Which do you like more?

  • Total voters


The ninth month of the year!
Uh I don't think a thread has been made for this yet so...

The universal debate. The most controversial topic of our modern times. Technology's biggest war ever. Apple. Or. Android.

I grew up with Apple products, but once the time came to get a phone, I got a Samsung Galaxy, and it CHANGED ME. So, uh, I guess I generally prefer Android. It's versatile, customizable, and universal. Apple's operating systems work very well when all you have are Apple products, but they aren't too adept at cooperating with other products or services.
Apple products are extremely overpriced with you and others requiring to purchase overpriced peripherals that are built specifically for it (ie charging cables) and railroad into using apps specifically made for it, as it doesn't double as a generic universal storage device (ie iTunes being linked to your operating system meaning every time you reset your OS you lose your data and you require to resync plus you can't add music from other devices).

That's my experience when I changed from iPod to a generic Mp3 player (yes I was alive when those were a thing).

Apple is terrible.
Fuck Apple.

No like genuinely fuck Apple.

They are an absolutely awful company who think they are above the law and regulations. Like y'all know how the current generation of iPhones (the 15, 15 Plus, 15 Pro, and 15 Pro Max) finally dropped Apple's proprietary Lighting connector in favor of USB-C? Well they did that thanks to the European Union and y'all really gotta understand how much Apple had to be dragged kicking and screaming into making this change: there's a whole ass video with a MEP (Member of the European Parliament) talking about how Apple was laughing at them and threatening them and they refused to meet with them in their actual meeting room, so they made the EU representatives meet with Apple representatives in their friggin cafeteria. And then when the EU passed the legislation mandating USB-C on all devices, Apple tried to make specifically Apple-spec USB-C cables for the iPhone (they wouldn't be able to stop people from buying and using non-Apple spec USB-C cables on the iPhone but, if you did, you'd get slower speeds when using it VS using an Apple-approved cable) But then the EU pushed back against this and Apple finally did what they should have been doing all along.

Don't believe me about these claims?

(Sorry that the video is on the Linus Tech Tips subreddit considering the whole LTT controversy, it's the only place I could find the video on short notice)

Other things too, Apple now allowing sideloading, alternate app stores, and web browsers that aren't just using WebKit (meaning every web browser on iOS is functionally just a reskinned version of Safari)? Yeah, Apple is doing that thanks to EU mandates too, although unlike the USB-C thing, this is exclusive to the EU (since they weren't exactly going to manufacture USB-C iPhones only for the EU market). But once again, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this. (But even then they are still doing the bare minimum by reviewing and approving each app that can be sideloaded because they still wanna control shit)

But even with them now allowing sideloading and alternate app stores in the EU, they still love to fearmonger this shit. Constantly talking about how there's a hightened risk of malware, fraud, scams, and other harmful content when you sideload. And Apple stans love to eat that up and spread FUD themselves about how awful sideloading is and how 'Android already exists, just use Android if you want to sideload' (even though the obvious counter is 'If you buy a device, you should be allowed to do what you want with it') And really, if sideloading is such an 'awful' thing, why aren't you constantly reading about issues Android users have when they sideload apps? Or what about desktop OSes? Literally both Windows and MacOS have their own app stores (the Microsoft Store on Windows and the Mac App Store on MacOS) and yet you're not limited to using those and you can download and run programs from outside those app stores and yet you don't see anyone acting like you're in danger when you do this. Because there is no inherent danger to sideloading, it's just Apple fearmongering.

I could go on and on with how fucking awful Apple is and how much they think they are above everyone else and want to absolutely maintain control of their platform and destroy their competition but I think you get the point.

And I'm not fan of Google either, I fucking hate Google too. I think Google is an absolutely evil company too, but here's the thing: Android is open source, there are a number of alternative Android distros you can use that do not have any Google services if you want to get away from Google and them spying on your data. Want to have a de-Appled version of iOS? Tough shit.
I grew up with Apple products, but once the time came to get a phone, I got a Samsung Galaxy, and it CHANGED ME. So, uh, I guess I generally prefer Android. It's versatile, customizable, and universal. Apple's operating systems work very well when all you have are Apple products, but they aren't too adept at cooperating with other products or services.
Yeah but Samsung Galaxy doesn't have Facetime. 😎 Unless maybe it has a lot of features that are better than Apple? If so I'm interested in hearing about them. I might change my vote.
And I'm not fan of Google either, I ####### hate Google too. I think Google is an absolutely evil company too, but here's the thing: Android is open source, there are a number of alternative Android distros you can use that do not have any Google services if you want to get away from Google and them spying on your data. Want to have a de-Appled version of iOS? Tough ####.
How is DuckDuckGo compared to Google? I actually use them instead of it. Are they much better? Seems so to me; I mean they don't sell your data to advertisers and on top of that they keep your information completely private.
@Lynn Minmay They keep all your info private and don't send it to advertisers, which is all great. Was wondering what your personal opinion is of Duck Duck Go compared to Google.
I do not use DuckDuckGo.

I still just use Google because I can't be assed to switch my default search engine on Firefox.
I think Firefox sucks to be honest. Oh ON Firefox. I thought you meant TO Firefox. My bad. Shouldn't have stated my opinion then.
Last edited:
@Lynn Minmay You are right that Google is a bad company though. Did you notice how on YouTube they've gotten so greedy for money that they have gone absolutely crazy with all the excessive ads? It pisses me off. There's an ad like every five seconds. It's so incredibly stupid. I'm so sick and tired of it, too. Now I download all my YouTube videos to watch them so I won't have to sit through like fifty billion ads. Also found this on Wikipedia about criticisms of Google. Listen to this:

"Criticism of Google includes concern for tax avoidance, misuse and manipulation of search results, its use of others' intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people's privacy and collaboration with the US military on Google Earth to spy on users, censorship of search results and content, and the energy consumption of its servers as well as concerns over traditional business issues such as monopoly, restraint of trade, antitrust, patent infringement, indexing and presenting false information and propaganda in search results, and being an "Ideological Echo Chamber"."

Hmm...maybe Google is an evil company given all that. Like, a lot of companies are corrupt, but Google seems to take it to the next level. I wonder if Apple is another company that's like that.

Anyway I'm done posting here. I don't want to clutter up the thread. I talked a little bit too much LOL.
Last edited:
One of my new favorite stories I tell myself to sleep every night is this

Back in the 1990s when these markets were growing fast, Apple computers were usually considered more innovative and enjoyable to use than Windows machines, and Apple had some actual successes breaking out of its traditional graphic-design market niche with its Mac forerunners Lisa and the Apple II. And especially considering that Microsoft is considered to have copied the basic windows-based display interface from the early Mac, the obvious question is why Apple's fine, if expensive, products were so definitively beaten out for market share by computers running Windows.

The reason, again, is network effects and platform economics. For something important happened between the Apple II and all the company's computers that followed—company co-founder and notorious asshole Steve Jobs closed the system. While the Apple II had many peripheral slots to attach drives, printers, and other means to add new software, the III had no slots, and neither did the Mac. Closed systems struggle to attract the user and developer ecosystem needed to exploit net effects. Further, Apple would not license its operating system to other manufacturers, as Microsoft had with Dell. This meant corporate purchasers were leery of widespread investment in Apple machines. If anything went wrong, they had only one company to turn to, whereas there were many companies making PC clones to choose from.

These factors combined meant that the Mac OS could not become an industry standard, while the more-open Windows OS did. Journalists and business analysts covering Apple recognized its goal was to set "an industry standard alongside DOS, the inferior but widely accepted IBM and Microsoft system," but out of fears of "cannibalizing" its own hardware sales (and their premium prices), Apple never licensed its OS and therefore missed its chance to gain major market share, as Microsoft had done. All these choices, perhaps understandable based on the market landscape at the time, meant that for all Jobs's celebrated brilliance, he caused Apple to completely miss its opportunity to exploit network effects and its chance to become the dominant platform. Jobs mistakenly believed that Apple could create "a second industry standard," rather than being part of the one already started by the IBM PCs. This plan shows a recognition of platform economics, but a real failure to understand them.
Gates himself actually wrote to Apple then-CEO John Sculley, essentially imploring Apple to learn from Microsoft's standard-setting example and desist in its stubborn refusal to license its OS, as Microsoft had done. Gates's 1984 memo is an open explanation of the network effects and platform economics that gave it its own monopoly, including the crucial role of network standards and the lock-in experienced by users of applications. It also betrays no small irritation with Apple's obliviousness:

Apple must make Macintosh a standard. But no personal computer company, not even IBM, can create a standard without independent support. Even though Apple realized this, they have not been able to gain the independent support required to be perceived as a standard. The significant investment … in a "standard personal computer" results in an incredible momentum for its architecture. Specifically, the IBM PC architecture continues to receive huge investment and gains additional momentum.… The closed architecture prevents similar independent investment in the Macintosh.… As the independent investment in a "standard" architecture grows, so does the momentum for that architecture. The industry has reached the point where it is now impossible for Apple to create a standard out of their innovative technology without support from, and the resulting credibility of[,] other personal computer manufacturers.

Gates added that the lack of "Mac-compatible" manufacturers meant that "corporations consider it risky to be locked into the Mac, for reasons of price AND choice." Therefore, Apple should license the Mac to 3-5 computer makers like Compaq or Dell, and "Microsoft is very willing to help Apple implement this strategy." A second letter from Gates to Apple repeated the offer to help, concluding, "Please give me a call." Microsoft was eager to help Apple survive because it was under intense scrutiny from antitrust authorities, and it wanted Apple alive to help appease the Justice Department.

For these reasons, writer Owen Linzmayer observed that "Apple itself is really to blame for the success of Windows." Beyond his numerous personal shortcomings, Jobs remains an icon in the world of business and especially tech. Numerous literary and movie characters are based on him, and he inaugurated the tradition of insufferable tech bastards taking to presentation stages in sneakers and jeans like middle-aged rock stars.

But for all his enduring visionary reputation, Steve Jobs's platform bungling richly deserves a big fat F.
I think Firefox sucks to be honest. Oh ON Firefox. I thought you meant TO Firefox. My bad. Shouldn't have stated my opinion then.
Firefox is a actually the best browser if you use non-Apple devices since it's the only one left* not using Blink (the browser engine used by Google Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers) and there being just one dominant browser engine used is not good, it is very not good.

And we know this because it has happened before. Back in the mid-90s, there were two browsers competing for dominance: Netscape (first released in 1994) and Internet Explorer (first released in 1995). Netscape was originally the dominant browser but IE gradually took over as it was bundled with Windows as the default web browser (and could also be downloaded for Mac OS starting in 1996 and became the default web browser for Classic Mac OS and later Mac OS X starting in 1997) whereas Netscape was (originally) a paid product until 1998 and, by 2001, all versions of Internet Explorer had a combined usage share of 96% and what happened next?


And by 'nothing' I don't mean 'nothing happened now that there was one dominant web browser that had nearly 100% marketshare' I mean 'Microsoft pretty much decided "Well we basically control the entire web browser market now, we don't need to keep developing IE anymore" so they just left Internet Explorer 6 (the IE version released in 2001 that was default on Windows XP originally and itself achieved a peak user share of 90% in 2004) to rot and effectively stagnated the entire internet from both a design and technical standpoint since everyone had to design their websites to work with a browser that was full of security issues (which Microsoft would often take forever to patch and they'd only patch the most serious issues), its lack of support for certain standards other browsers supported, and its instability. I shit you not when I say this: you can crash Internet Explorer 6.0 by entering ms-its:%F0: into the address bar. That's all you have to do to crash it.

And I really need to make it clear how much Microsoft left Internet Explorer 6 to rot. Internet Explorer 1 was released with the Microsoft Plus! pack for Windows 95 in August 1995, Internet Explorer 2 was released in November 1995, Internet Explorer 3 in August 1996, Internet Explorer 4 in September 1997, Internet Explorer 5 in March 1999, and Internet Explorer 5.5 in 2000. Internet Explorer 6 was released in August 2001, alongside Windows XP and when did Microsoft release Internet Explorer 7? October 20-fucking-06.

Five years. They went five fucking years without doing any serious updates to their browser because why do they need to? What were people going to do, switch to another browser?

Well yeah, that's what they did. Firefox 1.0 was released in Q4 2004 (although public testing versions had been released since 2002, originally known as Phoenix from versions 0.1 to 0.5 and then Firebird from versions 0.6 to 0.7.1) and by Q4 2005, Firefox already had over 11% marketshare and it was growing more popular by the day. Microsoft now had competition once more (although they wouldn't dip below 50% usage share until 2010)

And the ironic part of all of this? Firefox is the spiritual successor to Netscape.

Not joking. During development, Netscape was known by the codename of 'Mozilla', which was a portmanteau of 'Mosaic' and 'Godzilla' and also stood for 'Mosaic Killer' (Mosaic referring to NCSA Mosaic, a one of the first widely available web browsers that helped popularize the World Wide Web and the Internet as a whole, that was developed by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois. Incidentally, many of Netscape's founders had worked on NCSA Mosaic and Netscape itself was originally called Mosaic Netscape until they were presented with a legal challenge from the NCSA)

In 1997, Netscape began development on a new browser engine as the existing browser engine that they'd been using since Netscape Navigator 1.0 was slow, had limited support for dynamic HTML, and lacked many modern features that Internet Explorer (and other browsers) supported.

The following year, not only did Netscape announce that future versions of the Netscape Communicator software would be free but that its source code would be open source. The very same day, one of the initial emplyoyees of Netscape (and a long-time advocate for free software and the person credited for Netscape's decision to make the software's source code open source), Jamie Zawinski, registered (Zawinski also came up with the name Mozilla), with the intent being that future versions of Netscape Communicator would be free software developed by Mozilla and Netscape would commercialize the software Mozilla developed using the Netscape name.

Unfortunately, the original plans - which would have had Mozilla and Netscape codeveloping Netscape Communicator 5 didn't work out as planned as it was meant to be developed using the original Netscape Navigator browser engine but they ultimately decided to scrap all this work and instead develop it using the new browser engine - which was originally announced as Raptor, then changed to NGLayout (Next Generation Layout - the change was due to trademark issues), and then Netscape rebranded it to Gecko (with Mozilla still calling it NGLayout as 'Gecko' was a Netscape trademark)

Seeing as the whole point of Mozilla was to develop free software that Netscape would then use as the basis for its own software, Mozilla began developing the Mozilla Application Suite using the Gecko layout. The Mozilla Application Suite (which was originally known as just 'Mozilla' and also the Mozilla Suite) featured Navigator (a web browser), Communicator (an email and newsgroup client), an HTML editor, and IRC client, and an electronic address book.

Mozilla was used as the basis for Netscape 6 (yes, they decided to go ahead and skip Netscape Communicator 5), which was released in November 2000 and based on Mozilla 0.6 (which itself was released about a month later in December) and later versions of Netscape 6, culminating in Netscape 6.2.3 - released May 2002 and based upon Mozilla (which was a source-only release and not actually released as a product by Mozilla)

The same would apply to Netscape 7, which was first released in August 2002 and based upon Mozilla 1.0.1 (released September 2002) and continue through Netscape 7.2 (released August 2004 and based upon Mozilla 1.7, released in July 2004)

But some developers at Mozilla began to develop an experimental branch of the Mozilla Suite, originally known as 'm/b' (mozilla/browser). These devleopers felt that the commercial requirements due to Netscape's sponsorship of the Mozilla project and feature creep were resulting in the Mozilla Suite suffering from software bloat.

This experimental branch was going to just be a web browser - it would not have the IRC client, the email client, the HTML editor, or any of the other features that they felt contributed to the feature creep and software bloat of the Mozilla Suite - and they intended for it to ultimately replace the Mozilla Suite.

In September 2002, the first public testing release of this web browser was released - version 0.1 - with the browser being known as 'Phoenix' (with the implications that this browser, much like the phoenix of mythology, had arisen from the ashes of its predecessor - in this case Netscape Navigator)

Later on, due to trademark disputes, the Phoenix name for the web browser was changed to Firebird starting with version 0.6 in May 2003. The Firebird name would also face issues as Firebird was the name of a database management system. In response, Mozilla began to refer to the project as 'Mozilla Firebird' and not solely 'Firebird' and that 'Mozilla Firebird' should be regarded as the project name and not the name that will be used when the project reached version 1.0.

Eventually, Mozilla (due to continuing pressure from the other Firebird's community) made the decision to rebrand the project once more from Mozilla Firebird to Mozilla Firefox, with them deciding to ensure that they would not have to change the name once more by registering 'Firefox' as a trademark. (And then it turned out that a software company in the UK held the European trademark for 'Firefox' but this time the UK company gave Mozilla a license to use the Firefox name in Europe so they didn't have to change the name again)

Firefox version 0.8 was released in February 2004 and eventually Firefox version 1.0 - the first version aimed at the general public - was released in November 2004.

So let's appreciate the irony that the browser that restarted the browser wars and started the the decline of Internet Explorer's market share was the spiritual successor of the browser Microsoft effectively killed in order to gain its near-total dominance of web browser usage.

And let's also not forget that, unlike with Microsoft's web browser dominance, where they were not savvy enough to actually leverage the fact that they had the dominant marketshare (hence why they just left IE6 to rot until Firefox came around and started to slowly eat into their marketshare), Google is savvy enough to to do this.

Look at Manifest V3 - which is replacing the current format for Chrome extensions (Manifest V2) in pre-stable versions of Chrome starting next month. Manifest V3 will have a completely arbitrary lmit on how many 'rules' content-filtering extensions such as adlblockers can use. Originally, Google was going to limit these extensions to just 5,000 'rules' but later, following outrage, upgraded it to a maximum of 30,000 rules.

30,000 rules sure sounds like a lot, right? Well I use uBlock Origin (which is, you know, the go-to adblocker) on Firefox and right now on Firefox, I have 136,487 filters in uBlock (and that's just the network filters - I have an additional 46,665 cosmetic filters - which hide content that the network filters cannot filter). And I have no custom filters, that's just the default filters uBlock has enabled. IDK if y'all know this but 183,152 filters is a lot damn more filters than the 30,000 limit Manifest V3 will limit adblockers to.

And to make matters worse, under Manifest V3, filter lists will only update (via ublock Origin Lite as the regular version of uBlock, which uses Manifest V2, will be phased out) when the extension itself is updated - you won't be able to add or customize any new filters. This ain't just for uBlock, this is for all content-filtering extensions.

And there's tons of other features that adblocking and other content-filtering extensions need to work to the fullest that Manifest V3 will not support and so therefore will be discontinued in Chrome once Manifest V3 becomes mandated next month.

'What's the big deal? Chrome is just one browser?'

Google Chrome (on desktop, since Chrome on mobile browsers does not support extensions) has a market share of 65.65% as of April. They are already the dominant browser, but let's look at the other major browsers and their market share:
- Microsoft Edge currently has 12.97%
- Safari has 8.44%
- Firefox has 6.73%
- Opera has 3.09%

But here's the thing, with the exceptions of Firefox (which uses the Gecko browser engine) and Safari (which uses WebKit), Microsoft Edge and Opera both use the Blink browser engine.

The Blink browser engine is the engine that is used by the Chromium project, which is the FOSS web browser that provides the vast majority of the codebase for Google Chrome as well as other Chromium-based browsers like Microsoft Edge and Opera. So really, while Chrome itself has 65.65% of the total market share of web browsers, if you include browsers based upon the Chromium project - the Blink browser engine has 81.71% market share.

Actually even that 81.71% isn't accurate either considering just how many browsers there are based on Chromium (admittedly many of these have negligible marketshare but even still).

Now, Blink (just like with Chromium) is FOSS, so developers can fork it and promise that they won't remove Manifest V2 support and therefore not kneecap adblockers and other content filtering extensions. But what if Google redesigns the core of Blink so that the API that Manifest V2-based extensions use for content filtering don't exist anymore? Then the developers of these forks will either have to rebuild these API entirely from scratch or start maintaining the network code themselves, with browsers that use these hypothetical forked engines becoming more and more divergent from Blink, which means the benefits of relying on Blink are now gone - unless the maintainers decide to fall in line with what Google wants.

So that is why there being one dominant browser engine is bad - because the developer(s) of the engine can then use their dominance to shape things how they want it to be. Hence why Google, who are effectively an ad company at this point, are severely kneecapping adblockers

Switch to Firefox btw.

*There are, of course, other web browsers that use the same browser engine as Firefox - often forks of Firefox itself - but Firefox is the biggest one.
Last edited:
use firefox for adblockers and if you don't use adblockers you are navigating in a security minefield. if the cia and fbi tell you to use adblockers, then something stinks in the ad landscape (that google also dominates in btw)
use firefox for adblockers and if you don't use adblockers you are navigating in a security minefield. if the cia and fbi tell you to use adblockers, then something stinks in the ad landscape (that google also dominates in btw)

I'm exaggerating but I will literally see people argue against adblockers using that same logic. I'm sorry but if advertising companies don't want us to block ads, then they shouldn't have filled the internet of the past with massive resource-hogging autoplaying Flash advertisements that used up 100 times the resources on your computer VS the actual content you were trying to see., ads that hijacked your browser, pop-ups, pop-unders, malvertising, etc, you name it.

Ad companies made this bed and now they have to lie in it.
I'm sorry but if advertising companies don't want us to block ads, then they shouldn't have filled the internet of the past with massive resource-hogging autoplaying Flash advertisements that used up 100 times the resources on your computer VS the actual content you were trying to see., ads that hijacked your browser, pop-ups, pop-unders, malvertising, etc, you name it.

Ad companies made this bed and now they have to lie in it.
I completely agree with you. Just the amount of ads YouTube has had alone lately is ridiculous. I mean it seems like every video I watch there is an ad every five seconds. It's so irritating that I'm at the point where I always use my YouTube video downloader to download YouTube videos so I don't have to sit through sixty billion ads. It's so ridiculous, especially since before YouTube never had this many ads. More point of how greedy Google is for money. Well, anyway, getting back to Apple VS far as which company is worse I'd say Google is probably a thousand times worse than Apple-I mean my post yesterday listed all the criticisms against it and how it spies on people, filters and manipulates search results, etc. I think I also read that there's a lot of racism or racial motivations with it or its search results or something too which is also REALLY bad and its a cesspool for political and ideological rabbit holes or something? Something like that-either way, bad stuff. Bottom line-Lynn Minmay-I completely respect your opinion and everything and understand why you are so against Apple and you DO have very legitimate and solid reasons not to want to buy anything they make and yes you are completely right about how corrupt they are-but out of the two bad companies-Apple and Google-I think I choose Apple because I think it is the lesser of the two evils, in my opinion. Also in my opinion I think ad companies are just evil with how they do all the stuff you just mentioned (browser hijacking, malvertising, pop-ups, pop-unders [whatever those are-never heard of those before], etc.). And to be honest I don't think it's effective marketing at all when they do all that stuff; it just makes people angry. Which means it's bad business. So yeah-Apple and Google-both bad companies. But Google I think is so much worse so I choose Apple.
Last edited:
Android. Apple's locked down systems and anti-consumer behaviour disgust me.

Samsung have gotten more Apple over the last few years which really bugs me. Eg: removing the headphone jack, no SD card slot, and making it difficult to replace the battery. There are at least other Android options, though they're getting few and far between. Rip HTC.

I can somewhat understand wanting FaceTime if other people you know use it exclusively. Though it's nothing new. Even mid-00s dumb phones had Skype. These days you have lots of multi-platform alternatives like FB Messenger, Discord and Zoom if all you care about is video chatting with people.
Is it wrong that I use both Apple and the google app? :cheep:

Nah it's your preference. I don't have anything against Apple users, all my posts here are just my opinions anyway.
Um, android phones are actually cheaper than Apple equivalents.