Competing with Apple and Google - A Weekend Discussion \ stacker news ~tech

Competing with Apple and Google - A Weekend Discussion

1049 sats \ 18 comments \ @sn 18 Jun 2023 tech

A growing concern in the tech community is the gatekeeping of Apple and Google through their respective app stores. Last week Damus, Zeus, and Fold experienced troubles getting app store approvals firsthand, but there are many examples of companies being limited by the policies of Google and Apple in the past.

PWAs are gaining traction as one possible solution, but as long as people continue to use iOS and Android devices, PWAs will have some level of reliance on decisions made by Apple and Google.

This weekend we thought it would be fun to brainstorm some new ideas about how to compete against Apple and Google to bring a third mobile operating system to the masses. A few questions to consider:

If you were to try and compete with Apple and Google to spin up a viable competitor, how would you approach the challenge?
What would set your competing mobile phone/OS apart from Apple and Google?
What role (if any) would Bitcoin play in your competing product?
What role (if any) would Nostr play in your competing product?

view all related items

2146 sats \ 0 replies \ @final 18 Jun 2023

If I had money this is how I would do it:

If you were to try and compete with Apple and Google to spin up a viable competitor, how would you approach the challenge?

Create a large scale open-source project and back it behind an organisation/company similar to the AOSP, Ubuntu or Sourcehut business model. Initially start as a project for other devices to reduce cost and achieve funds, and eventually work with an OEM to manufacture a hardware device for that with said funds.

A possible solution is crowdfunding like Purism and MNT Reform did, I think it could work well if done correctly. GrapheneOS's non-profit organisation + co-operation with OEM's approach could also work if not to start a business or crowdfund.

PINE64 often sells products with minimal profit and lower specs/quality assurance at the start of the product releasing so the first people to buy are developers, testers and early adopters. They then usually raise the price after quality of the software improves.

A problem with these other projects business wise I think worth to note:

Purism: Costly and limited product stock. For years I have never been able to get one, and I have heard the phone isn't that great either. The Linux Desktop-Mobile hybrid OS' kind of are not there development wise.
GrapheneOS: Has no hardware of it's own right now, a very successful project nonetheless. But it also isn't trying to be a competitor against Apple and Google for the sake of platforms but for the sake of security and privacy. GrapheneOS uses Android as the base has tough security models already.
PINE64: Mainly development kits rather than stable devices. I would not use my PinePhone as a daily driver. Has the same flaws Purism has but is way more successful due to the cheaper price in my opinion.
Solana Saga: Depends on a shitcoin, is just an Android phone with a "Web3" skin.

None of these projects other than GrapheneOS seemingly take security/privacy as the #1 priority either. Purism is more for the 'freedom' aspect, it is just a Linux desktop / Raspberry Pi like device with a cellular radio in a phone form factor. Developers of hardened Linux operating systems have made comments on the flaws of mobile Linux already.

The DEFINITIVE platform should be as secure as GrapheneOS or better, as cheap as Pine64 for easy adoption, and be focused at a large audience INCLUDING normal guys you find on the street. Unfortunately for success you need to also be compatible with popular platforms including shitcoins if it's going to be a cryptocurrency phone. I'd rather have 100,000 sales from various shitcoiners and bitcoiners than just 10,000 bitcoiners. You can make a Bitcoin-only variant to counteract.

What would set your competing mobile phone/OS apart from Apple and Google?

OS developed with a microkernel/hypervisor that runs applications within virtualized sandboxes that communicate to one another with user permission. For Android app compatibility either virtualize Android instances for each app or make virtualized containers with an Android compatibility layer that takes care of permissions, OS integrations etc.

Kernel and OS modules would be made in a memory-safe language but another language is fine provided memory allocation is hardened and Core OS components could be virtualized like Windows 11's Device Guard. OS should be developed with a Defence in Depth and Safe by Default approach and apps should be designed with principle of least privilege. Apps should not be trusted.

OS shouldn't depend on a suite of services like iCloud or Google Play either.

I'd want developer friendly app distribution, free app repository with no account to download like Linux and Windows' Winget repository. Strong security requirements required for each app is needed, I like the standards Acresscent has.

There's a lot of things I'd want so I'll save this part for another time.

What role (if any) would Bitcoin play in your competing product?

Phone would have a secondary pop-up, back, or fold display that works as the hardware wallet interface. The hardware wallet would run as it's own isolated component, with it's own firmware independent of the phone OS. The wallet and the OS would only be able to interact through an API. This is so if the phone OS was compromised or the app was, the wallet itself would not be. This would completely remove the reliance on Android / The app of choice to protect your keys. It should have security of a cold wallet but practical use like a hot wallet.

Wallet security model would have:

Secure boot process where only firmware signed with the right keys are able to be flashed onto it, if the keys are changed, all secrets / wallets are wiped for safety.
Reproducible builds for firmware of the wallet component
Possible NFC or secondary USB port to interface with the wallet on another device if the phone's OS is not trusted.
Hardware killswitch to manually turn off/disconnect the internal 'wallet' component from the phone OS to completely airgap as a choice.
Secondary display prevents against attacks to the OS or apps that try and mislead by making transactions to incorrect addresses.
Choice for Bitcoin only firmware for attack surface reduction

For hardware security the phone could have two secure elements, one which manages OS and app secrets like decryption keys to the encrypted disk, while the second element is within the wallet component to store the cryptocurrency seed so the phone cannot interact with the seed. This would also save time to not be developing support for Secp256k1 in the phone's secure element.

Applications would develop support for that wallet interface the same way mobile apps develop support for Trezor, Ledger etc. Maybe if the success is good I'd have a wallet app developed by the OS developers made just for it.

What role (if any) would Nostr play in your competing product?

The wallet component could choose to handle Nostr keys if possible.

I wouldn't mandate a Nostr app of choice as I don't know a lot about what's best.

And then after all that is done: Likely fail the project after the first release cause there wasn't enough people to buy it...

716 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 18 Jun 2023

As I posted recently, I just switched to graphene. Whether it's the solution for everyone I don't know. It should be easier for me since I have avoided Apple my whole life, and have been gradually weaning myself off google. I think a combination of an open source option, and a self sovereign server storage setup like Start9 will serve my purposes. Start 9 or equivalent is my next move. That will of course incorporate my node and maybe a nostr relay.

745 sats \ 3 replies \ @mudbloodvonfrei 18 Jun 2023

Check this out: https://sailfishos.org/

It's Linux-based, but it has non-free components. For $50 you get the version with a closed-source but seemingly good Android emulator. I've seen some review videos and it seems promising. I would consider trying it out. I know I'll get some flak for supporting paid software, but I would love to financially support any company that offers a viable alternative to the Google/Apple duopoly. The more competitors, the lower the barriers to additional players. KaiOS had some promise a few years back but once they took funding from Google you could see where things were going.

I guess that doesn't exactly answer the OP question about how to create a new platform, but I think that what worked for Sailfish is that they allow you to maintain compatibility with Android. Google has very powerful network effects, it would be very difficult to take them head on.

I don't think there's any serious need to integrate bitcoin, but if this platform is developed by bitcoiners I think giving away some sats along with the device would be positive for bitcoin adoption. Having the OS use, by default, a nostr relay and LN node run by the company would create some network effects around the phone, albeit most likely weak ones.

566 sats \ 2 replies \ @shibe 18 Jun 2023

IMO the closed source nature would be kind of a dealbreaker. Isn't GrapheneOS fully open source (and by nature, compatible with Android)?

I tried Sailfish on a Nexus 5 many years ago (probably 7 or 8 years at this point). It's nice to see that Sailfish is still going, but it's also not nice to see that they still haven't opened up their system fully despite that being the biggest complaint I've seen from Linux users wanting to make the switch.

262 sats \ 0 replies \ @final 18 Jun 2023

Isn't GrapheneOS fully open source

Depends on how you look at it. GrapheneOS only supports devices which recieve hardware firmware updates. That firmware is closed-source, but the OS entirely is.

There isn't really a 100% open-source phone anyway.

116 sats \ 0 replies \ @mudbloodvonfrei 19 Jun 2023

I respect that. I also imagine it's a constant point of contention for the folks behind Sailfish.

It takes money to compete with Google and Apple. The fully open Linux on mobile distros like Ubuntu Touch, are half-baked; they're not for ordinary people, they're for tinkerers. I like to believe that Sailfish would release their code once they got traction (they could pivot to hardware for example), but for now, they have employees to pay

546 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lumor 18 Jun 2023

Step 1: Use L4 microkernel written in Rust. Keep UI clean and snappy. Target only one configuration of hardware for first production release.

Step 2: Fail due to niche market or await patent onslaught or embrace & extinguish efforts from duopoly.

520 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 18 Jun 2023

You do not compete with those giants... you make them obsolete. You step out of their system. And you have many alternatives today. But this takes time, education, OSS.

452 sats \ 0 replies \ @final 18 Jun 2023

Education and promotion is the way. Apple can trick people that they need a phone you don't even have any control or freedoms over. If people can be tricked to give away their freedoms then they be can be taught to restore it too.

53 sats \ 2 replies \ @axzwk 18 Jun 2023

which phone do you use darth?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 19 Jun 2023

Nokia 3310

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Jun 2023

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @axzwk 18 Jun 2023

deleted by author

485 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 18 Jun 2023

wen sms2nostr

321 sats \ 2 replies \ @9ener1c 19 Jun 2023

Probably not what anyone wants to hear, but: It’s pretty much impossible to compete. People forget that the target is always moving and internally these companies have technologies in development that won’t be seen for years, but everyone will want when they see them.

Before spending years on attempting to compete, a smarter shot term approach would involve the Bitcoin community directly engaging Apple and Google about the advantages of better BTC and Lightning support.

In the spirit of more directly responding to the question here, I think better hardware wallets are one answer. If that’s what we all end up carrying everywhere to pay, Apple and Google will soon implement their own versions. Be so good they can’t ignore you.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @final 19 Jun 2023

Agreed, A massive prerequisite to make an additional platform for a third place position in mobile OS usage is you'd need an insane amount of money. Even the products with successful crowdfunding that get millions just don't seem big enough anymore.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @9ener1c 19 Jun 2023

Yep. You need to hire really top quality engineers and designers and project managers, and put them to work for years. You need to execute —again and again.

396 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullama 19 Jun 2023

There's no way a 3rd Mobile OS would be remotely close to iOS or Android.

In fact, there have been already a few attempts over the years, and as you can see, even OP who is looking for this didn't know about them.

Here are some examples:

Sailfish OS

Sailfish OS is a European alternative to dominating mobile operating systems, and the only mobile OS offering an exclusive licensing model for local implementations.

On the market since 2013, and now already in its 4th generation, Sailfish OS offers a secure platform for trusted mobile solutions. With Sailfish OS you can also run Android™ apps with our dedicated App Support solution.

Sailfish OS is managed and developed by Finnish company Jolla Ltd.

Ubuntu Touch OS

With Ubuntu Touch, we offer a truly unique mobile experience - a viable alternative to Android and iOS. We provide a free and open-source GNU/Linux-based mobile operating system. One that can be installed and used today.

KaiOS

KaiOS brings the best of smartphones to affordable devices. Hundreds of models worldwide, starting at just $10.

And more...

Realistically speaking, the best thing you can do today is to get a Google Pixel phone and put GrapheneOS on it. It's basically Android without Google. It runs great and works with pretty much all Android apps out there. And you can also just use the web app for the ones that don't publish their apk.