10 ms·

But this what you explained is exactly the problem with Android. With iPhone, carriers, phone manufacturers and such are not allowed to install their crapware/b

But this what you explained is exactly the problem with Android. With iPhone, carriers, phone manufacturers and such are not allowed to install their crapware/bloatware on the phone. With Android, they can do whatever they want, and the only sane option for an end user is to root the phone.

speckledjim 15y ago
It's still a problem with US carriers. (Other countries have far better carriers and ecosystems than the US) It still absolutely amazes me that you guys usually pay for incoming SMS messages. I mean come on. W T F? If the carriers started charging each time you charge your battery the US public would just bend over and take it.
- joshmanders 15y ago
  > It still absolutely amazes me that you guys usually pay for incoming SMS messages. What? I've never seen a carrier charge for incoming SMS.
  - cryptoz 15y ago
    Last time I checked (a few months ago), every large carrier in Canada charges 15 cents for each incoming SMS. That's Bell, Rogers, Telus...maybe some others. Many people have a plan addon that includes receiving some SMS for free, but the basic stock plans do not.
    - thequux 15y ago
      Canadian cell companies are a special kind of terrible. AFAICT, they exist purely to make the american companies look good by comparison. When I was there for 5 days, the cheapest way for me to get phone/internet on my Nexus S was to stick my Vodafone Germany SIM in and use roaming. (I was just using texts, twitter, and light maps; a total of 10MB for the weekend.)
    - Shenglong 15y ago
      Only Telus. Bell and Rogers are free incoming texts - or at least were, when I bought my phone (I have unlimited texting, but I like to make sure). However, that's not to say they don't try to jip you at every possibility. For the last few years, texting to the US had always been at the same rate as Canada (and covered by texting plans). Rogers decided to switch that on me when I wasn't paying attention... although I'm pretty sure I asked, and the Sales guy lied. In either case. One complaint to the FCC in the USA, or CCTS in Canada will get things your way. Both countries, from my experience, has pretty terrible customer service. I can barely understand half of Verizon's CS team, and one guy at Roger's CS actually told me I should just do nothing, even though I felt cheated, because "if you sue, our company has more money than you, and you'll lose for sure". Sigh.
      - reidmain 15y ago
        Actually all three telecoms charge for incoming text messages. Telus pioneered it, Bell followed suit and then Rogers jumped on the bandwagon in 2009. I called Bell to have them block all incoming text messages and they said that they could not do it because it was somehow tied to their emergency 911 location determination service. After much prodding they said they could turn off incoming texts (but I should hope that I never have to call 911 with my mobile) but came back with a $3/month plan for like 500 text messages so I just took that instead. I switched to Rogers and am now on an iPhone plan which has text messaging but I would love to be able to block incoming texts again if iOS 5 and Google+ gets serious traction.
  - kbd 15y ago
    Really? Verizon: "20¢ per text sent (per recipient) or received (including Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands)" AT&T: "All AT&T customers with Text Messaging-capable phones are pre-activated to send and receive messages at $0.20 per message with no monthly charge." Straight from their websites.
    - joshmanders 15y ago
      I guess it depends on location, because around my area, all I see are 'GET UNLIMITED TEXT AND DATA FOR ONLY YOUR LEFT LEG!!" ads all over the place. Also it could quite possibly be that I am indeed living under a rock as I am very satisfied with my carrier so I don't actively look at plans of others.
      - dpark 15y ago
        It doesn't depend on the area. Most if not all American carriers charge for incoming text messages. When you select the "unlimited data and text" plan, you're paying for those incoming text messages.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - getsat 15y ago
    Have you been in a coma for the last decade? Americans get bent over the barrel on SMS pricing. https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=incoming+text+message+cost https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=incoming+text+message+...
- nollidge 15y ago
  Only if they have a plan that doesn't include texting, which is vanishingly rare now.
  - dman 15y ago
    Both t-mobile and verizon offer this. And I havent checked the others. Ive never paid for text and have incoming SMS's blocked too.
    - nollidge 15y ago
      Oh yeah, my guess is that all carriers offer no-texting plans, I just mean it's getting rarer that people choose them.
- nuclear_eclipse 15y ago
  Even worse, Cincinnati Bell charges 25c for incoming texts (if your plan doesn't include them), but then charges you $3 a month to block incoming text messages altogether! I've long since switched back to T-Mobile, and regretted ever moving away from T-Mobile in the first place, but my parents have decided to put up with the stupid 25c charges for spam texts because it's still cheaper than paying a monthly fee for what used to be a free "service" of flipping a switch in their database.
- Sthorpe 15y ago
  Paying for SMS is awful. Just out of curiosity how would you suggest we don't, "just bend over and take it?"
  - speleding 15y ago
    Just look at what other countries are doing right and copy that. More concrete: Vote for a politician who will force the FCC to create a real market, not a oligopoly of a few large behemoths. Contrary to most the promises politicians make, this one costs no money and simply involves signing the right bills into law. It will even be good for the economy. Of course, they would have to withstand the rich and powerful lobby of said behemoths, which is of course why such a politician will be very hard to find.
Nerdfest 15y ago
In the case of the iPhone, Users are not allowed to install certain applications either.
nikcub 15y ago
manufacturers must pass the Android Compatability Test Suite[1] in order to be granted rights to the android trademark and the permission to refer to their device as android[2]. the problem is CTS tests API consistency with the goal of preventing platform fragmentation for app developers. there is also a separate set of tests that specify minimum hardware requirements for each version of android, and specs such as battery life, etc. compatibility and android brand licensing also requires a certain set of minimum apps, such as the phone dialer, calendar, contacts, music player, etc. but (and quote[3]): > The Android upstream project defines a number of core applications, such as a phone dialer, calendar, contacts book, music player, and so on. Device implementers MAY replace these applications with alternative versions. and further -- the gmail, chat etc. apps are proprietary Google apps, and there are various licensing reasons why they can not be enforced as part of 'compatibility'. API compatibility is good, but UI and app compatibility is very flexible - and given such flexibility, carriers will almost always go the crawpware route. [1] http://source.android.com/compatibility/android-cts-manual-r4.pdf http://source.android.com/compatibility/android-cts-manual-r... [2] http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html [3] http://source.android.com/compatibility/2.3/android-2.3.3-cdd.pdf http://source.android.com/compatibility/2.3/android-2.3.3-cd...
- shaggyfrog 15y ago
  If this "Android Compatability Test Suite" is anything like how the video game manufacturers test and approve video games, let's just say a lot of things can get graded on a curve, with the right motivation. Clearly this phone is one example, if the battery is discharging itself so quickly (and generating so much heat) in an hour.
mikegreenberg 15y ago
The only sane option?! Give me a break. Just get a phone "with Google" and use the pure Google experience and it's a breeze. All of this spinning and complaining about what OEMs are doing to an open source OS is like complaining about the DIY boxcar racer you bought and put together turned out like shit. (and you want your money back.)
- NoahHendrix 15y ago
  LOL, that is a terrible analogy. If I bought and built a boxcar and I did it wrong then yes my fault, I'm not building the phone, the manufacturer is, so as a consumer I can expect a certain level of quality. Most consumers don't know the difference between Google-made Android phones and the others. You're missing the core point which is that the Android platform is fragmented and regular people are being given a phone full of advertising and apps built for up selling.
  - mikegreenberg 15y ago
    I know the analogy was horrible... -_- Regardless, the intention of my point was that manufacturers were given "blueprints" and "tools" and they built a shitty product. Even though Android is Google's product, the end result is not and to point fingers at Android is wrong. Is it the fault of Google if people are using the tools improperly? If anything, Google should've better managed the Android trademark so as to not associate their toolbox/blueprints with sub-par implementations.
- evilduck 15y ago
  This is not the case. I have a Samsung Moment "with Google". The stock Android it ships with comes with unremovable apps (and unremovable game demos), a half-baked navigation app, a terrible voice search replacement, unkillable background services that count how many times you open the keyboard. It's also got a totally broken radio driver that violated FCC 911 regulations for over a year (google it if you care), and has been abandoned at 2.1 officially 10 months from release since it's no longer in Samsung's profit interests to maintain a terrible device that Sprint pulled from their product line. The only way the phone is remotely enjoyable is with custom ROMs. I bought it with 1.5 and accepted a sub-par experience because of Samsung's publicly stated promise that it would get 2.1 quickly, it took several months before an official 2.1 update was released and nearly another year before their radio issues were resolved. The "with Google" branding meaning nothing in terms of actual phone experience, and Samsung isn't the only vendor at fault here. After my experience, and dozens of similar accounts like this blog post, I don't recommend anyone buy an Android phone that isn't a "by Google", like the Nexus line, and even then, only if they have some strong objection to getting the iPhone, which I would recommend over any current Android device. I really, really, really wanted to like Android, but you can damn-near put an 18 month countdown on the majority of the Android phones before the manufacturer abandons it and you're stuck using XDA developers or the like for updates, patches and improvements, or just to fix the stock crap they ship. On a 24 month contract cycle, that's just unacceptable.
samstokes 15y ago
The only sane option is to root the phone How about the only sane option is to not buy a phone with crapware on it? This is what markets are for - so that crappy products can die. If Verizon sells phones with crapware and T-Mobile sells phones without, choose T-Mobile. Even better, if the US market finally wakes up to buying unlocked phones from electronics vendors rather than locked phones from carriers, you can actually choose between handset brands like consumer electronics is meant to work. If I buy a digital camera, I have to do a bit of research to find out which one is good. If I'm not that demanding, then the extent of the research can be asking my friend who just bought a camera which one she bought. It would be an easier choice if only two companies made decent cameras and I just had to choose one or the other, but that's not how it is, and I suspect the camera market would also stagnate in that situation.
- glassx 15y ago
  A local (Brazilian) phone operator made 'we only have unlocked phones' as their selling-point. Also they don't have contracts, and (at least for me) no crapware apps. Sorta gives me a bit of hope on capitalism. I stay with them on principle.

speckledjim 15y ago

It's still a problem with US carriers. (Other countries have far better carriers and ecosystems than the US) It still absolutely amazes me that you guys usually pay for incoming SMS messages. I mean come on. W T F? If the carriers started charging each time you charge your battery the US public would just bend over and take it.

joshmanders 15y ago
> It still absolutely amazes me that you guys usually pay for incoming SMS messages. What? I've never seen a carrier charge for incoming SMS.
- cryptoz 15y ago
  Last time I checked (a few months ago), every large carrier in Canada charges 15 cents for each incoming SMS. That's Bell, Rogers, Telus...maybe some others. Many people have a plan addon that includes receiving some SMS for free, but the basic stock plans do not.
  - thequux 15y ago
    Canadian cell companies are a special kind of terrible. AFAICT, they exist purely to make the american companies look good by comparison. When I was there for 5 days, the cheapest way for me to get phone/internet on my Nexus S was to stick my Vodafone Germany SIM in and use roaming. (I was just using texts, twitter, and light maps; a total of 10MB for the weekend.)
  - Shenglong 15y ago
    Only Telus. Bell and Rogers are free incoming texts - or at least were, when I bought my phone (I have unlimited texting, but I like to make sure). However, that's not to say they don't try to jip you at every possibility. For the last few years, texting to the US had always been at the same rate as Canada (and covered by texting plans). Rogers decided to switch that on me when I wasn't paying attention... although I'm pretty sure I asked, and the Sales guy lied. In either case. One complaint to the FCC in the USA, or CCTS in Canada will get things your way. Both countries, from my experience, has pretty terrible customer service. I can barely understand half of Verizon's CS team, and one guy at Roger's CS actually told me I should just do nothing, even though I felt cheated, because "if you sue, our company has more money than you, and you'll lose for sure". Sigh.
    - reidmain 15y ago
      Actually all three telecoms charge for incoming text messages. Telus pioneered it, Bell followed suit and then Rogers jumped on the bandwagon in 2009. I called Bell to have them block all incoming text messages and they said that they could not do it because it was somehow tied to their emergency 911 location determination service. After much prodding they said they could turn off incoming texts (but I should hope that I never have to call 911 with my mobile) but came back with a $3/month plan for like 500 text messages so I just took that instead. I switched to Rogers and am now on an iPhone plan which has text messaging but I would love to be able to block incoming texts again if iOS 5 and Google+ gets serious traction.
- kbd 15y ago
  Really? Verizon: "20¢ per text sent (per recipient) or received (including Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands)" AT&T: "All AT&T customers with Text Messaging-capable phones are pre-activated to send and receive messages at $0.20 per message with no monthly charge." Straight from their websites.
  - joshmanders 15y ago
    I guess it depends on location, because around my area, all I see are 'GET UNLIMITED TEXT AND DATA FOR ONLY YOUR LEFT LEG!!" ads all over the place. Also it could quite possibly be that I am indeed living under a rock as I am very satisfied with my carrier so I don't actively look at plans of others.
    - dpark 15y ago
      It doesn't depend on the area. Most if not all American carriers charge for incoming text messages. When you select the "unlimited data and text" plan, you're paying for those incoming text messages.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- getsat 15y ago
  Have you been in a coma for the last decade? Americans get bent over the barrel on SMS pricing. https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=incoming+text+message+cost https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=incoming+text+message+...
nollidge 15y ago
Only if they have a plan that doesn't include texting, which is vanishingly rare now.
- dman 15y ago
  Both t-mobile and verizon offer this. And I havent checked the others. Ive never paid for text and have incoming SMS's blocked too.
  - nollidge 15y ago
    Oh yeah, my guess is that all carriers offer no-texting plans, I just mean it's getting rarer that people choose them.
nuclear_eclipse 15y ago
Even worse, Cincinnati Bell charges 25c for incoming texts (if your plan doesn't include them), but then charges you $3 a month to block incoming text messages altogether! I've long since switched back to T-Mobile, and regretted ever moving away from T-Mobile in the first place, but my parents have decided to put up with the stupid 25c charges for spam texts because it's still cheaper than paying a monthly fee for what used to be a free "service" of flipping a switch in their database.
Sthorpe 15y ago
Paying for SMS is awful. Just out of curiosity how would you suggest we don't, "just bend over and take it?"
- speleding 15y ago
  Just look at what other countries are doing right and copy that. More concrete: Vote for a politician who will force the FCC to create a real market, not a oligopoly of a few large behemoths. Contrary to most the promises politicians make, this one costs no money and simply involves signing the right bills into law. It will even be good for the economy. Of course, they would have to withstand the rich and powerful lobby of said behemoths, which is of course why such a politician will be very hard to find.

Nerdfest 15y ago

In the case of the iPhone, Users are not allowed to install certain applications either.

nikcub 15y ago

manufacturers must pass the Android Compatability Test Suite[1] in order to be granted rights to the android trademark and the permission to refer to their device as android[2]. the problem is CTS tests API consistency with the goal of preventing platform fragmentation for app developers. there is also a separate set of tests that specify minimum hardware requirements for each version of android, and specs such as battery life, etc. compatibility and android brand licensing also requires a certain set of minimum apps, such as the phone dialer, calendar, contacts, music player, etc. but (and quote[3]): > The Android upstream project defines a number of core applications, such as a phone dialer, calendar, contacts book, music player, and so on. Device implementers MAY replace these applications with alternative versions. and further -- the gmail, chat etc. apps are proprietary Google apps, and there are various licensing reasons why they can not be enforced as part of 'compatibility'. API compatibility is good, but UI and app compatibility is very flexible - and given such flexibility, carriers will almost always go the crawpware route. [1] http://source.android.com/compatibility/android-cts-manual-r4.pdf http://source.android.com/compatibility/android-cts-manual-r... [2] http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html http://source.android.com/compatibility/index.html [3] http://source.android.com/compatibility/2.3/android-2.3.3-cdd.pdf http://source.android.com/compatibility/2.3/android-2.3.3-cd...

shaggyfrog 15y ago
If this "Android Compatability Test Suite" is anything like how the video game manufacturers test and approve video games, let's just say a lot of things can get graded on a curve, with the right motivation. Clearly this phone is one example, if the battery is discharging itself so quickly (and generating so much heat) in an hour.

mikegreenberg 15y ago

The only sane option?! Give me a break. Just get a phone "with Google" and use the pure Google experience and it's a breeze. All of this spinning and complaining about what OEMs are doing to an open source OS is like complaining about the DIY boxcar racer you bought and put together turned out like shit. (and you want your money back.)

NoahHendrix 15y ago
LOL, that is a terrible analogy. If I bought and built a boxcar and I did it wrong then yes my fault, I'm not building the phone, the manufacturer is, so as a consumer I can expect a certain level of quality. Most consumers don't know the difference between Google-made Android phones and the others. You're missing the core point which is that the Android platform is fragmented and regular people are being given a phone full of advertising and apps built for up selling.
- mikegreenberg 15y ago
  I know the analogy was horrible... -_- Regardless, the intention of my point was that manufacturers were given "blueprints" and "tools" and they built a shitty product. Even though Android is Google's product, the end result is not and to point fingers at Android is wrong. Is it the fault of Google if people are using the tools improperly? If anything, Google should've better managed the Android trademark so as to not associate their toolbox/blueprints with sub-par implementations.
evilduck 15y ago
This is not the case. I have a Samsung Moment "with Google". The stock Android it ships with comes with unremovable apps (and unremovable game demos), a half-baked navigation app, a terrible voice search replacement, unkillable background services that count how many times you open the keyboard. It's also got a totally broken radio driver that violated FCC 911 regulations for over a year (google it if you care), and has been abandoned at 2.1 officially 10 months from release since it's no longer in Samsung's profit interests to maintain a terrible device that Sprint pulled from their product line. The only way the phone is remotely enjoyable is with custom ROMs. I bought it with 1.5 and accepted a sub-par experience because of Samsung's publicly stated promise that it would get 2.1 quickly, it took several months before an official 2.1 update was released and nearly another year before their radio issues were resolved. The "with Google" branding meaning nothing in terms of actual phone experience, and Samsung isn't the only vendor at fault here. After my experience, and dozens of similar accounts like this blog post, I don't recommend anyone buy an Android phone that isn't a "by Google", like the Nexus line, and even then, only if they have some strong objection to getting the iPhone, which I would recommend over any current Android device. I really, really, really wanted to like Android, but you can damn-near put an 18 month countdown on the majority of the Android phones before the manufacturer abandons it and you're stuck using XDA developers or the like for updates, patches and improvements, or just to fix the stock crap they ship. On a 24 month contract cycle, that's just unacceptable.

samstokes 15y ago

The only sane option is to root the phone How about the only sane option is to not buy a phone with crapware on it? This is what markets are for - so that crappy products can die. If Verizon sells phones with crapware and T-Mobile sells phones without, choose T-Mobile. Even better, if the US market finally wakes up to buying unlocked phones from electronics vendors rather than locked phones from carriers, you can actually choose between handset brands like consumer electronics is meant to work. If I buy a digital camera, I have to do a bit of research to find out which one is good. If I'm not that demanding, then the extent of the research can be asking my friend who just bought a camera which one she bought. It would be an easier choice if only two companies made decent cameras and I just had to choose one or the other, but that's not how it is, and I suspect the camera market would also stagnate in that situation.

glassx 15y ago
A local (Brazilian) phone operator made 'we only have unlocked phones' as their selling-point. Also they don't have contracts, and (at least for me) no crapware apps. Sorta gives me a bit of hope on capitalism. I stay with them on principle.