4 ms·

>As a developer As a developer, your customers can run the app even if the app store says no. >As a customer As a customer, you can choose from a range of an

>As a developer As a developer, your customers can run the app even if the app store says no. >As a customer As a customer, you can choose from a range of android powered devices including those not approved by Google. The nook would likely not exist were it not for Android.

msbarnett 16y ago
As a developer, if my app doesn't make it into the main app store, I'd be throwing good money after bad by trying to run about trying to set up my own payment infrastructure and trying to convince people to buy and side-load my app (which, among other things, Android's openness would keep AT&T Android users from doing anyways). From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as a developer. As a customer, the freedom to "choose from a range of Android powered devices including those not approved by Google" simply means the burden of having to perform a complicated cost-benefits analysis, deciding which specific combination of carrier crap-ware and carrier locked out features, or unsubsidized hardware from little-known Chinese manufacturers is least un-appealing to me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time researching to ensure that the official app store is supported on such-and-such phone, to find out whether tethering works freely or not or whether I can side-load or not on such-and-such carrier. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as an average consumer. Openness is only a virtue if it has practical benefit. If Google is arguing for openness from a purely dogmatic, non-practical standpoint, then they should be honest about that instead of pretending that Android's openness is some kind of unicorns-and-candyfloss fun ride for app developers and end-users.
- moultano 16y ago
  >As a developer, if my app doesn't make it into the main app store, I'd be throwing good money after bad by trying to run about trying to set up my own payment infrastructure and trying to convince people to buy and side-load my app (which, among other things, Android's openness would keep AT&T Android users from doing anyways). From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as a developer. Or support it with ads? >As a customer, the freedom to "choose from a range of Android powered devices including those not approved by Google" simply means the burden of having to perform a complicated cost-benefits analysis, deciding which specific combination of carrier crap-ware and carrier locked out features, or unsubsidized hardware from little-known Chinese manufacturers is least un-appealing to me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time researching to ensure that the official app store is supported on such-and-such phone, to find out whether tethering works freely or not or whether I can side-load or not on such-and-such carrier. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as an average consumer. This seems no different to me than any other free market. I buy the argument that Google should simplify your purchasing decision by being more selective with the trademark, but that's an entirely different argument than the one we are having.
brown9-2 16y ago
How "open" is a device whose OS has been configured so that you cannot remove certain applications from it? Sure the original OS is open source (and "open" as in visible), but how open is the platform when some companies put chains and locks around it? I can see how in Google's eyes the core platform is open - code is public, it can be forked, etc. But it's still an environment in which some vendors are free to lock down the system they sell to end-users to the point where a user is no longer free to uninstall programs they don't want. This dilutes the "openness" of the overall platform, since the lack of freedom and control on some Android devices reflects on the average perception of Android.
- moultano 16y ago
  >How "open" is a device whose OS has been configured so that you cannot remove certain applications from it? Is linux not open because the PS3 exists? It seems like all of your arguments apply equally well there.
  - Herring 16y ago
    Yeah, its really a pleasure seeing all these people (Jobs especially) argue for the GPLv3 and against tivoization. Where were they in 2007..
    - wtallis 16y ago
      Well, in 2007, Jobs was just barely able to get one carrier to surrender some control to the handset manufacturer. The iPhone would have been a non-starter if Jobs had been asking for all control over the software to be surrendered to the consumer.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    The difference is that Sony isn't running around marketing the PS3 as being superior to the XBox because of its "openness". Nor is Kaz Hirai tweeting about cloning Sony's Linux kernel repo as if it were some notional benefit over the XBox for consumers.

msbarnett 16y ago

As a developer, if my app doesn't make it into the main app store, I'd be throwing good money after bad by trying to run about trying to set up my own payment infrastructure and trying to convince people to buy and side-load my app (which, among other things, Android's openness would keep AT&T Android users from doing anyways). From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as a developer. As a customer, the freedom to "choose from a range of Android powered devices including those not approved by Google" simply means the burden of having to perform a complicated cost-benefits analysis, deciding which specific combination of carrier crap-ware and carrier locked out features, or unsubsidized hardware from little-known Chinese manufacturers is least un-appealing to me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time researching to ensure that the official app store is supported on such-and-such phone, to find out whether tethering works freely or not or whether I can side-load or not on such-and-such carrier. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as an average consumer. Openness is only a virtue if it has practical benefit. If Google is arguing for openness from a purely dogmatic, non-practical standpoint, then they should be honest about that instead of pretending that Android's openness is some kind of unicorns-and-candyfloss fun ride for app developers and end-users.

moultano 16y ago
>As a developer, if my app doesn't make it into the main app store, I'd be throwing good money after bad by trying to run about trying to set up my own payment infrastructure and trying to convince people to buy and side-load my app (which, among other things, Android's openness would keep AT&T Android users from doing anyways). From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as a developer. Or support it with ads? >As a customer, the freedom to "choose from a range of Android powered devices including those not approved by Google" simply means the burden of having to perform a complicated cost-benefits analysis, deciding which specific combination of carrier crap-ware and carrier locked out features, or unsubsidized hardware from little-known Chinese manufacturers is least un-appealing to me. I have to spend an enormous amount of time researching to ensure that the official app store is supported on such-and-such phone, to find out whether tethering works freely or not or whether I can side-load or not on such-and-such carrier. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no practical benefit to this openness for me, as an average consumer. This seems no different to me than any other free market. I buy the argument that Google should simplify your purchasing decision by being more selective with the trademark, but that's an entirely different argument than the one we are having.

brown9-2 16y ago

How "open" is a device whose OS has been configured so that you cannot remove certain applications from it? Sure the original OS is open source (and "open" as in visible), but how open is the platform when some companies put chains and locks around it? I can see how in Google's eyes the core platform is open - code is public, it can be forked, etc. But it's still an environment in which some vendors are free to lock down the system they sell to end-users to the point where a user is no longer free to uninstall programs they don't want. This dilutes the "openness" of the overall platform, since the lack of freedom and control on some Android devices reflects on the average perception of Android.

moultano 16y ago
>How "open" is a device whose OS has been configured so that you cannot remove certain applications from it? Is linux not open because the PS3 exists? It seems like all of your arguments apply equally well there.
- Herring 16y ago
  Yeah, its really a pleasure seeing all these people (Jobs especially) argue for the GPLv3 and against tivoization. Where were they in 2007..
  - wtallis 16y ago
    Well, in 2007, Jobs was just barely able to get one carrier to surrender some control to the handset manufacturer. The iPhone would have been a non-starter if Jobs had been asking for all control over the software to be surrendered to the consumer.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  The difference is that Sony isn't running around marketing the PS3 as being superior to the XBox because of its "openness". Nor is Kaz Hirai tweeting about cloning Sony's Linux kernel repo as if it were some notional benefit over the XBox for consumers.