7 ms·

The dirty little secret about Google Android

80 points by milesf 16y ago

icode 16y ago
Hmmm... I have an HTC Desire and it doesnt seem crippled or bloated with money greedy apps.
- sausagefeet 16y ago
  Praise my N1
  - buro9 16y ago
    Though it is still pre-loaded with the Amazon MP3 store. We want it all ways. Take off everything we don't want, but don't dare to sell to us anything less than all of the packages we do want.
    - sprout 16y ago
      No... You can put all sorts of shit on there, but give me an easy way to install my own ROM, and don't put on impossible to uninstall apps.
axiomotion 16y ago
Samsung Captivate here. Took 30 seconds to root it and another 10 seconds to remove the AT&T bloatware with Titanium Backup.
- bitskits 16y ago
  ...but should you have to root it to remove the bloat? On the Evo with Froyo, there isn't yet a root method available. Should those folks be out of luck? I think the point of the article was that Android was created to allow the average consumer more control and choice over their device. While "enthusiasts" like us will always unlock features we want, I don't think you should have to hack into your device to gain this kind of control over it. If I spend 200-600 bucks on a smartphone, I want control over what software is installed on it.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    So how does tethering on the iPhone under AT&T work out. Surely you just click a checkbox, correct?
    - alxp 16y ago
      Rooting most Android phones and jailbreaking an iPhone are about the same level of technical difficulty as far as a consumer is concerned.
      - ergo98 16y ago
        Indeed. The post I responded to opined that you shouldn't have to root to unlock functionality of your phone, and this was relative to Android devices. Yet to tether your iphone you have to either root, or pay an extra $20 a month to AT&T on a non-"unlimited" data plan: Your device is limiting you on behalf of your carrier.
dogas 16y ago
This article has some incorrect facts. "Members such as HTC have gone off and added lots of their own software and customizations to their Android devices without contributing any code back to the Alliance" That's not true. HTC added sense UI on top of android. They are 100% allowed to do that. Android is licenced under the GPL, and HTC came along forked it, and added their own stuff to it, then released the source code (http://developer.htc.com/ http://developer.htc.com/). The alliance is free to take whatever HTC does and merge it into the android core if they are so inclined. I'm not buying that carriers and are gaining 100% control of the software. They are legally bound to release the source code. That would have never happened before the open software alliance and android, ergo, the OHA is not "in shambles", and is working as intended. Carriers are free to charge for whatever services they want to provide. The market should take care of most of that. If sprint wants to charge $30 for tethering, but T-mobile will let you do it for free, then it's advantage T-mobile.
- andybak 16y ago
  Android is licenced under Apache v2 (not GPL) http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.html http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.html
  - dogas 16y ago
    I stand corrected. The net effect is the same however.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - bbatsell 16y ago
      No, it isn't. Apache License has no virality. HTC Sense is not open-source (and is not even hinted at anywhere on the website you linked to claiming had the source).
- ergo98 16y ago
  >That's not true. HTC added sense UI on top of android. They are 100% allowed to do that. Not only are they allowed, they would never have all worked cooperatively to forward Android if they couldn't. However it's in all of their common interest to keep the foundation constant, which is exactly why they've done that. It's interesting that if you look at the "proof" that the handset alliance is in shambles, you'll find that it actually claims that Google is too forceful with changes, not allowing partners to act too laggardly. Something this troll author twists this into them being a "poor shepherd". >Carriers are free to charge for whatever services they want to provide. The market should take care of most of that. It's interesting that Apple, who couples you to AT&T in the US if you want an iPhone ("freedom!"), has a long history of blocking apps that endanger the revenue stream of their carrier partners. Google Voice, for instance. The author of this terrible, inconsistent, poorly supported piece has no consistency and their argument is absurd.
ergo98 16y ago
While there are kernels of truth, this is a garbage article that has no place on a site like HN. The author is pandering to the iPhone fanbase where it will certainly see traction. Do a "news" search of it in the next 6 hours and you'll find it linked on every Mac and Apple site, and will almost certainly see linkage on Daring Fireball. It's garbage. Utter claptrap garbage. The author (a strong iPhone proponent, as an aside) is holding the iPhone as a model of openness (open from carrier control at least) which is absolutely perverse. The iPhone is very tightly controlled by Apple (they just finished patenting how they'll brick your rooted device), and Apple's control has a strong input from the carriers, where in the US your choice is limited to one. Why can't you use facetime on 3G? Why can't you tether for free? Why can't you use Google Voice without essentially using a roundabout? and on, and on, and on.
- icarus_drowning 16y ago
  I also get a hint of "open for me but not for thee" here: we're supposed to believe the Android's openness (which began as an asset) is now a liability because carriers shouldn't be allowed to modify it. So who is to be the judge of who gets to modify Android? Google? Jason Hiner? He also mischaracterizes a lot of the modifications that have happened to Android: sure, the uninstallable NASCAR app on the EVO was decidedly crapware, but to simply lump the Sense interface in with it is a deliberate mischaracterization. (Especially after many reviewers noted that they believed Sense improved on stock on Android-- an opinion I don't share, but a debate worth having). So my question is thus: does Jason Hiner think Google should rescind its open-source license for most of Android? Does he think that such a move would honestly be more "open" than it is now? Because it certainly appears that he does.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    I think that the point is that you want open for the user but closed for the mobile providers. Apple is closer than Android for sure, but it's also off-limits from the providers (well, mostly: they can still veto some apps). Android is open, but since before reaching the user it goes through the providers, the users get a much closed system.
andybak 16y ago
Slightly overstated but I think the author has correctly identified a trend and it's one that we would do well to resist.
neilk 16y ago
I don't know enough about mobile to say if everything is false here. But this article's internal logic doesn't hold together. As a commenter "batpox" on that site notes, "Using the same logic, the dirty secret about Linux and Windows is that they let Acer, Dell, HP, etc. determine what hardware our OS runs on." I think the article is trying to claim (in a roundabout, implicit way) that good phones are the ones which are so well-marketed, and so tightly controlled, that it gives the manufacturer leverage over the network carrier. In this article, other forms of leverage (like manufacturer alliances) are disparaged based on innuendo and hearsay. In other words: the iPhone is the only good phone. Google is evil.
- powrtoch 16y ago
  No first hand experience with Android, so I can't confirm any of its claims, but I think you're misreading the article. The problem isn't the different hardware, the problem is that the open OS allows the carriers to modify the OS (not the hardware) as they see fit. An analogy would be if you bought a Dell computer and it came loaded with "Dell Windows", which was basically just like Windows except that it had a lot of useless Dell apps that were a pain to remove. And as a result, the original Operating System is degraded and the compatibility is compromised.
  - Timothee 16y ago
    Actually, most PC manufacturers have their own Windows image, with the same bloatware that you can find on some phones. Some of it is really customized settings interface (very common for WiFi configuration for example) which I supposed might be necessary sometimes, but otherwise you still find a lot of unnecessary trials and horrible background images.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      Do most PC manufactures ship a different UI skin on Windows?
      - ergo98 16y ago
davidw 16y ago
> Apple co-founder Steve Jobs said, “iPhone is the first phone where we separated the carrier from the hardware. They worry about the network, while we worry about the phone.” Wow, did he really say that? Here in Europe, many people buy their phones separately from their SIM cards, myself included.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  That turned out to be the case in many parts of east and south east asia as well in my experience. I guess this was only intended for the American consumer.
- alxp 16y ago
  Yeah the US and Canadian phone carriers are stuck in the stone age and want to stay there.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Yeah, and my understanding is that sadly he was right too. As are you that in Europe things are very different: the author acknowledges that too. Basically my understanding is that Europe is so far from the USA that the iPhone did a first step (but wasn't quite there yet) and the Nexus One did the second one.
  - davidw 16y ago
    > he was right No, he wasn't. Maybe he was if you qualify that with "in the US", but the US is not the center of the world.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      While I completely agree with you (I am European) I think Apple is pretty US centric (as is Google). When Jobs said that the iPhone was only available in the USA, and most of its audience was probably american too. So yeah, I think he was talking about the USA. He either didn't know about the rest of the world, or he didn't care about it.
eli 16y ago
Seems awfully unfair to blame Google for what other members of the Open Handset Alliance are doing with Google's GPL code. You either have open code and deal with people forking it, or you have closed code. It's tough have it both ways.
- alxp 16y ago
  That's why I'm mostly fine with iOS being proprietary to Apple. Anyone reselling it would just make it worse by changing it.
  - Unseelie 16y ago
    Unless they made it better.
    - alxp 16y ago
      Recent history says that's unlikey
- krschultz 16y ago
  Google's code is not GPL. A lot of the problems associated with Android are because it is not GPL and the manufacturers do not have to open up their changes to Android. However, if it was GPL a lot of handset makers would not have adopted Android for exactly that reason. Pick your poison.
- joezydeco 16y ago
  Having worked for an OHA company, I can confirm that the alliance was really a 1-way deal. Google got the hordes of subcontractors needed to get the platform going, and in return the companies got to say they were allied with Google and not much else. OHA companies were never in the loop on major design/development issues with Rubin and his team. I can't fault some of the member companies for trying to recapture some of the effort now, HTC being the biggest one of them.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
neilk 16y ago
What the hell is going on here? 24 upvotes? Either the HN community has turned completely stupid, or marketers are flooding the site and no admins are deleting their crap.
- Unseelie 16y ago
  Such a declaration is worrying because I come here and generally trust the upvoted things, and as such, I've incentive to toss your declaration out as the biass and the spin. So, as though you were talking to someone who doesn't know enough about the smartphones to make an informed decison (me), please explain your position.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I am more surprised that you have been upvoted this much. Sure you may disagree but this is the point of a voting system like HN: it's a collective opinion. Some people will like it, some people won't. You don't get to call everyone stupid or astroturfer just because they disagree with you!
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  The quality always goes down at the weekend.
konad 16y ago
Insanity Wolf says : Buy straight jacket / wear it translation You bought your carrier branded phone because it was subsidised / suck it
neurotech1 16y ago
IMO Pushing contract-less smartphones into the market was a good move, but the market didn't seem to go for it in the US. If Google really wanted to "capture" the market, they should come out with a no-contract sub $200 unlocked smartphone, and let the market decide if that is a better price point. $529 is too expensive for US consumers, when "free" phones are available.
- Timothee 16y ago
  To me, one of the problems with unsubsidized phones is that the lower price from the carrier is not obvious. Or at least, I'd always be wondering if I might be paying the same price as someone with a subsidized phone. That being said, I did buy an iPhone before it was subsidized.
  - ydant 16y ago
    The real problem is a non-subsidized phone costs you more on most carriers than the subsidized version. Even if bringing your own phone gets you out of having to have a contract, you don't save anything in the process. You pay the same monthly fee as someone that got a "free" phone. So why give that up? It's a tough sell.
    - CaptainZapp 16y ago
      The nice thing about non-subsidized phone is that you can use it with any SIM, including prepaid options. I don't know how the situation is in the US, but in Europe it's quite common and in big parts of the world it's your only option. For example: When travelling in Thailand I can get a SIM at every 7 / 11 for about 5 bucks with 100 baht credit. This is more then I usually need for the few weeks there and it's extremely convenient when you want to call around the country without being hit by absurd roaming fees. Having lock-downs of any kind on a phone to me is a killer criteria for not buying it. Subsidized or not.
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      On T-Mobile you actually pay $20 less per month on every single individual plan if you're not in contract.
powrtoch 16y ago
iOS could be accused of bloatware as well. The fact that you're not allowed to remove the built-in apps is mystifying to me. I don't use Stocks because I don't own any stocks. The Contacts app is mostly redundant with that section of the Phone app. And I've never bought anything off the iTunes store from my phone. Why shouldn't I be able to free up the screen and disk space? Only a small handful of apps (e.g. Settings) need be protected in this way, the rest could just be offered free on the App Store for anyone who changed their mind.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  I'm surprised iTunes on Windows doesn't get brought up more in this regard. Quicktime alone was considered intrusive bloatware even before they required it to use iTunes, then required iTunes to use an iPod/iPhone, and started installing other Apple apps and app updaters semi-randomly.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Sure, my guess is that Apple hasn't done so simply because they haven't got the time/resources/patience. It's not like Apple is making _any_ money from something like Stock! But if you remove it from the phone then those people who are using it are going to get pissed. So in order for the improvement to be seamless to the user, it needs first to move Stock to the App store, then to remove Stocks (and other apps) from the OS, and then finally redownload the application... all in one system update. Not hard for someone with the money of Apple, but hardly worth the trouble (for now, I imagine once the pace of development slows down things may change). Edit: minor grammatical changes
  - powrtoch 16y ago
    If you would read a bit closer, my suggestion was simply that users be allowed to delete those apps if they so desire.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      Ok. And what happens if they then want them again? Stuff from the store can be re-downloaded. Hence why I either Apple will change them into store app (in the way I described, for example), or they won't remove them. I am not saying I agree with them... just a polite guess from their history. (Edit: grammar and the last paragraph)
nanairo 16y ago
(disclaimer: I realise HN is full of people who really like their Android so I hope not to get downvoted just to give a different opinion.) I think the problem with Android, which is behind what the author (a bit confusingly) presents as evidence, is its licence agreement. The iPhone did not improve the freedom for the user, but Apple had managed to distinguish between manufacturer and provider. Basically the iPhone (and all the others that would have followed: WebOS, WP7, etc...) had put the manufacturer back in a position of strength: "Do you want to have a 'modern' mobile on your network? Then don't mess with it". Once the Android came out though, and it got embraced by Motorola, HTC and Sony, the situation change completely. By far and large there is nothing unique to any Android phone. All manufacturers can access the same CPU, the same screens (actually here Samsung has a slight advantage), etc... This past year has shown the result: a fast dynamic hypercompetitive market. Just like for the PC before, companies were left with only one real way to compete: price. And it's this that has suddenly put the providers back in the driving seat. Verizon can request specific changes (like not-erasable apps) and they either accept them, or they lose the massive subsidies. I don't think Google did this with any bad intention. Indeed, and kind of ironically, it seems to me that the Nexus One was the second step of Google's strategy and was a complete failure _because of it_. Google found itself with no power over the mobile providers: as the article say Verizon waited for a similar speced phone to come out and quickly moved to sell that one instead. Android is in a way so good, that now the mobile phone providers don't need to beg the manufacturers to come to them: they know they will always be able to have custom made Android phones, and Android phones are so good that they can survive without an iPhone or a Pre. In the end I think Google tried to avoid having a new Windows (one OS with a massive market share). But they didn't realised that rather than giving the power to nobody (everyone competing) they gave it to the guys with the money: the providers.
follower 16y ago
IMO I think "The dirty little secret about Google Android" is that it's not actually as open as people assume it is. Yes, Android is more open than iOS but that's not really saying much. The comparison I tend to make is ("< is less open"): iOS < Android < MeeGo/Moblin/Maemo In a similar way to: Windows < OS X < Linux For example, while OS X is based on an open platform (FreeBSD) it's got a whole pile of proprietary stuff on top which AFAIK is pretty much how Android operates also (in terms of core applications etc). Not only that but my understanding is that the Android kernel is so different from when it was forked that it is also no straight-forward task to port features (e.g. drivers) from it back to the mainline kernel. And AIUI Google has shown no great desire to anyway. In comparison with Maemo (which I've had more familiarity with than Moblin/MeeGo but assume there's similarities) where Nokia (over time, admittedly) worked with upstream projects and companies to get a lot more of the system into existing open projects. By way of example, "getting root" amounted to checking a box, installing a terminal and executing a shell command. All with warranty intact. Getting root on a Nexus One requires voiding your hardware warranty. Without root access you don't even get complete read-only access to your phone's filesystem. That's not open. Even with my proprietary PalmOS Treo 650 I could at least read every single file off the device if I wanted (well, there were some "no copy" settings for some apps but I'm not sure if the non-official tools obeyed them anyway). Particularly in this aspect Android is a huge step backwards. Of course, the problem with MeeGo/Maemo/Moblin is that outside of the N900 you can't buy a phone with it--so its openness is somewhat of a moot point. Okay, rant over for now. :)
dminor 16y ago
Verizon's open 700Mhz network hasn't materialized yet because they're busy rolling out LTE on it. It will be very interesting to see what the manufacturers do when they don't need carrier approval.
RexRollman 16y ago
I want to buy an Android phone, because I detest the iPhone's iTunes requirement, but I have two issues with Android: 1. It doesn't look the same everywhere. Companies are modding the interface, and in my opinion, that is wrong. I should know what to expect, UI-wise, from an Android phone without even looking at the box. 2. Updates depend on the company who makes the phone. In my opinion, when an update to Android becomes available, everyone should have access to it.

80 points by milesf 16y ago

icode 16y ago

Hmmm... I have an HTC Desire and it doesnt seem crippled or bloated with money greedy apps.

sausagefeet 16y ago
Praise my N1
- buro9 16y ago
  Though it is still pre-loaded with the Amazon MP3 store. We want it all ways. Take off everything we don't want, but don't dare to sell to us anything less than all of the packages we do want.
  - sprout 16y ago
    No... You can put all sorts of shit on there, but give me an easy way to install my own ROM, and don't put on impossible to uninstall apps.

axiomotion 16y ago

Samsung Captivate here. Took 30 seconds to root it and another 10 seconds to remove the AT&T bloatware with Titanium Backup.

bitskits 16y ago
...but should you have to root it to remove the bloat? On the Evo with Froyo, there isn't yet a root method available. Should those folks be out of luck? I think the point of the article was that Android was created to allow the average consumer more control and choice over their device. While "enthusiasts" like us will always unlock features we want, I don't think you should have to hack into your device to gain this kind of control over it. If I spend 200-600 bucks on a smartphone, I want control over what software is installed on it.
- ergo98 16y ago
  So how does tethering on the iPhone under AT&T work out. Surely you just click a checkbox, correct?
  - alxp 16y ago
    Rooting most Android phones and jailbreaking an iPhone are about the same level of technical difficulty as far as a consumer is concerned.
    - ergo98 16y ago
      Indeed. The post I responded to opined that you shouldn't have to root to unlock functionality of your phone, and this was relative to Android devices. Yet to tether your iphone you have to either root, or pay an extra $20 a month to AT&T on a non-"unlimited" data plan: Your device is limiting you on behalf of your carrier.

dogas 16y ago

This article has some incorrect facts. "Members such as HTC have gone off and added lots of their own software and customizations to their Android devices without contributing any code back to the Alliance" That's not true. HTC added sense UI on top of android. They are 100% allowed to do that. Android is licenced under the GPL, and HTC came along forked it, and added their own stuff to it, then released the source code (http://developer.htc.com/ http://developer.htc.com/). The alliance is free to take whatever HTC does and merge it into the android core if they are so inclined. I'm not buying that carriers and are gaining 100% control of the software. They are legally bound to release the source code. That would have never happened before the open software alliance and android, ergo, the OHA is not "in shambles", and is working as intended. Carriers are free to charge for whatever services they want to provide. The market should take care of most of that. If sprint wants to charge $30 for tethering, but T-mobile will let you do it for free, then it's advantage T-mobile.

andybak 16y ago
Android is licenced under Apache v2 (not GPL) http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.html http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.html
- dogas 16y ago
  I stand corrected. The net effect is the same however.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - bbatsell 16y ago
    No, it isn't. Apache License has no virality. HTC Sense is not open-source (and is not even hinted at anywhere on the website you linked to claiming had the source).
ergo98 16y ago
>That's not true. HTC added sense UI on top of android. They are 100% allowed to do that. Not only are they allowed, they would never have all worked cooperatively to forward Android if they couldn't. However it's in all of their common interest to keep the foundation constant, which is exactly why they've done that. It's interesting that if you look at the "proof" that the handset alliance is in shambles, you'll find that it actually claims that Google is too forceful with changes, not allowing partners to act too laggardly. Something this troll author twists this into them being a "poor shepherd". >Carriers are free to charge for whatever services they want to provide. The market should take care of most of that. It's interesting that Apple, who couples you to AT&T in the US if you want an iPhone ("freedom!"), has a long history of blocking apps that endanger the revenue stream of their carrier partners. Google Voice, for instance. The author of this terrible, inconsistent, poorly supported piece has no consistency and their argument is absurd.

ergo98 16y ago

While there are kernels of truth, this is a garbage article that has no place on a site like HN. The author is pandering to the iPhone fanbase where it will certainly see traction. Do a "news" search of it in the next 6 hours and you'll find it linked on every Mac and Apple site, and will almost certainly see linkage on Daring Fireball. It's garbage. Utter claptrap garbage. The author (a strong iPhone proponent, as an aside) is holding the iPhone as a model of openness (open from carrier control at least) which is absolutely perverse. The iPhone is very tightly controlled by Apple (they just finished patenting how they'll brick your rooted device), and Apple's control has a strong input from the carriers, where in the US your choice is limited to one. Why can't you use facetime on 3G? Why can't you tether for free? Why can't you use Google Voice without essentially using a roundabout? and on, and on, and on.

icarus_drowning 16y ago
I also get a hint of "open for me but not for thee" here: we're supposed to believe the Android's openness (which began as an asset) is now a liability because carriers shouldn't be allowed to modify it. So who is to be the judge of who gets to modify Android? Google? Jason Hiner? He also mischaracterizes a lot of the modifications that have happened to Android: sure, the uninstallable NASCAR app on the EVO was decidedly crapware, but to simply lump the Sense interface in with it is a deliberate mischaracterization. (Especially after many reviewers noted that they believed Sense improved on stock on Android-- an opinion I don't share, but a debate worth having). So my question is thus: does Jason Hiner think Google should rescind its open-source license for most of Android? Does he think that such a move would honestly be more "open" than it is now? Because it certainly appears that he does.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I think that the point is that you want open for the user but closed for the mobile providers. Apple is closer than Android for sure, but it's also off-limits from the providers (well, mostly: they can still veto some apps). Android is open, but since before reaching the user it goes through the providers, the users get a much closed system.

andybak 16y ago

Slightly overstated but I think the author has correctly identified a trend and it's one that we would do well to resist.

neilk 16y ago

I don't know enough about mobile to say if everything is false here. But this article's internal logic doesn't hold together. As a commenter "batpox" on that site notes, "Using the same logic, the dirty secret about Linux and Windows is that they let Acer, Dell, HP, etc. determine what hardware our OS runs on." I think the article is trying to claim (in a roundabout, implicit way) that good phones are the ones which are so well-marketed, and so tightly controlled, that it gives the manufacturer leverage over the network carrier. In this article, other forms of leverage (like manufacturer alliances) are disparaged based on innuendo and hearsay. In other words: the iPhone is the only good phone. Google is evil.

powrtoch 16y ago
No first hand experience with Android, so I can't confirm any of its claims, but I think you're misreading the article. The problem isn't the different hardware, the problem is that the open OS allows the carriers to modify the OS (not the hardware) as they see fit. An analogy would be if you bought a Dell computer and it came loaded with "Dell Windows", which was basically just like Windows except that it had a lot of useless Dell apps that were a pain to remove. And as a result, the original Operating System is degraded and the compatibility is compromised.
- Timothee 16y ago
  Actually, most PC manufacturers have their own Windows image, with the same bloatware that you can find on some phones. Some of it is really customized settings interface (very common for WiFi configuration for example) which I supposed might be necessary sometimes, but otherwise you still find a lot of unnecessary trials and horrible background images.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Do most PC manufactures ship a different UI skin on Windows?
    - ergo98 16y ago

davidw 16y ago

> Apple co-founder Steve Jobs said, “iPhone is the first phone where we separated the carrier from the hardware. They worry about the network, while we worry about the phone.” Wow, did he really say that? Here in Europe, many people buy their phones separately from their SIM cards, myself included.

shadowfox 16y ago
That turned out to be the case in many parts of east and south east asia as well in my experience. I guess this was only intended for the American consumer.
alxp 16y ago
Yeah the US and Canadian phone carriers are stuck in the stone age and want to stay there.
nanairo 16y ago
Yeah, and my understanding is that sadly he was right too. As are you that in Europe things are very different: the author acknowledges that too. Basically my understanding is that Europe is so far from the USA that the iPhone did a first step (but wasn't quite there yet) and the Nexus One did the second one.
- davidw 16y ago
  > he was right No, he wasn't. Maybe he was if you qualify that with "in the US", but the US is not the center of the world.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    While I completely agree with you (I am European) I think Apple is pretty US centric (as is Google). When Jobs said that the iPhone was only available in the USA, and most of its audience was probably american too. So yeah, I think he was talking about the USA. He either didn't know about the rest of the world, or he didn't care about it.

eli 16y ago

Seems awfully unfair to blame Google for what other members of the Open Handset Alliance are doing with Google's GPL code. You either have open code and deal with people forking it, or you have closed code. It's tough have it both ways.

alxp 16y ago
That's why I'm mostly fine with iOS being proprietary to Apple. Anyone reselling it would just make it worse by changing it.
- Unseelie 16y ago
  Unless they made it better.
  - alxp 16y ago
    Recent history says that's unlikey
krschultz 16y ago
Google's code is not GPL. A lot of the problems associated with Android are because it is not GPL and the manufacturers do not have to open up their changes to Android. However, if it was GPL a lot of handset makers would not have adopted Android for exactly that reason. Pick your poison.
joezydeco 16y ago
Having worked for an OHA company, I can confirm that the alliance was really a 1-way deal. Google got the hordes of subcontractors needed to get the platform going, and in return the companies got to say they were allied with Google and not much else. OHA companies were never in the loop on major design/development issues with Rubin and his team. I can't fault some of the member companies for trying to recapture some of the effort now, HTC being the biggest one of them.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago

neilk 16y ago

What the hell is going on here? 24 upvotes? Either the HN community has turned completely stupid, or marketers are flooding the site and no admins are deleting their crap.

Unseelie 16y ago
Such a declaration is worrying because I come here and generally trust the upvoted things, and as such, I've incentive to toss your declaration out as the biass and the spin. So, as though you were talking to someone who doesn't know enough about the smartphones to make an informed decison (me), please explain your position.
nanairo 16y ago
I am more surprised that you have been upvoted this much. Sure you may disagree but this is the point of a voting system like HN: it's a collective opinion. Some people will like it, some people won't. You don't get to call everyone stupid or astroturfer just because they disagree with you!
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
The quality always goes down at the weekend.

konad 16y ago

Insanity Wolf says : Buy straight jacket / wear it translation You bought your carrier branded phone because it was subsidised / suck it

neurotech1 16y ago

IMO Pushing contract-less smartphones into the market was a good move, but the market didn't seem to go for it in the US. If Google really wanted to "capture" the market, they should come out with a no-contract sub $200 unlocked smartphone, and let the market decide if that is a better price point. $529 is too expensive for US consumers, when "free" phones are available.

Timothee 16y ago
To me, one of the problems with unsubsidized phones is that the lower price from the carrier is not obvious. Or at least, I'd always be wondering if I might be paying the same price as someone with a subsidized phone. That being said, I did buy an iPhone before it was subsidized.
- ydant 16y ago
  The real problem is a non-subsidized phone costs you more on most carriers than the subsidized version. Even if bringing your own phone gets you out of having to have a contract, you don't save anything in the process. You pay the same monthly fee as someone that got a "free" phone. So why give that up? It's a tough sell.
  - CaptainZapp 16y ago
    The nice thing about non-subsidized phone is that you can use it with any SIM, including prepaid options. I don't know how the situation is in the US, but in Europe it's quite common and in big parts of the world it's your only option. For example: When travelling in Thailand I can get a SIM at every 7 / 11 for about 5 bucks with 100 baht credit. This is more then I usually need for the few weeks there and it's extremely convenient when you want to call around the country without being hit by absurd roaming fees. Having lock-downs of any kind on a phone to me is a killer criteria for not buying it. Subsidized or not.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    On T-Mobile you actually pay $20 less per month on every single individual plan if you're not in contract.

powrtoch 16y ago

iOS could be accused of bloatware as well. The fact that you're not allowed to remove the built-in apps is mystifying to me. I don't use Stocks because I don't own any stocks. The Contacts app is mostly redundant with that section of the Phone app. And I've never bought anything off the iTunes store from my phone. Why shouldn't I be able to free up the screen and disk space? Only a small handful of apps (e.g. Settings) need be protected in this way, the rest could just be offered free on the App Store for anyone who changed their mind.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
I'm surprised iTunes on Windows doesn't get brought up more in this regard. Quicktime alone was considered intrusive bloatware even before they required it to use iTunes, then required iTunes to use an iPod/iPhone, and started installing other Apple apps and app updaters semi-randomly.
nanairo 16y ago
Sure, my guess is that Apple hasn't done so simply because they haven't got the time/resources/patience. It's not like Apple is making _any_ money from something like Stock! But if you remove it from the phone then those people who are using it are going to get pissed. So in order for the improvement to be seamless to the user, it needs first to move Stock to the App store, then to remove Stocks (and other apps) from the OS, and then finally redownload the application... all in one system update. Not hard for someone with the money of Apple, but hardly worth the trouble (for now, I imagine once the pace of development slows down things may change). Edit: minor grammatical changes
- powrtoch 16y ago
  If you would read a bit closer, my suggestion was simply that users be allowed to delete those apps if they so desire.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    Ok. And what happens if they then want them again? Stuff from the store can be re-downloaded. Hence why I either Apple will change them into store app (in the way I described, for example), or they won't remove them. I am not saying I agree with them... just a polite guess from their history. (Edit: grammar and the last paragraph)

nanairo 16y ago

(disclaimer: I realise HN is full of people who really like their Android so I hope not to get downvoted just to give a different opinion.) I think the problem with Android, which is behind what the author (a bit confusingly) presents as evidence, is its licence agreement. The iPhone did not improve the freedom for the user, but Apple had managed to distinguish between manufacturer and provider. Basically the iPhone (and all the others that would have followed: WebOS, WP7, etc...) had put the manufacturer back in a position of strength: "Do you want to have a 'modern' mobile on your network? Then don't mess with it". Once the Android came out though, and it got embraced by Motorola, HTC and Sony, the situation change completely. By far and large there is nothing unique to any Android phone. All manufacturers can access the same CPU, the same screens (actually here Samsung has a slight advantage), etc... This past year has shown the result: a fast dynamic hypercompetitive market. Just like for the PC before, companies were left with only one real way to compete: price. And it's this that has suddenly put the providers back in the driving seat. Verizon can request specific changes (like not-erasable apps) and they either accept them, or they lose the massive subsidies. I don't think Google did this with any bad intention. Indeed, and kind of ironically, it seems to me that the Nexus One was the second step of Google's strategy and was a complete failure _because of it_. Google found itself with no power over the mobile providers: as the article say Verizon waited for a similar speced phone to come out and quickly moved to sell that one instead. Android is in a way so good, that now the mobile phone providers don't need to beg the manufacturers to come to them: they know they will always be able to have custom made Android phones, and Android phones are so good that they can survive without an iPhone or a Pre. In the end I think Google tried to avoid having a new Windows (one OS with a massive market share). But they didn't realised that rather than giving the power to nobody (everyone competing) they gave it to the guys with the money: the providers.

follower 16y ago

IMO I think "The dirty little secret about Google Android" is that it's not actually as open as people assume it is. Yes, Android is more open than iOS but that's not really saying much. The comparison I tend to make is ("< is less open"): iOS < Android < MeeGo/Moblin/Maemo In a similar way to: Windows < OS X < Linux For example, while OS X is based on an open platform (FreeBSD) it's got a whole pile of proprietary stuff on top which AFAIK is pretty much how Android operates also (in terms of core applications etc). Not only that but my understanding is that the Android kernel is so different from when it was forked that it is also no straight-forward task to port features (e.g. drivers) from it back to the mainline kernel. And AIUI Google has shown no great desire to anyway. In comparison with Maemo (which I've had more familiarity with than Moblin/MeeGo but assume there's similarities) where Nokia (over time, admittedly) worked with upstream projects and companies to get a lot more of the system into existing open projects. By way of example, "getting root" amounted to checking a box, installing a terminal and executing a shell command. All with warranty intact. Getting root on a Nexus One requires voiding your hardware warranty. Without root access you don't even get complete read-only access to your phone's filesystem. That's not open. Even with my proprietary PalmOS Treo 650 I could at least read every single file off the device if I wanted (well, there were some "no copy" settings for some apps but I'm not sure if the non-official tools obeyed them anyway). Particularly in this aspect Android is a huge step backwards. Of course, the problem with MeeGo/Maemo/Moblin is that outside of the N900 you can't buy a phone with it--so its openness is somewhat of a moot point. Okay, rant over for now. :)

dminor 16y ago

Verizon's open 700Mhz network hasn't materialized yet because they're busy rolling out LTE on it. It will be very interesting to see what the manufacturers do when they don't need carrier approval.

RexRollman 16y ago

I want to buy an Android phone, because I detest the iPhone's iTunes requirement, but I have two issues with Android: 1. It doesn't look the same everywhere. Companies are modding the interface, and in my opinion, that is wrong. I should know what to expect, UI-wise, from an Android phone without even looking at the box. 2. Updates depend on the company who makes the phone. In my opinion, when an update to Android becomes available, everyone should have access to it.