You might as well say that the average smartphone is not unlockable because iPhones aren't. People who want the advantages of user control don't buy the average device. They buy the devices they can control.
You're reading their comment in a way that most people wouldn't and that the author clearly didn't intend. Android can be and is installed on lots of appliances that aren't meant to give users control, like refrigerators and many Samsung phones. It is also installed on devices that give users control (and can be installed on lther devices that give users control and don't install Android by default). That is the difference between it and iOS.
I would argue though that even Samsung phones give more user control than iOS phones (not that I would buy either one). Even though you can't install your own remix of Android, you can disable or remove most of what you don't like and install anything that targets the Android APIs.
Yes, but my point is even stock Android is superior than iOS for usability, obviously custom ROMs such as Graphene or even proper GNU/Linux phones would be superior to Stock Android for customizability.
You can install third party stores and apps on iOS without a waiting period (in places with decent consumer rights); confirming three popups is all you need to install third party iOS apps.
Unlike on Android, there aren't that many third party iOS apps, though.
Plus, even with Google delaying shipping source code, at least they ship the source code. The traces of source you get with the open Darwin code are nowhere near comparable.
It doesn't do app store reviews as far as I am aware. They do charge an installation fee (I'm baffled they haven't been sued over that yet), but there are free apps out there thanks to Epic covering that fee to spite Apple.
Seems that this €0,50 flat fee per installation has been replaced by a 5% commission on digital transaction made through sideloaded apps as of last August.
It's fully your right to want non-webkit for your browser, but just curious. Why? Why does it matter? I've never once wished for firefox to use firefox's engine instead. The UI/sync/extension stuff is all built on top anyway.
At least for now, you can still install arbitrary APKs (after a 24-hour wait period). This alone still puts android leagues and bounds above iOS.
Even better, you can install your own AOSP-based OS that does not track you, will not have a 24 hour waiting period, etc.
That's device specific however. Pixels, yes, but say a Samsung device? Not any more - they nixed bootloader unlocking.
There are enough unpatched Linux exploits (known and unknown) running in the wild to make most phones rootable/flashable for years to come.
Same argument could be made for iOS though
On average, a new Android device is no longer unlockable.
You might as well say that the average smartphone is not unlockable because iPhones aren't. People who want the advantages of user control don't buy the average device. They buy the devices they can control.
You might, but the whole point in this thread was that Android is unlockable while iPhone isn't.
Both aren't.
You're reading their comment in a way that most people wouldn't and that the author clearly didn't intend. Android can be and is installed on lots of appliances that aren't meant to give users control, like refrigerators and many Samsung phones. It is also installed on devices that give users control (and can be installed on lther devices that give users control and don't install Android by default). That is the difference between it and iOS.
I would argue though that even Samsung phones give more user control than iOS phones (not that I would buy either one). Even though you can't install your own remix of Android, you can disable or remove most of what you don't like and install anything that targets the Android APIs.
Yes, but my point is even stock Android is superior than iOS for usability, obviously custom ROMs such as Graphene or even proper GNU/Linux phones would be superior to Stock Android for customizability.
You can install third party stores and apps on iOS without a waiting period (in places with decent consumer rights); confirming three popups is all you need to install third party iOS apps.
Unlike on Android, there aren't that many third party iOS apps, though.
Plus, even with Google delaying shipping source code, at least they ship the source code. The traces of source you get with the open Darwin code are nowhere near comparable.
> You can install third party stores and apps on iOS without a waiting period (in places with decent consumer rights)
Doesn't apple still "verify" (and can decide not to allow) those supposedly 3rd party applications?
It doesn't do app store reviews as far as I am aware. They do charge an installation fee (I'm baffled they haven't been sued over that yet), but there are free apps out there thanks to Epic covering that fee to spite Apple.
Seems that this €0,50 flat fee per installation has been replaced by a 5% commission on digital transaction made through sideloaded apps as of last August.
https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-in-the-eu/
Until iOS lets me run a web browser that isn't WebKit, without geographic restrictions, I'm not interested. It's an absurd restriction.
Being able to have a fully functional version of KDE Connect would also be a requirement.
It's fully your right to want non-webkit for your browser, but just curious. Why? Why does it matter? I've never once wished for firefox to use firefox's engine instead. The UI/sync/extension stuff is all built on top anyway.