4 ms·

My friend bought an android phone from AT&T. Recently she unlocked it, and she was able to use other sim cards, but the phone was still branded with the AT&T lo

My friend bought an android phone from AT&T. Recently she unlocked it, and she was able to use other sim cards, but the phone was still branded with the AT&T logo and loaded with its software. The phone can’t make any over the air updates because it relies in AT&T to fetch carrier specific updates… which fails when she switches providers. I’m torn because it’s either flash unofficial firmware from the internet or live without security updates until she buys a new phone, both of these undesirable from a security perspective. The phone was just released 4 years ago and it is in good shape; but all that flies out the window because of this and related stupid practices. I’m not sure if that is also addressed.

NewJazz 2y ago
IMO allowing OTA updates to go through through the mobile provider was Android's biggest mistake. Their reputation and platform integrity has been irreparably damaged because of it.
- wh0knows 2y ago
  This is pure speculation, but is it possible that Android never would have been successful (or as successful) if they did not bow to the carriers? By taking carrier-friendly positions they built a symbiotic relationship that resulted in the carriers being happy to promote their phones.
  - JoBrad 2y ago
    Apple didn’t bow to the carriers. You can speculate that only Apple could have done that, but Google’s deference to carriers has continued with RCS. Given their market position now, I think it’s just a preference in doing business.
    - IgorPartola 2y ago
      The thing is that Android is open source (at least nominally). So having Google refuse carries the ability to customize it would be like having the Linux project say that companies can’t ship their own distros. Google could have applied pressure on carries via some sort of “Certified Android” label but realistically this is very different from iOS/Apple where the hardware and software are closed and made by the same company.
      - NewJazz 2y ago
        Google Play Services, which is damn near essential these days, is not open source by any means. They might have had a harder time applying pressure on carriers early in Android's lifetime, but there is so much momentum in the ecosystem now that they can do it easily IMO.
- re 2y ago
  Ironically, Android being an "open platform" competitor to the closed iPhone was one of its major initial selling propositions. Andy Rubin, 2008: "A developer will be able to use it as a platform and they'll be able to develop their application on the Android platform. But also because of its openness, a developer will be able to modify the platform, make the platform better. Therefore, because the platform is open, we think Android is somewhat future-proof." https://www.cnet.com/videos/t-mobile-launches-g1-first-google-android-phone/ https://www.cnet.com/videos/t-mobile-launches-g1-first-googl...
Heston 2y ago
Could she just get a friend using AT&T put their sim in her phone to have it updated?

NewJazz 2y ago

IMO allowing OTA updates to go through through the mobile provider was Android's biggest mistake. Their reputation and platform integrity has been irreparably damaged because of it.

wh0knows 2y ago
This is pure speculation, but is it possible that Android never would have been successful (or as successful) if they did not bow to the carriers? By taking carrier-friendly positions they built a symbiotic relationship that resulted in the carriers being happy to promote their phones.
- JoBrad 2y ago
  Apple didn’t bow to the carriers. You can speculate that only Apple could have done that, but Google’s deference to carriers has continued with RCS. Given their market position now, I think it’s just a preference in doing business.
  - IgorPartola 2y ago
    The thing is that Android is open source (at least nominally). So having Google refuse carries the ability to customize it would be like having the Linux project say that companies can’t ship their own distros. Google could have applied pressure on carries via some sort of “Certified Android” label but realistically this is very different from iOS/Apple where the hardware and software are closed and made by the same company.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Google Play Services, which is damn near essential these days, is not open source by any means. They might have had a harder time applying pressure on carriers early in Android's lifetime, but there is so much momentum in the ecosystem now that they can do it easily IMO.
re 2y ago
Ironically, Android being an "open platform" competitor to the closed iPhone was one of its major initial selling propositions. Andy Rubin, 2008: "A developer will be able to use it as a platform and they'll be able to develop their application on the Android platform. But also because of its openness, a developer will be able to modify the platform, make the platform better. Therefore, because the platform is open, we think Android is somewhat future-proof." https://www.cnet.com/videos/t-mobile-launches-g1-first-google-android-phone/ https://www.cnet.com/videos/t-mobile-launches-g1-first-googl...

Heston 2y ago

Could she just get a friend using AT&T put their sim in her phone to have it updated?