5 ms·

'really open' is also a huge headache to support: could you imagine the level of training the telecom operators would have to receive in order to take calls fro

by herval 17y ago

'really open' is also a huge headache to support: could you imagine the level of training the telecom operators would have to receive in order to take calls from users of this open phone when they accidentally hid the SMS function, deleted important system files by accident or even formatted the phone? Also, openness is not necessarily a good thing - specially for mass markets. If people really, really wanted to 'replace the whole operating system', wouldn't they all have migrated to linux (on its thousand formats) already...?

herval 17y ago
edit: I wonder why I get downmodded every time I say that people in general DON'T WANT 'open' or 'fully customizable'... Is it because I mention Linux? Downmodders, care to explain?
andreyf 17y ago
'really open' is also a huge headache to support: could you imagine the level of training the telecom operators... It's not the telecom's responsibility to support your phone's OS any more than it is your internet provider's responsibility to support your computer's OS. The point that was made is that an open device, analogous to the PC in the early computer days would be a Good Thing for the phone ecosystem.
- herval 17y ago
  and that's exactly why most internet providers specify they only support Windows (some include OSX, but not many AFAIK): if you call them with your all-custom OS and complain about faulty Internet access, they can simply say it's not their problem...
antirez 17y ago
The only problem I see with openness is that the GSM network is secure only as long as all the devices are in full control of operators. This should change ASAP because GSM sniffers/injectors are already in the hands of hackers that are starting to figure very well how the GSM network works and the vulnerabilities it has (not only about encryption algorithms in use, but think to all the TCP/IP stack bugs of the latest 20 years). That said an open market where the user can upgrade to the next version of Android, or to a custom version of android, and generally, when the vendor of the OS is not necessarily the same as the hardware vendor is a good thing.

by herval 17y ago

herval 17y ago

edit: I wonder why I get downmodded every time I say that people in general DON'T WANT 'open' or 'fully customizable'... Is it because I mention Linux? Downmodders, care to explain?

andreyf 17y ago

'really open' is also a huge headache to support: could you imagine the level of training the telecom operators... It's not the telecom's responsibility to support your phone's OS any more than it is your internet provider's responsibility to support your computer's OS. The point that was made is that an open device, analogous to the PC in the early computer days would be a Good Thing for the phone ecosystem.

herval 17y ago
and that's exactly why most internet providers specify they only support Windows (some include OSX, but not many AFAIK): if you call them with your all-custom OS and complain about faulty Internet access, they can simply say it's not their problem...

antirez 17y ago

The only problem I see with openness is that the GSM network is secure only as long as all the devices are in full control of operators. This should change ASAP because GSM sniffers/injectors are already in the hands of hackers that are starting to figure very well how the GSM network works and the vulnerabilities it has (not only about encryption algorithms in use, but think to all the TCP/IP stack bugs of the latest 20 years). That said an open market where the user can upgrade to the next version of Android, or to a custom version of android, and generally, when the vendor of the OS is not necessarily the same as the hardware vendor is a good thing.