, but banks usually don’t.
Regardless, any apps refusing to run will annoy users, and they would likely blame the one brand of phone where that happens instead of the app developer or Google who actually deserve the blame.
This trend of being actively hostile toward your user base is so confusing to me.
They project that they’ll make more money by forcing people to accept surveillance so they can run their apps, even if they lose a few users and app developers by doing so.
I’ve always been of the opinion that apps are almost always useless because there is usually a way to do it through a web browser and if there isn’t I don’t need it. And its usually better because then I have more control (in firefox anyway).
For example the youtube app is entirely unuseable but if I open firefox and use ublock and no script then suddenly I can actually use the website.
deleted by creator
i use firefox forks for mobile, op12r-
Is users stop using custom ROMs, Google loses nothing.
One of the reasons to always cheer on (new) competitors and why we should give new companies a fair chance to establish something
The problem is that systems like this have strong network effects working in favor of the established options, nobody develops for platforms without users, nobody wants to use a platform without apps, development has more resources (existing libraries, tutorials, reference documentation,…) on existing platforms,…
So, help break the circle. You can target any of the nodes you mentioned.
None of the technologies that are abusing the network effect today started with a full charter of users.
That´s standard enshittification. They know they´ve got users locked in without any alternative.
Their goal is to ensure OEMs only bundle Google-approved Android for which Google charges licensing fees and which funnels users into Google services. If a phone won’t run your banking app, you probably won’t buy it.
deleted by creator
Mobile check deposit is a moderately important use case in the USA. It would be possible to do that via the web, but banks usually don’t.
Regardless, any apps refusing to run will annoy users, and they would likely blame the one brand of phone where that happens instead of the app developer or Google who actually deserve the blame.
In France some banks illegally force users to use the banking application to approve online transactions as a security feature.
They could implement OTP as an alternative but they don’t because they are lazy.
Which ones? I’ve been on Boursorama, CA and SG, and they all provide SMS 2FA if you don’t want to use the app.
It depends which local branch. CA and the Caisse d’Epargne lied to me about it. BoursoBank is good though.
Their user base is not who you think they are. The people you think are users are just assets, it’s okay to be hostile to your assets
It would be confusing if everyone didn’t simply tolerate it.
deleted by creator
It’s so confusing it only makes sense to business majors. /s