6 ms·

This article highlights why I'm a fan of apple more than google. Apple is going to exert the power to control the carriers. Apple is about the only company tha

• doki_pen 16y ago
  I think the balance for Google is whether they fight Apple, or the carriers. Fighting the carriers will fight themselves out of existence. If they cater to the carriers, they can kill the iPhone. That doesn't mean I like it. Just as locking down devices and forcing apps through the App Store, although beneficial to Apple, doesn't make it good for consumers. Ultimately, I want an open phone that works on the carrier of my choice. I just don't know if that formula could ever win.
  • lzw 16y ago
    Think about your assertion that the appstore isn't good for consumers. Do you really believe that? Consumers are not hackers. Consumers do not really understand technology that well. The appstore provides a safe buying experience for consumers, and now, rather than the app marketplace being infintesimal, it is massive and growing quickly. Apple lit a powderkeg there. How is this not good for consumers? Imagine if Apple had not provided any protections? You'd have malicious apps all over the place, and constant stories about how bad and dangerous iPhone apps are, and a lot less consumers using apps. I don't really buy that the iPhone is closed. Any app I can think of that is not evil, Apple will approve for sale on the store. If I want something that doesn't make sense to sell, then I compile it myself and sign it myself with the developer certificate. The random consumer is not going to be even installing XCode, let alone figuring out how to build even open-source software. So, the $99/year for the keys to sign apps is not really a big deal to me.
    • ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      You think Firefox and Google Voice are "evil"? Apps that duplicate functionality are "evil"? One more fart app is "evil"? Your positive regard for the App store may be partly based on ignorance of Apple's stated conditions.
  • loewenskind 16y ago
    > Just as locking down devices and forcing apps through the App Store, although beneficial to Apple, doesn't make it good for consumers. Nonsense. Consumers don't want to have to know all kinds of useless details just to be able to use their device. Personally I hate installing software on windows. There is a vast amount of it, but there is no one there making sure it's not going to damage my system (for the most part, of course you can restrict yourself to only software that has the MS seal). On OSX this is slightly better, but I still hate it when that little box opens up asking me to grant access. On iOS however, I install without much thought. I know that anything I download there has been vetted by someone with a strong interest in making sure their platform doesn't look bad (among some other interests that are less to my benefit). For me the trade off of not ever having to think about this stuff is worth missing out on things like Google Voice. I don't think the reason Android has been doing well in the US has anything what so ever to do with silly "open" dogma, but rather that it's cheaper and isn't tied to AT&T.
    • doki_pen 16y ago
      There is nothing wrong with the App Store concept. There is a huge problem with locking down a device that is the property of the consumer. Adults can choose to only install apps from the App Store, and it may or may not be a good idea for most users.
• jokermatt999 16y ago
  I agree that Apple has done a lot to reduce carrier control, but I don't like Apple's control either. The main issue I have with them is not allowing sideloading of apps and their strict control over the App Store. I see that as just as evil as what a lot of the carriers were doing beforehand. That's why I look more toward Android than Apple. Yes, Android is not as free or open for the end consumer as it could be because Google has made too many concessions to carriers (modifying UI, apps that cannot be uninstalled, slow updates, etc). However, their model is still far more open than iOS, for the simple fact that you can install anything you want on it. Yes, Google still does not allow all apps in the Marketplace, but there's still sideloading. Edit: Just to make it clear, I agree with the article. I don't mean to say that Google/Android will fix everything. The real issue is still the carriers. However, I think Google is a better example of open than Apple, even if that works against them sometimes.
  • lzw 16y ago
    Think about it this way. You can install any app you want on your iPhone as well. The thing is, Apple charges $99 a year for the privilege. Get a developer account, and run whatever you want. In order to have any security, you need to sign executables, and Apple's $99 essentially covers the cost of doing that. This is much better than the $100 per app up to many thousands that previously you'd have to pay. Maybe unsigned executables is a risk you're willing to take on, but given the level of derogatory misinofrmation that people spread about apple as it is, I understand why they want to limit the potential damage. The media does not distinguish between some code downloaded over the internet for jailbroken phones and something from the appstore, as it is. And everyone is apparently very eager to make hay whenever they can blame something on Apple.
    • Zak 16y ago
      The problem with having to buy a developer account or jailbreak the phone is that many of the apps that wouldn't be approved never get written. The commercial viability of an app is somewhat limited when the first step in the installation instructions is "jailbreak your phone".
• andrewljohnson 16y ago
  As a developer of both iPhone and Android apps, I see the biggest problem with Android as being the friction to buy. On iPhone, every single person is pretty wealthy, and more importantly, has a credit card entered into iTunes. On Android, the first app you buy usually involves inputting CC information. If Android can't address this issue, then the handset measure is meaningless. Android will need to sell 100 or 1000x more than iPhone to create the same market for developers like me.
  • rimantas 16y ago
    There are many many countries you cannot use Android marketplace at all.
• demallien 16y ago
  Yup. And I'm starting to wonder if in the end Android isn't going to reverse the trend towards carrier openness started by the iPhone. (A quick aside, when I say carrier openness, I mean that the carrier starts acting as just a data conduit, instead of imposing their branding everywhere on the user experience. So the iPhone introduced manufacturer-initiated updates, no operator logos stuck on the phone, apps controlled by Apple, not the operator, etc. The iPhone experience is the same regardless of which operator you find yourself on, around the world). So, with Android proving itself to be a decent competitor to the iPhone, it has reduced Apple's bargaining power with operators. That, added to the fact that the "openness" of Android ironically allows the operators to lock it down, means that we may very well be seeing the end of a very short era where handset manufacturers could dictate a decent amount of the user experience. If the difference between the iPhone and all previous phones is an indicator, this is a great shame.
  • loewenskind 16y ago
    >dded to the fact that the "openness" of Android ironically allows the operators to lock it down Why would this be ironic? It's very obvious that the more open you are the more people can do exactly what they want, and that includes locking down.
    • demallien 16y ago
      I don't have any figures to back this up, but frankly I would be astonished if it turned out that most people didn't expect 'open' to mean 'not locked down'. The trick is that Android isn't actually open for all parties concerned, only for the integrator. The integrator may then decide to make the resulting device open, but that is not a foregone conclusion, as proven by some of the devices beginning to appear on the market. But that message isn't what is being marketed - people are being told that Android is 'open', by which they naturally understand that they can do what they want with their device. But in reality, not so much. Anyway, way too many words to say that this is a very ironic result if you don't take care to explicitly define the parties concerned when talking about openness/locked downedness of a device...
• kenjackson 16y ago
  Actually I think the opposite. Google and MS will exert more control over carriers. MS in particular. The problem with Apple is that they signed an exclusivity agreement with a single carrier. I'm sure that if Google told Verizon, "The only place an Android phone will be for the next four years is Verizon", Verizon would jump through hoops for them. But by getting the phone on all carriers, yet still doing 90% of what Apple is doing on a single carrier is impressive. And MS has taken this a step further with the hardware requirements and no skinning, and one centralized market. Yet, they're doing this across all carriers.
  • nanairo 16y ago
    You make it sound easy. Apple would have loved for nothing more than having their phone on every carrier. But at the time they were a nobody in the mobile arena, and not only was their phone a huge departure but they also wanted to keep the look and feel untouched and have the carrier implement some ad hoc changes for things like visual voicemail. By the time Google had to make a deal, Verizon was seeing their customers moving to AT&T and needed something to rival the iPhone. Before the iPhone Verizon is said to have told Apple that its contract (to have a Verizon iPhone) were not acceptable. I doubt Verizon would have replied like that had the roles been inverted. Anyway, the exclusivity will hopefully end soon. What will be your stance at that point?
    • kenjackson 16y ago
      I'm not sure where I said it was easy, or implied it. I'm not even sure what you think I believe is easy. In any case, my point is simply that exclusivity of a phone OS to a single carrier IMO is not a net win. And my additional point was that MS is getting most of the win that Apple has today, but is applying it across all carriers. I think Apple ending the exclusivity will be a great thing. You seem to imply that I'd think otherwise.
      • nanairo 16y ago
        But you are comparing apple and oranges. You are comparing Microsoft today with Apple in 2007. There were a _lot_ of people doubting Apple would succeed if they ever tried to move into the phone market. And carriers (at least in the US) had a solid grip on the market. Nowadays the situation is completely different. Apple had showed that their vision of smartphone is successful: Microsoft (or Google) don't need to prove that anymore. Also carriers have lost a bit of their power, and are more afraid of ending up with a world controlled by one company than before. The point of the exclusivity is that if it runs out in a few months as many expect, that's pretty much when the new MS phones will come out (give or take a couple of months). So I don't see what damage Apple made.
• martythemaniak 16y ago
  Let's not kid ourselves - all the power Apple wrestled away from AT&T it kept for itself - the consumer didn't see much of a change, or saw a regression. Prior to the iPhone, loading your own apps and changing settings on your smartphone was standard practice. What Apple did was bring the featurephone practice (jumping through somebody's beaurocracy to get to consumers) to the smartphone market. Suddenly, being in control of your own smartphone is an "openness feature". Now, to loyal Apple fans, who love and trust Apple, this transfer of power/control from AT&T to Apple is the same as them (the Apple consumer) seeing benefits. To other people, it just means dealing with someone else, without any change in the fact that you still have to go through somebody.
  • lzw 16y ago
    Prior to the iPhone, apps on an a phone were paying $3/month to a carrier for crappy junk. The phones were locked down. It was far from "standard practice" to load your own apps onto your own phone, and the apps you could choose to use were highly limited and far more controlled. I think people forget that before the Apple AppStore there really were very few apps for phones.
    • nailer 16y ago
      > I think people forget that before the Apple AppStore there really were very few apps for phones. Fewer than today, sure. But Windows Mobile had thousands of apps and a pretty decent app development ecosystem.
    • jonknee 16y ago
      I think you're confusing smartphones and feature phones. You're right that the experience of apps on feature phones was lackluster (it still is actually). The iPhone helped catapult smartphones into the mainstream, but there wasn't a lack of smartphone software before the iPhone. Palm, Symbian and Windows Mobile (and BlackBerry to a lesser degree) all had a wide array of apps available before the iPhone was ever announced.
      • jad 16y ago
• patrickaljord 16y ago
  > but the combination of fragmentation and very slow adoption of latest releases by the android Actually, Android is doing not doing worse if not better than iOS here thanks to over-the-air updates of android. To update your iOS you need to connect it to a PC and sync it with iTunes, too much for many people whereas Android updates automatically over the air which makes updates applied very fast once available, check out the numbers here: http://www.androidpolice.com/2010/09/11/the-state-of-android-fragmentation-lookin-pretty-good-still-much-better-than-ios-fragmentation/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2010/09/11/the-state-of-android... > Apples market has little fragmentation and high hardware consistency. >But I digress. Without google imposing some licensing terms, android users are always going to have a poor os upgrade experience, it seems. Again, I couldn't disagree more. Not having to use iTunes and over-the-air updates is such a better experience than updating an iPhone, so much that Android users update their OS sooner than iPhone users. Plus if you look at the stats, most of the big phones got their update 1 to 2 months after the official release of Froyo, so it's not that bad. And if you have a Nexus or a rooted phone, it's instant upgrade.
  • alttab 16y ago
    The upgrade experience is better - but you do that a lot less than making phone calls. I had an iPhone and just switched to Android. After a couple of days Android is annoying me. With my iPhone, after unlocking my phone I hold the home button then click on a name to make a call. On Android, I unlock the device, click Phone, click favorites, click the name, then click call. I went from 2 clicks to 6. Its just not as usable. My fiance got a Palm Pre and despite the lack of "apps" I like the interface way more than Android phones.
    • patrickaljord 16y ago
      You can just say 'call bob' and it will make the call.
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    • ek 16y ago
• billmcneale 16y ago
  Right, because Apple's influence over AT&T has led to drastic reductions in monthly fees for all iPhone owners and given them access to additional features such as MMS, tethering and unlimited data for free.
  • evgen 16y ago
    The words of someone who obviously never paid for a cellular data connection before the iPhone came along. For approximately the same cost as my previous usb dongle and data plan I get to unplug the dongle from my computer and use it to make phone calls and play games.