3 ms·
I disagree that it's evil. If you're a company doing business with other big, powerful companies (telcos), you can't just attack their business model and expect
by mkelly 16y ago
I disagree that it's evil. If you're a company doing business with other big, powerful companies (telcos), you can't just attack their business model and expect to keep doing business with them unless you're in a really strong position. Say Google removed this restriction, and AT&T et al just stopped supporting Android phones due to some unspecified "technical issue". Then where are we?
It's undesirable, definitely. Evil, I don't think so. Evil, IMO, is if Google can remove the restrictions, and doesn't.
- mieses 16y agoOh, I see. A decision that is motivated by convenience, i.e., business and profit, is not evil. Thanks for this insight into the Google newspeak No one is forcing Google to impose the restriction. They have free will. Google already blocked new account creation in Gizmo5 (one of their small acts of goodness) so very few users could ever make use of this scenario, in any case. So the restriction is unnecessary and overkill. Google's decision means that my android device can't place a Google Voice call from my house which has no cell phone reception. Thanks Google, for wrapping the AT&T user experience in your colorful world-changing logo.
- mkelly 16y agoA decision that inconveniences you isn't necessarily evil. I agree it's unnecessary.