4 ms·

Myth: Android puts users in control. Fact: Android puts manufacturers in control. Some manufacturers, of course, choose to allow users to exercise some contro

Myth: Android puts users in control. Fact: Android puts manufacturers in control. Some manufacturers, of course, choose to allow users to exercise some control over their devices. But "Android" is no guarantee of this.

pyre 15y ago
Android doesn't put manufacturers in control. Manufacturers are inherently in control regardless of the OS. It's not like the iPhone/iPad takes control away from manufacturers because Apple is the only manufacturer, and they definitely have full control over iOS.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  Your point is negated by Windows Phone 7. Manufacturers and carriers do not have much control over it. All they get is a bigger tile for one program and all preloaded stuff is easily uninstallable with a long press. No always-running battery sucking services in the background are allowed by Microsoft and the phone has to pass strict battery and hardware tests performed by Microsoft before it can be released. So it is indeed accurate to state that Android puts manufacturers in control.
  - moe 15y ago
    All they get is a bigger tile for one program and all preloaded stuff is easily uninstallable with a long press. No always-running battery sucking services in the background are allowed by Microsoft and the phone has to pass strict battery and hardware tests performed by Microsoft before it can be released. This was new to me and sounds like an extra-ordinarily good idea. Seems at last here is one lesson that google should learn from Microsoft.
    - cooldeal 15y ago
      The OEMs get a special section of the Marketplace where they can have special apps for just their phones. For example, the HTC apps cannot be installed on Samsung phones. This is a much better way for the OEMs to differentiate and add value rather than put in uninstallable software.
  - bookwormAT 15y ago
    Is it important in the long run, if the one party who controls your device is a manufaturer or a software provider or both? Because you can install software on your device without asking for permission, Android (and Windows7, OS X) already give the user much more control than iOS or Windows Phone.
recoiledsnake 15y ago
>Fact: Android puts manufacturers in control And in the case of phones, the carriers are also in control. Unlike the iPhone and Windows Phones, carriers can and do load up Android phones with un-uninstallable and battery-sucking junkware.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Nit: The plural of "carrier" is "carrion."
- samstokes 15y ago
  However, if you don't like a given crapware-laden, locked Android device, you can not buy it, and buy a different Android device, either from a carrier that doesn't add crapware, or just unlocked (and unsubsidized). There's a reason Google continues to promote the unlocked route for the Nexus line of phones. Buying a heavily subsidized phone from a carrier is a model where all the incentives point the wrong way. "Putting" the manufacturers in control (otherwise known as failing to limit the control they already have) means putting the market in control.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    >However, if you don't like a given crapware-laden, locked Android device, you can not buy it, and buy a different Android device, either from a carrier that doesn't add crapware, or just unlocked (and unsubsidized) The problem is that the general populace are not aware of this at all. HN users are anyway capable of rooting the device and them putting in custom ROMs without all the junk. Also, what have unlocked and/or unsubsidized phones got to do with bloatware? They're similarly loaded with the bloatware too. >There's a reason Google continues to promote the unlocked route for the Nexus line of phones. Buying a heavily subsidized phone from a carrier is a model where all the incentives point the wrong way. Huh? I thought Google tried and failed selling the phone unlocked with the G1 on TMobile? How is it promoting the unlocked route for Nexus phones? >Putting" the manufacturers in control (otherwise known as failing to limit the control they already have) means putting the market in control. And the "market" has shown that it's not to be trusted with that control well. Phones and tablets not getting software updates, malware issues etc. are plaguing the landscape. OEMs and carriers have shown time and time again that they're not going to do things that are in the interest of the consumer if it results in them making a few more bucks.
Splines 15y ago
And that's what rubs me the wrong way about the state of the world with mobile devices. I like fiddling with my hardware and trying different OSs on it. I like being able to upgrade my OS as I see fit, and it's a shame that I can only do that on a very small selection of hardware. Asus is treading into interesting waters here. What if the Transformer Prime was a laptop that shipped with Windows 8?
- marshray 15y ago
  What if it were an ASUS motherboard that enforced code signing on boot?
- freehunter 15y ago
  This is why it still confuses me to this day that the hacker/computer literate community put their backing in Android instead of WebOS. Sure Android was released sooner (but not sooner-enough to have insurmountable traction), but the Palm Pre actually allowed for booting a kernel over USB and gave root access by typing in the Konami code. The Touchpad allows for running of Debian, quite well! WebOS had no chance to succeed because the community it catered to chose the Google name and unfulfilled promises over actual freedom.
  - CrazedGeek 15y ago
    WebOS was on two very mediocre phones (if not at their release, then definitely years later when they were still the flagship devices) and wasn't open source.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      WebOS was open source except for Luna, and the devices were okay midrange phones at launch. After the market snubbed them, Palm didn't have enough money to keep creating newer and better phones.
  - commandar 15y ago
    Android has an active hacker community because you can grab the code from git and build a working Android system. This is exactly what the CyanogenMod team does; Steve Kondik has even started referring to CM as an Android distribution ala Debian as opposed to a simple set of mods or patches. As much as I love WebOS, that just plain isn't possible with that platform. (this was posted from WebOS on a Touchpad that also has Android installed as dual boot. Care to show me the Android devices that have been hacked to run WebOS?)
eternalban 15y ago
Speaking of boots: "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." George Orwell These devices are, today, de facto extensions of our senses and tongue. If the user, can not exercise effective control over such devices that is required to view, create, and disseminate mediated information, then the user is potentially subject to external control.
bookwormAT 15y ago
"Some manufacturers, of course, choose to allow users to exercise some control over their devices. But "Android" is no guarantee of this." I agree that Android itself does not guarantee who control's the device. But not "some", but almost all manufacturers allow users to exercise a great deal of control over their devices. if you can install someones software on your device without the permission of a third party, you are already much more in control than on any iOS device. "As open as OS X, Windows 7 or Android" is already worth fighting for.

pyre 15y ago

Android doesn't put manufacturers in control. Manufacturers are inherently in control regardless of the OS. It's not like the iPhone/iPad takes control away from manufacturers because Apple is the only manufacturer, and they definitely have full control over iOS.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
Your point is negated by Windows Phone 7. Manufacturers and carriers do not have much control over it. All they get is a bigger tile for one program and all preloaded stuff is easily uninstallable with a long press. No always-running battery sucking services in the background are allowed by Microsoft and the phone has to pass strict battery and hardware tests performed by Microsoft before it can be released. So it is indeed accurate to state that Android puts manufacturers in control.
- moe 15y ago
  All they get is a bigger tile for one program and all preloaded stuff is easily uninstallable with a long press. No always-running battery sucking services in the background are allowed by Microsoft and the phone has to pass strict battery and hardware tests performed by Microsoft before it can be released. This was new to me and sounds like an extra-ordinarily good idea. Seems at last here is one lesson that google should learn from Microsoft.
  - cooldeal 15y ago
    The OEMs get a special section of the Marketplace where they can have special apps for just their phones. For example, the HTC apps cannot be installed on Samsung phones. This is a much better way for the OEMs to differentiate and add value rather than put in uninstallable software.
- bookwormAT 15y ago
  Is it important in the long run, if the one party who controls your device is a manufaturer or a software provider or both? Because you can install software on your device without asking for permission, Android (and Windows7, OS X) already give the user much more control than iOS or Windows Phone.

recoiledsnake 15y ago

>Fact: Android puts manufacturers in control And in the case of phones, the carriers are also in control. Unlike the iPhone and Windows Phones, carriers can and do load up Android phones with un-uninstallable and battery-sucking junkware.

raganwald 15y ago
Nit: The plural of "carrier" is "carrion."
samstokes 15y ago
However, if you don't like a given crapware-laden, locked Android device, you can not buy it, and buy a different Android device, either from a carrier that doesn't add crapware, or just unlocked (and unsubsidized). There's a reason Google continues to promote the unlocked route for the Nexus line of phones. Buying a heavily subsidized phone from a carrier is a model where all the incentives point the wrong way. "Putting" the manufacturers in control (otherwise known as failing to limit the control they already have) means putting the market in control.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >However, if you don't like a given crapware-laden, locked Android device, you can not buy it, and buy a different Android device, either from a carrier that doesn't add crapware, or just unlocked (and unsubsidized) The problem is that the general populace are not aware of this at all. HN users are anyway capable of rooting the device and them putting in custom ROMs without all the junk. Also, what have unlocked and/or unsubsidized phones got to do with bloatware? They're similarly loaded with the bloatware too. >There's a reason Google continues to promote the unlocked route for the Nexus line of phones. Buying a heavily subsidized phone from a carrier is a model where all the incentives point the wrong way. Huh? I thought Google tried and failed selling the phone unlocked with the G1 on TMobile? How is it promoting the unlocked route for Nexus phones? >Putting" the manufacturers in control (otherwise known as failing to limit the control they already have) means putting the market in control. And the "market" has shown that it's not to be trusted with that control well. Phones and tablets not getting software updates, malware issues etc. are plaguing the landscape. OEMs and carriers have shown time and time again that they're not going to do things that are in the interest of the consumer if it results in them making a few more bucks.

Splines 15y ago

And that's what rubs me the wrong way about the state of the world with mobile devices. I like fiddling with my hardware and trying different OSs on it. I like being able to upgrade my OS as I see fit, and it's a shame that I can only do that on a very small selection of hardware. Asus is treading into interesting waters here. What if the Transformer Prime was a laptop that shipped with Windows 8?

marshray 15y ago
What if it were an ASUS motherboard that enforced code signing on boot?
freehunter 15y ago
This is why it still confuses me to this day that the hacker/computer literate community put their backing in Android instead of WebOS. Sure Android was released sooner (but not sooner-enough to have insurmountable traction), but the Palm Pre actually allowed for booting a kernel over USB and gave root access by typing in the Konami code. The Touchpad allows for running of Debian, quite well! WebOS had no chance to succeed because the community it catered to chose the Google name and unfulfilled promises over actual freedom.
- CrazedGeek 15y ago
  WebOS was on two very mediocre phones (if not at their release, then definitely years later when they were still the flagship devices) and wasn't open source.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    WebOS was open source except for Luna, and the devices were okay midrange phones at launch. After the market snubbed them, Palm didn't have enough money to keep creating newer and better phones.
- commandar 15y ago
  Android has an active hacker community because you can grab the code from git and build a working Android system. This is exactly what the CyanogenMod team does; Steve Kondik has even started referring to CM as an Android distribution ala Debian as opposed to a simple set of mods or patches. As much as I love WebOS, that just plain isn't possible with that platform. (this was posted from WebOS on a Touchpad that also has Android installed as dual boot. Care to show me the Android devices that have been hacked to run WebOS?)

eternalban 15y ago

Speaking of boots: "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." George Orwell These devices are, today, de facto extensions of our senses and tongue. If the user, can not exercise effective control over such devices that is required to view, create, and disseminate mediated information, then the user is potentially subject to external control.

bookwormAT 15y ago

"Some manufacturers, of course, choose to allow users to exercise some control over their devices. But "Android" is no guarantee of this." I agree that Android itself does not guarantee who control's the device. But not "some", but almost all manufacturers allow users to exercise a great deal of control over their devices. if you can install someones software on your device without the permission of a third party, you are already much more in control than on any iOS device. "As open as OS X, Windows 7 or Android" is already worth fighting for.