6 ms·

So, Google had a pipe dream about turning carriers into dumb pipes, and had to face reality when the carriers wouldn't let them. Therefore, MG hates Android. I

So, Google had a pipe dream about turning carriers into dumb pipes, and had to face reality when the carriers wouldn't let them. Therefore, MG hates Android. I just don't know what MG wanted to Google to do. We all have our own ideas about how the world should be. The options for Google seem to be a hardline tactic to get exactly what they envisioned and subsequently have a dead on arrival Android OS, or work within the system. Apple had a similar grand ambition when the iPhone first launched with no carrier subsidy. They backed off when it didn't work, so why doesn't MG hate the iPhone? I agree with MG that the iPhone wrestled power from the carriers. I just disagree that gave it to us (other than indirectly). The article relies on a viewing of carriers as absolute evil and Apple/2007 Google as beams of pure good and light. I don't. There are shades of grey everywhere. iPhone brought a great OS with no crapware, a decent update schedule, and a handy app/media store where Apple gets a say in and a cut of everything, with one hardware option. Android brought you an OS that runs on multiple devices with a relatively open ecosystem, with the drawbacks of a less smooth experience and allowing carriers/OEMs monkey around with Android. Carriers have their own set of priorities that also have a bunch of pros and cons. Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal while a device that requires the manufacturer to approve all software that runs on it is A-OK.

emehrkay 15y ago
> Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal while a device that the manufacturer must approve all software that runs on it is A-OK. I see this as two different things. Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space has an impact on everyone while Apple preventing software from running on their devices only affects Apple users.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same government that is pushing for SOPA. Government regulations of the market are only useful in one case only: to prevent abuses from established monopolies. However, wireless Internet is not monopolized. And you should checkout the competition in Europe. It's absolutely crazy. Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space ... Actually they haven't "changed" anything. They just left things as they were before. The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs how they should operate. Customers did.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    >However, wireless Internet is not monopolized. In the USA? You're kidding, right?
  - DarkShikari 15y ago
    I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same government that is pushing for SOPA. Opposing SOPA --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet." Supporting net neutrality --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet." They are identical positions: "hands off my internet". Not all laws by the government are "regulation". Is making murder illegal the "regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's absurd.
    - harshreality 15y ago
      The idea touches on positive and negative rights[1]. Real world examples have shades of both, yet the principle remains: sometimes you want someone (particularly the government) to do something; other times you want them to not get involved. In a specific instance, both might be desired to further a single purpose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
    - ABCD_FUFU 15y ago
      >>Is making murder illegal the "regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's absurd. Of course it should be regulated, stupid. The only way you can regulate it is by giving rent a cops license to kill if their donut burps are offensive. And not kill just murderers - anyone they want. The right way to handle murder is with immediate murder back by armed citizens. Stupid.
  - yardie 15y ago
    The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs how they should operate. Actually, they did. They told them don't interfere with it and if you do you are liable.
  - icebraining 15y ago
- diminish 15y ago
  "This is exactly why I hate Apple. they apply a totalitarian control on their devices; and it affects their users (who are not always aware of that) and carriers have at least competition." Emotion based arguments like "I love, I hate x" are making top news at HN; which is sad. Especially if the article clearly comes from publicly known fanboys.
  - DeusExMachina 15y ago
    Please notice that, while you complain that emotion based arguments like "I love, I hate x" make it to the top of HN, you yourself started your comment with That is exactly why I hate Apple.
    - diminish 15y ago
      Ahh that was the rhetoric, to show everyone how it sounds. "I hate Apple, because" or "I hate Verizon because" - type of arguments can be used interchangeably with a simple change of subject. Here the writer has an emotional affinity to Apple, or Verizon and accepts any weird policies coming from one, but does not at all trust the other.
      - DeusExMachina 15y ago
        I did not notice the quotes when I read your comment the first time. Did you add them afterwards? Of course that changes the meaning of your post.
      - stonemetal 15y ago
        Color me confused, I love(or hate) X isn't an argument. It is a statement of position. The part after the because is the argument. Hopefully that part isn't interchangeable.
        diminish 15y ago
        Check this postmodern deconstructive text to show the confusing arguments in the current case; "I hate Verizon for their control(crappy software) on my device, I hate Google because it lets Verizon control my device, but I love Apple because they don't let Verizon control my device, because they control my device and kick competing platforms, and porn from the app store; and doomed me to use only AT&T for years, so I hate total control, and I hate Apple because of its total control, they control everything; but they do it for me, and Verizon does it for money or for its customers?"
- jemfinch 15y ago
  > Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space Nothing changed about net neutrality in the mobile space. We went from "no net neutrality" to "net neutrality in wired networks, but not wireless networks".
mjwalshe 15y ago
What MG deosnt seem to realise that is the USA's Phone both Landline and Mobile is crap the deregulation was botched and allowed local monopolies. European telcos take great fun in laughing at the ineptitude of ATT Sprint etc and dont get me started on USA and mobile caller pays to recive FFS which moron came up with that idea - the FCC should have steped in and baned that and also made sure that those responsible neaver worked in the industry again.
- ta12121 15y ago
  Someone always pays. Just because it's different doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. If you're receiving a call you're still using up airtime. If you don't pay then the caller does. Why is this such a big deal?
  - calloc 15y ago
    In the USA both the caller and the callee pay for airtime. In Europe the caller pays for air time. While I vacation in Europe (Netherlands) I have a pay as you go SIM card that I use. I've used it the past 4 years, I've put no money on it since I bought it and I've used up all of the minutes, I get 10 free texts. When people want to get ahold of me they can call me and I can answer my phone, even-though I have no "minutes" left on my SIM card. I can receive text messages, and it won't count against my 10 free texts. I can use those 10 free texts to prompt people to call me. That is beautiful. In the United States if I get a pre-pay sim card the money on it expires after 90 days if I don't use it, and at that time the number becomes invalid too. Unless you pre-pay $100 dollars onto the pre-pay card. I've had the same number for the last 4 years now, in The Netherlands, and it hasn't expired.
    - andrewpi 15y ago
      There are tradeoffs: In Europe it's more expensive to call a mobile phone compared to a landline. In the US, the caller doesn't have to worry about what kind of device they are calling, the price is the same.
technoslut 15y ago
>The options for Google seem to be a hardline tactic to get exactly what they envisioned and subsequently have a dead on arrival Android OS, or work within the system. The problem is that Google hasn't been working within the system to change anything. Android gave back the power back to the US carriers and the OEMs have skinned the OS which brings us back to the old days where you would never get an OS update after you purchase the device. The top selling Android phone in the US is the Galaxy S and their owners will never see an update for the life of their device and contract unless they are willing to jump through hoops and install custom ROMs.
- forensic 15y ago
  Doesn't the Google Nexus S include updates? There was all this talk about the update to Ice Cream Sandwich. Of course that's just a single google phone.
  - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
    There's a "Google Nexus S" and a "Samsung Galaxy S" which share roughly the same hardware. The Nexus S is already running ICS, Samsung is releasing an update for the Galaxy S that will provide some of the features of ICS, but will not actually be ICS. (I believe the phone originally launched with 2.1 and has since been updated to 2.2 and 2.3) http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/01/07/samsung-galaxy-s-value-pack-update-leaked-brings-minor-ui-changes-face-unlock-and-more/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/01/07/samsung-galaxy-s-val... Maybe the commenter is talking about the weird carrier-specific Galaxy S models that are available in the US, but otherwise it is one of the better supported models as far as updates go.
- joverholt 15y ago
  > Android gave back the power back to the US carriers and the OEMs have skinned the OS which brings us back to the old days where you would never get an OS update after you purchase the device. It's J2ME all over again!
cbs 15y ago
Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through I don't think there are any hoops. This post is just plain and simple nerdbait. edit: Or at least I hope so. I'm not familiar with much of his other writing, but for someone in his position the only real explanations I can come up with for posting this other than nerdbaiting question his credibility.
- code_duck 15y ago
  This is as well thought out, rational and meaningful as his writing ever has been.
  - cbs 15y ago
    Thats depressing. Then why do people listen to him?

emehrkay 15y ago

> Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal while a device that the manufacturer must approve all software that runs on it is A-OK. I see this as two different things. Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space has an impact on everyone while Apple preventing software from running on their devices only affects Apple users.

bad_user 15y ago
I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same government that is pushing for SOPA. Government regulations of the market are only useful in one case only: to prevent abuses from established monopolies. However, wireless Internet is not monopolized. And you should checkout the competition in Europe. It's absolutely crazy. Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space ... Actually they haven't "changed" anything. They just left things as they were before. The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs how they should operate. Customers did.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >However, wireless Internet is not monopolized. In the USA? You're kidding, right?
- DarkShikari 15y ago
  I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same government that is pushing for SOPA. Opposing SOPA --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet." Supporting net neutrality --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet." They are identical positions: "hands off my internet". Not all laws by the government are "regulation". Is making murder illegal the "regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's absurd.
  - harshreality 15y ago
    The idea touches on positive and negative rights[1]. Real world examples have shades of both, yet the principle remains: sometimes you want someone (particularly the government) to do something; other times you want them to not get involved. In a specific instance, both might be desired to further a single purpose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
  - ABCD_FUFU 15y ago
    >>Is making murder illegal the "regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's absurd. Of course it should be regulated, stupid. The only way you can regulate it is by giving rent a cops license to kill if their donut burps are offensive. And not kill just murderers - anyone they want. The right way to handle murder is with immediate murder back by armed citizens. Stupid.
- yardie 15y ago
  The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs how they should operate. Actually, they did. They told them don't interfere with it and if you do you are liable.
- icebraining 15y ago
diminish 15y ago
"This is exactly why I hate Apple. they apply a totalitarian control on their devices; and it affects their users (who are not always aware of that) and carriers have at least competition." Emotion based arguments like "I love, I hate x" are making top news at HN; which is sad. Especially if the article clearly comes from publicly known fanboys.
- DeusExMachina 15y ago
  Please notice that, while you complain that emotion based arguments like "I love, I hate x" make it to the top of HN, you yourself started your comment with That is exactly why I hate Apple.
  - diminish 15y ago
    Ahh that was the rhetoric, to show everyone how it sounds. "I hate Apple, because" or "I hate Verizon because" - type of arguments can be used interchangeably with a simple change of subject. Here the writer has an emotional affinity to Apple, or Verizon and accepts any weird policies coming from one, but does not at all trust the other.
    - DeusExMachina 15y ago
      I did not notice the quotes when I read your comment the first time. Did you add them afterwards? Of course that changes the meaning of your post.
    - stonemetal 15y ago
      Color me confused, I love(or hate) X isn't an argument. It is a statement of position. The part after the because is the argument. Hopefully that part isn't interchangeable.
      - diminish 15y ago
        Check this postmodern deconstructive text to show the confusing arguments in the current case; "I hate Verizon for their control(crappy software) on my device, I hate Google because it lets Verizon control my device, but I love Apple because they don't let Verizon control my device, because they control my device and kick competing platforms, and porn from the app store; and doomed me to use only AT&T for years, so I hate total control, and I hate Apple because of its total control, they control everything; but they do it for me, and Verizon does it for money or for its customers?"
jemfinch 15y ago
> Google buddying up with Verizon to change net neutrality in the mobile space Nothing changed about net neutrality in the mobile space. We went from "no net neutrality" to "net neutrality in wired networks, but not wireless networks".

mjwalshe 15y ago

What MG deosnt seem to realise that is the USA's Phone both Landline and Mobile is crap the deregulation was botched and allowed local monopolies. European telcos take great fun in laughing at the ineptitude of ATT Sprint etc and dont get me started on USA and mobile caller pays to recive FFS which moron came up with that idea - the FCC should have steped in and baned that and also made sure that those responsible neaver worked in the industry again.

ta12121 15y ago
Someone always pays. Just because it's different doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. If you're receiving a call you're still using up airtime. If you don't pay then the caller does. Why is this such a big deal?
- calloc 15y ago
  In the USA both the caller and the callee pay for airtime. In Europe the caller pays for air time. While I vacation in Europe (Netherlands) I have a pay as you go SIM card that I use. I've used it the past 4 years, I've put no money on it since I bought it and I've used up all of the minutes, I get 10 free texts. When people want to get ahold of me they can call me and I can answer my phone, even-though I have no "minutes" left on my SIM card. I can receive text messages, and it won't count against my 10 free texts. I can use those 10 free texts to prompt people to call me. That is beautiful. In the United States if I get a pre-pay sim card the money on it expires after 90 days if I don't use it, and at that time the number becomes invalid too. Unless you pre-pay $100 dollars onto the pre-pay card. I've had the same number for the last 4 years now, in The Netherlands, and it hasn't expired.
  - andrewpi 15y ago
    There are tradeoffs: In Europe it's more expensive to call a mobile phone compared to a landline. In the US, the caller doesn't have to worry about what kind of device they are calling, the price is the same.

technoslut 15y ago

>The options for Google seem to be a hardline tactic to get exactly what they envisioned and subsequently have a dead on arrival Android OS, or work within the system. The problem is that Google hasn't been working within the system to change anything. Android gave back the power back to the US carriers and the OEMs have skinned the OS which brings us back to the old days where you would never get an OS update after you purchase the device. The top selling Android phone in the US is the Galaxy S and their owners will never see an update for the life of their device and contract unless they are willing to jump through hoops and install custom ROMs.

forensic 15y ago
Doesn't the Google Nexus S include updates? There was all this talk about the update to Ice Cream Sandwich. Of course that's just a single google phone.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  There's a "Google Nexus S" and a "Samsung Galaxy S" which share roughly the same hardware. The Nexus S is already running ICS, Samsung is releasing an update for the Galaxy S that will provide some of the features of ICS, but will not actually be ICS. (I believe the phone originally launched with 2.1 and has since been updated to 2.2 and 2.3) http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/01/07/samsung-galaxy-s-value-pack-update-leaked-brings-minor-ui-changes-face-unlock-and-more/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/01/07/samsung-galaxy-s-val... Maybe the commenter is talking about the weird carrier-specific Galaxy S models that are available in the US, but otherwise it is one of the better supported models as far as updates go.
joverholt 15y ago
> Android gave back the power back to the US carriers and the OEMs have skinned the OS which brings us back to the old days where you would never get an OS update after you purchase the device. It's J2ME all over again!

cbs 15y ago

Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through I don't think there are any hoops. This post is just plain and simple nerdbait. edit: Or at least I hope so. I'm not familiar with much of his other writing, but for someone in his position the only real explanations I can come up with for posting this other than nerdbaiting question his credibility.

code_duck 15y ago
This is as well thought out, rational and meaningful as his writing ever has been.
- cbs 15y ago
  Thats depressing. Then why do people listen to him?