Chameth.com - posts like apple-google-aligned-incentives, simple-backups-restic-hetzner but not migrating-from-github-to-forgejo, why-you-should-be-using-https

Thinking more about backups

2025-11-01T00:00:00Z

The Backblaze logo

Almost a year ago I wrote about how I do backups with Restic and Hetzner. That system has been ticking along well ever since, but recently I had some… thoughts. These backups are all well and good if I accidentally delete a file, or a database gets corrupted, or something, but there are two glaring issues:

Firstly, I’m backing up my Hetzner server to Hetzner cloud storage. If something happens to Hetzner — or my Hetzner account — then all my eggs go down with that basket. Obviously Hetzner are a big organisation and aren’t likely to just vanish overnight, but I’m less confident about my account. Could a false abuse report get it suspended? What if the UK passes even more dumb laws and Hetzner decide it’s easier just to not do business with people here? This is the same sort of concern I have about Google accounts: if you have half of your life in Google Drive and Google Mail, what happens if you comment on a YouTube video, get flagged by an AI moderation process, and your account gets suspended? It’s probably not very likely, but these are things my brain likes to dwell on.

Secondly, the credentials to access the backups sit on each machine that is backed up. If someone malicious gained access to the machine, they’d also have access to delete or tamper with all the backups. It feels a little silly that the same attack could take down both the originals and the backups. There’s no way to avoid that with Hetzner’s S3 implementation, as far as I can tell.

Exploring options

I toyed with the idea of making local copies of the backups, but the only way to avoid the same problems would be to keep them offline and do a manual copy every now and then. I didn’t really want to do that, and was concerned that if I did a monthly offline backup then I stood to lose up to a month of data in the worst case.

I then looked around at other S3 providers. Amazon’s glacier offering is tempting due to its very low storage costs, but you pay for that if you ever want to restore anything. There are also lots of weird pricing edge cases around moving data between storage classes, minimum file sizes, and so on. A much better option is Backblaze’s B2 product. Their pricing is much more straight-forward, and they have an interesting feature that’s particularly useful in this case: lifecycle rules. Coupled with the ability to create API keys that don’t have access to delete files (just “hide” them), this allows for what’s effectively an append-only store.

This works more-or-less out of the box with Restic. Joseph Price has a guide that goes into the setup in a bit more depth. Basically, whenever Restic would delete a file (e.g. during a “forget” or “prune” operation), it instead gets hidden and is only deleted when the B2 lifecycle rules decide it should be. I’ve kept the existing Hetzner S3 backups for now, and just added an extra step to the end of my script: a simple restic copy and a restic forget. B2 actually works out cheaper than the Hetzner storage, as they don’t bill you for a minimum of 1TB storage; my current usage is around $3/month. Not a bad price for some extra peace of mind!

Further Adventures in Music Organisation

2025-09-21T00:00:00Z

I wrote before about how I’d dropped Spotify in favour of locally stored music, but things have advanced a bit since. I had a few issues: Tauon would occasionally manage to lose its database and along with it all my carefully constructed playlists and song ratings¹, and the experience on my phone was not very fun.

I had to manually sync the music by plugging my phone in to the computer, and sometimes it just refused to mount the right partition. I don’t think there’s really a good way to debug an Apple phone not behaving properly when connected to a Linux desktop. Then I started wanting more than one playlist synced², and trying to find a way to make that work just broke me.

I spent a while looking at different ways of hosting the music centrally. Plexamp gets lots of good reviews, and I’ve used Plex a fair bit. I set about spinning up a Plex server, and just could not get it working. The server ran fine, served the web interface, but would neither associate with my account nor run standalone. The docs were contradictory and there was very little useful logging. After a lot of frustration, I stumbled across mentions that Plex block running on Hetzner. I assume that’s the cause of my issues, although I have no way to know for sure. I use Hetzner for all my servers and other hosted services, but Plex have decided I can’t run the self-hosted software that I have a lifetime subscription for there. What the actual fuck?

I could have probably worked around the arbitrary restriction, but I didn’t want to throw more time down the drain. Instead, I set up Navidrome, an open source music server. It supports the Subsonic protocol, which means you can use a whole slew of different clients with it (or even write your own). It also means there’s a nice way to get data in and out of it programmatically, which I recall being a bit of a fight with Plex.

Syncing and organising

All my music lived on my desktop, but now I wanted it on my server. At first I just used rsync to copy everything up. I’d maintain a local “master” copy, and periodically shove the changes to the server³. That quickly got old, so I set up Syncthing to keep the two folders in sync. That worked… for a while.

Concurrently, I was looking at improving the organisation of my music. It was mostly organised by some Go programs I’d thrown together to automate the importing, with no real validation of metadata or anything else. Some albums got split up into multiple folders because the tracks had different artists (and didn’t have an album artist set); some artists ended up with multiple folders with slight spelling or case variations. It was upsetting.

I’d used MusicBrainz Picard before to fix some issues, but I didn’t really like the UI, especially when trying to do bulk actions. The main alternative is beets, which describes itself as “the music geek’s media organiser”, and is entirely command line. I was intrigued.

I started playing around with beets, and quickly noticed a problem. Every time I changed a metadata tag in a music file, Syncthing had to upload the entire file. I was frequently changing tags across the whole library as I got beets set up how I wanted, and Syncthing was handling it by uploading gigabytes of files for every minor change. I was already a bit unhappy with having the content duplicated in two places, so now I was using a command line organiser I figured I could just get rid of my local copy and move everything to the server.

I set up a Docker container for beets, and then wrote some incredibly hacky shell scripts so I could run beet locally on my desktop and it would SSH to the server over Tailscale and exec into the container, passing the arguments along. Then I did one final sync of the music library, got rid of Syncthing, double checked I had a backup and deleted all of my local music.

Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica

Beets is amazing. It has a vast array of plugins that can do almost anything you could want with a music library, and the command line workflow works really well for me. It’s very well documented, and all the individual parts are pleasingly simple and easy to understand.

Here’s what it looks like when importing some new music:

Beets importing an album

If it doesn’t get a perfect match then it shows the closest matches, and summarises what’s different about them (missing tracks, different names, etc), and lets you decide what to do. Aside from the metadata matching, it’s doing a lot of things under the hood that aren’t necessarily apparent. It:

Looks up the genre from Last.fm
Analyses all the tracks and writes ReplayGain metadata to them
Fetches album art
Checks all the files to make sure they’re actually playable
Scrubs any existing metadata tags

It also maintains its own database, and you can query against it. The query language is both simple and quite powerful, like the rest of beets. As an example:

$ beet ls artist:"Linkin Park" year:2025 length:2:00..2:30 
Linkin Park - From Zero - Casualty

Almost all the other commands also let you use the query syntax, which makes the whole tool really powerful. Want to delete all country tracks that you added last month? No problem. Redownload all the album art for a certain band? Easy. You can even do smart playlists using the filters.

Actually playing music

With all this organisation, I’ve not actually mentioned one tiny detail: how I actually play music now. Navidrome has a web UI, which is perfectly usable, but I don’t really want my web browser involved as it makes balancing sound levels tricky, and getting media keys working is a pain. Thankfully there are loads of Subsonic clients. I’ve tried several, but eventually settled on Feishin on the desktop. It’s very pretty:

Feishin’s ’now playing’ screen

What attracted me to it, though, was its built-in support for Navidrome’s smart playlists. These aren’t even properly exposed in Navidrome’s web UI yet, but Feishin has a visual editor that lets you create and edit them. I ended up with an identical system to the playlists I had in Tauon: a “blacklist” playlist which are tracks I never want to play, a “favourites” playlist, and then an “everything” playlist which is the entire catalogue minus the blacklist.

On iOS I’ve settled on Arpeggi. It’s not actually on the App Store yet, but available via TestFlight. It’s one of those really nicely polished apps that are obviously a labour of love, not just out to do the minimum possible to get your money. It can cache songs offline, and automatically download entire playlists, and supports all of the standard Subsonic features like rating, reporting plays back to the server, and so on.

One unexpected benefit of using a central server is that it handles reporting plays to Last.fm and ListenBrainz instead of the clients. I don’t think I’ve ever bothered to configure my mobile clients to do that before, and now it just works automagically. I’m relying on those services more for recommendations and discovery, as that’s something you lose out on when self-hosting.

Making bad decisions about bitrates

With all the moving, copying, and organising, I started thinking about how large the collection was. The songs were all in different formats, depending on when and where I’d picked them up, and I couldn’t tell the difference between them. I did a test and transcoded an MP3 file down to 128kbps, and still couldn’t tell the difference. So armed with that sample size of 1, I transcoded the entire library and saved so much space.

I don’t remember which track I did that first test with, but it must have been a very unlucky pick. I quickly started to notice the distortions caused by the low bitrate. It was particularly bad in any song with a lot of treble, and started to really annoy me. I started a painful process of reimporting things in their original format. Beets came in clutch again, both with the import process (if you import a duplicate album, it asks if you want to replace the original, and shows the format and bitrate of them for comparison), and keeping track of what was left to fix (beet ls bitrate:..128000).

Having started paying more attention to the sound quality, I think I’ve been nibbled on by the audiophile bug. I’ve been trying to get new music in FLAC format where possible. I’m pretty sure I can’t tell the difference between a decent bitrate MP3 and a FLAC, but maybe if I got a better DAC and some nice headphones…? Someone please hide my credit card!

As for the library taking up a lot of space, I now realise it’s a price worth paying. I might need to swap out the server to one with more storage at some point in the future, but it’s generally worth upgrading every few years with rented dedicated servers anyway, as you often get more for the same amount of money. Next upgrade I’ll just make sure there’s an appropriately-sized disk instead of focusing entirely on RAM and CPU.

Writing more code

Naturally, this whole process spawned several side projects. When browsing albums in Navidrome, I was a bit upset that the album art wasn’t all a consistent size. I thought about scripting something to crop them consistently, but then I had a better idea, and jewelcase was born. It takes the album art, crops it down to a consistent size, and then renders it inside a jewel case. It applies some slight effects, like adjusting the colours, rounding the corners, and tweaking the edges so it looks a bit more real. I don’t know why⁴, but every time I see the effect it gives me a little spark of joy.

Album art, before and after jewelcase is applied

The other project is BASS, a tool that uses the Subsonic API to grab information about my music catalogue, and then generates a “Daily Mix” playlist. It uses a system of weights to select tracks semi-randomly, biasing towards favourite tracks, those that haven’t been played much, and a few other criteria. This gives me a nice balance between having my favourites on repeat, and exploring the full library at random.

All the weights in BASS are customisable, so I can tweak it to my heart’s desire, and anyone else can also run it and configure it entirely differently to me if they want to. I can’t imagine I would’ve been able to do that if I were using Plex!

I was running a version from git as the stable release had fun dependency issues on Arch, so it’s possible this wouldn’t be an issue in normal use. I also started backing up the database, but it’s still annoying to have to restore it. ↩︎
A “favourites” playlist for me, and a more “family friendly” playlist for when I’m playing music out loud that has a bit less screaming/swearing/etc. ↩︎
One of the reasons for starting this was being annoyed by the periodic sync to my phone, obviously it makes perfect sense to introduce a new, different periodic sync. ↩︎
Nostalgia? A little bit of OCD? Both? ↩︎

How tech companies failed to build the Star Trek computer

2025-07-16T00:00:00Z

A computer core room on the Enterprise-D

In most Star Trek series, the ship or station computer is ever-present in the background, waiting to be called on by the main characters¹. It nearly always does exactly the right thing, and there’s little limit to the functions it can perform. Take this mundane example from DS9:

KIRA: Computer, establish link with the Bajoran Medical Index for the Northwestern District.
COMPUTER: Link established.
KIRA: Access all information on Doctor Surmak Ren.
COMPUTER: There are no records matching that name.
KIRA: Try the Northeastern District, same search.
COMPUTER: Doctor Surmak Ren, currently serving as Chief Administrator of the Ilvian Medical Complex.
KIRA: Computer, open a channel to the Ilvian Medical Complex. Administrator’s office.

The computer is doing some kind of networking to a database only identified by name. It does a search and summarises the lack of results. It then repeats the process with another database, and succinctly announces the results. Finally, it opens a communication channel to a specific room in a facility, based only on its name.

This whole interaction is remarkably boring². Kira doesn’t have to know any URLs or API endpoints, or what protocol she wants to use. She doesn’t have to open a specific app and then login and then try the query again. She just says what she wants and the computer does it.

It seems like this should be one of the most easily obtainable bits of sci-fi wizardry with our current technology. We have multiple massive companies throwing lots of money at digital assistants, LLMs that are improving at an insane rate, but we’re somehow not even close to the usability or usefulness of the Trek computers. What gives?

Boring is, well, boring.

Larry Page once said something that might help explain it:

The Star Trek computer doesn’t seem that interesting. They ask it random questions, it thinks for a while. I think we can do better than that.

This is the same Larry Page that founded Google, whose mission statement is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Of all people, surely he should find an omnipresent computer that can answer ‘random questions’ interesting?! It seems like it should be the epitome of Google’s mission!

Google’s “better than that” seems to have been to stuff LLMs into every product they can, even when you don’t want them there. Even when they’re worse than the normal content they displace. These things look exciting when they’re part of a scripted demo at Google I/O, but they fall flat and just get in the way when they’re exposed to the reality of day-to-day use.

The Star Trek computer is the opposite: it isn’t snazzy, but it is genuinely useful. That means it’s not an attractive target for the company execs who want marketing opportunities, and it’s not appealing for engineers who need to demonstrate “impact”. But even if Google did try to make the Trek computer, there are other problems…

Assistants need to be free

A significant amount of tech companies’ business models currently revolves around trapping users in walled gardens. They want you using their ecosystem; that way they get more data from you, and you’re more likely to spend more money on their other offerings that work together. There’s barely any incentive to allow any kind of interoperability with other platforms outside carefully contracted integrations.

I remember trying to help a family member move their photos from iCloud to Google Photos. At one point they turned around and said, exasperated, “why is this so hard? Aren’t they both in the cloud?!”. It’s easy to dismiss that as someone who hasn’t quite grasped the fundamental idea that “the cloud” is just someone else’s computers, but that’s not the whole story. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a quick and easy transfer: both services already allow uploading and downloading, there’s just no incentive for the companies involved to make it so³.

These kinds of misaligned incentives and walled garden business models cause even more problems when it comes to digital assistants. Siri is basically never going to be able to interact with, say, your Google Drive; ~~Bard~~ Gemini is never going to be able to send a message via iMessage. Even when there are appropriately blessed interactions, they’re so clunky. Can you imagine Captain Picard saying “Computer, ask the turbolift skill to take me to deck 5”?

Someone else’s computer

Software issues aside, there’s still a key difference between the Star Trek computers and our current batch of digital assistants: where they run. The Trek computers are all housed within the ship or station they serve; they can connect elsewhere to gather information, but they run entirely independently. If they go wrong, a local engineer can go in and fix things. While some of our assistants may have physical hardware in your home, they don’t work without a vast cloud apparatus behind them. If your Internet connection fails, they become paperweights. If the company running them decide to remove some functionality you depend on, you have no recourse.

That kind of helplessness isn’t limited to assistants, either. There’s a rapidly growing trend of being unable to modify or repair hardware you fully own and control. Part of this is just that they’re becoming more complex: it’s a lot harder to replace a microchip than a gear, but companies are also going out of their way to make it more difficult for users through draconian DRM regimes⁴ and aggressive intellectual property enforcement. If the US Navy can’t repair their own equipment because a corporation says so, what hope do consumers have?

We’re approaching a point where you don’t actually own anything. Software is cloud and subscription based, hardware is unrepairable. Even cars can be remotely updated and have features added or removed. The Federation wouldn’t allow a third party control over their ships⁵, so why are we so happy to put up with it in everything we consume?

A small ray of hope?

The most promising way of tackling all of these problems is through legislation. The EU’s Digital Market Act is an attempt to force ‘gatekeepers’ like Google, Apple and Meta, to allow third-party access to their services. It seems like a pretty reasonable approach, but the tech companies are unsurprisingly resisting it. Apple in particular have gone out of their way to refuse to comply, and when forced to do so have limited the functionality to people in Europe. Still, the DMA is a promising start, and if similar legislation is introduced (and robustly enforced) elsewhere it might start forcing companies to behave a bit better.

There are also smaller companies that actually do the right thing. Framework make laptops that are user-serviceable; Fairphone do the same for mobile phones. Smaller software companies provide useful, open APIs. The average person on the street will probably have never heard of these, unfortunately, but they do still exist. Maybe as the bigger tech companies tighten the screws more, people will turn to alternatives like this? Or maybe we’ll just keep accepting that our computers work for everyone but us?

Unless, of course, the computer is playing the role of the episode’s MacGuffin and has contracted space-computer-COVID or something, then it’s a lot less in-the-background. ↩︎
It’s almost like it only exists to move the plot along. ↩︎
You can generally export your data, thanks to a combination of legislation and efforts like Google’s “Data Liberation Front”, but I’ve never seen an export format that could then just be imported into an equivalent commercial product. ↩︎
Oh, you’ve changed the screen on your iPhone? Better hope it can do the secret handshake with the Apple hardware. ↩︎
I think there might actually have been an episode where that did in fact happen. We’ll just ignore that as a plot contrivance. ↩︎

Simple backups with Restic and Hetzner Cloud

2024-12-06T00:00:00Z

Restic’s mascot, who’s dual-wielding umbrellas to save you from a rainy day.

I have a confession: for the past few years I’ve not been backing up any of my computers. Everyone knows that you should do backups, but actually getting around to doing it is another story.

Don’t get me wrong: most of my important things are “backed up” by virtue of being committed to remote git repositories, or attached to e-mails, or re-obtainable from the original source, and so on. I don’t think any machine failing completely would be a disaster for me, but it would certainly be a pain.

This week I finally got around to doing something, and it ended up being a lot more straight forward than my previous forays into backup-land.

Restic

After soliciting a few opinions, the choice of backup software came down to either Borg or Restic. I’m pretty sure either would have done what I want, but I leaned towards Restic for a few reasons: it has a more informative website, it’s written in Go rather than Python¹, and Borg seems to be transitioning between major releases at the moment².

The way Restic works is pretty simple: you initialise a ‘repository’, and can then call restic backup /some/path and it’ll get backed up to the repository. Restic handles keeping different backups separate, and only sending data that’s changed, and deduplicating, and so on. You basically point it at a thing you don’t want to lose, and it sorts it out for you. Perfect.

There are equally straight-forward commands for removing old snapshots (restic forget) and verifying backups (restic check). One of the nice things about modern backup solutions is they support a whole range of backends. I was originally going to spin up a small VPS to host my backups, but noticed that Restic supported S3-compatible stores…

Hetzner Cloud Object Storage

I host my servers with Hetzner, and was going to use them to spin up a VPS as well. Despite the “Cloud” branding on a bunch of products, they offer reasonable prices and good service. A couple of months ago, they started offering S3-compatible object storage.

The pricing isn’t totally straight forward, but for continuous use the “free quota” amounts to 1TB of storage and 1TB of egress a month. Ingress is free, as is traffic within the eu-central region (where all my servers are). That quota is only awarded when you pay the “base price”, though, which is €4.99 a month. So basically it’s €5 a month for 1TB of storage and enough egress to fully restore every single byte. That’s better value than any VPS I can find, much cheaper than Amazon S3, and about the same as Backblaze B2.

Getting them to work together

Now you’d think making the tool that supports S3-compatible object storage work with your S3-compatible object storage would be easy, right? Well not quite. The library Restic uses to deal with S3 backends has some strange logic for figuring out the bucket name given a URL. It doesn’t quite seem to work right, though…

Hetzner buckets have URLs like s3://bucketname.hel1.your-objectstorage.com³, but just passing that to Restic gives an error that the bucket is not specified. The docs mention there’s an advanced option to make it use the virtual host for the bucket name: -o s3.bucket-lookup=dns. But that… also doesn’t work. What I ended up doing was specifying the URL as s3://hel1.your-objectstorage.com/bucketname, and also passing in the dns option. The library then seems to muddle its way back to a real, working URL. I’m not sure why it works like this: maybe it’s just a weird aspect of S3 that I’m oblivious to?

The next fun part is that you can configure Restic entirely by using environment variables, except for that -o s3.bucket-lookup=dns argument. That has to go on the command line. I ended up making a little wrapper script to invoke Restic correctly:

#!/bin/sh

# The password restic will use to encrypt your data. You should generate
# something nice and secure.
export RESTIC_PASSWORD=repo-password

# The path to the repository where restic will save the backup. In our case
# this takes the form `s3:<endpoint>/<bucket>`. Your endpoint might be different
# to mine depending on the region your bucket is in.
export RESTIC_REPOSITORY=s3:hel1.your-objectstorage.com/bucket-name

# The access and secret key generated in the 'S3 credentials' section of the
# Hetzner Cloud Console
export AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID=hetzner-access-key-id
export AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY=hetzner-access-key

# Pass any arguments on to the restic command, along with the magic
# `s3.bucket-lookup` option we need to resolve the S3 URL properly.
exec restic -o s3.bucket-lookup=dns "$@"

Then in the backup script I just alias restic to use the script:

#!/bin/bash

set -eu

# This means any time we use `restic` below, we'll actually execute our special
# script which supplies all the env vars and arguments needed to find the
# repository. Make sure the path matches where you saved the script!
alias restic='~/.bin/restic'

# Actually do the backup. Each directory in the list below will be backed up
# separately.
dirs=(
	"/some/path/to/backup/"
	"/some/other/path/"
)
for i in "${dirs[@]}" 
do
	echo $i
	(cd $i && restic --verbose backup .)
done

# Prune our snapshots. You can tweak the numbers here. Run with `--dry-run` to
# see what effect any changes would have before actually committing to them. 
restic forget --keep-daily 7 --keep-weekly 10 --keep-monthly 24 --keep-yearly 10

The only other notable thing here is that the script changes into the directory to be backed up. If you give Restic an absolute path, it will create a new snapshot if the metadata of any folder in the path changes, which is not what I want.

If it wasn’t for the S3 URL issues, the whole thing would’ve probably taken me about half an hour. That’s including setting up the object storage, installing Restic, and so on. It’s painfully easy. Why didn’t I do this three years ago?!

Addendum: a step-by-step guide

If you want to do this yourself, here’s a quick step-by-step guide:

Log in to the Hetzner Cloud Console, and create a project.
On the “Object Storage” tab, create a new bucket. Note the name and the endpoint.
On the “Security” tab, go to “S3 Credentials” and generate new credentials. Note down the access key and the secret key.
Copy the first shell script above, fill in the password (you can pick!), endpoint, bucket name, access key and secret key.
Run the script with the init argument (e.g. ~/.bin/restic init). This will create a new repository, and only needs to be done once even if you backup multiple machines.
Copy the second shell script above, making sure the restic alias points at the script you saved in step 4. Change the list of directories to whatever you want to backup.
Schedule the script to be run automatically, using crontab or systemd timers or however you prefer.

To check everything is working, you can use the snapshots subcommand to see a list of saved snapshots. You might also want to try to restore a snapshot using the restore subcommand.

I’m not trying to be a language snob, but given the choice between two otherwise equal projects one in Go and one in Python, I’ll take the Go one. I know I’m not going to have weird library issues down the line, and I’m much more comfortable rummaging around the source. ↩︎
With a “Don’t use this in production!” notice on the shiny new version. ↩︎
Aside: I really hate URLs like that. What is with the trend for completely generic domains divorced from the service they’re a part of? ↩︎

Apple, Google and aligned incentives

2020-10-17T00:00:00Z

The HTC Dream, the first phone released running Android.

For the past decade I’ve exclusively used Android phones. I got the HTC Dream (aka the T-Mobile G1) shortly after it came out, and dutifully upgraded every 1-2 years. In that timespan I used Android as the basis for my Master’s Thesis, took a job on the Android team at Google, and eventually became a contractor specialising in Android app development. So when I switched to using an iPhone earlier this year a few people were surprised¹.

The good old days

When Android was announced in 2007 – alongside the formation of the Open Handset Alliance – it was positioned as a bastion of openness: it would be built on open standards and the operating system would be open source. At the time iPhones were strongly coupled to iTunes and Apple was exercising strict control over what app developers could do.

When the HTC Dream was released it lived up to expectations. You could write apps for it without shelling out for a Mac! You could get root access, and it was running Linux under the hood! A whole ecosystem of custom firmwares and bootloaders started to appear, thanks to the open source nature of the OS. It shipped with some Google apps, but they were just normal apps that served as examples of what could be done.

After the Dream came a line of Nexus devices. These were Android’s flagship devices, designed to show off what a good Android phone should look like. Both the hardware and software releases tended to feature interesting, useful upgrades. Some of the original open source apps were replaced with closed source, Google proprietary ones, but that was OK - the open source versions lived on in the open source project as examples of what you could do. The devices allowed flashing custom firmware, and the OS source was always released… eventually.

The downfall

The Pixel and Pixel XL

Over time, Android has got less and less free. The Nexus line of phones gave way to the Pixel range, which got rid of the clearly demarcated border where Android ended and Google began. The Android 11 highlights list is dotted with sections that say “On Pixel devices…”, and every single one is a software feature that could be implemented on any device, but Google have decided to keep it proprietary instead of releasing it as part of the open source platform.

At the same time more and more functionality has been added to Google Play Services. This was originally a shared location for Google specific services - in 2012 it merely handled some Google+ functionality and dealing with OAuth for Google accounts. These days it contains a huge swathe of Google services, as well as platform functionality such as push notifications, barcode scanning, geolocation, and so on. Google Play Services isn’t part of the Android Open Source Project, and is only available under license from Google. You can’t really have a device without these functions, so as a manufacturer you have the choice between agreeing to whatever terms Google requires² or spending an awful lot of development time creating an alternative.

While these are fairly abstract arguments about what a free platform should look like, during the same period there has been a marked restriction in how you can actually use Android devices – both as an end-user and as a developer. iOS has always had very stark restrictions on what apps can do in the background; Android started its life allowing pretty much anything, like any good general purpose computing device. This inevitably lead to lots of apps doing lots of things that ranged from stupid to mildly suboptimal, creating a tragedy of the commons amongst apps. The victim was the phone’s battery life, and Google’s solution was a progressive series of restrictions on what apps can do and when. This includes limits on when push notifications are delivered to a device, how frequently apps can wake up, and so forth. Some of these can be bypassed by the end-user, but not all, and the process is fairly cumbersome.

Aligned incentives

From my point of view, Android and iOS are now pretty much in a similar place. They’re not general purpose computers, but app consoles: much like games consoles they consist of hardware and software that the user lacks control over but accepts in order to access the library of apps/games.

Given there’s no clear winner between them in terms of hardware and software, my decision came down to a more holistic question: how aligned are their incentives to my own? Apple is a product company: they make their money by producing shiny things that people want to purchase; Google is an advertising company: they make their money by using my personal information to show me targeted adverts.

For Google, Android was originally a strategic move to ensure that Apple couldn’t dominate the mobile web, and by extension the revenue from ads. As a company, there’s nothing to really push them forward in any particular direction other than one that facilitates advertising. Of course, Google employs tonnes of good people who want to do good things which counterbalances this, but I’d still prefer to deal with a company that has an intrinsic motivation to do things I want them to do, rather than one forced to by regulation, custom, or the good intent of their employees.

So the decision became obvious: if I have no strong opinions about the software and hardware, Apple is the clear winner because their incentives are a lot better aligned to mine.

Image credits

Photo	Creator	Licence	Source
HTC Dream	Akela NDE	CC BY-SA 3.0	Wikimedia
Pixel and Pixel XL	Maurizio Pesce from Milan, Italia	CC BY 2.0	Wikimedia

Or, at least, politely feigned surprise. ↩︎
And Google’s terms were particularly onerous: as well as requiring Chrome and Google Search to be preinstalled, they prevented manufacturers from selling any devices powered by alternative versions of Android - e.g., Samsung wouldn’t be allowed to sell a refrigerator that ran Amazon’s FireOS. The European Union handed Google a $5,000,000,000 fine for this anti-competitive behaviour, which Google are still in the process of contesting. ↩︎