Are you me?

Let’s address these one at a time…

The hardware is weak, but the market has spoken and to them at least, it doesn’t matter. If it DID matter, people wouldn’t buy them. Why would Nintendo spend the extra money when consumers have already decided they’re going to buy it in droves anyway? So they can spend more on manufacturing and make less profit? Yes, they wanted easy cash. What responsible company doesn’t? It doesn’t make any sense to spend a dime more on producing a product than what your customers demand. The limitations of the Switch are the fault of consumers who buy it, not Nintendo’s. If Microsoft could sell the same number of units Nintendo can by making a game system that cost $50 to manufacture and ran on 386, you can be damn sure they would too. I completely understand your anger - I’ve had to spend the last 20 years watching flocks of people buy inferior, overpriced Apple products and rave about how great they are. But like Nintendo, Apple only does it because the consumers let them get away with it. Your complaint is misdirected when it should be targeted at the customer base. But good luck teaching happy people who don’t know any better that the thing they like is bad. It’s not a great use of your time.

All of your other problems are perfectly reasonable, but if you think Microsoft’s plan if they buy Nintendo is to drop everything and start porting old titles or working on a new Starfox game, I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed. Like Disney buying Star Wars, get ready for annual, mediocre entries in your favorite series cranked out by a revolving door of existing teams to maximize output. After a couple years of half-baked Mario and Zelda games, they’ll stop selling in the numbers Microsoft wants, and after the golden goose is dead, they’ll dissolve any remaining Nintendo assets into their larger acquisitions structure, lay off a bunch, and put the name in the vault while they look for something else to cannibalize.

Yeah, and it’s sold more units than the PS5 and all iterations of the current XBox combined, at a profit on every unit. Nobody’s out there holding a gun to people’s heads to buy the Switch, but they sell FAR more than either of their competitors in both hardware AND software. It sounds to me like you’re not actually angry at Nintendo, but angry at the majority of customers in the game industry that don’t share your disdain for less powerful hardware.

They already tried to acquire them once and were laughed out of the meeting.

https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-wanted-to-buy-nintendo-145746874.html

Sure, buying Nintendo would be a win for Microsoft, but Nintendo would gain absolutely nothing from the deal. Sure, there are people like myself who loudly and rightfully complain about Nintendo’s business practices, but at the end of the day, it took until THIS year for Playstation 5 to finally outsell them in a single year, and they’re not even CLOSE to matching total unit sales, and Xbox is doing worse than THAT. Add to that Nintendo’s software attach rate, and as much as I don’t like HOW they do their business, they’re WILDLY successful at it and making more money as a function of their costs than anyone else in the industry, so they can’t be faulted for continuing to do what is working.

I honestly don’t know what Phil Spencer thinks would be different than the previous meeting in another sales proposal today, especially given Microsoft’s INCREDIBLY weakened industry market position compared to Nintendo’s. Microsoft is only able to approach the idea from a position of power based on its market capitalization funded by its other businesses - in the gaming industry, Nintendo simply occupies the more advantageous market position.

Had a chance to look, and you sir, just introduced me to a shiny new toy. I’ve spent the majority of today playing with Bliss and it’s the closest I’ve seen ANYTHING come so far to being EXACTLY what I want out of a virtualized Android environment. Thanks!

I agree with you that it’s unlikely we’re ever going to see that world come back (although I think given where we are now with Android’s dominance even if Android DID adopt the better, open model most manufacturers would suck it up and deal)

But that’s not going to stop me from old man ranting about it every chance I get. And like an old veteran who fought in a lost war, I’ll continue ranting about how it should’ve gone until I’m rotting in the ground, and shaking my fist at the whippersnappers who dare to move on with life.

Thanks for humoring me this long.

It’s only a fantasy as long as you accept it. Digital hardware NEVER worked this way until the mid-2000s and accepting the change is a CHOICE. If the same governments that rightly put the screws to Microsoft over their Internet Explorer monopoly had any justice or logic left, these changes would’ve been legislated a DECADE ago, if for no other reason than to align with e-waste reduction and reduce supply chain disruptions. But by all means, attack me.

And for the record, I am NOT ungrateful for skullgiver’s input, and I am happy to get his/her counterarguments so I can point by point explain why I do not find them convincing, but I am passionately not in the same camp, and I hope you can appreciate that I find defense of the position, particularly the ones along the lines of “It is how it is”, abhorrent. Everything is the way it is until it’s not, and the way things SHOULD be matters.

I respect his/her knowledge, and I respect him/her as a person, but I don’t respect the position that things are okay and/or can’t be changed. There is just too much damage being done by the way things are.

Phones are glass slabs. Without unique software, there’s no reason to spend the extra money on a Samsung phone, so why would companies bother investing in a platform like that? You may be interested in projects like Fairphone who do support multiple operating systems.

Change the model. The sameness of Android phones is one the worst thing about them, and the software changes with each unique one are almost exclusively battery hogging and poorly written. If phone companies were forced to open their hardware platforms maybe we’d see more risk again. Perhaps differentiated with ACTUAL VARIETY of hardware. Phones with physical keyboards… phones with e-paper… These things are actually actively selected AGAINST in the current model because the limitations of system updates means even if you get used to a better workflow with unique hardware, there’s no guarantee that you will get ANY updates or that there will EVER be a better version of the hardware released, but if the platforms were open, the lives of these things could be extended almost indefinitely. And besides,there’s absolutely no reason developers couldn’t have special software features still installed into their phones and still give me the option to dump a vanilla android image on there. Most PC users don’t buy a PC and then wipe the OS and customize their installation, so there’s no reason to believe open platforms would change anything for end users, and forcing companies to get more creative in innovating isn’t a bad thing in this nightmare market of samey overpriced clones.

I’m not aware of any API changes that would affect a dictionary app. It’s possible the app was abandonware and got cleaned up in Google’s yearly trash cleanup (that does remove some useful apps with the heaps of abandoned trash), but in that case you should still be able to install the APK from F-Droid or another source.

It DOES fail directly installed from the APK, but I don’t want to get bogged down in this.

I don’t disagree. That’s why I’m grateful for the Fairphone, Pinephone, and its other open competitors. Consider buying one of those once your current phone no longer works right! Most customers couldn’t care less about this, so open source/less restrictive phone community can use more customers or they’ll stay niche and inaccessible!

I’ve thought about that and I might do that if Pine ever contracts a less scammy shipping partner. Regardless, this special hardware is antithetical to developing a mobile Linux ecosystem anyway. Linux thrives because it runs on ANYTHING. That gives the widest possible user base who then contribute back to the system and makes the entire ecosystem BETTER. You can buy ANY PC and just install what you want, and that’s not less profitable for PC manufacturers. Smartphone manufacturers are greedily wanting to ENFORCE that environment to be Google’s specific flavor of Android modified the way THEY want, and the fact it’s based on that very same Linux kernel, locking down and limiting and forbidding users from using that hardware in better ways, is morally appalling and disgusting. I don’t disagree that this is an option, but this is a workaround to a system that shouldn’t function this way.

My anger is that the decision of an upgrade is made FOR me when the functionality of my phone should be limited by the physical limits of the hardware, and not the development limits of the phone vendor. A company should NEVER tell me “We don’t think this is going to give you a good user experience so we’re disabling it for you.” That is MY decision. If I want to suffer through running your app more slowly, that’s up to me, and I don’t need the decision made on my behalf, especially when the end result is costing me money. I’m sorry, but that is absolutely unacceptable. EU legislation is nice - I’m particularly looking forward to replaceable batteries making a comeback - but legislation forcing vendor updates doesn’t fix the fundamental problem that it shouldn’t even be their responsibility. I know the only real differentiating factor between vendors is their particular ROMs and whatever custom bloatware they ship with, but unlocked boot loaders and an operating system with a kernel that is not so inextricably linked to particular hardware that it can be installed and run on ANY Android phone is the real solution. Desktop operating systems don’t have 47 different installation images for 47 different special pieces of hardware, and there’s absolutely no reason that Android should need that either. Maybe there was an argument that ARM CPUs weren’t powerful enough, or space was at a premium for a kernel to have unnecessary hardware support 10 years ago, but the hardware is certainly powerful enough now, and all of those CPU cycles get wasted on crap like app scanning when the system starts, services I can’t identify and probably don’t need, assistants that are constantly listening to my microphone… I won’t say those things are all well and good - I loathe them - but if we’re going to have them that should come AFTER development of a generic Android image with a kernel that supports a wide variety of hardware. At this point, vendors can’t NOT conform - what are they going to do, develop their own mobile OSs again? Android has become the defacto standard and has no competition. You can force vendors to build hardware that conforms to standards and support generic OS installation now.

Google have decoupled everything they could from the hardware abstraction layer. These changes started coming in around Android 8 and 9 (5-6 years ago at the earliest) and have only been extending the following versions. Entire subsystems like the Bluetooth system can receive updates through Google. You can boot standard OS images and all the important hardware will Just Work. If you’re stuck on an Android version that’s being dropped by app developers (Android 7, I’m guessing?) you probably won’t reap the benefits, but it’s been a few years since then.

If this is true, I haven’t seen it. I’ve got Android 10 phones and as far as I know, I sure can’t download a generic Android 12 ROM and just install it. I’m stuck waiting for system updates.

If you’re not paying, you’re the product, or you’ll be left with shovelware. Companies that won’t make any money from you aren’t going to give you anything out of the goodness of their hearts.

It’s surprising that I’m STILL hearing this when I’m running 6 PCs with free operating systems that work, aren’t bloated, and are loaded to the brim with world class software that is all free and reliable, some of which was written 20 years ago and barely been touched since because it STILL works.

What you’re saying is perfectly valid for SERVICES, which involve ongoing costs, but not everything needs to be a service. In fact, I’d argue most things SHOULDN’T be services. And if I write an app TODAY that works PERFECTLY for some task, I can’t just leave it there and rely on it to keep being used in the future. Because of the architecture of the Android system, I have to continually put in work to make it conform to new standards, which of course, keeps reliable, functional FOSS from getting ANY kind of long term usage in the mobile space.

My favorite dictionary app was written for Android Kitkat. Completely offline and functional and did everything it needed to PERFECTLY. I upgraded my daily driver phone to a Android 12 and with there being NO changes to the dictionary app that did EVERYTHING that was necessary for free, that app was broken, because it didn’t conform to some new standard. Another app let me remotely mount my SSHFS folders and use my personal server, but THAT broke when Android removed the modules from the kernel. The entire history of the platform is LITTERED with this garbage where developers are FORCED to continually put in work on things that should be “develop once and it’s done”, and that’s INTENTIONAL.

It’s a scam of squeezing money out all the way down.

Apps “forcing” you to update are the result of developers doing their jobs. Just because you decided to buy a cheap phone or a free Android distro that doesn’t come with any update guarantees doesn’t mean they have to pour in money to keep things working for you.

I absolutely refuse to spend that much money on a platform with so little respect for users. You shouldn’t even NEED an update guarantee. You don’t go out and buy a computer and check for guarantees that it’s going to include OS updates… you KNOW it’s going to continue updating until the hardware physically can’t handle it anymore and you get sick of it and go upgrade it. The Android system and its heavy ROM customization and reliance on vendor updates is fundamentally broken, and it is NOT a problem to be pawned off on USERS to fix by throwing more money at it. The only reason there’s ANY difference in the Android environment vs X86 computers is because people tolerate it for whatever reason. This is a problem to be fixed, and the first responsibility for fixing this is on Google, and failing that responsible app developers should be developing for the lowest still supported Android version for SEVERAL reasons.

1. I’m generalizing, but as an app developer, usually more users is better.
2. If they DID it would be incentive for Google and Android manufacturers to FINALLY decouple Android updates from the hardware they run on.
3. It reduces e-waste by extending the time phone hardware can be used. I shouldn’t have to explain why this is a good idea.

There are good reasons to update an app to use a new Android version. Complacency in a broken environment of continuous obsolescence as a money making scam isn’t one of them.

This is fascinating, and the first I’ve heard of this. I’ll look into it!

That’s all well and good for development, but there are other use cases than development. There are emulation solutions focused on development already, of varying quality. But there’s nothing for Android END users who simply want to be able to run software an Android environment without having to be tied to a piece of hardware and all the limitations and sacrifices that come with that.

That’s not to say this isn’t a useful option, but that’s still ONE Android environment tied to ONE piece of physical hardware.

To give an equivalent comparison… if you wanted to run multiple operating systems on your PC to have fine tuned control of different environments, you could just install a different Linux distro or Windows to multiple different VMs.

If I want to do the same thing with Android, the solution is always “Buy another device”. That’s insane. If the solution to wanting to run Debian alongside Fedora was “get a second computer”, people would be up in arms with how ridiculous and wasteful that is. But for Android, people just accept it for some reason.

Yeah… I feel the intent here isn’t to use the same Android installation on a bigger screen - it’s about taking back control and setting up Android environments on your own terms without unnecessary hardware. It’s a totally different use case.

Depends on who you ask and how charitable they’re being. hahaha

You are DEFINITELY not alone. Every 6 months or so I come back to this and hope someone has done something, and every time I’m disappointed. I’d do it myself, but my username isn’t an ironic joke.

I totally get what OP is asking and am constantly annoyed by the same thing.

There’s a ton of software that can ONLY be run on a mobile OS, and rather than deal with the nightmare that is a physical Android phone with all of its limitations and restrictions, it would be nice to have these things running in a VM that I can fully control. There’s software that demands access to insane and ridiculous permissions, and I’m not going to install those to my physical Android phone and deal with the privacy problems. But a completely isolated VM with burner accounts that I can run in a window on the desktop I’m already using most of the time anyway? I’ll take that. Also, I don’t see the need to shell out the ridiculous price premiums for phone models with the most storage space when I only use a handful of apps when I’m mobile anyway. An app I might need two or three times a year still takes up that space on my phone when it could easily live on a VM and be used only when I need it at home.

Also, when Android releases new version updates and my phone manufacturer doesn’t keep up? Why should I have to go out and buy a new phone just to appease the handful of apps that decide THEY want to be cutting edge and THEY’RE going to be the ones to force me to waste money? I should be able to just spin up another VM with the new Android version and use those sporadic apps on there until I decide to upgrade my phone in my own good time.

Also, Android X86 is fine, but the most problematic apps that mess with users and force apps to newer Android versions for no other reason than being “cutting-edge” aren’t made by the kinds of companies with the forethought or customer focus to provide x86 compatible apks.

Basically, I don’t see why it’s so hard to run a full virtual, sandboxed ARM emulated vanilla Android environment, or why people aren’t clamoring for this. It’s the most practical, straightforward solution to the fragmentation/bad vendor update model that physical hardware forces on us and I assume most of us hate.

I’m not saying no pressure. I’m saying you’re applying the pressure in the wrong place. You will not succeed at an individual level. You need to push for systemic change if you’re serious about it. Electric car adoption isn’t increasing because individuals are getting greener - economic incentives are aligning to make it a better decision. Veganism will have to follow the same path, and the longer it takes to start addressing the real things that will make a difference, the longer the problem will continue.

You want an example of effective action? Start by pushing politicians in your country to end or reduce government subsidies for meat production that artificially keep prices low. Push candidates for office to start initiatives that will build future successes, like encouraging introduction of meat alternatives in school lunches and nutritional programs so you’re building an educational foundation for the future instead of relying on guilt, shame, and bullying. Pressure producers of successful vegan food products to stop relying on the willingness of the current vegan community to overpay for products and encourage them to lower prices to competitive levels as a moral imperative.

These are all things that will make a real difference in the short and long term. Arguing on the internet with individuals won’t.

Nobody with any sense will argue with you that veganism isn’t a better and morally superior diet than meat, but trying to push this as an individual responsibility issue is doomed to failure.

It’s the same problem as convincing people to change their diets to lose weight or be healthier in general - it’s hard to get people to be satisfied with an entirely different diet than what they’re used to and you won’t guilt them into it. The vegetable-based meat alternatives that are being produced are the best possible way to wean people onto vegan diets, but the companies that are producing them care more about profiteering than trying to undercut meat costs despite the touted savings in production costs.

Seriously trying to get people onto more vegan diets should involve way less pressure on individuals and more concerted effort on eliminating government meat subsidies and holding businesses in the vegetarian/meat alternative space to account for being more concerned with profitability than their “mission”.