Slashdot Mirror
Google Fights Back Against Android Fragmentation
bonch writes "Google is tightening its control over Android in an attempt to standardize the platform. Licensees must agree to a 'non-fragmentation clause' that gives Google final approval over operating system changes, allegedly sparking complaints to the Justice Department. This follows Google's recent decision to withhold the source to Honeycomb from non-privileged partners, a move that has drawn criticism from openness advocates. Google says that Honeycomb will be open sourced when it's ready for other devices."
The last fragmented android I saw was on Dagobah.
Well, mostly open. Except when it isn't.
Motorola's "enhancements" to Android make the Atrix nearly unusable. My wife moved from the iPhone to the Atrix, and it is only because Android does allow customization that I was able to download enough skins and fixes to make the phone usable.
AT&T wants to push their useless buggy navigation to the Atrix, despite the fact that Google's navigation works just fine.
All in all, the fresh and clean Android I have on my Nexus One is almost completely corrupted by Motorola and AT&T on the Atrix, and this isn't done because it is in the interest of the customer. This a push of crapware onto the customer serving interests at Motorola and AT&T
Google wants to close android in order to keep the manufacturers from closing android further.
Openness advocates are fighting to protect the rights of the manufacturers (that of closing Android)
I'm not sure who to root for here, so I'll just say GO LOCAL SPORTS TEAM
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
I guess the Cyanogenmod community is not a licensee. So as long as it doesn't affect these open distributions we can have diversity (by community distributions) and less fragmentation for typical consumers. That's a good thing.
As much as I love Open Source I can see their point and I can't counter it. If we continue this fragmentation is it really going to benefit android or will it cause harm? If the goal is usage, which it is, then this is one way to enforce some standards and drive that goal. If the goal was software freedom it would be another story. But we knew this going in, it was never the goal.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
Not the decision, I actually understand it, but the fact that it's necessary.
This is really the open, anyone can do whatever vs closed, controlled user experience debate. I really wanted to see open work, but it just seems like it's not.
Then again this is a relatively new approach, there are bound to be bumps. Hopefully we end up with the right mixture of open and sanity. I can see android slowly morph into the iphone mentality out of necessarily, and I don't like it.
Allow the manufacturer to customize the hell out of it, but write into the license agreement that all functionality must work a vanilla install that is made available OTA. That way a user can go into the update menu and select "update to latest Google version of Android supported by your phone's hardware WARNING: ALL MANUFACTURER CUSTOMIZATION WILL BE LOST". When on vanilla, make the latest manufacturer switchover available. If they did this, how many of us would still be on 2.1 or 2.2? That would be the best of both the worlds.
So? Isn't the point of open source that other people can take it and modify it to try out ideas?
The problem comes when all three carriers force bad ideas on their customers.
They don't want the same they did to Java to happen to them
2011. The year Gnome decided Linux will never be on the desktop.
could GPLv3 have perhaps prevented in some way this "fragmentation" problem?
Good people go to bed earlier.
No, it matters to no one that you failed to get a first post. In fact, I wonder why people even bother trying to do that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yes, but the failing isn't with Google, rather its the fact a failed idea has been used to punish a user by preventing them from then moving to something which actually works.
That would be a good point if I could take my phone and modify it. Motorola also has a pretty firm stance on locking down the system so I can't get at it.
So? Isn't the point of open source that other people can take it and modify it to try out ideas?
It's also so the code is completely transparent - you know what it's doing. Many eyes make for better code.
What AT&T is trying to do is lock customers into AT&T as their sole source of support and products. More money for them, right?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As far as I can tell, non-licensees can't legally offer the ability to buy apps from Android Market. The CyanogenMod community got cease-and-desisted for distributing the Google applications that people expect to be on an Android phone, such as Android Market. See this article.
Root your phone and load Cyanogenmod or some other OS. That's really the way to go.
that's the business model difference between iphone and android. apple makes money on the hardware, accessories and applecare. with android the carriers make money on the accessories, ad revenue sharing, the crap ware and the monthly insurance that some people buy
The manufacturers were really getting out of line. With every Android device I've purchased so far, the first thing I've had to do was replace them with a custom ROM that was closer to Google's core release. The manufacturer's junk (HTC Sense, Viewsonic TnT, etc.) was really getting in the way.
TFA points out that the non-fragmentation clause was always there, Google is just trying harder to enforce it nowadays.
Taking it and modifying it to try out new ideas generally voids your warranty, which most people aren't willing to do to a several hundred dollar piece of equipment.
The trouble is that, for most folk, there's no ability to customize their phone. The only group benefiting are the handset manufacturers and network operators.
If they were not making phones with locked or difficult to upgrade firmware it might be different, but in actual fact they're trying to foist their changes upon users and are certainly not making it easy to revert to a vanilla Android install in the sense that you could reinstall your PC with Linux or Windows as soon as you get it home.
I have mod points, but there is no -1 Stupid, so I will just insult you as an AC and then mod -1 Overrated.
Personally, I don't mind Motorola crapping all over the OS as much as I mind the tivoization that prevents you from running a stock OS with a stock kernel on their newer devices.
I've been looking for an open phone that I can modify the software on, like Android. Oh, wait....
Google's under fire for fragmenting Java and for relicensing GPL code. Sounds like they're fragmenting two codebases to make the bloody thing, so my response to them is:"karma's a bitch."
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
It's just you. Samsung, Motorolla, Sony and HTC are the culprits for forcing their proprietary "overlays" on their customers, not Google for preventing them (at this moment) from doing the same crap with Honeycomb.
They are attempting to get medieval on the manufactures who have been more than just a little evil.
Mod parent up. To paraphrase the Matrix: What good is the source code, if you are unable to compile and install it?
The solution of choice for users would not be Google holding more control back for itself, but passing control to users rather than carriers. Not that this is necessarily viable in either a technical or economic sense.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
Since when is apple a carrier?
Last time I checked, Carriers make money through call tariffs - barely from accessories or ad revenue etc.
Apple makes their money from selling the hardware. Motorola, Samsung, HTC etc make their money also from selling hardware.
Some carrier see greater value in Android as they can fill it up with their rubbish content and try making even more money - beyond the call charges.
Thankfully, Android is open and you can just rip away all the garbage some carriers push into it.
Sigs are for the weak.
Isn't the point of open source that other mobile carriers can take it and modify it to force subscribers to bend over?
FTFY
When Android was first announced I said that an open source phone OS wasn't worth much without good hardware and a good network to run it on.
Open source and Linux fans may hate to hear it, but fragmentation doesn't produce better product. It just makes everything a giant, confusing pain in the ass, especially for developers who have to develop for the platform. With Android, you not only have to design for specific versions of the OS, you also have test it out on specific phones because HTC and others have taken it upon themselves to throw their own flavor of the OS on top of everything else. It's confusing to consumers and often embarrassing to Google. And it puts Android at a huge disadvantage over Apple, with their relative consistency and quality control.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
in order to make others respect Google's licensing terms, Google must first obey the open source license that applies to Android: don't delay releasing their Honeycomb source code
The point of Android is to sell phones. It's not a social experiment. If you want to see how commercially successful it is to let anyone fork their own version, take a hard look at how far it got Linux. Dozens of distros and not a one of them ever even came close to mainstream success.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Unfortunately an option on any of the current Motorola lineup, and that lineup seems to be the go-to choice for regular Joes...
Google tried making phones and nobody wanted them. So now they're going to slowly stop sharing their OS, hey?
There's a company that's been doing that for a while now... oh yeah, Apple.
So what you're saying is that open source is not viable for commercial products?
Why not do something like THX used to do for theater sound systems? Trademark the 'official' powered-by-android phrase, run a certification program, let the vendors customize all they want -- they get to use the OS but not necessarily the 'brand'.
Pretty sure it's an attention-seeking behavior. It's probably two or three 12-year-olds who are responsible for every FP on the internet.
Caveat Utilitor
Most fragermentation up to now has been due to hardware. My G1 (and the MT3G) won't run Gingerbread, no matter what. The OS finally outgrrew the old hardware.
Now, my G1 does run Froyo, CM 6 something, but that is a struggle.
And the memory constraints weren't limited to those phones. A few Moto phones also lack memory.
The next big problem is melding the UI some makers have into a new release. Blame openness.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think you're trying to say that this is not an option on Motorola devices to which I reply interesting.
Posted from my Droid running Cyanogen Mod 7.0 RC 4.
Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
Yeah and the point of an e-Fuse is to prevent you from doing that.
If HTC were to release some open phones that the user could choose to install Android or MeeGo on, they'd at least become the go-to phone manufacturer for geeks, and probably take a big bite out of the mainstream Android market.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Disclaimer: I'm an iPhone user.
I think this is a necessary move by Google, in the face of the carriers' crapware (and it was naive of Google to think that they would do anything otherwise). To be truly competitive with the iPhone, there needs to be a strong association of a consistent, positive experience with terms "Android" and "Google Phone." Random crapware on phones hurts their brand. Carriers need to be hit over the head with legalese, as the only means of accomplishing this. Google recognizes this and is taking steps to ensure they continue to gain market share and don't erode the brand.
So we can see that a fully open model doesn't work well in the mobile phone space. Decision to postpone the release of Honeycomb source, amongst other things, is an admission that "too open" hurts business in this space.
Most reasonable people are happy that Google is making this move. I am happy, because for me, this makes Android a more viable option in the future (and we all, as geeks, love to have options).
Most reasonable people will also understand that Apple's "uniform experience" position is not merely a stubborn act of greed, but is a conscious engineering design decision, rooted in reality of the carriers. Apple doesn't let AT&T preload crapware on the iPhone because they know it will damage the brand. Apple also knows that if given the opportunity to do so, AT&T WILL preload that crapware, without fail.
TL:DR version: Apple haters, how's that "Android is open" pie tasting now.
Google could reserve the Android trademark for non-fragmented distributions. This would make handset manufactures make the choice between keeping the brand recognition of the Android OS or going it on their own and losing that right and any support that may go with it. The attitude could hurt Google, but it would probably hurt handset manufacturers more as people decide they want the security of a platform with less surprises.
Technically no one can really stop Android from being forked, but at the same time there is nothing stopping Google preventing you from being able to use their trademark.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Oops, accidental A/C post
Easy. Redefine Evil. That's innovation!
So, after all the statements from Google and comments here on Slashdot insisting there was no fragmentation - now Google wants to prevent what isn't happening from happening.
How 1984 of you Google.
I think he's saying open source does not make a commercial product immediately viable.
Very few people run out and buy something just because it is open.
Rod Taylor
Google isn't, and hasn't, objected to e-Fuses or other locking mechanisms.
Would a more FOSS friendly approach be for Google to use Trademark law, by only allowing mobile phone carries to advertise their phone as using Android if it uses a derivative that meets Google's standards? I presume this would still allow anyone to freely use the source code for Android and manufacturers to freely produce phones with an Android based OS and lock it down however they want. However, for end-users who are concerned over the implications of Android fragmentation can avoid phones that are not advertised as 'Android, as approved by Google'. Is this feasible? Is this fair?
Lucky for you, Google's model for maximizing profit depends on a free and open internet based on freely implemented standards. And they do that so they can keep making a bundle providing the best internet search tool around (with the least obtrusive advertising model). That means Google makes money by making Android exactly what you want it to be. A pretty good deal all around. No wonder nobody's screaming that they're against software freedom - they're not.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm no expert in open source use conditions, so I won't mind being *ahem* corrected if I display my ignorance here. I totally understand Google wanting to exercise control over the Android OS to avoid some of the nightmares that are happening with carrier customizations, etc. But if they wanted to manage Android that way, shouldn't they have developed (or purchased) their own OS, and not used open source?
Well I am torn. See I recently picked up a Viewsonic G-Tablet. A nifty little bugger (odd viewing angles, but hey - I don't care that some schmuck next to me on an airplane can watch my Angry Bird Marathon in full crisp color) and all sorts of snappy hardware. The problem is Viewsonic's OS flavor is poop. A giant pile of poop. Their half-assed "market place" is crippled and broken. Lacking 99% of everything. Why?! why smear good hardware with da poo-poo? Thankfully I educated myself a head of time, found a nice group of folk who have rooted the bastard device and developed their own ROMs (think OS). I had to root mine just so I had access to Android Market Place. While dinking with it I did soft-brick it for about an hour until I found out what combination of ROMS were going to work. Fun fun for three hundred bones, right?
Personally I have no problem if these manufactures want to 'theme' their devices or add specific apps to it, but for god sakes most are not in the "OS making business" and there's a reason for that!
Except that Google didnt try to make anything, HTC made the phones. Google just wanted to control their own distribution channel. And who said nobody wanted them? They pulled back the N1 due to hardware issues and realized that they didnt want to get involved in the handset market. Apple on the other hand wants control over every step of the process.
If I have a device running honeycomb and request the source, don't google have to release it to me immediately? Not 1 year from now or when they decide it's ok?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Correct, my statement was missing a "not".
Your objection is duly noted - however, your Droid is not part of the current Motorola Android lineup (it was replaced by the Droid 2), and was the only mid-high end Moto device to have a non-signed bootloader.
RC4 rocks, btw... running it right now myself :)
Well, it probably doesn't legally void the warranty, but it will take you a few years in court to settle that one...
WHY does everyone complain about Motorola? I don't find anything wrong with the software on my Motorola Android phone. Motorblur is somewhat useful. It is not hard to remove unneeded software from your Android device. If you don't like AT&T Navigator, then don't use it. Or remove it like I did.
I'd say dozens of distros is the reason linux is as successful as it is. Imagine of slackware were your only choice, and things like RHEL, Arch, Debian, Gentoo, or Ubuntu were legally forbidden?
The issue with android isn't that it is fragmenting, but rather that carriers make forks and then prevent customers from having a choice. What Android really needs is GPLv3.
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to chose from." -Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Any reason Google could not take Microsoft's approach to Windows? Manufacturers can put whatever they want just like they do on say Windows laptops but user can always put a Google "retail" copy of Android on the SD Card that'll download the device specific drivers and software just like how Windows does it.
It requires more resources on part of Google and also requires manufacturers to submit their device drivers and required customizations but that can only be good.
I don't think people have realized yet the incredible impact it has on a company to have an IPO and become publicly traded. Going forward, Google is going to start operating a lot more like any other publicly traded company, because the investors are now in charge, in the long run. Their purpose now is to increase the value of their shareholders, that's just the way it works if the public owns your company.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
It's kind of ironic how the problem seems to have been created by Google (and really, Android before them) choosing the Apache license rather than the GPL. The manufacturers keep installing all of their crapware because they think it makes their devices distinct so that they can compete on something other than price. Or at least get some money from spammers for putting their spam on your phone. If they had to distribute their modifications then they wouldn't have the incentive to fork for the sake of forking, and the community would have a spam-free version of any positive modifications running in about 30 seconds.
Look at the results, the Linux kernel is almost 20 years old and yet it has only 0.7% market share. Steve Jobs and Steve Balmers iron fists control 6% and 90% respectively. Ubuntu is even worse. It started of with a version of gnome and added propreitary drivers and plugins to make it more usable, but then used its realitive to other linux distros market share to impose its own vision of a GUI (Unity), screwing GNOME (3.0 didn't help either) and the other *buntus as well. Firefox fragmented itself over the awesomebar and status bar and soon the "social plugins". So did OpenOffice.org with Oracle's messups. Because they rested on their laurels allowing Chrome and LibreOffice to catch up, and they will be surpassed in the future by other newer and "hipper" software.
Android is yet another example of too many cooks and too many wannabe Steves. Put android in a titanium straightjacket and slim him down from all those fattening desserts and release a version based on healthy food.
...and if they did, you'd be bitching about how they're not "open."
IMHO, rather then lawyering up with licensees, let the prospective buyer of hardware download a test sweet that checks the API. If this check fails customer then knows that the phone is not an Android.
This has been the bane of Windows for years. I never understood why Acer sells computers with bloatware as that shit just hogs the hell out of the CPU and HDD and must have just given them a bad name more than anything.
This lack of stupid shit is what makes Apple's more pleasant to use out of the box and a strong argument to retain control of the environment -- the fact that Google is now doing this is basically a submission that Apple was correct in this regard.
(P.S. I'm just speaking of this specific aspect of OEM crapware and don't approve all of Apple's practice's across the board.)
... so don't buy a crap phone from a crap carrier? You can always buy a Nexus series phone with plain android: http://www.google.com/nexus/
I have never seen mass licensed OEM manufacturers add much in value to the software of the hardware they're selling. Mostly the exact opposite. Whether it be computers or phones. Most pre-Smartphone phone software imo sucks, as does most of the hardware interface.
Manufactures don't make good designers imo.
As someone else suggested, they could tightly control the trademark instead. Just deny the phone makers calling their OS Android, or using the terms Android or Google in their advertising, if the derived code doesn't have Google's blessing. That way phone makers have the choice whether they sell an "Android phone" and comply with Google, or if they just use the code, but don't mention Android in their advertising.
That would help Google, because it would make sure that everything sold as Android phone follows their guidelines, but it would still allow phone makers to make any change they want - they just cannot call the result an Android phone. And since the modified phones cannot draw popularity from the Android name, they cannot simply add crap, because no one would buy that. If they cannot sell it through the Android name, they have to sell it via an improvement for the user.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Haven't we been over this? Parts of Android are licensed under the GPL (mostly the Linux kernel) but most is under the Apache license. They've released the modifications to the GPL bits as required and the Apache license doesn't require them to release the rest.
Of course, what they really ought to do is just release the whole thing under the GPL in the meantime. Then the open source people are happy but it keeps the manufacturers from making immature devices because they don't want to distribute their modified versions and in so doing be required to publish the source to the changes, so they'll want for the "official, final" release under the Apache license.
unless you can't, since the openness applies to the manufacture, and they choose if they pass that onto you, or sign the firmware and lock the boot loader.
seems to be the real goal of the people who want to modify the software, why doesn't Google close the source but invest in a powerful theming architecture? In fact, Apple should do the same and then no one would prefer Android. The world is all about micro customizations these days, but only aesthetically, because functional principles are either good or bad, they aren't decisions the user should make.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
If that's the case, and its not a problem, then why are these carriers/manufacturers locking the device down so much. You'd think they'd be happy to sell you a new phone.
Can a factory reset not fix it anyway, or would you need to blow a new rom onto it? If so, couldn't the manufacturer put a copy of the original roms in there too ready to copy over the new one - like my motherboard has.
I realize that many of the phone manufacturers might be upset with this but in the long run its going to help solidify Android as a viable platform. The upgrade game that many of them are playing now is downright scammish. I have a phone I spend nearly $600 on less than 8 months ago that has not been offered any sort of upgrade...instead the manufacturer offered up a new version of the phone, it wasn't a hardware issue, the new one is virtually identical internally, it appears the issue was simply...hey if we dont offer an upgrade we can sell them the new one. I felt burned enough by it that I switched to an iphone, i would have rather stayed with android but as the saying goes...screw me once shame on you...I wasn't setting myself up to get screwed again. The customized interfaces on vendor devices and lack of vendor support on upgrades is what has caused all the fragmentation, rooting and custom kernels to start with. In the end I guess it will hurt some manufacturers since the only real differences between devices will end up being the hardware itself but that also is good for consumers, it means they will have to up their game to compete and stay relevant.
I smell Microsoft.
Go here to download the Android source code. Then read the license here:
The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org.
As others have already suggested, the FSF friendly way to "gain control of and final say over customization" is through the trademark, not the software license. There is no evidence in this article that this is not the path Google is taking, yet we got a plethora of posts saying "On noes! Google has become evil!".
You know the funny thing? This is yet another example when Google does something very good (standing against software patents in this case) and then gets slamed with make-believe charges that they are doing something evil. It is clear, to me at least, that is is just another foray in Microsoft's attacks on Google because they know they can't complete technically. It's like this decade's version of what was reported in the Halloween documents
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
What hardware issues? My one is working fine.
Going about it the wrong way...what they should be doing is taking a page out of the Red Hat playbook and just protect the Google TM within Android. Then they could just set forth specific rules which must be strictly followed in order to say this is an Android device and to use any of Google's TM within.
For example:
Create a directory structure for 3rd party (non-ASOP) drivers, libs, and config scripts which must be used and prevent manufacturers/providers from altering or removing other files/folders.
Force manufacturers/providers to allow users to use default Android applications in place of 3rd party apps through some standard means.
Weigh in with yes/no on things like encrypted boot loaders, rooting, preventing side loading of apps, etc.
[Add whatever rules which are causing fragmentation problems or allowing such monstrosities as Viewsonic's Tap'nTap here!]
What this should do, is allow manufacturers/providers who do not care about being labled as Android to do as they please (the B&N NOOK, for example, may not care at all if they get to put a little robot sticker on the box or not since it is such a specific device). Manufacturers/Providers who DO care, would be forced to follow the rules if they want to take advantage of Google's advertising, marketing, and reputation.
As a side benefit of going this route, they could also do things like strike back at MS forcing Bing on everyone within WM7 by specifically banning it from Android(TM).
are we going by mental or physical age?
If I have a device running honeycomb and request the source, don't google have to release it to me immediately? Not 1 year from now or when they decide it's ok?
Only the parts which are covered by the GPL - such as the Linux kernel.
Most of Android is covered by the Apache license which doesn't oblige you to provide source to users.
Plus, Google can do what the hell it likes with their own code, provided its not a derivative work of other people's GPL code. (see any GPL FAQ for the rules)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
But you can.
Gain root on your device and you can make all kinds of changes.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Because Motorola done the following:
1: Explicitly told the modder community to go elsewhere.
2: Encrypt bootloaders. So far, the Droid is the only Motorola handset that one can truly flash a custom ROM on. Yes, other devices have ROMs, but they all do kexec() functionality, executing on top of a signed kernel.
3: Motoblur cannot be removed. In fact, newer phones will soft-brick until you reflash it.
There are other modder friendly devices. HTC phones have always been up to snuff in this department, if one doesn't buy a dev phone or one of Google's devices that can be easily unlocked from fastboot.
Your vanilla Android is just that - no drivers for vendor-specific hardware. I'd rather keep the crappy vendor Android if it means I can still use the accelerometer and camera, and power management works.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Mod parent up. To paraphrase the Matrix: What good is the source code, if you are unable to compile and install it?
The source code can be educational. There is more than one way to use source code. One is to compile, install, and run it. Another is to read it and get ideas for design and implementation.
You get the choice of buying android from a different carrier/manufacturer.
With apple, you're stuck with iTunes... no other choice or option.
Sigs are for the weak.
Mental of course. For one may be physically 12 years of age only for 1 year. However, one can be mentally 12 forever!
Thankfully, Android is open and you can just rip away all the garbage some carriers push into it.
Real openness would be me being able to
make install
without rooting the device.
Reply to That ||
businesses should modify on behalf of customers.
trying out new ideas is not equal to trying out how to get people pay even more money for something, they already paid for.
not being able to use a device with the original source is not the intention of open source. nobody hinders the customizers to use the open source version and adapt it when the next version is coming out or invest in the technology they are using by applying to rules.
this however, turns out to be the real problem we encounter. so it depends on the customer to select compatible devices, those who refuse might fragment and die or survive and be dealt on its own.
The point of Android is to sell phones
No, I disagree. The point of Android is to get people relying on Google and their services.
No matter which version of Android you're using, they have your info. They know what apps you run, where you are, what networks you connect to, they have the ability to use your phone like they were holding it in their hands, they keep the keys to your credit chip in the next version.
Who cares who makes the phones or how many they sell? That isn't Google's problem. Being able to backport the latest version of Android, or its features is a non-issue for Google.
The problem comes when Canonical, IBM, Novell, Microsoft, Sony or Cisco decide that they can run their own servers to let users who replace Android with a GNU/Linux phone distro connect to and sync with.
This is what Google fears. Linux on phones without Dalvik and without them having the keys to your world run through their servers every few minutes.
And if I sound a little paranoid just drink this Kool Aid:
They only want to use all that information to serve you the right adverts in a form you won't block and which are relevant to you.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
So we can see that a fully open model doesn't work well in the mobile phone space.
I don't think anyone on Slashdot ever thought it was good that Android was open to the carriers. We care about whether it's open to the end user.
If I have to choose between a phone that's open to the carriers and one that's closed to me, I'll still take the former.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
You're absolutely right. Having the code is great in and of itself. Unfortunately, you're also absolutely missing the point. When people here compare android phones and iphones, the "Android is free/open source" argument keeps coming up. Unfortunately, that openness argument goes right out the window when carriers and/or manufacturers lock down the hardware so that you can't compile really overwrite the firmware without a jailbreak. Past that point, the biggest difference between iOS and Android in terms of openness is the app store, not the operating system itself. And that is what's being discussed here.
I finally get it. By delaying the open source release by one release cycle and only allowing code access to privileged partners, those partners get a head start at releasing the latest version of android on their devices. That means that these privileged partners can use this head start to have upgrades available within weeks after the xda custom rom crowd (who must wait for the open source release) puts out an unofficial upgrade for the same device. Anyone who's afraid of rooting their phone may be tempted to just wait a few extra weeks for the "official" version, and thus there's "less fragmentation" among android devices. Brilliant.
Lucky for you, Google's model for maximizing profit depends on selling your personal information to advertisers. And they do that so by providing the best internet search tool around. That means Google makes money by making Android exactly what you want it to be as long as you have no privacy. A pretty good deal all around. No wonder nobody's screaming that they're against software freedom - they're not.
And what is this?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Motorola's "enhancements" to Android make the Atrix nearly unusable. My wife moved from the iPhone to the Atrix, and it is only because Android does allow customization that I was able to download enough skins and fixes to make the phone usable.
AT&T wants to push their useless buggy navigation to the Atrix, despite the fact that Google's navigation works just fine.
So skins are what makes Android usable or unusable? Is that what you are saying?
And Atrix is unusable because you can't get your favorite skin on it? Wow. There are sure a lot of Atrix phones sitting un-used then because the vast majority of users never hack their phones.
And Google Maps and Navigation appear on the Atrix, and you can even set them ad default and never worry about AT&T navigation ever again. Where's the problem here?
The real problem is that Google designed Android WRONG, and those phone makers and carriers who want to add features and customization can't do so cleanly without rebuilding Android to hang in their desired changes.
What if every point release of Windows or Linux kernel had to wait for every package, every desktop (KDE, Gnome, XFCE) to be updated before you could slip it in? What if Dell or Acer or HP couldn't ship any laptops just because they couldn't get their bloatware to run until they hacked the next minor release of windows?
When Google figures this out, and repackages Android so that you can slip in OS updates without destroying carrier specific layers then the fragmentation will stop.
In the mean time, its pretty much a tempest in a tea pot, since somewhere approaching 90 percent of all Android installs are in two versions of Android, 2.1 and 2.2. See http://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/articleimage/684/2011/04/android-versions-4-2.jpg
Fragmentation is largely a figment of the past rapid development cycles.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
See, I remember all the Android arguments, "ITS FREEEEEEE!1!1!" when I mentioned having an iPhone. I love my phone, its slick, built like a piece of jewellery, very fast, takes gorgeous photos, it works great.
The supposed argument for "open" would be that "all the bad carriers will get kicked out, people will get fed up with their bullshit products, and go to another vendor. Consumer choice!"
Erm, no. The US market is already among the worlds worst for carriers, seriously, here in New Zealand - basically any other developed nation - I take my Micro SIM out, flip in a new one from any of the three major carriers, and it Just Works. I bought my phone outright, but even "on contract" phones are sold "unlocked" in NZ.
The reality is, "The Free Market" involves crooked deals among The Big Boys, ie Google giving out favours to Manufacturer X, so they get "The Best Phone", often with an exclusive new version of the OS, while the others - including other very big companies, some of which were the FORMER poster child - have to quietly whine, and wait for the new update, if it comes at all.
Think about the number of "Android device makers", how many are actually worth shit? I'd think about five, max! HTC, Motorola, perhaps Samsung (very high end tech in some ways, utterly crap quality in others).... hell, off the top of my head I only got three that I'd consider decent. The rest seem to be "clone phone" makers, the same crap, competing on price, "gotta make if five dollars cheaper than the other guy".
And they all come loaded with BS! Except for the "stock" phone, which is what I'd go for. Oh, but theres not currently a "stock" phone with the larger screen? With a dual core CPU? So, people might be lured away from The Righteous Path, into crapware oblivion.
The majority of people seem to put up with the awful ads, the programs you cannot delete (without superpowers), they take it as a given.
Its the new version of "intel inside", everyone wants their little medals to show up, to build brand recognition, to profit from the consumer.
I'd rather have a "free market with rules", with a Google who sets limits, ie no trial apps that work for 15 days, then ask you for ten dollars, that will otherwise remain on your phone undelete-able for eternity.
If you're an Android user, speak up about this! Send a polite complaint email to the manufacturer, I dont think they will care about "your phone is the sux coause the motorolas has the sweet as screen...", and lets get people INTERESTED about how their devices SHOULD work!
---
You get the choice of buying android from a different carrier/manufacturer.
When all three carriers lock down the phones designed for their respective networks in undesirable ways, I have the Hobson's choice of doing without.
Well, the spirit of openness is that any ideas are allowed if someone wants to fork and implement them. Besides, nobody's forced to use a smartphone.
The Nexus phones are on T-Mobile USA, the most geek-friendly carrier at the moment. But notoriously geek-hostile carrier AT&T will soon gobble up T-Mobile USA. Then Nexus will move to Sprint, if the page you linked is any indication. But one might have to move to a different city or state in order to be in a "good" carrier's coverage zone. There are plenty of states with no coverage other than roaming, and plans aren't offered to people who live or work in a roaming area.
Well, the spirit of openness is that any ideas are allowed if someone wants to fork and implement them.
The technologies behind the phone networks themselves are patented, and the spectrum on which they operate is exclusively licensed to four, soon to be three nationwide companies. With no patent license and no spectrum, how does one "fork and implement them"?
Besides, nobody's forced to use a smartphone.
So what should I use instead of a smartphone to accomplish the use cases commonly associated with smartphones?
"It looks like you're playing the Hobson's choice card. Would you like help?" I don't see "don't use a smartphone at all" as germane in a discussion about which smartphone to use. It's almost like recommending that a Slashdot user give up telecommunication and join the Amish.
Yes, their employees have written about how they believe Android shouldn't be locked down. Sadly, Google hasn't contractually objected to it.
So the nocompete clause is likely to stop that happening. I expect if the parties can find a way to amicably split the business (e.g. apps to Google, vids / music to Amazon, books shared) everything will blow over, but if it doesn't, expect fireworks.
I was actually thinking of signing up to the Amazon app store as a developer and then I saw they want $99 annually (waived the first year). What the fuck? You don't compete with the defacto store by charging devs more money for the privilege.
It was the sound of thousands of Google advocates saying Apples walled garden is a terrible terrible thing..... Suddenly wondering if anyone saw them being complete hypocrites.Its open its free information wants to be free ummm except when it doesn't. I think their heads may explode from the paradox, bring a umbrella just in case.
Um, you normally don't need kernel or bootloader flash access to replace the system software. Motoblur is easily removable on most Motorola phones by simply gaining root. You can run AOSP on those devices if you want to, as long as the kernel version is compatible (which usually means being forever stuck on Android 2.1 or 2.2).
They pulled back the N1 due to hardware issues and realized that they didnt want to get involved in the handset market.
With the Nexus S, they're every bit as involved in the handset market as they were before.
With apple, you're stuck with iTunes... no other choice or option.
Yeah, that Cydia thing is just a made up store for alternative iPhone apps.
That isn't a problem, that is a strength. If you can't try ideas be they good or bad we go back to the stagnate mess we were in a few years ago.
So Google created something good which others are making bad and now Google wants to prevent the goodness from becoming badness.
Mmm...good?
"I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
So skins are what makes Android usable or unusable? Is that what you are saying?
No. No, that isn't what he was saying. Not at all.
And Google Maps and Navigation appear on the Atrix, and you can even set them ad default and never worry about AT&T navigation ever again. Where's the problem here?
I can't speak for AT&T devices, but Verizon's bloat likes to run at startup for no reason and not go away if you try to force close it. It really has a negative impact on performance, especially on lower-end devices.
You should see the Samsung Galaxy. It even comes with a propietary (and underperformant) file system. Which in turn lags the rest of the system, and makes some apps simply not work.
This is the traditional way cellphone companies have dealt with their phones. This exactly why the "openness" of Android would be it's own down-fall in this market.
Despite what anyone says, Apple's "walled garden" is one of the greatest innovations in cell phone operating systems in that they actually managed to prevent the carriers from having the control to be stupid.
If you can't try ideas be they good or bad we go back to the stagnate mess we were in a few years ago.
So where does an end user turn if all carriers are trying a bad idea?
I'm behind Google on the general principle, but did you actually use her Atrix at all, or instantly jump on it an customize it assuming MOTOBLUR was bad? I've had my Atrix for a month now, and the only downside I've had with MOTOBLUR was that it has limited customizability. It runs smooth as butter, and I feel does a great job at tying together the android experience in Motorola's own way.
God forbid a manufacturer customize anything.
Get a iPhone.
The problem isn't the modifications. The problem is that people expect a good user experience and drastic modifications to the user experience should require a new differentiating name.
The topic is Android, an open source operating system that can be forked, not the cell phone networks.
A laptop, a tablet, or simply don't do the things you'd accomplish with a smartphone. You're acting as if a smartphone is a necessity like food and water.
What you're thinking of is actually a Morton's fork.
The discussion wasn't about which smartphone to use; it was about the existence of bad ideas and how people are free to implement bad ideas in an open system. You said bad ideas were "forced" onto consumers, without explanation. No consumer is forced to purchase a smartphone. A smartphone is a technological luxury.
Provided that the people they pass it on to have the same freedom. Unfortunately, most consumer-owned smartphones are locked down.
Funny, as HTCs enhancement (except for the locking it down) make the phone more usable.
What happens if you just buy and unlocked GSM phone and stick your SIM card from AT&T in it? (genuine question).
I understand if you insist on sucking on the credit teat of your carrier to get a phone on contract you're stuck with what they let you have and the conditions they put on it. But can't you just buy any international phone and start using it?
Depends which market you look at. It certainly isn't mainstream in the desktop market, that is for sure, but in the embedded market, such as TVs, wifi routers, network hard drives and so on, linux has quite a high market share. Also in the server market, apart from the niche sectors occupied by Small Business Server, Exchange and Sharepoint, linux is pretty strong. In the high performance computing market, there is very little else apart from linux.
Actually, it doesn't. You can jailbreak an iPhone, sure, but good luck finding alternatives to iOS to run on it. But because modders have access to the Android source, there are a ton of other ROMs you can install on your phone with new and improved features. Admittedly, I haven't played with an iPhone or tried to do any modding, but a search for "iPhone ROMs" pretty much gives you a list of how to play old NES/SNES ROMs on your iPhone. Oh, and it looks like you can run a stripped down Linux install on it. Woo. A search for Android ROMs gives you tons of options for alternative Android versions to play with.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I think this is a problem with the ARM architecture rather than with Android. To update the OS, you need to flash the ROM, and you need to flash the entire ROM in one go, not just replace a few files on the hard drive like you do on intel based machines.
I don't believe this is the case. It might be for iPhones, but not for android.
Android frequently send out small updates to various phones to fix minor issues.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Geeks are the ones who create the applications. Applications are what allow you as a carrier to sell smartphones with a marked-up data plan rather than dumbphones with the cheapest prepaid plan. And early-adopting geeks recommend carriers to their friends and family.
Yes and No. Apple refused to allow AT&T to modify iOS from the get go. No ads, shovelware, or AT&T bloat which the cell providers always thing is a great idea and the consumer can't wash themselves of fast enough. I wish Google had used a heavier hand earlier on in this area.
I think google did the right thing - get the critical mass - then use the leverage.
see:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/31/google-tightening-control-of-android-insisting-licensees-abide/
Sigs are for the weak.
What happens if you just buy and unlocked GSM phone
Where can I walk in, try, and buy an unlocked GSM phone in my home town in the United States? Or what online store do you recommend that has a good return policy if I find the unlocked GSM phone that I bought to be unusably unergonomic?
and stick your SIM card from AT&T in it?
For one thing, I'm stuck on EDGE and its ISDN-like speed if no unlocked phone supports the frequency band that AT&T uses for UMTS. For another, AT&T includes the price of a "free" phone in the price of voice and data service even if I don't take a phone from AT&T. T-Mobile USA used to offer plans designed specifically for those who bring their own phone, but AT&T is buying T-Mobile USA.
Why would Google want to prevent locked phones?
Note: Locked in terms of software. Not in terms of sim-lock
This will help user install upgrade, even is the manufacturer and the carrier are too lazy to provide their own upgrade.
More upgrade = more phones running the latest version = less fragmentation.
This will also force the manufacturer to publish their customisations - thus making it easier to make upgrade including the customisation.
So the upgrade won't look ass ugly because they miss some of the customisation. And so the upgrade works, even when the device uses a strange mix of exotic hardware which requires customized drivers.
More upgrade = more phones running the latest version = less fragmentation.
Also openness of the customisation help motivated 3rd parties to fix the customisations when they break compatibility with mainstream android.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Since when is apple a carrier?
Doesn't good old Steve get a cut of the monthly payments from the carriers? They've at least blurred the line.
In the beginning, there was null.
Google. No. Put it down. Go back to the playground. No. You don't get a say in this.
So? Isn't the point of open source that other people can take it and modify it to try out ideas?
Yes that is the point. Google did an admirable job of sucking everyone in and hen changing the rules. There are a lot of developers that can rightfully feel betrayed. I wish the Linux community would stand up and tell Google to quit calling it Linux. It is in no way Linux - even though it uses an earlier model of the kernel. They have cut off all access to the system via a terminal emulator. I bought a Xoom as my first exposure to Android. I paid $599 for it and sold it this morning for $500 to get it out of my house! I'm busy deleting accounts on Google now. I don't need anything they are offering because I am running Linux - the real open source Linux.
You should really learn HTML, especially the and/or tags.
I assure you, after rooting the device, you have the same system-level filesystem access you would have on a Linux PC box after logging in as root.
The only things you can't necessarily do are write to the boot, recovery, or kernel partitions.
The problem is the carriers making a hash of it and then preventing their customers from being equally free to make changes (such as putting it back the way it was). That is starting to give the entire platform a bad name.
This crap probably won't change until the cell carriers are forced to allow any device on their network with a sim card and they're forced to unbundle the "free" phone's cost from the monthly bill for those who bring their own.
Don't bother telling me T-mobile lets you do that now, AT&T is about to swallow them whole and change all that.
They obviously just want to protect their brand, why not just say you can't call it Android if your fork it and be done with it?
You're conflating an argument about the openness of a product with one for the openness of a market. The US market is sick and needs to be healed. I don't really know what the solution is, but I suspect that both the mobile phone industry and the ISP industry can be fixed the same way: consider the pipes to be infrastructure handled by the government, and allow free access at wholesale prices to every company that wishes. That would take away the carriers' de facto lock-in by putting out a single platform.
I'm not an economist, though. My opinion isn't worth shit.
Put identity in the browser.
So why are the fanboys still crapping on about how open android is, when the honeycomb source is not released? Its a scam. But oh no, Google "do no evil".
At least apple are up front about iOS being a closed-source platform.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
With AT&T's network they install the AT&T map apps. How they make money is if you click on it it will tell you that your phone can't do maps or GPS. BUt do not worry AT&T can fix that for $10/month to your phone bill for 2 years. Most people click on it not knowing about the Google apps and AT&T makes $240 from it. WOW
http://saveie6.com/
A better example would be Unix.
Sure Sun made some money for a little while. Meanwhile in the end Microsoft and Linux killed it. Meego might be Linux.
When greed of mega telecoms and phone makers get in they will kill the whole market for a bigger slice of the pie and end up destroying the pie all together.
http://saveie6.com/
takes gorgeous photos
Do you need apple tinted glasses to see them as gorgeous ?!? Because the iPhone pics I receive from friends and family suck ass worse than a 30 year old 5$ el-cheapo throw away camera. Sure it's better than most other phone cameras but it's like claiming your webcam makes great movies !
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Have you seen photos from an iPhone 4? Its widely regarded as having the best "shooter" of all smartphones, the Nokia N8 takes technically more accurate images (ie more detail), with photos from the iPhone being more "vivid", artificially richer greens, reds, more pleasing to the eye.
Let's first take a look at the higher-res main camera. At his WWDC keynote, Jobs said that getting great looking images wasn't just about upping the camera's megapixels, but had more to do with grabbing more photons. Increase the photon count, let more light in, and your images will look better, the thought goes. So Apple's using a newer backside-illuminated sensor that's more sensitive to light in addition to upping those megapixels -- and we must say, pictures on the iPhone 4 look stunning. Our shots looked good right out of the gate, with few problems when it came to focusing or low light. With the flash on, we managed decent if somewhat blown out results (fairly common with smaller LED flashes) though impressively, the iPhone 4 was usually able to take completely useable and even handsome photos in fairly low light without the flash. It seems like that photon situation is definitely in play, because even shots taken in fairly dark lighting came out looking good. Autofocus worked well in most situations, and we were actually able to get some impressive looking macro shots (see the flowers and Penny below). In general, we'd have no trouble using the iPhone 4's camera as a stand-in for a dedicated camera.
Engadget Review
:-)
;-)
:-)
:-)
I genuinely prefer using my iPhone to my "prosumer level" Sony digital camera from a few years ago, they both shoot at 5MP, which "isnt great" by todays standards, however, the resolution is more than enough for little old me
It's always with me, its very, very thin, beautiful, and takes lovely photos, wait, I said GORGEOUS photos
Could it do with Optical Zoom? Sure, and my Sony has "Night Vision" mode via IR photography. Big whoop, I'd rather use my iPhone than carry a seperate camera with me, even if the other camera was as slim...and if it could also upload images over 3G or wifi, directly onto Facebook, Flickr, videos to YouTube, have GPS...
Next up, using your phone as a calender, as a clock, and as a navigation unit
I would also say the 30 FPS 720 HD video off my iPhone makes for GREAT movies too, although there is off course the "wobbly sensor" action common to such video cameras.
Heres a compressed video, YouTube does take a lot of the quality out, still looks great.
http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2011/03/chicken-friend-salad-video.html
Best wishes
---
So? Isn't the point of open source that other people can take it and modify it to try out ideas?
Yes but only if the end user has a *choice* of what to use. That's open and democratic. On the other hand, just look how Democracy itself turned out. :)
I think Google is worried about not being able to lock people into their services. Just look at Apple's iOS, it goes hand in hand with the App Store, which is itself proving to be a minor revolution in delivering software. Apple may even (speculation here) licence iOS out to other device makers, simply to gain more share for its services. These days it seems device penetration isn't as important as service penetration. I'd say the device is secondary. The iPhone & iPad are "new and cool", but they're just delivery mechanisms for Apple services.
So I'd say Google is wanting to expand their services, and having an Android which can be customised to, say, exclude the Google App Store, or any other of their services, wouldn't be good.
This is a services war, methinks.
They probably are only now allowing the use of "AndroidTM" when they've personally approved the chain of compilations to make a smartphone OS. Anyone may still use the code however they want, but to use the trade name they must comply with Google's requirements. Vendors would have to choose between releasing their Android phone without the name or a touch of compliance so they'd get to use the trademark. Sorta like Element, the distro.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
In India we have rarely got subsidised phones. Its primarily a GSM market. Only CDMA carriers were selling subsidised phones, as well as un subsidised phones.
So I guess you cannot buy an unlocked GSM phone there. Why? Is this against the law? If not, and still you cannot buy, that means there is not enough demand in the market to buy unsubsidized phones.
I guess if there is enough demand in the market to buy unsubsidised phones, somebody will sell them.
Now a LG optimus one costs 300$(max) in India, totally unclocked. Similar mid range android phones cost 250-350$
I guess in USA, you will get such a phone for 50$ if you sell your soul for a year right? Thats where lies the problem. People will not buy the same phone for 300$
Few geeks will but it does not make sense to import phones unless there is a large market.
So its a case of no demand?
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Maybe they've blurred the line on who profits, but Apple does not maintain any communications infrastructure. Nor do they own any spectrum. So they're _clearly_ not a carrier.
Get better family and friends. There are some really stunning photos out there taken with an iPhone 4. Just check flickr.
And the solution is in labellings. Google should control "Android" or "Android phone" as a trademark and only deliver it to the people who accept some compatibility specifications, and sue the people who call their phones "android phones" or their OS "android" without implementing those specs.
Preferring to close the sources indicates some more malevolent ideas.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
it sounds like you are confirming that you can just stick a SIM into any unlocked phone.
This is true. The rest of my post explained why it might not be cost-effective to "just stick a SIM into any unlocked phone."
You then piled a whole bunch of conditions onto the circumstances under which you would purchase such a thing (only in your home town, only if you can try it hands on, only with a return policy that meets your criteria of "good" ...)
I want to be able to actually use what I buy. Return shipping and the restocking fee can add up to 25% of the selling price of a returned product. What way do you recommend to ensure that I won't buy a phone whose display and input I will end up finding unusably unergonomic? Or should one just suck it up and be prepared to pay two or three restocking fees until finally ending up with a usable phone?
But thank you for linking to a product sold by FGS Trading, which indeed provides a satisfaction guarantee according to its Amazon seller page.
although you do have to be stuck on AT&T
Ordinarily, when a subscriber starts a contract with AT&T, this includes a "free" phone or a discount on a high-end phone. I asked an AT&T sales representative whether I could qualify for a discount for bringing my own phone, and he sounded surprised that a carrier would even offer such a SIM-only plan. So if I were to sign up for service on AT&T, I'd be buying two phones: the phone I will be using and the "free" phone that the carrier gives me no matter what. This $300+ discount on a phone is how the carriers strongly push subscribers into accepting carriers' branded firmware.
And the solution is in labellings.
That didn't turn out so well for copy-protected discs partially compatible with Compact Disc Digital Audio players. A lot of customers saw the shape of the jewel case and didn't care that the product wasn't a real CD and didn't have the "COMPACT disc DIGITAL AUDIO" logo.
Why would Google want to sell phones?
The point of Android is to sell advertising.
Carriers see this and think - Why aren't we getting that income? If we are customising the OS for our hardware, how can we make money from this opportunity?
When carriers can change the OS to increase their income they will.
So, who "owns" open source code? Who controls it?
The original developer? The company that deploys it on their hardware? The owner of said hardware?
It's an interesting test for open source.
The reality is, "The Free Market" involves crooked deals among The Big Boys, ie Google giving out favours to Manufacturer X
...
I'd rather have a "free market with rules", with a Google who sets limits
So you want the same company that warps the market with crooked deals setting the limits?
What I want is a market like the PC market. One where the device is a commodity and you are free to install any software you want on it, and as long as it talks the standard protocol, it works. Fuck the Apple walled garden. Fuck Google-controlled, faux openness.
Apple never shared their OS they are as closed as possible can be and a bit more.
Apple STILL shares their OS. It's called Darwin. They don't share some of the pretty Aqua stuff that runs on top of it, but they share the core OS. Google doesn't share some of the pretty stuff in Android either. They even had a little dispute with Cyanogen about it.
I'd take accuracy any day. It's generally easier to manipulate an image that starts out accurate than to fix one that's already got "artistic interpretation" built in.
Having said that, I own a Nokia E71 and the camera is total plop.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Again, thats a matter of "plugging in the phone by USB, transferring to computer, opening in Photoshop/what have you, dragging the colour levels about...resaving it....
Its not something that can be done on the phone itself, it might actually be quite possible on an iOS (or Android device) with some of the new photo editing tools, not sure.
I'm sure most would rather have a camera that takes GREAT photos, be they a little bright, than have technical accuracy, with two bits of gravel more visible in some background shadow on the terrible Nokia's photo, compared to the fantastic iPhone's.
How many people have the "vivid" mode turned on their television? If they saw the "natural" picture, they'd say "hey, who turned down the colour?!?"
---
"The PC Market"? Like who? CERTAINLY NOT WINDOWS! Talk about "warping the market"... christ!
:-)
So then you're meaning like, some Linux distro? Well, the closest you would have is that Maemo thing Nokia is trying to cook up, you know, the thing that will most likely NEVER come out? And when it does, its stuck on that wooooooonderful, cutting edge Nokia hardware?
Nokia are moving to Windows Phone 7, ugh! "Moving", no no no, even this "most open of operating systems" company had their price, they were bought off, with "billions of dollars" thrown their way.
Theres a lot of talk about "extremely open" devices, but who buys them? NOBODY! And the ones that are closest on the market, like the N900, people HERE have them, but the thing got terrible reviews, felt years out of date, and was in no way comparable to a modern iOS or Android device.
Even gun nuts generally dont mind the government "taking away our rights" to Nuclear bombs. If Google say "the CPU must be at least this, the screen res..." to run their OS, then thats a GOOD thing. If anything, otherwise you end up with another Nokia, this big, POS, caught with their pants down, and utterly unable to compete.
---
"The PC Market"? Like who? CERTAINLY NOT WINDOWS! Talk about "warping the market"... christ!
So then you're meaning like, some Linux distro?
You're confusing the PC hardware with the software that runs on it. I can buy a PC from any vendor, and there are some vendors that ship them barebones without an OS at all. I happen to be typing this comment on a PC with Linux, but the point is it could be anything, from FreeBSD to any operating system that you can dream up.
Well, the closest you would have is that Maemo thing Nokia is trying to cook up, you know, the thing that will most likely NEVER come out?
I never trusted Nokia any more than any other company when it comes to openness.
Theres a lot of talk about "extremely open" devices, but who buys them? NOBODY!
Yes, that's the way it is. I can tell you what I want, but it doesn't mean it will happen. Still, it doesn't mean it won't. The original PC was a proprietary platform by IBM that was blown wide open by clones. Who knows if some clone or free device will arise?
If Google say "the CPU must be at least this, the screen res..." to run their OS, then thats a GOOD thing.
Fuck that. Here I am typing this comment on a widescreen monitor of my choosing, on an operating system of my choosing, on a web browser of my choosing, with installed software of my choosing. I don't need or want any mother-Google dictating the terms.
It's best to hang on to your ideals instead of embracing the wolf in friendly clothing.
What are the connectors you are using? A standard HDD I see, not something you wire wrapped yourself? :-)
:-)
:-) Nor assembled phones that ask "please insert an SD card with Operating System ISO of your choice :-)" upon the first boot.
:-)
Again, so Linux On The Desktop was soooo successful, right? Its ALWAYS the year of "Linux in the home"
What do you *realistically* want in a phone? I mean, we cant expect a bag of parts to be in the box, "assemble however you want!"
I would think having devices that you can legally hack is the best of both worlds. I had a "jailbroken" Original iPhone, because it wasnt sold in my country. I supported financially those who "free us from the shackles...", and still do, with Geohot.
It has to be realistic, something that can actually happen. I'm 23, in my lifetime there have been AT LEAST five "open" mobile devices I can remember, openmoko and all that, Android was breathlessly described as "open", until it got too big, and now those same Stallman types are freaking out and bitching about.
I think hacking your Android or iOS device, and not being sent to Gitmo for it is the best of both worlds. A beautiful, REAL device, running whatever the heck you want to cook up in your basement
---
What are the connectors you are using? A standard HDD I see, not something you wire wrapped yourself? :-)
I don't even know what HDD is supposed to stand for. There's no connectors with that label, and HDD could refer to a hard drive or a high-definition display. Either way, I don't really care. Many companies make these commodity components. I don't want or need to wire my own. Of course, I could if I want. The protocols aren't secret.
Again, so Linux On The Desktop was soooo successful, right?
I'm happy running Linux. If it hasn't gone mainstream that still doesn't stop me from running tons of software and accessing the Internet.
What do you *realistically* want in a phone? I mean, we cant expect a bag of parts to be in the box, "assemble however you want!" :-) Nor assembled phones that ask "please insert an SD card with Operating System ISO of your choice :-)" upon the first boot.
Look again to the PC. It can come pre-installed with software, or I can wipe it out and install my own.
I would think having devices that you can legally hack is the best of both worlds.
No, it sucks. I don't want to have "hack" my hardware just to install the software I want on it.
It has to be realistic, something that can actually happen. [...] I think hacking your Android or iOS device, and not being sent to Gitmo for it is the best of both worlds.
That's all fine and dandy until the company bans you from their network because you hacked their device, or invalidates your warranty for the same reason. Or until the hacks become harder and harder to pull off.
I'm not embracing Google and their illusionary open garden.
More people run Unix on their desktops than run Linux on their desktops. Mac OS X is Unix.
By that logic, the iPhone is open because you can jailbreak it and then "make all kinds of changes".
It's not exactly rocket surgery.
Yeah, but I guess you have changed the argument. Your original statement was to someone comparing iPhone's openness and Android'd openness. Your statement could only be taken as denying Android's openness. Now you change tack and allege something illegal is going on (which is true in a way, but besides the point here).
Then allow me to rephrase: The tying practiced by all three carriers makes Android's openness less relevant, as taking advantage of it is cost prohibitive.
Even for the US, you would not deny that a sensible market environment is the right way forward
I agree. So what can I, as an end user, do to make this start happening?