Google has really adopted the worst of Microsoft. And Microsoft adopted the best of google.
The release of the iPhone imo was the Eternal September of the mobile experience in so far as it was the tipping point wherein a demographic of users who didn't even need to be convinced that yielding full and openly adversarial control over the hardware to the network operators and advertisers became an uncontested majority.
They came with a text editor, a calculator, and a file browser out of the box -- can this generation even imagine not having to run the app store gauntlet of monetization and fraud to Open Files, I wonder?
It would probably be better to have a system of secure file buckets, where you could create them arbitrarily and choose to allow access to any bucket to any app, rather than permit open access to the file system as Android traditionally has done.
If it was the norm to download a signed binary from a random website, random websites looking genuine and offering genuine fake signed binaries would be the norm. "Are you sure you want to install Adobee PhotoShop? (Signature verified!)"
"No mom, Adobe PhotoShop!"
"I have Abobe PhotoShop, Adode PhotoShop, Ádobe PhotoShop, PhotoStop by Adobe"
"Mommmmm"
Not sure the market would react the same.
Many people are fighting phone addiction. Rich people want their kids off the grid. Lacking apps could be a feature in a more mature market.
Rich people could display wealth (better the children not be seen with a crappy phone) with a great UX, while at the same time being exempt from the dopamine addiction. Now that we know what we pretty much do on a phone, we could create a phone with all main apps hard-coded and it would fulfill the necessary needs.
The same Microsoft that hides the option to set up a computer with a local user account (instead of an online Microsoft account) unless you turn off networking during setup?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-users-fume-microsof...