Israeli-founded app preloaded on Samsung phones is attracting controversy

2025-11-1716:54391263www.sammobile.com

For years, Samsung has shipped its Galaxy M, F, and A series smartphones in India with a little-known app called AppCloud. Despite its name, AppCloud isn’t a cloud storage service. It’s essentially an…

For years, Samsung has shipped its Galaxy M, F, and A series smartphones in India with a little-known app called AppCloud. Despite its name, AppCloud isn’t a cloud storage service. It’s essentially an app-installer that surfaces third-party app recommendations during device setup.

On new Galaxy devices in these lineups, AppCloud appears as part of the initial onboarding and forces users to choose whether they want to install certain apps before setup can be completed. You can postpone this by choosing the “later” option, but the app continues to push a persistent notification until you finish the selection process or disable it entirely.

For most users, AppCloud has long been regarded as little more than nuisance bloatware, a side effect of Samsung’s need to generate revenue beyond hardware margins while competing with aggressive Chinese smartphone brands in India.

But findings by the non-profit SMEX from earlier this year suggest AppCloud may not be as harmless as once assumed.

Since 2022, Samsung has also been preloading AppCloud on its A and M series phones in several West Asian and North African (WANA) markets. This rollout has triggered privacy concerns due to AppCloud’s ties to ironSource, a company founded in Israel and now owned by US-based Unity.

While AppCloud can be disabled, it is difficult to remove without root access. Furthermore, its privacy policy is not easily available online, raising questions about transparency, user consent, and what kind of data the app may collect.

ironSource itself has a controversial track record. The company previously operated an “InstallCore” program that became infamous for installing software without clear user permission and for bypassing security warnings, behavior that resulted in widespread criticism and blacklisting by several anti-malware tools.

Regional sensitivities make things more contentious

The presence of an Israeli-origin technology component on Samsung phones in WANA countries poses additional problems. Several nations in this region legally bar Israeli companies from operating, and in light of the ongoing Israel–Palestine conflict, the preload of an app tied to such a company becomes even more contentious.

ironSource’s Aura technology, which “optimizes device experiences” by surfacing apps, content, and services directly on smartphones, has been used on Samsung devices in Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia, and by telecom operators in the US; it also appears to do something similar to AppCloud. However, AppCloud itself is not listed anywhere on ironSource’s website, which appears to be the major cause for concern, even though the app is now owned by a US company.

While there’s no concrete evidence that AppCloud engages in questionable data practices today, the lack of an accessible privacy policy and ironSource's past reputation are causing anxiety among users.

Consumer advocates and privacy-focused users are urging Samsung to take immediate steps, like providing a clear opt-out for AppCloud during setup, making its privacy policy public and accessible, and to stop preloading the app entirely in sensitive regions.

With concerns rising across multiple markets, Samsung will likely need to issue a statement to reassure customers. We have reached out to the company for comment and will update this story once we hear back.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By baklavaEmperor 2025-11-1720:308 reply

    What’s striking is how often these ‘small’ surveillance tech stories trace back to the same state-aligned ecosystem. When Israel does it, it’s treated as a complex security issue. When another ‘bad’ country does the same thing, we immediately call it espionage. And almost on cue, the discussion drifts anywhere except the uncomfortable fact that it’s the same ecosystem from the same country showing up again.

    • By crmd 2025-11-1721:384 reply

      it’s a tough infosec situation because the tel aviv-haifa corridor in israel has an enormous amount of computer science R&D going on that gives US companies a competitive advantage.

      for example, annapurna labs in haifa develops the technology behind AWS’s nitro cards, which run the hypervisor, block storage, and networking in every EC2 server.

      • By Cthulhu_ 2025-11-197:181 reply

        Is it though? US and EU telecom companies pulled the plug on Huawei products, which were deeply integrated in all of their setup, as soon as someone said they may be spying or remote disabled by China. It was expensive, sure, but they pulled the plug. I don't recall any concrete evidence of backdoors etc to be found, but trust was gone.

        And that's the difference I think; US and Israel have high trust, they are aligned in ideals and strategy and the like.

      • By verisimi 2025-11-1721:421 reply

        Fair enough. I guess it's fine to be spied on to make sure US companies have that competitive advantage you mention. As its all in a good cause, I'll take the Samsung phone!

        • By dijit 2025-11-1721:581 reply

          To be fair, us over in Europe have been uncomfortable for a while due to the US surveillance apparatus having total dominion over the underlying systems that run our countries.

          So, its a little bit tone deaf to hear these complaints from Americans honestly.

          We’re told that we’re uncompetitive (yet when rising startups happen they’re bought out before being too large)- we’re told that we shouldn’t run on anything except US SaaS and US cloud providers.

          I’m not saying that you specifically make these arguments, but the zeitgeist on HN definitely centres on this notion.

          So, please forgive me for not taking this as seriously as you’d like me to.

          • By crmd 2025-11-180:251 reply

            I think USA tech hegemony is perfectly analogous to this Israeli tech dilemma. As a dual American and EU (Irish) citizen, should my company strive to categorically avoid Intel and Nvidia technologies for national security reasons? I think there is a strong argument for tech nationalism but there is still a hegemonic dilemma.

            • By pjmlp 2025-11-1810:18

              The main problem, even if you would avoid Intel and NVidia, is that during the last decades we confortably let OS and programing languages driven by US companies take over.

              So you might go with ARM, RISC V, but still have to make use of an OS and programming stack with strong ties to US based companies, even if open source.

      • By Melatonic 2025-11-1723:52

        And surely no way to monitor what's going on in those VMs

      • By pjmlp 2025-11-1810:16

        Also Microsoft's BlueHat security conference always takes place in Israel, and probably that is where Azure security R&D offices happen to be located.

    • By tamimio 2025-11-1721:35

      You are asking the “wrong” question!! If you are Gabriele Nunziati you will be fired immediately!!

      For context: https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/11/05/italian-journalist-fired...

    • By amarcheschi 2025-11-1721:383 reply

      I mean, it's literally the same thing that happens when past genocides are bad, but when they happen today from an ally of the west... "it's complicated". Except this time happens on the technological side rather than the humanitarian one

      • By like_any_other 2025-11-1722:453 reply

        > an ally of the west

        Remind me again of all the help Israel has provided the USA/the West that they are considered such a great (the greatest, in fact) ally?

        • By Cthulhu_ 2025-11-197:20

          Heaps of military and intelligence technology, base of operations / bastion in the middle east, etc.

        • By catlover76 2025-11-180:57

          [dead]

        • By pcthrowaway 2025-11-1723:551 reply

          [flagged]

          • By whatshisface 2025-11-184:51

            Everything on your list involved the sale of a product, by this logic China would be our closest ally (actually I wish our leaders were that sane, but the inconsistency stands...).

            I wish people could just state the transparently documented historical truth, Israel is a US ally because Truman and enough other backers wanted to create a state for Holocaust survivors. The leadership and majority of voters in the US have been true believers in Zionism (in one of its many versions) for generations, and supports Israel by essentially the same logic that Israelis support Israel by. This existed as a state of affairs with almost no opposition at any level until a couple years ago when it came into conflict with another basic belief (about being close enough to just in the cause and method of war that most people could somewhat believe it).

      • By lemontheme 2025-11-186:141 reply

        Well, that same ally has also been doing a bit of genocide on the humanitarian side lately, just so we’re clear on the facts

      • By Protostome 2025-11-1810:07

        [flagged]

    • By bfkwlfkjf 2025-11-180:52

      [flagged]

    • By kryogen1c 2025-11-1722:063 reply

      [flagged]

      • By YorickPeterse 2025-11-1722:121 reply

        If only Israel wasn't committing a genocide itself, and hadn't treated the Palestinian people like lesser beings for decades, maybe things would be different.

        • By dijit 2025-11-1722:371 reply

          [flagged]

          • By tovej 2025-11-1722:571 reply

            This narrative about the founding of Israel is false.

            Israel was founded in the middle of an offensive when it was "descended upon by the Arab world". That was a defensive reaction to Israel's brutal Plan Dalet, an invasion and occupation of Palestine, which extended far beyond what the UN had drawn up.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

            And then they destroyed 500 villages, ethnically cleansed Palestine of three quarters of a million of Palestinians and never let them return.

            They went around with detailed lists of people identified as Arabs in each village, rounded them up, set fire to the villages, and then blew up the rubble. How can you believe that is the act of a legitimate state? It is quite simply evil. Nazi-level shit.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

            This was not an operation that was sanctioned by the UN's partition plan (which was ridiculous and at odds with the UNs founding principles of self-determination to begin with) it was just retconned into being a legitimate action.

            • By dijit 2025-11-1723:161 reply

              I appreciate you sharing these links and pushing back. It’s clear you’re coming from a place of deep conviction about the historical injustices here, and I respect that.

              The Nakba is undeniably a catastrophe for Palestinians, involving mass expulsions, village destructions, and profound human suffering that shapes their identity to this day.

              Plan Dalet, as outlined in the Wikipedia article you linked, was indeed a Haganah blueprint that shifted to offensive operations, leading to the depopulation of hundreds of villages and the flight or expulsion of around 750,000 Palestinians.

              Historians like Ilan Pappé (in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”) argue it was a systematic plan for ethnic cleansing, with tactics like sieges, bombings, and forced removals. That’s not something to downplay or excuse: it’s a dark chapter, and comparing elements to other atrocities (while avoiding direct equivalences) highlights the moral weight.

              That said, I think the full picture is even more layered, and understanding both sides means grappling with the context without absolving anyone. The Arab states’ intervention in May 1948 wasn’t purely defensive; it was also driven by their own territorial ambitions and opposition to the UN Partition Plan (which, as you note, was flawed and rejected by Palestinians and Arabs for giving 55% of the land to a Jewish minority that owned ~7%). But Plan Dalet was finalized in March 1948 amid escalating civil war violence; after the UN vote in November 1947 sparked attacks from both sides, including Arab irregulars blockading Jewish areas and the Haganah responding in kind. Benny Morris (a “New Historian” who revised much of the traditional Israeli narrative) describes it as a response to anticipated Arab invasions, though he acknowledges the expulsions were often brutal and opportunistic. The plan’s text emphasizes securing Jewish areas and borders “in anticipation of” invasion, but in practice, it went beyond that, capturing territory outside the UN-allotted Jewish state.

              You’re right that this wasn’t explicitly sanctioned by the UN, and the partition itself violated self-determination principles (as the Arab Higher Committee argued). But the “retconning” happened post-facto through armistice lines and international recognition of Israel. It’s tragic that Palestinians paid the price for European colonialism, the Holocaust’s aftermath, and Zionist aspirations; all while Arab leaders failed to unify or protect them effectively. My original point wasn’t to defend Israel as “legitimate” in every action (far from it: they’ve committed wrongs that demand accountability). It was to urge empathy for how each side’s trauma fuels the cycle: Israelis seeing 1948 as survival against existential threats (five Arab armies invading a nascent state), Palestinians as the theft of their homeland. Both narratives have truths, and dismissing one entirely risks perpetuating the divide. If we’re serious about peace, we need to hold space for that complexity; maybe starting with works like Morris’s “1948” or Rashid Khalidi’s “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” for balanced views.

              Thanks for engaging thoughtfully; these conversations are hard but necessary.

              • By tovej 2025-11-1723:481 reply

                Thank you also for engaging in a civil manner.

                I still don't understand how you can view the Israeli foundation myth, and the "fear of an existential threat" as legitimate, when the Israeli state's founding was an unjust, immoral, wrong undertaking, the foundation of a colony on someone's homeland.

                If a perpetrator breaks into a house and kicks out the homeowners, then declares the attempts to take back said house as an existential threat to their new house ownership, a reasonable person would not view that as a legitimate concern.

                It's just not a logically consistent way to look at the situation. I agree that the current day situation is different, considering Israel has existed for two generations. It still does not change the fact that they are forcing an apartheid on the Palestinians, and are engaged in genocide, and have sabotaged any attempt to solve the situation by means other than ethnic cleansing.

                I refuse to consider a balanced view when the crimes that have been committed are so unbalanced. Israel has established a society, and that society has clearly established itself as the bad guy, Palestine has not even had a chance to create a society for themselves, so they cannot even be judged to the same standard. But even if we do, it's hard to see them as anything but victims of Zionist oppression.

                • By dijit 2025-11-186:371 reply

                  I try my best when trying to understand things, to think about how people have it today, and not to tie everything to what peoples ancestors did.

                  The only thing people can really do today is to acknowledge the past, and to do something about it, and if we’re taking the Israeli perspective now, then what we’re essentially telling them to do is not exist.

                  Many are fine with that being the case (why should they exist when its founded on evil) but there’s a few points there that make it harder to swallow I think.

                  1) I think if someone told me that I had no right to live in my home country because of its past I would get quite bent out of shape, especially if blood was shed.

                  (again, not arguing that this makes it entirely valid, just arguing a perspective).

                  2) It sort of justifies actual genocide. As mentioned in my other examples; any invading force in future will probably slaughter everyone. Because the international conversation surrounding genocides of the last 30 years is a lot more tame than how we talk about the suffering of palestinians.

                  This disproportionate discussion probably feels unfair, since the average Israeli probably feels like they would want to live peacefully today, if only they were not constantly attacked by Iranian proxies every time attempts at normalisation looked like they were succeeding. Unfortunately this would then include terrorism from Palestine.

                  I have to really caveat again, that I don’t think Israel is peachy, just that today the Palestinian narrative is a bit more empathised with internationally- but I wouldn’t like myself being in either countries shoes honestly.

                  • By tovej 2025-11-1810:221 reply

                    I have not said that Israel should not exist, that is your extrapolation.

                    Israel should be held accountable for what it has done, and if it does not further a two state solution, it should be sanctioned by the international community. Current and previous political leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes, and the country should be reformed into a secular democracy.

                    That's it, that's my stance.

                    Now, I don't see any of this happening, and I see a genocide being committed.

                    You're then characterising any military response as genocidal. This no longer feels like an honest response. First, it's Israel that has decided it wants to be an ethnostate, the only reason it would seem genocidal is because Zionists have conflated a religion with a nationality with citizenship. The bad actor of Israel should still be a valid target of military actions just like others are. Would you say that the allies committed a genocide when they attacked Nazi Germany in the second world war?

                    And where are you getting these ideas of "invading forces slaughtering everybody"? This is starting to sound like Zionist propaganda. I'm sorry but hypothetical threats do not matter when compared with actual apartheid and genocide.

                    The Palestinians have always been the less violent party. Israel is also a much more violent and offensively postured military actor than Iran, they developed nukes in secret for chrissakes, and they seem to have immunity from international sanctions.

                    Israel could choose to live in peace by changing it's military posture, by not constantly attacking its neigbours and destabilizing the region. They currently illegally occupy territory in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. They could simply stop doing that to begin with.

                    • By dijit 2025-11-1810:481 reply

                      Thanks for clarifying. Your point on Israel choosing peace by de-escalating, halting attacks on neighbors, and ending illegal occupations in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon hits hard. It is a straightforward path to de-escalation that demands action. But as of today, November 18, 2025, the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza holds broadly, with Israeli forces withdrawn to the “yellow line” and a UN Security Council vote underway for a new Gaza security force that could lead to full Israeli pullout. Trump calls it historic, though Hamas rejects it as insufficient.

                      This moment tests your idea: if Israel follows through on withdrawal and curbs West Bank settler violence (which has surged, with over 200 attacks reported this month alone), it could prove goodwill. Yet ongoing tunnel operations and regional strikes (like recent hits in Lebanon) show the military posture persists, fuelling distrust.

                      Pushing Israelis to empathise means seeing Palestinians not as perpetual threats but as equals deserving sovereignty. Many modern Israelis; weary from two years of war, economic hits, and global isolation… privately crave normalcy. They fear that unilateral retreats invite repeats of October 7 or Hezbollah barrages, especially with Iran arming proxies. Ending occupations could shatter that fear cycle, but it requires mutual security guarantees, not just Israeli concessions.

                      Your WWII analogy still fits: Defeat the aggressors’ system, not the people. Target occupation and apartheid policies surgically. Dismiss their fears, though, and hardliners win. Shared trauma acknowledgment, without equivalence, could spark real dialogue. What gap do you see?

                      • By tovej 2025-11-1815:271 reply

                        I appreciate the response, but I see the same pattern repeating. You admit to Israel's actual wrongdoing, but equate the hypothetical wrongdoing of Israel's opponents. There is no equivalence here.

                        Also, Israel has nuclear weapons and the backing of the US, the EU, and Russia. That is enough to deter attacks. Further security guarantees are redundant, but sure, add them.

                        I agree that the system should be defeated, but I don't think purely diplomatic solutions will work. At least not ones that assumes Israel acts in good faith. Israel has shown that it will not respect international law, and Israeli opinion on Arabs is not just extreme in a small group of hardliners, it's widespread. In order to make a real change.

                        I believe Israel has to be brought to heel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. That is what tipped the scale with apartheid South Africa, that is most likely the best course of action here as well. Israel does what it wants, it is a self-interested bad faith actor. We need a powerful coalition of international actors to associate a cost with Israel's crimes. That's BDS.

                        The issue is that Israel has lobbied for anti-BDS laws in the US, making this more difficult. It's an uphill battle, which is also why a balanced discussion about Israeli concerns will not improve the situation. Israel is fighting a propaganda war. If we start debating things other than how to reform Israel, Israel wins. It can delay, confuse, and run interference against any actual discussion about the real problem: the ethnonationalist founding principles of Israel, the apartheid, the genocide, the imperial ambitions of Israel, the blatant disregard for international law and treaties.

                        I appreciate the discussion so far, but I think I've said everything I want to say. If you have any final thoughts, I'd be glad to hear them.

                        • By dijit 2025-11-1817:49

                          I get your frustration with patterns in these debates, and you’re right that Israel’s documented crimes: apartheid policies, genocidal violence in Gaza, and blatant violations of international law… stand alone in scale and impunity.

                          No hypotheticals from opponents come close, and that’s not up for debate. The power asymmetry is massive: nukes, US and EU support (Russia’s more pro-Palestinian, actually, with recent UN pushes for Palestinian statehood), and anti-BDS lobbying make good-faith diplomacy a tough sell without real pressure.

                          But let’s cut to the core: wrongdoing isn’t one-sided. You have to acknowledge that on the Palestinian side too: rocket attacks on civilians, suicide bombings, and October 7’s civilian massacres are wrongs that can’t be waved away as pure resistance. Both sides have blood on their hands, and denying that keeps the cycle spinning. In the end, it’s all just people: ordinary Palestinians crushed under occupation, and ordinary Israelis living in fear, both wanting safety for their families.

                          Put yourself in those Israeli shoes; surrounded by states and groups that have historically vowed your destruction, with no other viable homeland to flee to after centuries of global expulsions. You’d feel threatened too, right? That doesn’t excuse Israel’s aggressions, but it explains why zero empathy guarantees endless war.

                          BDS is a sharp tool; it broke South Africa’s back through isolation, and it could here: boycotts draining the economy, divestment from occupation profiteers, sanctions on war criminals. Ramp it up, build the coalition, associate real costs with the ethnonationalism and imperialism. But to make it stick, humanise the people enough to split internal hardliners from the weary majority open to secular change. Otherwise, you’re just fueling the propaganda you call out. Good talk.. it’s pushed me to think harder.

      • By wiredpancake 2025-11-1722:17

        [dead]

      • By mdni007 2025-11-1723:03

        [flagged]

    • By cyanydeez 2025-11-1721:171 reply

      [flagged]

      • By dirck-norman 2025-11-1721:211 reply

        [flagged]

        • By Thorentis 2025-11-1721:271 reply

          The phrase "dog whistle" is also itself a dog whistle that signals where you stand on discussing particular issues in the open.

          • By dirck-norman 2025-11-1721:38

            Only someone trying to silence any dissent to their position would use platitudes like this rather than addressing why the OP mentioned antisemitism out of nowhere.

    • By FridayoLeary 2025-11-180:121 reply

      [flagged]

      • By rzk 2025-11-181:581 reply

        > Israel as a country is aligned with Western values

        Western values include, among other things, a commitment to equality and human rights, not apartheid[1] and genocide[2].

        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid

        [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

        • By FridayoLeary 2025-11-182:123 reply

          [flagged]

          • By rzk 2025-11-182:32

            > a wikipedia page on Western values

            Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_values

            Since the wikipedia page also mentions individual liberty and rule of law, let me also link to this topic:

            Arrest and detention of Palestinian minors by Israelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_detention_of_Palest...

          • By gatlin 2025-11-184:021 reply

            You're right - Palestinians don't deserve to be murdered by people who don't like them.

            • By Protostome 2025-11-1810:09

              They murdered primarily by Hamas, either directly or indirectly by their war tactics that prioritize civilian casualties.

          • By Kab1r 2025-11-182:291 reply

            As opposed to the rest of the world who believe you must let yourself be murdered /s

            • By FridayoLeary 2025-11-1810:26

              That certainly seems to be their attitude. If israel had listened to all of the advice from Britain and France it may well have been 60k Israelis dead. Imagine how many palestinians would have died. Nobody here is arguing against israel in good faith. If anyone had genuinely cared about the palestinians they would have put massive pressure on Hamas and put their full support behind a quick and brutal campaign. What would have happened? A 2 month long war and 20k dead max.

    • By energy123 2025-11-1721:391 reply

      When Israel does what, in this case? Write software?

  • By duxup 2025-11-1717:0010 reply

    I recently bought a cheap android device because I needed to test something on Android. The setup was about 3 hours of the device starting up, asking me questions, installing apps I explicitly told it not to, and then all sorts of other apps and OS updates trying to do their thing seemingly at once. I wasn't even transferring data, just a brand new phone, new google account.

    What a horrible experience you get with some providers and phones.

    It's to the point that I think there should be some sort of regulation that involves you getting a baseline experience on the OS rather than a bunch of malware out of the box.

    • By rootusrootus 2025-11-1721:091 reply

      I remember back when the iPhone came out, this was perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of it, at least to me. We were so used to phones coming with crap on them and tightly coupled to the carrier. If the carrier didn't want something on the phone, it never got there. So Apple comes along and says "Hey, AT&T, we will make you the exclusive carrier for the iPhone iff you leave the entire experience under our control."

      There were lots of downsides to that deal, of course, but I appreciate that it broke the carriers' exclusive control over mobile phones.

      • By cyanydeez 2025-11-1721:224 reply

        "I was so happy to get locked into a different eco system" is all I hear.

        • By linksnapzz 2025-11-1721:351 reply

          You wouldn't get a phone in 2007 that didn't lock you in to something; the question is whose ecosystem you'd prefer to deal with.

          I remember the Verizon crapware phone experience well.

          • By kotaKat 2025-11-180:42

            I remember when Verizon got deliberately hobbled phones on top of that. Some of the Windows Mobile phones came with up to half the RAM if you dared buy it on Verizon, and they locked the GPS out to use VZ Navigator instead of being able to just throw TomTom on 'em.

        • By Forgeties79 2025-11-1721:371 reply

          I would say their comment had a lot more nuance and thought put in to it than yours did.

          • By cyanydeez 2025-11-1722:47

            I mean sure, but Androids been following Apple's lead, not tother way tround.

        • By yupyupyups 2025-11-185:521 reply

          When you think of old phones, think of the touch interface on a printer.

          I don't like Apple either, they are DEFINITELY rent seeking and violating their users' privacy at the same time. There is no excuse for that. I think what the parent post was talking about is something historical. An iPhone at that time was a large step above a Nokia or a Sony Ericsson in terms of flexibility.

        • By rootusrootus 2025-11-1723:03

          Spinning up a competing carrier has a much higher barrier of entry, though, than creating a new mobile phone. If my only choices are carrier-controlled or manufacturer-controlled, I will choose the latter. Gives me way more options.

    • By summermusic 2025-11-1720:141 reply

      This is why custom ROM support is the first question I ask when buying a new Android phone

      • By t0bia_s 2025-11-186:552 reply

        Rather refurbished, because those are longer on market thus development of custom ROM (like LineageOS) is more likely. And of course you save a lot of money.

        • By summermusic 2025-11-1813:17

          Totally, by "new" I mean refurbished or used, but new to me :)

    • By jajuuka 2025-11-1719:492 reply

      Sounds like the average carrier locked Samsung device experience in the US. Oh you didn't want Clash of Clans installed? We'll reinstall that for you next OS update. Running updates through carriers was a serious mistake.

      • By jacquesm 2025-11-1720:321 reply

        Running remote updates in general was a serious mistake. Other manufacturers are no better and give you all kinds of crap for their income streams at the expense of your convenience whilst claiming the opposite.

        The last time I saw an update that just fixed security bugs and improved performance was... never.

        • By avn2109 2025-11-1720:351 reply

          I took this seriously and thought back to the most recent actually-useful-bugfixes-and-security-improvements release that I can remember. OSX Snow Leopard perhaps?

          • By Forgeties79 2025-11-1721:39

            Wasn’t that also Apple’s last paid OS?

      • By cryzinger 2025-11-1721:151 reply

        I was wondering why this thankfully hasn't been my experience until you said "carrier locked"... I always buy unlocked. Does that really make a difference?

        • By SoftTalker 2025-11-1721:261 reply

          Yes, the carriers load up the phones with apps that you cannot remove (at least not without rooting the phone).

          You can usually disable them, but they are still there.

          • By cryzinger 2025-11-1721:50

            Well dang, that's another good reason to buy unlocked :P

    • By ravenstine 2025-11-1719:34

      That would make Samsung's business model not viable. :D

    • By consumer451 2025-11-1721:131 reply

      I haven't bought an android device for a few years, but the last time I did, it was also a very cheap one for testing. I chose an "Android One" to avoid all these issues. Is something like that still an option?

      • By robgibbons 2025-11-1721:261 reply

        Your best bet might be one of the Pixel "a" series, which are Google's budget-oriented models. Stock vanilla Android with as little bloat as you can hope for.

        • By t0bia_s 2025-11-186:59

          Those Pixels have options to open bootloader and after flashing custom ROM that is much cleaner (GrapheneOS) to lock it again. Which is currently most secure way to have clean and secure android device.

    • By jamesrr39 2025-11-1721:30

      Sounds like a Samsung phone... no end of dark patterns and pushing Bixby AI and whatever else. And then once you have the phone set up you get to spend the next 10 minutes uninstalling a load of pre-loadded apps that you didn't want.

      Fortunately Android is a pretty diverse range and Samsung is just one player. I had much more user-friendly experiences with Fairphone and Motorola.

    • By Cthulhu_ 2025-11-197:20

      This regulation should've happened 25 years ago, because the same thing was done with laptops.

    • By jeroenhd 2025-11-1720:352 reply

      Cheap devices get subsidized by shitty adware. The cheaper the device, the more likely that it's full of terrible adware.

      Consumers often have a choice, at least between "filled to the brim with crap" and "a modicum of crap", by choosing between buying their phone from a store or from a carrier. Carriers have better deals but shovel their phones full of the worst apps you can imagine. Still, people will buy the crap-filled experience that makes you want to tear your hair out because they like the idea of scoring a better deal.

      Nothing like unadulterated greed combined with short-sighed consumer behaviour at scale to drive a market segment into an awful race to the bottom.

      • By oceansky 2025-11-1720:531 reply

        The premium devices still have the bloatware.

        • By smileson2 2025-11-1721:43

          Yeah, even the iPhone bundles/bakes in google junk

      • By robocat 2025-11-1722:26

        > subsidized

        What's a better word here? Adverts cost the consumer, however I'm sure the consumer doesn't get equal recompense. Theoretically a SmartTV with adverts costs less money ("subsidised" due to price competition), but is the consumer actually ($,time) better off?

        The costs are invisible and the consumer cannot actually measure the costs (the vendors do measure profitability but this is not legible).

        I reckon most people are terrible at judging the value of their own time (especially children and retirees).

    • By atonse 2025-11-1717:017 reply

      My guess is, those auto installs is exactly how they keep the costs down, by subsidizing the cost with getting paid by companies to auto-install garbage.

      It's the same with Smart TVs, they've gotten so cheap because of all the other slimy stuff the manufacturers do, like sell your watch data, or pre-install apps.

      • By esafak 2025-11-1717:032 reply

        The problem is that you do not get the option to pay off the subsidy to get a clean install.

        • By atonse 2025-11-1717:261 reply

          I suppose the "paying off the subsidy" is to buy a more expensive phone. Or getting a Google Pixel. I've heard those are as much stock android as possible.

          • By xethos 2025-11-1718:304 reply

            I agree, and that's the exact point I would make. The problem though, is I want a small phone with a headphone jack (and a physical keyboard, but that's orthogonal to the point).

            Many OEMs sell their flagship as a shiny glass slab with only BT or USB-C for audio, and ship 3.5mm jacks and other "antiquated niceties" like a uSD card reader, on their lower-end models.

            It's difficult to square the circle of "I want these specific features, but on a phone that's not working against me (any more than modern phones already do)"

            • By ploxiln 2025-11-1719:321 reply

              The "Sony Xperia 5 V" (I have the previous "Sony Xperia 5 IV") has a headphone jack, takes a uSD card, and is somewhat compact. (And no silly camera cutout in the screen, it's in a reasonably small bezel.)

              EDIT: also see the Xperia 10 VII for a phone that isn't 2 years old (I haven't been keeping up, I buy phones to use for 4+ years)

              • By pmontra 2025-11-1720:16

                According to the specs it's 154 x 68 x 8.6 mm and 182 grams, so it's more compact than most phones of 2025 but not really compact. My Samsung A40 is smaller and lighter but it's 4 years older.

            • By pmontra 2025-11-1720:441 reply

              Serendipity happens. Maybe you almost want this https://liliputing.com/zinwa-q27-prototype-brings-classic-bl... Keyboard but it seems no 3.5" jack.

              • By xethos 2025-11-1721:52

                I actually ordered the Q20 revival by the same team back in May or so! Very excited, should ship this week

            • By Plasmoid 2025-11-1719:201 reply

              I bought a USB-C to 3.5mm jack for around $20. It works well but does tend to get caught on things more easily than a pure jack.

              • By mc32 2025-11-1719:251 reply

                As well as easily getting misplaced…

                • By sodality2 2025-11-1719:55

                  And easily internally shorted, leading to the dreadful 'wiggle around in your pocket until the headphones are detected again, and then press play again'...

            • By HeinzStuckeIt 2025-11-1719:184 reply

              I must admit, I don’t get the wish for 3.5mm headphone jacks in 2025. Already six years ago, with a phone that actually still had a headphone jack, I bought myself for just a few euro a Bluetooth DAC (a FiiO) that had superior sound quality to any phone’s audio-out that I had ever used. With a Bluetooth DAC (or with any USB-C to 3.5mm converter that costs pennies) you can still use whatever wired headphones you want to use.

              Physical keyboards were nice back in an era when the web welcomed longform text, and I miss my Nokia N900. Nowadays, though, the web ecosystem that one typically uses from a phone is a cesspool, and for serious things I’ll just use my real computer.

              • By blep-arsh 2025-11-1719:31

                I have a similar FiiO gadget and it makes less sense for me than a direct wired connection to the phone. It's a relatively bulky device that needs to be charged way too often, also it reduces voice call quality (like any other BT Classic device).

              • By pmontra 2025-11-1720:27

                I'm conflicted about this matter. I use a Bluetooth earpiece on my phone because it's more convenient: you can move around a room with the phone on a table, no pockets, and you can wear and unwear t-shirts and sweaters. When I can't find the x with the earpieces I plug in in a wired one.

                On the other hand a wired headphone always work, had maybe better quality and almost surely a better latency. I use one of them when doing calls from my laptop.

              • By ipaddr 2025-11-1719:26

                Bluetooth wastes batteries / alter soubd.

              • By AshamedCaptain 2025-11-1719:491 reply

                > I bought myself for just a few euro a Bluetooth DAC (a FiiO) that had superior sound quality to any phone’s audio-out that I had ever used.

                I hate the 3.5'' jack myself (see below), but I can already tell you that mentioning some unscientific definition of "superior sound quality" that likely no one amongst us is humanly able to distinguish is not going to win any minds over. Proponents of 3.5'' like it because it is ridiculously simple to use, intuitive, cheap, doesn't have a lot of things that can go wrong (e.g. no batteries) and despite that is overall effective.

                The reason I dislike 3.5'' is because the _socket_ part (i.e. the part on the expensive device) wears out very quickly, becoming fragile and generating distracting artifacts even with slight cable pulls/movements, as the springs in the connector start to fail. This annoys me to no end, much more than any issues with other interfaces.

                • By HeinzStuckeIt 2025-11-1719:521 reply

                  Talking about “superior sound quality” in the context of mobile phones isn’t controversial, it’s not like a home-stereo audiophile snake oil debate. It is well known that DACs are an area where mid-range and low-end phone makers have cut corners, choosing chips that are quite flawed for anyone who uses their phone to listen to music where pristine sound quality is valued.

                  • By edgineer 2025-11-1723:48

                    The elephant in the room for me is "microphonics" or the noise piped to your head via the wire any time anything touches it.

                    You demand higher quality, yet don't care about the loud noise created with every small movement of your body? I have heard this dismissed before as "doesn't bother me" and it's hardly ever mentioned in discussions about good audio vs Bluetooth.

                    I'm bewildered why wireless audio isn't praised for completely eliminating this source of noise that plagues every wired headphone, earbud, and IEM.

        • By cultofmetatron 2025-11-1719:40

          pretty much why I switched to iphone. I used pixels before for the same reason but good luck getting your pixel warranty honored outside the united states

      • By ozgrakkurt 2025-11-1719:33

        This is not a valid cause. They spend insane amounts of money on advertising and also make insane amounts of revenue. Don’t think “them keeping the cost down” is relevant in this context.

      • By elsjaako 2025-11-1717:053 reply

        I've heard this theory before, but is an individual data point really worth enough to make this argument?

        • By rubyn00bie 2025-11-1717:12

          This is true, it’s not an individual datapoint. When smartphones, like the iPhone, originally debuted carriers had a conniption fit because they couldn’t preload a ton of garbage apps to help subsidize the cost. Apple has been able to avoid this, but for your average smartphone this is absolutely how both the manufacturer and carrier are able to sell them so cheaply.

          Every experience may not be as bad as the one the OP had, but it’s surely well within reality. Both carriers and handset manufacturers are glad to sell anything and everything about someone to make a quick buck. They’ve literally been doing it for 25+ years.

        • By montjoy 2025-11-1717:251 reply

          You need to think about the aggregate data. Whole trends can be seen in almost real-time.

          Here’s a made up example, and it’s probably not even the best one. - Show Teckno-Detectives shows a “Cameo” of Grapple’s newest mixed-reality glasses. The data shows that 3.9 million additional people watched the episode. Investment firms who pay for the data notice and buy extra Grapple shares to cash in on the expected sales bump.

          • By elsjaako 2025-11-2016:11

            Yes, but to make it worthwhile you need a lot of data and the price scales linearly.

            Let's say my phone gets $10 cheaper because of all this crap ware. If you have the aggregate of 1000 people that cost someone $10000. Is that really worth it? Is 100000 people worth $1000000? Is there some point at which the aggregate data becomes so valuable it overtakes the per-user cost?

            That's what I mean - the marginal value of one person needs to be quite big for this whole thing to make sense.

        • By takipsizad 2025-11-1717:10

          its not just your data point its everyones data point

      • By ghurtado 2025-11-1719:221 reply

        > they've gotten so cheap because of all the other slimy stuff

        Not really, they've gotten so cheap because the individual components they are made of have become much cheaper due to economies of scale.

        The same thing happened with computer monitors, and those don't ship with the bloatware.

        • By brookst 2025-11-1719:31

          Compare monitors to TVs of similar spec, in price and bloatware.

      • By kakacik 2025-11-1717:11

        Nah its the corporate greed and disregard for avoiding amoral behavior at the first place, since clearly its punished much less than rewards are (just look at all the slaps on the wrist of FAANGs and similar), then followed by race to the bottom with the price.

        Economies of scale do bring costs of everything much further than stealing user's data can, but good luck explaining some long term vision to C-suites who only care about short term bonuses.

      • By tyfon 2025-11-1719:16

        I suspect the apparent reduction in price on these devices is a lot less than what they earn from the slimy stuff.

        But the premium devices (especially TVs) are starting to do this too now via software updates. I had to turn off a bunch of crap in the settings on my LG CX TVs some time ago. Now they are just off the internet and can only connect to my NAS.

    • By jay_kyburz 2025-11-1720:461 reply

      Name and shame please. I'm shopping for a cheap first phone for my 13 year old.

      I'm looking at HMD or Motorola.

      • By kbelder 2025-11-1721:27

        I kind of like Motorola in the cheap android phone space. I have a moto-g stylus in my pocket now, and it's big (which I like), has a heaphone jack, and has an sd-card port. I thought I'd like the stylus, but I rarely use it.

        It pre-installs some games, but you can uninstall them. The only thing it forces on you is a weather app which you can deactivate but not uninstall.

  • By shevy-java 2025-11-1719:282 reply

    SpyApps everywhere.

    Hopefully one day we not only have open software, open hardware but also reproducibly guaranteed secure systems. Now I don't have any idea how this could be verified (and no, Microsoft's "Trusted Computing" is not what I have in mind), but I hope we'll see to this eventually.

    • By johnebgd 2025-11-1720:122 reply

      If you don’t trust a centralized authority you need decentralized governance…

      • By delusional 2025-11-1721:40

        "Decentralized governance" is just feudalism. What you need is a re-envigoration of democracy. Democracy works, but we have to engage with it positively, both as citizens and as politicians.

      • By cyanydeez 2025-11-1721:20

        we've alreaaaay seen that decentralization is an abstract, butnot a reality.

        There will always be a move towards centralization when a project gains enough converts because the bulk of concerns are exactly the same but we don't have n+1 people willing to do the necessary legwork to secure.

        As such, just like REST apis and their N+1 query problem, forcing everyone to have a security conscious posture is never going to happen.

        You absolutely need centralized authorities; what the real argume is about is how that authority is selected, changed and intermediated. The same way we argue about how a stable RAFT algorithm operates.

        Move on from this "decentralization is all we need" argument. It's failed and failing.

    • By tamimio 2025-11-1721:39

      It will be excluded from any popular OS and will end up a niche thing that no one will use. The issue is the hegemony of big tech companies over the regulations to shape it however they like, and in return they provide the surveillance to legislators.

HackerNews