4 ms·

The part that scares me most is the thought that Mozilla is willing to give any power back to the carriers. I do not want this, not in a million years. I'll tak

by PLejeck 15y ago

The part that scares me most is the thought that Mozilla is willing to give any power back to the carriers. I do not want this, not in a million years. I'll take Apple's walled garden over AT&T's heap of shit, any day of the week.

gcp 15y ago
Giving power back to the carriers is unavoidable with an open system. Conversely, taking power away from someone is usually why you keep the system closed.
- PLejeck 15y ago
  If the power is somewhere, I'd like it to be with Apple or Google, not AT&T. At least they tend to aim for making their customers happy, when AT&T seems quite intent on screwing me over.
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  Which is the advantage (to users) of the self-appointed benevolent dictator for life model. What do users want? Something that's cheap, easy to use and unlimited. What do the carriers want? Something that's branded to them and customised so they can upsell features. (Which requires an ecosystem they can customise, such as BtG.) What do the platform vendors want? Ecosystem control so they can be the gatekeeper selling apps and ads. I hate to say this as a long-term Mozilla fan with a strong distaste for iOS, but the most user-friendly model appears to be tied to platform vendors, not carriers. They are the ones with an incentive to maximise service; carriers, OTOH, have demonstrated a very noticeable tendency to salami-slice everything. Want your apps? Sorry, got to go through your network's app store. (And devs, you now have to negotiate with hundreds of vendors, each with different rules.) Want to use more than Facebook and YouTube? Sorry, that's the 'enhanced web' package. (Some have already done this.) Want tethering? Sure, that'll be £30 per month. And, once the carriers have the ability to have their own branded and locked-down smartphoens, just wait to pay a surplus to use an 'unsupported device' like an iPhone. The carrier-controlled model has been tried before, and found wanting. Returning control to them could set the market back five years in one fell swoop.

by PLejeck 15y ago

gcp 15y ago

Giving power back to the carriers is unavoidable with an open system. Conversely, taking power away from someone is usually why you keep the system closed.

PLejeck 15y ago
If the power is somewhere, I'd like it to be with Apple or Google, not AT&T. At least they tend to aim for making their customers happy, when AT&T seems quite intent on screwing me over.
eftpotrm 15y ago
Which is the advantage (to users) of the self-appointed benevolent dictator for life model. What do users want? Something that's cheap, easy to use and unlimited. What do the carriers want? Something that's branded to them and customised so they can upsell features. (Which requires an ecosystem they can customise, such as BtG.) What do the platform vendors want? Ecosystem control so they can be the gatekeeper selling apps and ads. I hate to say this as a long-term Mozilla fan with a strong distaste for iOS, but the most user-friendly model appears to be tied to platform vendors, not carriers. They are the ones with an incentive to maximise service; carriers, OTOH, have demonstrated a very noticeable tendency to salami-slice everything. Want your apps? Sorry, got to go through your network's app store. (And devs, you now have to negotiate with hundreds of vendors, each with different rules.) Want to use more than Facebook and YouTube? Sorry, that's the 'enhanced web' package. (Some have already done this.) Want tethering? Sure, that'll be £30 per month. And, once the carriers have the ability to have their own branded and locked-down smartphoens, just wait to pay a surplus to use an 'unsupported device' like an iPhone. The carrier-controlled model has been tried before, and found wanting. Returning control to them could set the market back five years in one fell swoop.