Not sure how I should feel about that. It's highly likely any party engaged in tracking activities will try to grab as much data as they can. So a non-Google device seems like it would be doing twice the amount of data collection.
But considering Google also controls the hardware design of the Pixel, it wouldn't surprise me if they have some additional tricks up their sleeve.
What we really need is a full open-source phone, including firmware. Maybe we'll get there one day.
Additionally, if you're into mapping, give QGIS a try.
It's an open source geospatial data management application, which is available cross-platform.
It neatly integrates many processing tools into a relatively intuitive GUI, and having even some basic skill can lead to some job opportunities.
You can even import OSM data through plugins or download services, which you can use for all kinds of fancy things.
That was awesome, thanks for sharing.
I fully get what you're saying and I think I know a thing or two about how lifestyle branding consumes people's lives to the point where they're fully absorbed.
Social media platforms seem to be by far the worst offenders of stimulating this kind of addiction (let's just name it for what it is).
Coming from a background of designing products, as opposed to selling them I tend to be focused on product representation, rather than selling an idea. Which is not actually the route to making stupid amounts of money.
You've convinced me that marketing is definitely part of the problem. Here in the Netherlands they've recently (about two years ago) relaxed some legislation on online gambling (gambling itself is legal, just the ads weren't) and since we've seen a surge of ads on television and social media featuring sports icons and influencers. The result has been a giant increase in profits, which directly corelates to figures of increased debt, prevalent mostly in young adults. I firmly believe this is toxic and needs to be fixed asap.
If you do decide to host a Q&A I'll be sure to have a look for more cool insights.
Interesting take, mind if I dig a little deeper?
The key part of Apple's success is that they make idiotproof devices for people who want something to "just work" (insert linux desktop memes here). The way I've come to understand it in the last couple years (having relatives who've drank the cool-aid and are starting to spot the cracks in the facade), is that they have been pulled in by values way up high in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. They are locked into the ecosystem, believing that their current solution is somehow ideal and they seem most of all afraid that anything else will completely turn their world upside down. The weird part is that Apple manages somehow to convince people they are the only ones capable of providing an experience that will cover those needs.
The thing is: Being convinced that there is no greener grass elsewhere puts up a barrier to entry into the unknown. I really do wonder if the solution there is cracking down on marketing, as it would require broad sweeping legislation that would likely defeat the purpose.
Sure, companies will put forth the occasional blatant lie, misrepresenting their product, but oftentimes the heavy lifting is done by the established brand image. I would not know where to begin preventing such an image from forming in the first place without community pushback.
And that is where my original point comes in: If we push back by ridiculing the userbase we'll have a culture war on our hands. The trick is to be smarter than that and actually show them that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Every time the consumer gets fucked over by corporate greed, it is because we've let it happen by accepting the slippery slope brought upon us. (Publicly traded) companies will only listen to financial consequences from their actions, which means we have the power to stop their bullshit by not buying into it. Doing so requires a large enough group of people to start spending money elsewhere.
Problem is: The current market is affected by Apple's shenanigans (though examples of the same pattern are also found in other industries). Which means other manufacturers are copying all the anti-consumer design decisions and you're not left with much of a choice.
This is where legislation comes in. By providing basic consumer protections like in the proposed right to repair bills, we can at least be sure to have the option of choosing our own repair provider.
Though I'm curious if there is an additional angle we need to explore as consumers. Having said all the above, would you still disagree that educating our peers in a respectful manner will lead to people changing their behaviour, and if so, why?
Agreed, they're usually influenced by their emotional attachment to the Apple brand (or [insert fashionable electronics manufacturer here]). And my hunch is they respond to valid criticism with a defense along the lines of "they obviously know what they're doing" or "tech is hard/dangerous/intellectual property, we can't have just anybody working on it".
The reality is, they often fail to see the bigger picture because they're blinded by what they've convinced themselves is the truth. This unfortunately also means that clowning on them is counterproductive, as they won't see the light without being eased into it.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't judge people for believing soldering an SSD to the motherboard is somehow innovative and progress, but it is hard to accompany our laughter with the patience to actually explain to them in a respectful manner that this is not the way.
It takes a hard reality check in the form of their data being gone when their SSD inevitably dies someday, and recovery not being an option "because you should have paid for an iCloud subscription". Or it takes a way for "them" not to see "us" as the enemy when we're advocating for Apple and competitors not to pull us further into a dystopian technological hellscape where devices are single use. Try convincing a cultists that they're in a cult and they'll see you as a threat. We have to make sure this doesn't escalate into polarizing tech culture war any further than it already has.
We need repairability and sustainability to be the basis for consumer electronics going forward. Corporate profits don't justify wasting resources on single-use electronics.
While this is very much welcome news, I am a little skeptical because this might still be a PR stunt.
Apple has shown they have the engineering capacity to design their devices to be virtually unfixable, all while still technically being compliant with this proposed piece of legislation.
Nonetheless, this show of support might finally be a means for us to end the ongoing culture war on repairability. It has been too much of a polarized debate lately, where opponents seem to be under the impression that a lack of repairability is a good thing for everyone, when it is really just having a choice that matters most.
Now that Apple has officially put in writing it's support for repairability of consumer electronics, we can finally stop debating wether or not repairability is a good thing, and instead how we're going to ensure the new situation works for everyone involved. Hopefully.
Anything other than whitelist-type parental controls will likely be insufficient to block absolutely everything you don't want them to have access to (or want to have access to them, for that matter).
Honestly, the best way to do so would be no internet access without supervision, which is usually not really a viable option in any reasonable real-world scenario.
The second best way I can think of, albeit a slightly technical solution, is to setup a VPN server at home using a raspberry pi or a similar hosting solution and have the phone connect through that. That way you can control internet access in any way you'd like and even block nasty tracking attempts from apps if you so wish. Most android phones have the option to prevent internet access entirely if not connected to the VPN (this will prevent internet access from any WiFi and mobile data networks). In which case they can still just call or text in emergency situations. The only thing left to do is locking down the phone's settings, and the rest can be dynamically managed from your network.
All of this does require some basic networking knowledge, but it's actually surprisingly easy to setup.
You can do both though. Lots of high-profile software is both open source and available as SaaS.
The beauty of that strategy is you can ensure the software will survive your service provider going bankrupt or otherwise suddenly disappearing, leaving you without a solution.
By not being locked into a specific vendor, competition will be centered around providing the best service, which is in my opinion exactly as it should be.
I take issue with some of the statements here. First of all:
I find this whole "right to repair" really pointless endeavour pushed by repair shops wanting to retain their outdated business model.
Right to repair is definitely not just being pushed by repair shops. If you take a good look at the rate Framework is selling devices at (batches instantly sold out until Q1 2024), you'll see that consumers want this more than any other group. We, as the consumers will ultimately benefit the most from having repair options available. Right to repair is not meant to halt innovation, it is not about forcing manufacturers to design products in ways detrimental to the functioning of said products. It is about making sure they don't lock third parties out of the supply chain. If you replace a traditional capacitor with a SMD variant, someone is going to learn to micro solder. If you convert a chip from socketed to BGA mount, someone is going to learn how to use a heat plate and hot air gun to solder it back in to place.
The main problem is manufacturers demonstrably going out of their way to prevent the feasable.
The second part I take issue with is this:
It is probably better use of our collective resources to focus on researching technologies that will help us deconstruct these tiny components into their constituent matters
From my 12 years of experience in design of consumer goods and engineering for manufacturing I can tell you this is not happening because no one is going to pay for it. The more tightly you bond these "constituent matters" together, the more time, energy, reasearch and money it will require to convert them back into useful resources.
There is only one proper way to solve this problem and it is to include reclamation of resources into the product lifecycle design. Which is currently not widely done because companies put profits before sustainability. And this model will be upheld until legislation puts a halt to it or until earth's resources run out.
In terms of sustainability the desireable order of action is as follows:
Definitely gives off Ramón Salazar vibes (Resident Evil 4). My gamer instincts are telling me "shoot it in the head before it does something nasty".