someone_secret

How does one of the largest and richest Sillicon Valley companies of all time still resort to this type of behavior?

If it was a fledgling startup that desperately needed the money or else they went bankrupt then I would understand. But google?

I mean, why not just adopt a stray dog on the street, strap a flamethrower on its back, and have it follow you around. Would be way cheaper

most normal people have no idea how to activate the developer settings. And chances are, it's these people that are exploited the most by this type of malware

the play store has geo-blocking apps as a feature. Meaning that, if it was necessary, google could restrict the Signal app from being installed in Singapore, at the Chinese government's request

I know that this post will probably be downvoted to hell, but I'm pretty sure no phone will return the headphone jack, ever.

You're either gonna have to quit using smartphones entirely or just have to give up on the headphone jack dream. It's never going to happen again

Yeah, but sometimes certain features can only be added when the company has a lot of money to back them.

Stuff like extremely fast buffering speeds due to good internet infrastructure to datacenters or elaborate DDoS protection for building entire clusters to cushion against huge data flows.

Or, if those are too technical, just think of the content creators on YouTube, who don't want to upload their videos to other platforms because YouTube is effectively a monopoly now, and so it would be pointless to give other platforms the time of day.

If not enough content creators give competitors the chance, then how can they be expected to grow enough to stand a chance, in the first place?

The issue with this is that you're contributing to a never ending feedback loop.

If a product is successful enough to enable convenient features that everyone likes, that means that nobody will give competition a fair shake because they "just don't have those features that I need".

I know that most customers would argue that it's not their responsibility to give up on superior services just for the sake of giving competition a chance, but then whose responsibility is it?

In the end, products can only grow if you allow them to grow. Same thing with arguments like nobody using Peertube because YouTube has more content creators, or how nobody would use kbin or Lemmy because reddit has a much larger contributing userbase.

If you don't give competition a chance, you're only contributing to a monopoly. And then you're as much to blame as the company that's doing the monopoly

yeah, my thoughts exactly