3 ms·
I think the author is a little unclear of the definition of "open." Specifically, what "open source," which is the "open" in question, really means. The carri
by grammaton 16y ago
I think the author is a little unclear of the definition of "open." Specifically, what "open source," which is the "open" in question, really means. The carriers can pull these shenanigans precisely because they have access to the source for the OS. If they didn't they'd have to go through Google or pick another option.
- oiuygtfrtghyju 16y agoNot necessarily - on windows they can install all the crapware they want without Windows being OpenSource. Now imagine you bought your new crapware loaded PC but weren't allowed admin access. And weren't allowed on 'their' internet if you deleted anything
- wvenable 16y agoI think he's very clear. The ironic point he is trying to make is that people are citing "openness" as their reason for purchasing Android phones when it has no benefit for them at all.
- grammaton 16y agoHow is it not a benefit? If a carrier's actions really disgust me, I can just switch to a different carrier and still have access to a platform that is substantially the same. I'm not necessarily locked in to a carrier, unlike, say, someone who just has to have their iPhone.
- wvenable 16y agoYou get that same benefit with Windows Mobile or Blackberry, yet nobody would claim they are open.
- eddieplan9 16y agoAt the beginning of the article, he specifically mentioned the assumption that "if it’s not the iPhone/AT&T deal". In other words, assuming iPhone is available on multiple carriers.