Facebook has allowed anyone to spread video capturing police misconduct that the mainstream press has ignored for decades.
Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing devices in the hands of people who could never afford the alternative and YouTube has allowed anyone to publish video.
I myself find Google’s products second rate and I prefer business models where I give the company money and they give me stuff. But I realize that a $1200 iPhone Pro Max is an indulgence that many walking around with a $35 unsubsidized phone can’t afford.
Without Android, would WebOS and other mobile OSes never have come out? Do the people using $35 phones care it’s Android vs what ever other OSes they’d have if it never existed?
There were video sites besides YouTube. YouTube cornered the market. That doesn’t make them special. All the examples are one brand cornering a market without having done any exceptional innovation that would be incredibly missed without them. Cornering markets is almost never a net positive for people. I should probably say it never is.
The world wouldn’t have been negatively affected much if Android wasn’t around. Why would the world be helped with Google controlling the majority of smart phones with a superior OS vs an inferior OS controlled by an independent Palm? The world would be much better.
> Facebook has allowed anyone to spread video capturing police misconduct that the mainstream press has ignored for decades.
Facebook didn't allow that, they enabled it, as well as many other places. In fact, if it's on Facebook, I can't see it. Smartphones in general created the glut of police misconduct videos, because everyone started carrying video cameras 24/7.
> Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing devices in the hands of people who could never afford the alternative
I do not believe this is true. I don't think they put computing devices into anyone's hands, and that there are also cheap alternatives. Android and ChromeOS crowd out (real) FOSS alternatives, and iirc ChromeOS started by crowding out Linux on the trendy tiny laptops that were being marketed in the mid/early-oughts.
Having a monopoly on the low-end market isn't charity work.
Sure, it's helped people spread some information. It's also helped people massively disseminate misinformation though. What I asked for was some corroboration that there is a net positive.
Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing devices in the hands of people who could never afford the alternative and YouTube has allowed anyone to publish video.
I myself find Google’s products second rate and I prefer business models where I give the company money and they give me stuff. But I realize that a $1200 iPhone Pro Max is an indulgence that many walking around with a $35 unsubsidized phone can’t afford.