

The dirty little secret about Google Android - milesf
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/the-dirty-little-secret-about-google-android/38260

======
nanairo
(disclaimer: I realise HN is full of people who really like their Android so I
hope not to get downvoted just to give a different opinion.)

I think the problem with Android, which is behind what the author (a bit
confusingly) presents as evidence, is its licence agreement. The iPhone did
not improve the freedom for the user, but Apple had managed to distinguish
between manufacturer and provider.

Basically the iPhone (and all the others that would have followed: WebOS, WP7,
etc...) had put the manufacturer back in a position of strength: "Do you want
to have a 'modern' mobile on your network? Then don't mess with it".

Once the Android came out though, and it got embraced by Motorola, HTC and
Sony, the situation change completely. By far and large there is nothing
unique to any Android phone. All manufacturers can access the same CPU, the
same screens (actually here Samsung has a slight advantage), etc... This past
year has shown the result: a fast dynamic hypercompetitive market.

Just like for the PC before, companies were left with only one real way to
compete: price. And it's this that has suddenly put the providers back in the
driving seat. Verizon can request specific changes (like not-erasable apps)
and they either accept them, or they lose the massive subsidies.

I don't think Google did this with any bad intention. Indeed, and kind of
ironically, it seems to me that the Nexus One was the second step of Google's
strategy and was a complete failure _because of it_. Google found itself with
no power over the mobile providers: as the article say Verizon waited for a
similar speced phone to come out and quickly moved to sell that one instead.

Android is in a way so good, that now the mobile phone providers don't need to
beg the manufacturers to come to them: they know they will always be able to
have custom made Android phones, and Android phones are so good that they can
survive without an iPhone or a Pre.

In the end I think Google tried to avoid having a new Windows (one OS with a
massive market share). But they didn't realised that rather than giving the
power to nobody (everyone competing) they gave it to the guys with the money:
the providers.

------
neilk
I don't know enough about mobile to say if everything is false here. But this
article's internal logic doesn't hold together.

As a commenter "batpox" on that site notes, "Using the same logic, the dirty
secret about Linux and Windows is that they let Acer, Dell, HP, etc. determine
what hardware our OS runs on."

I think the article is trying to claim (in a roundabout, implicit way) that
good phones are the ones which are so well-marketed, and so tightly
controlled, that it gives the manufacturer leverage over the network carrier.
In this article, other forms of leverage (like manufacturer alliances) are
disparaged based on innuendo and hearsay.

In other words: the iPhone is the only good phone. Google is evil.

~~~
powrtoch
No first hand experience with Android, so I can't confirm any of its claims,
but I think you're misreading the article. The problem isn't the different
hardware, the problem is that the open OS allows the carriers to modify the OS
(not the hardware) as they see fit. An analogy would be if you bought a Dell
computer and it came loaded with "Dell Windows", which was basically just like
Windows except that it had a lot of useless Dell apps that were a pain to
remove. And as a result, the original Operating System is degraded and the
compatibility is compromised.

~~~
neilk
> An analogy would be if you bought a Dell computer and it came loaded with
> "Dell Windows", which was basically just like Windows except that it had a
> lot of useless Dell apps that were a pain to remove.

But... that _is_ what happens today.

And at least you usually can remove that stuff easily. Or go to another, less-
shady manufacturer. With the iPhone no amount of effort and expense will help,
since they also control the entire competitive landscape. I'm not saying
that's worse or better (if you like an Apple-managed platform, fine) but that
doesn't mean that more open strategies have failed. Unless you can show that
in practice, there are no good Android phones available.

~~~
mikeryan
Actually my understanding is that with Android you _can't_ remove the crap
apps that are pre-installed.

[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/07/android-j...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/07/android-
junkware.html)

~~~
vetinari
You can remove them... if you have root (or in case of newer Motorola phones,
can flash custom firmware).

That's why having the ability to replace firmware is important - you do not
depend on manufacturer support for newer versions AND they can not force their
crap on you.

~~~
mxavier
Right and doesn't roooting your phone void the warranty? If so, I have to root
my HTC Evo, voiding its warranty to get rid of a NASCAR app I will never in my
life use.

------
follower
IMO I think "The dirty little secret about Google Android" is that it's not
actually as open as people assume it is.

Yes, Android is more open than iOS but that's not really saying much.

The comparison I tend to make is ("< is less open"):

    
    
      iOS < Android < MeeGo/Moblin/Maemo
    

In a similar way to:

    
    
      Windows < OS X < Linux
    

For example, while OS X is based on an open platform (FreeBSD) it's got a
whole pile of proprietary stuff on top which AFAIK is pretty much how Android
operates also (in terms of core applications etc). Not only that but my
understanding is that the Android kernel is so different from when it was
forked that it is also no straight-forward task to port features (e.g.
drivers) from it back to the mainline kernel. And AIUI Google has shown no
great desire to anyway.

In comparison with Maemo (which I've had more familiarity with than
Moblin/MeeGo but assume there's similarities) where Nokia (over time,
admittedly) worked with upstream projects and companies to get a lot more of
the system into existing open projects.

By way of example, "getting root" amounted to checking a box, installing a
terminal and executing a shell command. All with warranty intact.

Getting root on a Nexus One requires voiding your hardware warranty.

Without root access you don't even get complete read-only access to your
phone's filesystem. That's not open. Even with my proprietary PalmOS Treo 650
I could at least read every single file off the device if I wanted (well,
there were some "no copy" settings for some apps but I'm not sure if the non-
official tools obeyed them anyway). Particularly in this aspect Android is a
huge step backwards.

Of course, the problem with MeeGo/Maemo/Moblin is that outside of the N900 you
can't buy a phone with it--so its openness is somewhat of a moot point.

Okay, rant over for now. :)

------
davidw
> Apple co-founder Steve Jobs said, “iPhone is the first phone where we
> separated the carrier from the hardware. They worry about the network, while
> we worry about the phone.”

Wow, did he really say that? Here in Europe, many people buy their phones
separately from their SIM cards, myself included.

~~~
nanairo
Yeah, and my understanding is that sadly he was right too. As are you that in
Europe things are very different: the author acknowledges that too. Basically
my understanding is that Europe is so far from the USA that the iPhone did a
first step (but wasn't quite there yet) and the Nexus One did the second one.

~~~
davidw
> he was right

No, he wasn't. Maybe he was if you qualify that with "in the US", but the US
is not the center of the world.

~~~
nanairo
While I completely agree with you (I am European) I think Apple is pretty US
centric (as is Google). When Jobs said that the iPhone was only available in
the USA, and most of its audience was probably american too.

So yeah, I think he was talking about the USA. He either didn't know about the
rest of the world, or he didn't care about it.

~~~
davidw
Fair enough: from a marketing point of view what he said sure sounds a lot
better than "this is the first phone _in the US_ that's not ...".

------
dogas
This article has some incorrect facts.

"Members such as HTC have gone off and added lots of their own software and
customizations to their Android devices without contributing any code back to
the Alliance"

That's not true. HTC added sense UI on top of android. They are 100% allowed
to do that. Android is licenced under the GPL, and HTC came along forked it,
and added their own stuff to it, then released the source code
(<http://developer.htc.com/>). The alliance is free to take whatever HTC does
and merge it into the android core if they are so inclined.

I'm not buying that carriers and are gaining 100% control of the software.
They are legally bound to release the source code. That would have never
happened before the open software alliance and android, ergo, the OHA is not
"in shambles", and is working as intended.

Carriers are free to charge for whatever services they want to provide. The
market should take care of most of that. If sprint wants to charge $30 for
tethering, but T-mobile will let you do it for free, then it's advantage
T-mobile.

~~~
andybak
Android is licenced under Apache v2 (not GPL)
<http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_faq.html>

~~~
dogas
I stand corrected. The net effect is the same however.

~~~
bbatsell
No, it isn't. Apache License has no virality. HTC Sense is not open-source
(and is not even hinted at anywhere on the website you linked to claiming had
the source).

------
powrtoch
iOS could be accused of bloatware as well. The fact that you're not allowed to
remove the built-in apps is mystifying to me. I don't use Stocks because I
don't own any stocks. The Contacts app is mostly redundant with that section
of the Phone app. And I've never bought anything off the iTunes store from my
phone. Why shouldn't I be able to free up the screen and disk space? Only a
small handful of apps (e.g. Settings) need be protected in this way, the rest
could just be offered free on the App Store for anyone who changed their mind.

~~~
nanairo
Sure, my guess is that Apple hasn't done so simply because they haven't got
the time/resources/patience. It's not like Apple is making _any_ money from
something like Stock!

But if you remove it from the phone then those people who are using it are
going to get pissed. So in order for the improvement to be seamless to the
user, it needs first to move Stock to the App store, then to remove Stocks
(and other apps) from the OS, and then finally redownload the application...
all in one system update. Not hard for someone with the money of Apple, but
hardly worth the trouble (for now, I imagine once the pace of development
slows down things may change).

Edit: minor grammatical changes

~~~
powrtoch
If you would read a bit closer, my suggestion was simply that users be allowed
to delete those apps if they so desire.

~~~
nanairo
Ok. And what happens if they then want them again? Stuff from the store can be
re-downloaded. Hence why I either Apple will change them into store app (in
the way I described, for example), or they won't remove them.

I am not saying I agree with them... just a polite guess from their history.

(Edit: grammar and the last paragraph)

------
neurotech1
IMO Pushing contract-less smartphones into the market was a good move, but the
market didn't seem to go for it in the US.

If Google really wanted to "capture" the market, they should come out with a
no-contract sub $200 unlocked smartphone, and let the market decide if that is
a better price point. $529 is too expensive for US consumers, when "free"
phones are available.

~~~
Timothee
To me, one of the problems with unsubsidized phones is that the lower price
from the carrier is not obvious. Or at least, I'd always be wondering if I
might be paying the same price as someone with a subsidized phone.

That being said, I did buy an iPhone before it was subsidized.

~~~
ydant
The real problem is a non-subsidized phone costs you more on most carriers
than the subsidized version. Even if bringing your own phone gets you out of
having to have a contract, you don't save anything in the process. You pay the
same monthly fee as someone that got a "free" phone. So why give that up? It's
a tough sell.

~~~
stanleydrew
On T-Mobile you actually pay $20 less per month on every single individual
plan if you're not in contract.

~~~
ydant
T-Mobile really seems to have turned their act around. I was with them for a
long time but went to AT&T for the 3Gs (at the time being able to tether at a
decent speed was worth it).

Now, I don't know. I'm on Verizon and Verizon's coverage was surprisingly good
in places I've never had GSM coverage. I'm not sure if I could go back. I wish
I could, though - I'd love to give them my support for things like that.

------
axiomotion
Samsung Captivate here. Took 30 seconds to root it and another 10 seconds to
remove the AT&T bloatware with Titanium Backup.

~~~
bitskits
...but should you have to root it to remove the bloat? On the Evo with Froyo,
there isn't yet a root method available. Should those folks be out of luck?

I think the point of the article was that Android was created to allow the
average consumer more control and choice over their device. While
"enthusiasts" like us will always unlock features we want, I don't think you
should have to hack into your device to gain this kind of control over it. If
I spend 200-600 bucks on a smartphone, I want control over what software is
installed on it.

~~~
ergo98
So how does tethering on the iPhone under AT&T work out. Surely you just click
a checkbox, correct?

~~~
alxp
Rooting most Android phones and jailbreaking an iPhone are about the same
level of technical difficulty as far as a consumer is concerned.

~~~
ergo98
Indeed. The post I responded to opined that you shouldn't have to root to
unlock functionality of your phone, and this was relative to Android devices.
Yet to tether your iphone you have to either root, or pay an extra $20 a month
to AT&T on a non-"unlimited" data plan: Your device is limiting you on behalf
of your carrier.

------
icode
Hmmm... I have an HTC Desire and it doesnt seem crippled or bloated with money
greedy apps.

~~~
sausagefeet
Praise my N1

~~~
buro9
Though it is still pre-loaded with the Amazon MP3 store.

We want it all ways. Take off everything we don't want, but don't dare to sell
to us anything less than all of the packages we do want.

~~~
sprout
No... You can put all sorts of shit on there, but give me an easy way to
install my own ROM, and don't put on impossible to uninstall apps.

------
neilk
What the hell is going on here? 24 upvotes? Either the HN community has turned
completely stupid, or marketers are flooding the site and no admins are
deleting their crap.

~~~
Unseelie
Such a declaration is worrying because I come here and generally trust the
upvoted things, and as such, I've incentive to toss your declaration out as
the biass and the spin. So, as though you were talking to someone who doesn't
know enough about the smartphones to make an informed decison (me), please
explain your position.

------
eli
Seems awfully unfair to blame Google for what other members of the Open
Handset Alliance are doing with Google's GPL code.

You either have open code and deal with people forking it, or you have closed
code. It's tough have it both ways.

~~~
alxp
That's why I'm mostly fine with iOS being proprietary to Apple. Anyone
reselling it would just make it worse by changing it.

~~~
Unseelie
Unless they made it better.

~~~
alxp
Recent history says that's unlikey

------
dminor
Verizon's open 700Mhz network hasn't materialized yet because they're busy
rolling out LTE on it. It will be very interesting to see what the
manufacturers do when they don't need carrier approval.

------
RexRollman
I want to buy an Android phone, because I detest the iPhone's iTunes
requirement, but I have two issues with Android:

1\. It doesn't look the same everywhere. Companies are modding the interface,
and in my opinion, that is wrong. I should know what to expect, UI-wise, from
an Android phone without even looking at the box.

2\. Updates depend on the company who makes the phone. In my opinion, when an
update to Android becomes available, everyone should have access to it.

------
andybak
Slightly overstated but I think the author has correctly identified a trend
and it's one that we would do well to resist.

------
ergo98
While there are kernels of truth, this is a garbage article that has no place
on a site like HN. The author is pandering to the iPhone fanbase where it will
certainly see traction. Do a "news" search of it in the next 6 hours and
you'll find it linked on every Mac and Apple site, and will almost certainly
see linkage on Daring Fireball.

It's garbage. Utter claptrap garbage.

The author (a strong iPhone proponent, as an aside) is holding the iPhone as a
model of openness (open from carrier control at least) which is absolutely
_perverse_. The iPhone is very tightly controlled by Apple (they just finished
patenting how they'll brick your rooted device), and Apple's control has a
strong input from the carriers, where in the US your choice is limited to one.

Why can't you use facetime on 3G? Why can't you tether for free? Why can't you
use Google Voice without essentially using a roundabout? and on, and on, and
on.

~~~
icarus_drowning
I also get a hint of "open for me but not for thee" here: we're supposed to
believe the Android's openness (which began as an asset) is now a liability
because _carriers shouldn't be allowed to modify it_.

So who is to be the judge of who gets to modify Android? Google? Jason Hiner?

He also mischaracterizes a lot of the modifications that have happened to
Android: sure, the uninstallable NASCAR app on the EVO was decidedly crapware,
but to simply lump the Sense interface in with it is a deliberate
mischaracterization. (Especially after many reviewers noted that they believed
Sense _improved_ on stock on Android-- an opinion I don't share, but a debate
worth having).

So my question is thus: does Jason Hiner think Google should rescind its open-
source license for most of Android? Does he think that such a move would
honestly be more "open" than it is now?

Because it certainly appears that he does.

~~~
MichaelGG
They don't need to close the source, just figure out some way to indicate to
buyers that if they buy an Android phone, they're guaranteed to have a certain
experience.

~~~
Goosey
Google does require certain things in order for it to get the Google branding.
Currently this seems to be limited to including the core Google applications,
but if google deems the rise of handset-specific frontends to be an issue
perhaps they could expand the license requirements?

I, for one, don't see the proliferation of Motoblur/SamsungSense/HTC-Whatever
to be a negative thing. It is an additional factor that consumers can use to
differentiate between phones. One reason I own a DroidX is the great hardware,
but another reason is I think the moto skin adds a lot in certain areas (it's
calendar widget, for example).

In other words: let the market decide.

~~~
icarus_drowning
I'm sad to see that the market has apparently decided against Google's own
offering. The prospects of a Google-controlled, Android reference phone
available to all consumers on all networks was just plain nifty.

Having said that, I have several family members with HTC, "Sensified" Droid
Incredibles, and it doesn't seem to be that bad. (Then again, there is no
NASCAR app either...)

------
konad
Insanity Wolf says :

Buy straight jacket / wear it

translation

You bought your carrier branded phone because it was subsidised / suck it

