4 ms·

Good. It's always bothered me that Verizon can take an Android phone and make a bunch of money by whoring it out to Microsoft and anyone else who will pay to ha

by pkulak 16y ago

Good. It's always bothered me that Verizon can take an Android phone and make a bunch of money by whoring it out to Microsoft and anyone else who will pay to have their crapware permanently installed. Carriers and manufacturers have ruined just about every Android phone they've gotten their hands on. Android is really becoming a nice OS, and it deserves better.

dsuriano 16y ago
I remember when Verizon disabled Bluetooth file transfer on some of their "feature" phones, forcing users to use send a MMS or e-mail, thus inducing data charges.
- cmurdock 16y ago
  It's still happening with non smart-phones. I had t-mobile and was able to file transfer easily between phones. Verizon purposely locks this functionality out. Bullshit.
  - barista 16y ago
    As an end user, I'd appreciate a closed and controlled operating ystem like iOS or Windows Phone 7. But as a developer or hacker I don't understand Google's hypocricy here. By Rubi's own definition of what is open, the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” anybody should be able to do anything with the source of Android. How are current moves justified given this definition? It's plain and simple, if people don't like the crappy modifications that carriers or other make to Android they just won't buy the devices. Why can't Google let us decide as users. Why are they deciding for us that the fragmentation is bad? Why??
    - ccaviness 16y ago
      What about “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” doesn't work right now? Because it's working just fine for me.
bonch 16y ago
But what about "openness?" I thought Android was supposed to be the answer to Apple's tight control?
- probablycorey 16y ago
  Android is still much more open than Apple. A developer can actually view the Android source code, you can deploy an application to a device without Google's permission, you can access much more of the OS features from Android than with the iPhone. The only people this limits "openness" for is device manufactures, which most developers would probably consider a good thing.
  - anon1385 16y ago
    >A developer can actually view the Android source code So I should be able to download and view the source code to Honeycomb, right?
  - jad 16y ago
    > Android is still much more open than Apple. Is the goal to be open, or just more open than Apple? As I'm sure you know, they're not the same thing.
  - bonch 16y ago
    > Android is still much more open than Apple. Instead of being an open platform, we're apparently devolving into specifying particular degrees of openness. If you want to play that game, the Darwin operating system that provides the foundation of iOS is also open source, and it doesn't require a license to use or approval from Apple over modifications. > A developer can actually view the Android source code No, Google is withholding Honeycomb's source code for the indefinite future--unless you're lucky enough to be one of Google's privileged partners. Your post is another example of the justifications we often see from Android supporters for behaviors that Apple has been criticized for in the past, such as withholding source code and holding final approval over third-party development. Google declared pretty loudly that Android exists to prevent a "draconian future" of strict control. However, Google is now exerting aspects of that control.

by pkulak 16y ago

dsuriano 16y ago

I remember when Verizon disabled Bluetooth file transfer on some of their "feature" phones, forcing users to use send a MMS or e-mail, thus inducing data charges.

cmurdock 16y ago
It's still happening with non smart-phones. I had t-mobile and was able to file transfer easily between phones. Verizon purposely locks this functionality out. Bullshit.
- barista 16y ago
  As an end user, I'd appreciate a closed and controlled operating ystem like iOS or Windows Phone 7. But as a developer or hacker I don't understand Google's hypocricy here. By Rubi's own definition of what is open, the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” anybody should be able to do anything with the source of Android. How are current moves justified given this definition? It's plain and simple, if people don't like the crappy modifications that carriers or other make to Android they just won't buy the devices. Why can't Google let us decide as users. Why are they deciding for us that the fragmentation is bad? Why??
  - ccaviness 16y ago
    What about “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make” doesn't work right now? Because it's working just fine for me.

bonch 16y ago

But what about "openness?" I thought Android was supposed to be the answer to Apple's tight control?

probablycorey 16y ago
Android is still much more open than Apple. A developer can actually view the Android source code, you can deploy an application to a device without Google's permission, you can access much more of the OS features from Android than with the iPhone. The only people this limits "openness" for is device manufactures, which most developers would probably consider a good thing.
- anon1385 16y ago
  >A developer can actually view the Android source code So I should be able to download and view the source code to Honeycomb, right?
- jad 16y ago
  > Android is still much more open than Apple. Is the goal to be open, or just more open than Apple? As I'm sure you know, they're not the same thing.
- bonch 16y ago
  > Android is still much more open than Apple. Instead of being an open platform, we're apparently devolving into specifying particular degrees of openness. If you want to play that game, the Darwin operating system that provides the foundation of iOS is also open source, and it doesn't require a license to use or approval from Apple over modifications. > A developer can actually view the Android source code No, Google is withholding Honeycomb's source code for the indefinite future--unless you're lucky enough to be one of Google's privileged partners. Your post is another example of the justifications we often see from Android supporters for behaviors that Apple has been criticized for in the past, such as withholding source code and holding final approval over third-party development. Google declared pretty loudly that Android exists to prevent a "draconian future" of strict control. However, Google is now exerting aspects of that control.