Comment by AlotOfReading
5 hours ago
Google's long term strategy with Android is baffling to me. Apple has had better mobile hardware for years. Apple has higher consumer trust. Apple has better app selection (for most people). Apple has been increasingly implementing the core features that differentiate Android devices, like USB-C and RCS. Every Android user lost to the increasing iOS market share is another customer Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a competitor to access.
And Google's strategy is to continue removing differentiating features from Android that also help them mitigate the threat of antitrust? Surely the marginal revenue from the inconsequential number of sideloading users isn't attractive enough to justify that kind of strategic blunder.
I don't see any iOS advantage with the apps anymore. That was maybe true in the very beginning, during the gold rush time of the app store. But not since then. In which category are there better iOS apps? Browsers? No, strictly worse. Youtube app? No, worse. Texting? Worse or equal (Whatsapp). Podcast client? I assume worse, since there is no Antenna Pod. Social media apps? The iOS variants of those apps are afaik in no way better. What else is there, where is the advantage?
Also, while the Play store is an equally ad-riddled and unsearchable hellhole, at least Android does have with F-Droid a high quality alternative. iOS has nothing.
But sure, removing the F-Droid advantage can only hurt Android, the direction of your comment still stands.
> Social media apps? The iOS variants of those apps are afaik in no way better. What else is there, where is the advantage?
This is incorrect. The IOS versions of social media apps extract way less data from the device than on android, and is thus more privacy friendly.
Sure the best way would be for people not to use them, but if you "have" to, then it's better to use those on IOS.
> In which category are there better iOS apps?
Almost all of the prosumer apps on iOS offer a consistently better experience. This is maybe less relevant on phones than on tablets, but music production, video editing, digital painting and drafting, etc...
Camera apps.
Everything else I agree with, but the Android camera APIs do not allow developers to build good device independent camera apps the way they are available on iOS.
first time hear this, any more specifics? i used android to develop video conference software and don't recall camera limits
The iOS version of most social media apps is better. IOS simply has better API integration to it's hardware, where with android, many OEMs (hell this was even the case to a certain extent with older pixel phones), do a number of things that make the hardware not as easily accessible as quickly from the OS API for said feature.
This is especially relevant for the camera, but also various other sensors and hardware modules that exist inside these phones.
That said, in recent years there are just a number of other areas that android is much better at such as deeper AI integration, which goes back to even prior to the current LLM craze.
What are those things?
The YouTube app on iOS is superior to the Android app for one
> I assume worse
You know what they say about assuming.
sorry this is not correct. (do you consistently use both?) iOS apps are consistently better, because people prefer using swift
As an Android power user (I’ve ran Lineage, Graphene, rooted with Magisk and passed safetynet) that’s moved to IOS this last month. My subjective opinion: app quality is the same.
1 reply →
Honestly, you’re so wrong about the app situation that it’s almost staggering. iOS apps tend to be more stable, better polished, have better integration with system features (like the Dynamic Island), and even often have more features. This isn’t even an unfounded opinion, it’s a material problem for Google and led them to vastly investing in automated testing and quality efforts
App addressable user base is another problem for Google, one that they have mentioned in developer conferences. It’s a big part of why they’ve been trying to ship a tablet and unify android and Chromebook. If Google isn’t careful they could find themselves in a downward spiral situation, stuck between apple on one side, and android forks on the other.
And the last answer is, as always, money
- browser is deemphasized on iOS, and so it’s weaker feature set matters less
- iOS is generally easier to develop for because of less device differentiation
- on average iOS has significantly wealthier users who tend to be higher return or paying customers (seriously, look it up). This in turn leads companies to invest more heavily in iOS.
- easier integration due to a narrow system services ecosystem (no Google vs Samsung slapfights)
- unified platform advantage (apps written for iOS easily port to the watch and tablet, unlocking larger markets, and justifying greater spend in developing apps)
- apples review process is significantly stricter (for better or for worse)
Yes, Apple doesn’t have something like fdroid, and that’s really disappointing and honestly a legitimate dealbreaker for a lot of people
> iOS apps tend to be more stable, better polished
It's been a while since I was last using Android, but first-party Apple apps no longer meet my standards for "polished".
e.g. type this sequence into the calculator:
The answer should not be negative, but the app says "-4".
The desktop Contacts app has been putting invisible LTR and RTL codes around phone numbers for years now, breaking web forms when auto-entered. The mobile version refreshes specific contacts several times in a row to add no new content, preventing copy from working while it does so.
The MacOS Safari translation button appears on the left of the omni-bar, until you click it, at which point it instantly moves to the right and your click turns out to have been on the button that the left-side translation button had hidden. Deleting a selection of items from browsing history is limited to about 5 items per second, as it deletes one then rebuilds the entire list before deleting the next.
If I'm listening to a podcast on headpones and an alarm goes off, it doesn't play the alarm through my headphones, it plays on device speakers only.
Podcast app's "Up Next" is a magical mystery list that can't be disabled or guided.
The "Do Not Disturb" mode can be activated unexpectedly, leading to missed calls, and cannot be deleted.
Localisation is inconsistent at every level, including system share sheet and behaviour of decimal separators.
I could go on, but you get the point. Apple's quality control just isn't visible in the software at this point.
The pricing gap also rules Apple out in a lot of markets. Almost nobody has Apple here in Spain, the only people i see are tourists and expats.
> browser is deemphasized on iOS, and so it’s weaker feature set matters less
That's precisely the OP's point. They gimped their browser so there's bigger incentive to use their proprietary system frameworks.
> iOS is generally easier to develop for because of less device differentiation
That's nonsense. What year are you from? I've heard this like 10 years ago when there only 1 or 2 current iPhone models in circulation.
> on average iOS has significantly wealthier users who tend to be higher return or paying customers (seriously, look it up). This in turn leads companies to invest more heavily in iOS.
If you offer subscription service, like Netflix/HBO/Nest or whatever, your main goal is volume, not how wealthy your demographic is.
> easier integration due to a narrow system services ecosystem (no Google vs Samsung slapfights)
Easier integration with what?
> unified platform advantage (apps written for iOS easily port to the watch and tablet, unlocking larger markets, and justifying greater spend in developing apps)
That's like Android's moat from the start, not bolted on during some 10+ major versions like on iOS. And it works much better, Android apps are truly the same apps. Not gimped, cut off things like Instagram on iOS (is it even fixed now?).
> apples review process is significantly stricter (for better or for worse)
Both are shit these days due to volume of shovelware produced.
FWIW, starting a sentence with "Honestly ..." always makes me think the rest of what this person has to say is dishonest.
Your BIO on HN is:
> I HAVEN'T SHOWERED AT ALL! THAT'S WHY I REEK! WORKING IN FINTECH! AIN'T SHAVED IN WEEKS! POUR CRUMBS FROM MY KEYBOARD! THAT'S WHAT I EAT! WROTE A CURRENCY LIBRARY! 3RD TIME THIS WEEK! LURKING HN! I PREFER /b/! IN MOM'S BASEMENT! I'M THIRTY THREE! IT'S 3'O'CLOCK AM! THAT'S WHEN I SLEEP! AH!!!! COME ON FUCK A GUY!!!!
What level of credibility are you seeking?
1 reply →
For context, I'm a long-time iPhone user, who switched to a Pixel 8a about 18 months ago.
> Apple has had better mobile hardware for years.
I can't say I noticed a difference in quality when switching. Maybe some people can, but for me it was just a different, but still well-made phone.
> Apple has higher consumer trust.
I can't speak for consumers in general, but this is certainly no longer the case for me.
I also used MacOS for 20 years, and switched to Linux about a year ago because I didn't like the direction Apple was headed. It may be my choice of reading material (HN), but I receive almost daily confirmation that this was a sound decision.
> Apple has better app selection (for most people).
Not selection, necessarily, but certainly quality.
As a side note, my iPad (my sole remaining Apple device) quietly updated to iOS 26 a few days ago. Despite having spent months reading about how bad it is, I was still genuinely shocked.
Again, I can't speak for "consumers", but for me Apple now has a far worse user experience.
Why the surprise, they do the same with search, they do the same with their Google workspace (the degree to which they are pushing AI is really hurting the product).
Google stopped being aware of their customer's needs a really long time ago, they are so arrogant they think the audience is now fully captive.
> they think the audience is now fully captive.
It is, for the large sub-$800 segment of the smartphone market.
you mean sub $599, right?
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-16e
Which is still a valid argument, the number is just lower. And the UX on these sub 600 devices have definitely gotten worse over the last 5 years too... Likely because Google isn't really targeting that price point anymore, so Android isn't getting enough optimization to be viable on underpowered devices.
That was different in 2010-2020
8 replies →
> they think the audience is now fully captive.
the audience is captive. Do you have a choice to move from android, if you didnt want to have an apple device? Do you want to use a different search engine other than google? Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-technical person - i know you can run your own). Is there another browser other than chrome (and dont say firefox or edge - because both don't compete)?
Google behave in ways that they think makes them more profit. When users cannot migrate (nor even threaten to), then it simply means they can do this.
Why are saying that Firefox or even Chrome reskin can't compete with Chrome? I haven't been using Chrome for maybe 10 years or more, so I'm genuinely interested. Even if you hate Firefox, something like Brave is felt the same way but without google's garbage. I heard there are new guys in town like Helium and other Chromium based browser which choose to remove telemetry, support manifest v2, adblocks and so on.
The browsing experience without constant upselling some trash and proper adblockers are magnitudes better.
I'd agree if you picked Google Docs or something like that, but Gmail? Chrome?? Come on! Edge is just Chrome with extra features, plenty of people use Bing without even noticing and many even non-techy people are fine with DuckDuckGo, good free email providers are everywhere (yahoo, hotmail, proton...).
> Is there another browser other than chrome (and dont say firefox or edge - because both don't compete)?
Can I run an ad blocker in Android's Chrome? I can in Firefox
> Do you have a choice to move from android, if you didnt want to have an apple device?
Not wanting and not having a choice are two different things.
> Do you want to use a different search engine other than google? Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-technical person - i know you can run your own)
My wife uses ddg and outlook, she's non-technical. I convinced her to use ddg but she's always used outlook/hotmail.
2 replies →
>Do you want to use a different search engine other than google?
Yes, type yahoo.com into your browser, or install an app. Non-technical people love installing apps on their phones.
>Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-technical person - i know you can run your own).
Yes, there are hundreds of good e-mail providers to use instead of Gmail. Easy for the non-technical person to use.
1 reply →
the move don't have to be permanent, there are alternatives and as we increase our usage and give active feedback and commit to invest even little money in them, they will improve too. I've seen this pattern a thousand times the monopoly gets worst and worst until a revolutionary new tech will rise it applies to social concepts, business sectors, companies, mother-in-laws, etc.
> Do you want to use a different search engine other than google?
I've been on Kimi now for 3 months. I rarely used Google in that time. Kimi is largely free though sometimes when I run of the free quota I fallback to DeepSeek/Perplexity. I have no idea where they are getting their index from though.
> Is there another email provider than gmail (for the non-technical person - i know you can run your own).
There is microsoft/apple/yahoo mailboxes. However, I think most people should pay for their email especially that it's cheap and also critical (2FA).
> Is there another browser other than chrome (and dont say firefox or edge - because both don't compete)?
Firefox is a solid fallback and also webkit (Apple) is now basically a different browser (ported to Linux on GNOME Web). Not the best situation though it could be worse (given Firefox situation).
For me personally, the only two things I still use Google for are chromium and maps. I am unlikely to move from Chromium anytime soon but might consider alternative for maps (though might still need maps for reviews/photos/street view).
I am the most bullish I've ever been on Google losing its monopoly especially after they botched AI and hyper-scaling.
Once an alternative to one of their things, like immich, becomes viable, people run as fast as they can.
The strategy of doing everything you can to make sure your customers truly and utterly despise you and want to spit in your face is probably not productive.
[dead]
Google's AI in their docs suite is so bafflingly bad. I wanted their AI to automate a sheet for me and it just choked. I switched to Claude for making a sheet that I ended up hosting in my local NAS using Microsoft Excel format.
Embedded AIs always suck. It's a dead end, long-term. By its nature, AI subsumed software products, reducing them to tool calls for general-purpose AI runtime.
> Google stopped being aware of their customer's needs a really long time ago
Google's customers are advertisers. They cater to that segment very well. They only need to attract users with "free" and cheap services so that advertisers think their campaigns are reaching enough eyeballs. Whether or not that's the case, and whether or not the end user has a good experience, is hardly relevant.
I'm similarly baffled for the reasons you state but your breakdown of the market differentiations is a little hyperbolic.
> Apple has had better mobile hardware for years
Apple has never had better hardware (on mobile). Apple has had better software support & integration for their hardware that has lead to e.g. strong camera quality advantages (iOS camera app has been able to use the hardware better to produce photos people want despite some Android OEMs having objectively better camera modules since those OEMs have to work through a lot of Google contracts & software extraction).
The hardware has never been better - their holistic ecosystem has just made integrations with it smoother.
> Apple has better app selection (for most people)
This has been true but it's always been marginal, & the "for most people" qualifier has contracted significantly in recent years. Both Google's & Apple's 1P offerings have declined in quality & popularity, but Google have increased lock-in & reliance on theirs in ways Apple can't, while the 3P offerings on Android have improved significantly relative to iOS. Gone are the days of companies releasing exclusively on iOS, or the Android version being an afterthought with missing features - if anything it's swung in the other direction.
To be clear, I think your points still stand: Google's recent strategy doesn't make sense for Google. I just don't think it's as glaringly clear cut as you make out.
One aspect that's worth keeping in mind is the non-US market. Apple has a 58% market share in the US but it's 28% worldwide. Outside of the US market the impact of that "every Android user lost to the increasing iOS market share" is significantly diluted (tbh I'm not sure it's even increasing outside of the US at all) & emerging markets are growth areas.
>Apple has never had better hardware (on mobile).
This is just straight up false. Qualcomm's current top of the line processors are about 3 years behind what you can get in Apple's cheapest product (that being the 16e), and the budget phones (and by "budget" I mean "the 600 dollar ones") are another 3 years behind that.
iPhones don't generally become too slow to realistically use until their support lifetime expires. Androids are like that out of the box unless you spend over a thousand dollars, and those only last for about half the time (a combination of inferior hardware and inferior software). It doesn't matter if you have a 120Hz screen if the UI only updates at 20.
This is why the only killer feature for Android (outside the cameras) is adblocking- which, of course, is what Google wants to prevent. They don't want you to run real Firefox (with the only effective adblock remaining), and they want you to pay for YouTube Premium rather than using NewPipe (or some other ReVanced successor) so you can't get out of paying 10 bucks to listen to a video with the screen off.
Apple only implemented USB-C due to pressure from the EU.
One area Android has a clear advantage is Android TV devices verified by Google, because there is a much wider array of streaming apps of all kinds available. However google doesn’t seem to focus on this very much, and if you look for forum recommendations for google android streaming devices it’s very often the NVIDIA shield pro from 2019. Hopefully that device will I’ll be supported for a few more years because there seems to not be good easily available alternatives.
Apple was among the first to implement USB-C in early 2015. A whole year before Samsung and the likes.
The killer apps that gave Android an advantage on TV are now mostly available on tvOS. To me, these were VLC and RetroArch.
> Surely the marginal revenue from the inconsequential number of sideloading users isn't attractive enough to justify that kind of strategic blunder.
If the rumors are true that the whole anti-sideloading thing is mostly because some governments complained, it might not have to do with a business strategy at all.
they see apples recurring revenue and lust over it, and the correlation is the walled-garden and they want it too
personally, it makes me less enthusiastic about android as i don't need another iphone but n=1, so maybe it will work out for them....
Because antitrust laws are strong in a few countries. While most of the 2nd or 3rd world antitrust laws are non existent. Google's strategy is to squeeze those markets. They have higher population too and hence many more advertising to sell and much more control of the "online experience" in those countries.
What confuses me is that easy "sideloading" has been the main thing that kept down the proliferation of degoogled custom ROMs.
Secure boot prohibits custom ROMs on most android devices
Well you misunderstand enshittification. It will never get better again. Both Google and Apple have enshittified their phones. You can verify this on the App Store, on the Play Store, both of which have now more than 50% of search result screen space dedicated to ads, more when it comes to scams [1]. AND you can verify this in the financial statements of Apple and Google, where you see what we've always seen in Google: steadily increasing at a fixed rate profits from ads on the play store in Google's case, and steadily increasing at a fixed rate profits from "Services", which is App Store ads.
In Apple's case this has been the only Apple business to grow at all in several of the recent years. In fact there's quite a few Apple businesses that look like they are "revenue neutral", most famously iPads. Google is better, but not by much. Cloud is growing fast ("but why?" is a question that's unanswered. I mean, "because of AI", of course, but ... seriously?)
So not only are they enshittified, and you see them getting worse and worse over time, but the financial statements show: if you're expecting this to get any better either in the Apple or Google case, you're insane. Because clearly ads for scams are worth it for advertisers, and most other types of ads are not worth it. The situation evolves more and more towards the cable channel situation of 20 years back.
You could also reverse the view. The simple question: "are people willing to compromise on hardware quality to get less ads?" has a very clear NO answer. "Are governments/institutions that are totally dependent on these systems willing to pay to either improve phones or make an alternative available?", again has boatloads of evidence that the answer is NO, in all caps.
[1] Search for "credit card" or "lose weight" and judge for yourself. Top results are promoting Apple or Google themselves, everything else are ads, and very bad deals that trivially will neither accomplish the promised financial independence nor weight loss. Or should I put it like this: the credit card deals advertised are so bad they might achieve weight loss. By the way ads designed to mislead, which the top ads for either search obviously are, are what both Google and Apple promised time and again never to do.
Apple makes a lot more money. Google wants to do what Apple does, to make more money like Apple.
Google might also get paid to enable surveillance.
I have a feeling, despite Google's communications, this is all an attempt to thwart the numerous ad-free YouTube apps.
Another reason it should have been broken apart years ago. It's laughable that the biggest ad company in the world owns the largest video site in the world, largest browser in the world, largest search engine in the world, and largest mobile OS in the world.
NewPipe (FOSS available on F-Droid) is nice alternative to ads-infested YouTube. I disabled YouTube and YouTube Music apps on my mobile, and I use NewPipe instead. You can even download YT videos or audio from YT videos using it.
I'm using Pipepipe. I believe it's a fork from NewPipe, and has more features, namely skipping sponsor block, and intros
So entitled. How do you expect Google to pay it's content creators that you watch if they didn't have ads?
5 replies →
I'm using Grayjay at the moment. Somehow still available in the play store (though with reduced feature set).
What's going on with NewPipe? Their F-droid repository is down. Their domain is down. Their github repository is up, but it links to their domain, which isn't. Are they dying?
1 reply →
If google push too hard, someone will make a "youtube mirror" - ie. a complete copy of youtube at a different domain.
The actual data could be hosted p2p across all the users devices, and any missing data retrieved one-time-only from real youtube servers.
> The actual data could be hosted p2p across all the users devices
Sounds like a Pied Piper app.
That website will have an IP address and a registered owner. Taking down piracy websites is routine for governments, server providers, and domain registrars now, and they don't care whether the site is actually illegal. You can only get away with this long-term if the site is hosted in Russia, but Russia is sanctioned so how will you pay them?
2 replies →
Has there ever actually been a success story for using end user mobile handsets as servers?
Do you have an estimate of how much would be needed to mirror?
BTW PeerTube is a thing.
1 reply →
I guess you never received a copyright infringement notice from your ISP for seeding a torrent.
Their strategy is growing markets, especially in india, and africa, and of course China. It's where the chinese oem dominate. Beside chinese OEM, i think the only other player is Samsung. So google strategy seems to be to circumvent people from misusing their OS by blocking certain services (mainly ads). This is done via apps from fdroid, and rooting and what not. If google can control how people uses their devices (block vpn based adblocking, or rooting all together), they have better grip on the market. At the end of the day, Android is front for an ad platform.
> [Google's] strategy is growing markets, especially in india, and africa, and of course China.
Really? China? Where Google services are banned and Android phones come with local OS versions that cut them out? "High-friction sideloading" won't affect anyone in China. It won't be part of their experience at all.
I think OP is suggesting that the ability to sideload is what is preventing their phones being distributed in China.
If you can present a "locked down" phone to regulators, you might be more likely to get permission to sell large volumes of them - like iPhones in China.
2 replies →
Except only a few countries in the world have wages where their citizens can afford Apple.
While I can afford Apple, out of principle I am not buying anything above 300 euros, that requires me to also buy another computer for hobby coding, and a dev license.
All my use of Apple hardware is via projects where pool devices are assigned to the delivery team.
Mobile providers usually offer loans ("service contracts") where people get phones outside their financial standing (I regularly see high end iPhones and foldable phones of €1-2k run by people in a country where average monthly salary is less than €1k): if a highly visible device like your phone can be had for 10% of your monthly salary, people will, unfortunately, opt for it.
I tend to not use Apple not due to cost (I honestly believe it's OK to pay a premium for quality; I might disagree they offer it today though, as I do use a couple of their devices at work), but because of how closed their ecosystem is (and yes, all my personal devices are running some sort of Linux, and Android phones are rooted and with bootloader unlocked).
Many countries prefer the freedom of pre-pay/post-pay than being bound by contracts though.
Not everyone has the US culture of running their life on credit.
Because when life changes, it isn't only their phone they lose.
The only single time I had a contract, because it was the only way to get a Nokia N70, I learnt never to do another one ever again.
1 reply →
People who are reaponsible for Android all use Google phones. They dont care about android. They dont use it. They dont understand their use cases.
If you are hired by a manufacturer of say cola, you cannot drink the competition cola.
Those in google laugh when asked to show their phones - and then show iphones. In any other business they would be terminated.
I think an edit is in order, as your post, in the current form, doesn't make any sense.
This is a legitimately crazy take, yes the differentiations are less but how we got there isn’t so altruistic
I’m firmly in the Apple ecosystem and every one of those examples were not Apple’s unilateral decision
I think seeing the noose circling around both Apple and Google’s necks better explains the quagmire that Google is in
Apple was getting ahead of a European consumer protection ruling to switch to a single interoperable cable, USBC was there
Apple and Google worked to make RCS better for years, as Apple was ignoring it and Google was using a non-standard RCS
> Apple has had better mobile hardware for years.
Well no, Chinese phones are above Apple material-wise (better battery, better cameras, better cooling) and on par SoC-wise since last year. That's what makes Google's strategy so baffling.
> Apple has better app selection (for most people).
It's entirely the same. I have gone back and forth regularly for the past 10 years. Android is completely on par app-wise. Apple has the iMessage lock-in in the US obviously but not in the rest of the world. Apple might have a slight advantage on the pro segment with the iPad but I don't think it has a huge impact on phones.
The really baffling thing to me is that while they lock down Android, they pay to put Gemini on iOS. Google has a real competitive advantage with IA and they just gave it to Apple.
It's clear to me that they are two companies fighting each other inside Google: the ex-Motorola who wants to be Apple and the service side who wants to be Microsoft.
I personally fear that they are making the bed of the regulators who will probably come for Play Protect at some point to open the door for alternative OS providers at least in Europe. But maybe they think it's coming anyway and are strengthening their position and trying to milk what they can in the meantime.
> they pay to put Gemini on iOS. Google has a real competitive advantage with IA and they just gave it to Apple.
What Google loses by pushing iOS AI customers to ChatGPT outweighs what they gain by trying to convince people to switch phones for access to Gemini.
>>Apple has had better mobile hardware for years
Are you joking? Look at the latest Xiaomi, Oppo and other Chinese manufacturers, Apple would love to have the hardware they are shipping right now. From batteries to cameras and screens, apple is way behind on hardware tech. Yeah they are better than Samsung - but Samsung has also massively fallen behind what's the state of the art.
>>is another customer Google has to pay exorbitant fees to a competitor to access.
Last time I checked, it's apple paying Google, billions of dollars a year? And it will be even more now that Apple announced they are going to use Gemini as their AI base model.
> Last time I checked, it's apple paying Google, billions of dollars a year?
You checked wrong. Google pays Apple on the order of $20 billion to be the default search on iOS - this is so significant it accounts for ~5% of Apple's annual revenue
If any of these manufacturers decide to include an EMR pen in the body of the phone, like Samsung's S-Pen, they'll have me as a customer. The S-Pen so completely changes the experience that I am unwilling to go back.
> Look at the latest Xiaomi, Oppo and other Chinese manufacturers, Apple would love to have the hardware they are shipping right now.
This is true, but their phones don't ship with Google services out of box (at least the last time I checked). So in reality, "Google's Android" is really mostly Samsungs and Pixels.
Thinking Apple hardware is better is utterly laughable when you look at non-US Android devices.
Much better camera sensors, much better silicon carbon batteries etc in Oppo, Vivo, Honor and Xiaomi devices than anything Apple produces. Form factors Apple still hasn't figured out, such as 7th gen Foldables, Flip foldable phones etc, Camera zoom lenses that can be attached...
[dead]