>>42736228
And to tag into this discussion, it hurts me to see AOSP getting progressively more of a walled garden, but I personally stick with this side of the duopoly. On iOS devices I am forbidden from running the OS I prefer, which goes against my understanding of the word "ownership". Of course for other people this is a less important aspect, so for better or worse it's good that we still have some competition in this market.
On Android side it seems like Google is done with gaining people's (and ponies'?) mindshare by loudly being "the open" platform, and is now trotting towards next step of the enshittification, locking things down. Unfortunately, not enough people care, and as a passerby I'm not equipped with the skills to do something about it, just occasionally comment online to give people ideas.
>>42736326
>no? the appleid is just to download apps for the app store
Which is a valid answer, but I'm sure you realize that this effectively means it is mandatory for most users. Unless you live the early Jobs' approach to third party software on iPhone 2G, where it was all meant to be webpages accessed via Safari.
Now, on Android it's not that much better, but installing custom software (some would call it sideloading, like it's supposed to be a thing for niche nerds only) is possible without any accounts and EULAs to accept. For now. Cue the mess with scammers sending .apk links via SMS to people and gently hoofholding them through the entire process of getting their money stolen, leading to Google getting a bit too monopolistic with their proposed solution of "true Android developers" list, enforced by devices running Play Services baked into OS. Sigh.
>>42736346
>i mean i guess there's icloud services but those wont run at all if youre not signed into it
Pardon me intruding, but I wouldn't speak such claims if this cannot be verified and/or I was not well versed in iOS under the hood. I'm not, and instead I would assume they still run something calling home - remember when people used to do fake activations via blackra1n etc. to have their old 3GS-ish iPhones get features like push notifications, inhouse YT app, etc. reenabled? Excuse if I'm remembering this not correctly, you've just reminded me of this era of tinkering with mobile devices from years gone. Well, similar era as when G4 ponies were published.
>>42736372
>to track you
But anyway, discussing this should be accompanied with a sort of threat model first. Do you need your device to do absolutely no connections to manufacturer? Are you ok with e.g. AGPS updates being pulled from the mothership? When does it stop being an added feature, and become something malicious you feel urged to disable?
Sorry for rambling again, those are such complex topics and it's even more difficult to discuss when you're not sure of the "tech level" of the other person. Or pony - I'd love to tell them about the marvelous and horrifying technology as I perceived it on Earth.