9 ms·

That's all great and witty and so on. But his pseudo-definition of "free" is rather misleading. I don't think Jobs argues that Android isn't free in the sense

by apl 16y ago

That's all great and witty and so on. But his pseudo-definition of "free" is rather misleading. I don't think Jobs argues that Android isn't free in the sense of being closed-source, or being sold for money, or not being available on most devices. It is. I know that I can compile it right now, from my command line. I know that I wouldn't have to spend any money. I know that, with enough tinkering, I can put it on my iPhone or whatever. In the real world, on the other hand, this free Android doesn't exist. When I buy a Samsung or HTC or Motorola Android phone, I don't get plain vanilla Android - I get a distorted version full of crap and software I neither need nor want. In the real world, Android is almost never the pure version Rubin wants it to be. It's a weird hybrid, coerced into submission by Verizon, Motorola and friends. The jailbreak community for Android is as large as the one for the iPhone, meaning that in a very import sense, real-world Android is about as open as iOS and webOS. I don't care about theoretical openness. That's just rhetorics. Jobs merely points that out.

drivebyacct2 16y ago
That's obviously not the point Jobs is going after. He'd be silly to do so. The warped, personalized, differentiated Android variants is exactly why Android is taking off.
- apl 16y ago
  Hm, obviousness aside - would you mind elaborating on that? Additionally, even if warped, personalized and differentiated Android variants have turned the underlying OS into a success, that doesn't imply that it's a good thing. Coincidence, iffy business tactics and "being good enough" are exactly why Windows took off.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  This is beneficial for the phone companies only, not for the customers. And that is what Jobs is getting at. He want to make the best possible experience for the customers not create a fragmented ecosystem that allows anyone to make a version of how they see Android.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    A fragmented ecosystem is also a competitive one: how can you argue that this doesn't benefit the customers is beyond my comprehension.
    - apl 16y ago
      Competition isn't intrinsically beneficial. Within the Android ecosystem, all you get is pseudo-competition: none of the players are interested in making Android any more open than it has to be.
      - bad_user 16y ago
        That depends on market forces that change by definition and it is definitely not a rule. Android gives the possibility of building unlocked phones ... from there it's just an issue of customer-demand. If only one manufacturer, like HTC or maybe Samsung, has success with an unlocked phone, the others will start replicating the recipe.
        ThomPete 16y ago
        It's not about customer-demand, it's about big enterprise logic.
        vetinari 16y ago
        Big enterprise logic changes the same way, as cash flow changes. It is called "vote with your wallet" for a reason.
        ThomPete 16y ago
        It doesn't change the way you seem to be assuming. Big enterprise havs cash cows and until those cash cows are gone they will be making all sorts of ego driven decisions. You would be surprised how much is driven by individuals and how little is driven by rationality. There are states within the states with their own motives. It is my experience that besides with the cash cows, it's anything but rational decisions that are being made in most cases.
bad_user 16y ago
Let me put it this way: With an iPhone you've got a shiny device that just works and doesn't come with shit installed and that you cannot tinker with. With an Android you've got a shiny device that many times comes with shit installed and that you cannot tinker with (depending on the manufacturer). The difference: you can build your own unlocked Android device, and because of competition there will be phone manufacturers that will do just that. Windows PCs aren't locked, and this came to be mostly due to harsh competition, or am I missing something? Don't you think the likes of Compaq/HP would've rather sold locked devices akin to gaming consoles (also popular at that time)? You're saying it is "theoretical openness"; I'm saying the market is too young for Android's openness to unravel.
- wvenable 16y ago
  > you can build your own unlocked Android device, and because of competition there will be phone manufacturers that will do just that. Wrong. Because handsets are subsidized by the carriers and won't sell otherwise -- so all that competition is equally focused on pleasing the carrier as they are on pleasing the customer. Besides, it's been pointed out many times to me here that the majority of consumers don't care if the platform is open.
  - davidw 16y ago
    > Because handsets are subsidized by the carriers and won't sell otherwise In the United States. I saw an iPhone sitting in a glass case here for 600 Euro the other day.
    - wvenable 16y ago
      You can buy unlocked phones in the states, as well, but they obviously bring a much higher up-front cost. It doesn't change the fact that manufacturers want their phones to be subsidized by the carriers in the US. They're not going to build a separate "more open" version for the rest of the world because it's simply not worth it.
      - 16y ago
larsu 16y ago
It's not about theoretical openness, but whether the manufacturer you bought your phone from passes Android's openness on to you, their customer. Most (all?) of the successful ones (HTC, Samsung, Motorola) don't. Since Android is Apache-licensed, the openness isn't enforced to all users of the software.

by apl 16y ago

drivebyacct2 16y ago

That's obviously not the point Jobs is going after. He'd be silly to do so. The warped, personalized, differentiated Android variants is exactly why Android is taking off.

apl 16y ago
Hm, obviousness aside - would you mind elaborating on that? Additionally, even if warped, personalized and differentiated Android variants have turned the underlying OS into a success, that doesn't imply that it's a good thing. Coincidence, iffy business tactics and "being good enough" are exactly why Windows took off.
ThomPete 16y ago
This is beneficial for the phone companies only, not for the customers. And that is what Jobs is getting at. He want to make the best possible experience for the customers not create a fragmented ecosystem that allows anyone to make a version of how they see Android.
- bad_user 16y ago
  A fragmented ecosystem is also a competitive one: how can you argue that this doesn't benefit the customers is beyond my comprehension.
  - apl 16y ago
    Competition isn't intrinsically beneficial. Within the Android ecosystem, all you get is pseudo-competition: none of the players are interested in making Android any more open than it has to be.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      That depends on market forces that change by definition and it is definitely not a rule. Android gives the possibility of building unlocked phones ... from there it's just an issue of customer-demand. If only one manufacturer, like HTC or maybe Samsung, has success with an unlocked phone, the others will start replicating the recipe.
      - ThomPete 16y ago
        It's not about customer-demand, it's about big enterprise logic.
        vetinari 16y ago
        Big enterprise logic changes the same way, as cash flow changes. It is called "vote with your wallet" for a reason.
        ThomPete 16y ago
        It doesn't change the way you seem to be assuming. Big enterprise havs cash cows and until those cash cows are gone they will be making all sorts of ego driven decisions. You would be surprised how much is driven by individuals and how little is driven by rationality. There are states within the states with their own motives. It is my experience that besides with the cash cows, it's anything but rational decisions that are being made in most cases.

bad_user 16y ago

Let me put it this way: With an iPhone you've got a shiny device that just works and doesn't come with shit installed and that you cannot tinker with. With an Android you've got a shiny device that many times comes with shit installed and that you cannot tinker with (depending on the manufacturer). The difference: you can build your own unlocked Android device, and because of competition there will be phone manufacturers that will do just that. Windows PCs aren't locked, and this came to be mostly due to harsh competition, or am I missing something? Don't you think the likes of Compaq/HP would've rather sold locked devices akin to gaming consoles (also popular at that time)? You're saying it is "theoretical openness"; I'm saying the market is too young for Android's openness to unravel.

wvenable 16y ago
> you can build your own unlocked Android device, and because of competition there will be phone manufacturers that will do just that. Wrong. Because handsets are subsidized by the carriers and won't sell otherwise -- so all that competition is equally focused on pleasing the carrier as they are on pleasing the customer. Besides, it's been pointed out many times to me here that the majority of consumers don't care if the platform is open.
- davidw 16y ago
  > Because handsets are subsidized by the carriers and won't sell otherwise In the United States. I saw an iPhone sitting in a glass case here for 600 Euro the other day.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    You can buy unlocked phones in the states, as well, but they obviously bring a much higher up-front cost. It doesn't change the fact that manufacturers want their phones to be subsidized by the carriers in the US. They're not going to build a separate "more open" version for the rest of the world because it's simply not worth it.
    - 16y ago

larsu 16y ago

It's not about theoretical openness, but whether the manufacturer you bought your phone from passes Android's openness on to you, their customer. Most (all?) of the successful ones (HTC, Samsung, Motorola) don't. Since Android is Apache-licensed, the openness isn't enforced to all users of the software.