
Why I Hate Android - johns
http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android
======
Kylekramer
So, Google had a pipe dream about turning carriers into dumb pipes, and had to
face reality when the carriers wouldn't let them. Therefore, MG hates Android.

I just don't know what MG wanted to Google to do. We all have our own ideas
about how the world should be. The options for Google seem to be a hardline
tactic to get exactly what they envisioned and subsequently have a dead on
arrival Android OS, or work within the system. Apple had a similar grand
ambition when the iPhone first launched with no carrier subsidy. They backed
off when it didn't work, so why doesn't MG hate the iPhone?

I agree with MG that the iPhone wrestled power from the carriers. I just
disagree that gave it to us (other than indirectly). The article relies on a
viewing of carriers as absolute evil and Apple/2007 Google as beams of pure
good and light. I don't. There are shades of grey everywhere. iPhone brought a
great OS with no crapware, a decent update schedule, and a handy app/media
store where Apple gets a say in and a cut of everything, with one hardware
option. Android brought you an OS that runs on multiple devices with a
relatively open ecosystem, with the drawbacks of a less smooth experience and
allowing carriers/OEMs monkey around with Android. Carriers have their own set
of priorities that also have a bunch of pros and cons.

Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a
compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal
while a device that requires the manufacturer to approve all software that
runs on it is A-OK.

~~~
emehrkay
> Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a
> compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal
> while a device that the manufacturer must approve all software that runs on
> it is A-OK.

I see this as two different things. Google buddying up with Verizon to change
net neutrality in the mobile space has an impact on everyone while Apple
preventing software from running on their devices only affects Apple users.

~~~
bad_user
I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same
government that is pushing for SOPA.

Government regulations of the market are only useful in one case only: to
prevent abuses from established monopolies. However, wireless Internet is not
monopolized. And you should checkout the competition in Europe. It's
absolutely crazy.

    
    
         Google buddying up with Verizon to change 
         net neutrality in the mobile space ...
    

Actually they haven't "changed" anything. They just left things as they were
before. The Internet is not were it is today because the government told ISPs
how they should operate. Customers did.

~~~
DarkShikari
_I really don't get HOW and WHY people want government regulations, the same
government that is pushing for SOPA._

Opposing SOPA --> "I don't want corporations regulating the internet."

Supporting net neutrality --> "I don't want corporations regulating the
internet."

They are identical positions: "hands off my internet".

Not all laws by the government are "regulation". Is making murder illegal the
"regulation of killing", and thus murder "shouldn't be regulated"? No, that's
absurd.

~~~
harshreality
The idea touches on positive and negative rights[1]. Real world examples have
shades of both, yet the principle remains: sometimes you want someone
(particularly the government) to do something; other times you want them to
not get involved. In a specific instance, both might be desired to further a
single purpose.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights>

------
maxklein
This argument is pointless, because it's about only the U.S, which is a small
proportion of phones used in the world. The rest of the world does not have
the insane carrier monopolies and unusual pricing structures that are
prevalent in the U.S. For the rest of the world, phones sell on the merits of
their software and hardware - and that's what android should be measured on.

And when it comes to that, android is winning.

~~~
lostsock
Came here to say exactly this. OP doesn't hate Android, he hates the mobile
landscape in the US.

I live in Australia with a fully unlocked Android handset. I pay $16 / month
for my no contract dumb pipe and that's that.

Android has nothing to do with the issue that the OP hates...

~~~
drats
Exactly the same where I am. I have vanilla ICS on a Nexus S with a pre-pay
that I can leave for a better deal at any time. This guy's article is totally
off looked at from a global perspective. The billions rising out of poverty
into the global middle class will never be able to afford an iPhone, Android
is going to totally dominate in these markets. That's multiples of the US
population. Apple has no hope at all in clawing that back.

~~~
reidmain
Why won't they be able to afford an iPhone? Are you are implying that they can
afford an Android phone because they will be $0 if you sign a contract?
iPhones have this option nowadays as well.

What makes an Android phone easier to get a hold of compared to a iPhone? Both
phones are $500+ if you get them standalone.

~~~
andrewpi
Actually one can get off-contract Android phones for as cheap as $99, or maybe
even cheaper. They aren't top of the line devices, but they work. The only
time an iPhone is that cheap is with a carrier subsidy.

~~~
reidmain
ah OK if we're talking about phones that don't compare to the iPhone then yeah
Android has a lot of options.

You referenced Nexus S with ICS so I thought we were comparing that to the
iPhone.

------
kalleboo
Isn't he wrong though? What first offended me so much about the original
iPhone was just how restricted it was at the behest of AT&T.

I can take my Android phone on any carrier and use tethering. I take my
iPhone, and it randomly disables tethering depending on the carrier. Apple
have also disabled downloads of apps and podcasts over 20 MB on the behest of
a single carrier with a poor network (AT&T), applying the restriction to all
phones, worldwide. My carrier doesn't care if I happen to download a 100 MB
file, why would Apple ever want to restrict that?

Google only lets carriers screw with _the phones the carriers themselves
sell_. Which IMHO is the prerogative of the carrier. If people don't want
crapware, they don't buy phones from your carrier! Apple lets carriers screw
with the feature set of all iPhones, regardless of where you bought it.

~~~
gizzlon
_"Apple have also disabled downloads of apps and podcasts over 20 MB on the
behest of a single carrier with a poor network (AT &T), applying the
restriction to all phones, worldwide"_

That's horrible.. is it true? Can anyone confirm this?

~~~
kalleboo
Yeah, you have to use Wifi to download apps over 20 MB. The podcast
restriction only applies to the iTunes app, you can use third-party apps to
download larger ones (except in the early days of the App Store, when third
party podcast apps were forbidden)

Actually IIRC the whole iTunes music store is also disabled when you're on 3G
and not Wifi. (edit: double-checked, yeah it's disabled for me
<http://db.tt/YT0w0rNQ> )

~~~
dolbz
> Actually IIRC the whole iTunes music store is also disabled when you're on
> 3G and not Wifi.

you didn't recall correctly (at least not for my carrier).

~~~
kalleboo
I guess that's another thing Apple randomly disable or enable depending on the
carrier <http://db.tt/YT0w0rNQ>

------
bookwormAT
M.G. Siegler wants to get rid of the different mafia syndicates that make his
life miserable. His solution is to give all the power to a single syndicate
that will rule us all.

Who has the absolute control in the Android ecosystem? My cell carrier has
certainly not. Google cannot even stop me from installing the Amazon market
app. The device manufactuers may seem very powerful: They make and service
both the hardware and the (Android-based) operating system. But even the
manufactuer does not control the system more than any of the other parties.
They need Google's services, they need the carriers, and they need us.

The user. We can decide if we want to buy our devices from Verizon or from
Samsung or from Google. But most important, we can choose what software we
install on the device.

Never before had so many users that much power over their mobile experience.
The user rules the desktop PC, and now, thanks to Android, he get's to rule
the mobile PC as well. We're not there, but we're getting there.

M.G. Siegler wants to replace the control of many software providers with the
control of a single one. This is short sighted.

Android gave us a democracy instead: It's sometimes slow to get something
done, because every decision has to be fought over with the different partie's
interest. But we, the users, can vote. And we have rights.

------
runn1ng
>Instead of going to the store of a single carrier and having a dozen shitty
phones shoved in your face by salespeople that made commission, you’d be in
total control of the process. The end result of consumers getting to choose
their carriers (and phones and plans) was clear: major competition and
subsequently a rush of better deals from said carriers to ensure customer
activation and retention.

>Or, you could buy whatever phone you wanted unlocked. Eventually, pay-as-you-
go SIM cards would pop up in the U.S. as a result.

Well, I hate to break it to the author, but in Europe (at least, here in
Central Europe), that is pretty much the standard and possible with both
Android and iPhones (and Window 7 phones). You can buy the locked subsidised
phones here, and actually, more people are doing it now than in the past, but
the most are still unlocked.

The fact that it doesn't work in US has more in common that customers don't
want that, not the carriers. With the pricey smartphones, actually, more
people here in Europe are buying subsidised phones than with the cheap
dumbphones of the past.

I just thought it's worth mentioning.

~~~
ghshephard
MG Siegler (and many of us who travel) are well aware that in Europe, there is
a lot more freedom regarding carriers and pay-as-you-go SIM cards. He
explicitly added the "in the US" to make that clear.

I assure you that most of us realize that the $199 iPhone we are getting with
a 2 Year $70/month contract locked to AT&T is really a $1879 contract value.

~~~
Mavrik
And yet.. He still hates "Android" instead of US carriers and non-existing
regulation.

------
windexh8er
"""Apple, for all the shit they get for being “closed” and “evil”, has
actually done far more to wrestle control back from the carriers and put it
into the hands of consumers. Google set off to help in this goal, then stabbed
us all in the back and went the complete other way, to the side of the
carriers. And because they smiled the entire time they were doing it and fed
us “open” bullshit, we thanked them for it. We’re still thanking them for
it!"""

Really? Apple has put control back into the hands of consumers? Ahhh, yes -
the fog is lifting now. Apple locked themselves into the worst carrier in the
US which, in turn, locked their customers into bad service for a good phone.
Oh, oh and wait - there's more. Apple has done the industry a fantastic favor
by fueling the tipping point of the intellectual property patent war that's
been oh so rightly just for the good of all humans.

Yes, yes - I see the point of this article now. Because I was told to.

But in all reality - Google took the shot, Apple never wanted to share the
ball in the first place. Chew on that hate MG.

~~~
cstejerean
Worst carrier? By what metric? Data started to degrade on AT&T mostly because
the suddenly popularity of smart phones people actually wanted to use for
music, video, web. I was on AT&T before the iPhone was announced after
switching between T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon.

Also, I believe Apple talked to Verizon first about the iPhone but they
wouldn't play ball.

~~~
windexh8er
Worst carrier on the front end and the back. Your ___personal_ __experience
may be the way you measure carriers - however all metric based analysis shows
AT &T as being the worst overall (data, voice, customer service).

Clearly you did not read the article with regards to my "Google took the
shot..." comment. What I meant was that Google attempted to break the carrier
model, as clearly explained by MG. Apple, on the other hand, embraced business
as usual in terms of how consumers buy a phone - with the exception of wanting
to sell the phone within their boutique stores. However, the latter doesn't
help the consumer in any way other than buying experience (which is an
entirely different topic).

Not sure why I just wasted brain cycles on the unsubstantiated or informed
commmenter, but - at least I clarified. o_O

~~~
cstejerean
Could you waste some more brain cycles and add some links to these studies
that show AT&T had the worst everything around 2007 when the iPhone came out?

~~~
windexh8er
[http://gizmodo.com/329104/consumer-reports--cellphone-
servic...](http://gizmodo.com/329104/consumer-reports--cellphone-service-
survey-2008-published-verizon-number-one)

It's called Google and there's an option to search within date ranges. Highly
complex stuff - AT&T has consistently rated among the bottom rungs of
providers since, well, forever. Sure - they've gotten a bone thrown to them a
time or two based on regional comparisons (Southwest US is where they've been
known to have better service), but overall they've pretty much sucked. Just
like your uninformed comments.

------
jsnell
> Google’s original vision for the Nexus One. Google intended to sell it for
> $99 without a contract and unlocked.

Right... Nobody in their right mind should be able to believe that Google
planned to sell hardware at a loss of hundreds of dollars, in order to gain a
user worth a couple of dollars a year, for a couple of years. But not only
does Siegler appear to believe this, but he considers the non-appearance of
that phone as a betrayal.

------
untog
One of his major issues seems to be Google not coming through on the topic of
net neutrality, and that his overall opinion of Android is coloured by this.
But an honest genuine question (I don't know the answer)- what did Apple do to
further net neutrality?

It seems like MG expected a lot of Google, and Google let him down. But what
did he expect of Apple, and did they deliver? Because last time I looked Apple
were championing all the wrong things.

~~~
ubernostrum
I think it's extremely unhelpful, in these discussions, to resort to "well
Apple does bad things too, so how can you prefer Apple?"

Ultimately I think the point the article's getting at here is that Apple's at
least been relatively honest in their marketing; they never delivered an open
stack based around principles of software freedom, but they also never
promised us they would. Google _did_ promise that; they promised it seven ways
to Sunday, and then failed to deliver in a variety of ways, not all of which
can be attributed to innocent mistakes.

So the criticism of Google is not rooted in "this other platform is more
open". The criticism of Google is rooted in "gathering this huge following by
loudly trumpeting principles you won't follow" is rank hypocrisy.

~~~
ekianjo
So, to use a metaphor. Let's say you have two people: \- one criminal who
steals most of the time to earn a living but does not claim to do otherwise.
\- one person with high moral standards, who, once in his life, resorts to
stealing because he had to in a set of specific circumstances.

...it is ok to prefer the criminal just on the ground that he is faithful to
himself rather than the person with high moral standards, because that one
failed to keep to their ideals ?

That's a extremely contrived sense of reality.

Sorry, but even if Google do compromise in many ways lately, they are STILL
more of a champion of Net Neutrality than Apple has ever been.

~~~
Cadsby
I wanted Google to be a champion of Net Neutrality, like they originally were.
Period. Not just better than Apple.

~~~
ekianjo
Ok. So why is there any comparison to Apple in the first place, since this is
a debate about achieving ideals of Net Neutrality ?

~~~
Cadsby
Because you were the one who made the comparison in your previous comment,
which I was responding to.

~~~
nknight
MG Siegler is the one that brought up net neutrality in comparing Google to
Apple. If you have a problem with the comparison, talk to the guy whose
article these comments are referencing.

------
plugger
> "All of this backstory knowledge fuels my rage. When I see Google talk about
> how “open” the platform is, setting it up as the foil to the “closed” (and
> framed as “evil”) iPhone, I want to scream and rip someone’s head off. It’s
> not only the most extreme example of being disingenuous that I can ever
> recall seeing. It’s nuclear bullshit."

Maybe that talk is in relation to Android being open code whereas iOS is
closed and encumbered with horrible shit (iTunes, App Store)? The iPhone is an
incredibly "closed" device unless you jailbreak it. That's not nuclear
bullshit, that's the fucking truth.

>"Apple, for all the shit they get for being “closed” and “evil”, has actually
done far more to wrestle control back from the carriers and put it into the
hands of consumers. Google set off to help in this goal, then stabbed us all
in the back and went the complete other way, to the side of the carriers. And
because they smiled the entire time they were doing it and fed us “open”
bullshit, we thanked them for it. We’re still thanking them for it!"

Thinking the majority of consumers care about Net Neutrality or carrier issues
is hilarious. The only time they care about the carrier is when they have
issues with said carrier. And as mentioned above, what has Apple really done
to "wrestle control" from carriers?

This article reads like it was written by a butthurt 15 year old.

------
ekianjo
Interesting how someone who despises Google for not being a champion of Net
Neutrality prefer Apple with its uber closed and "WE have to approve what you
do with your phone" ecosystem. Android has done much more than Apple to open
up the mobile space for developpers, let alone users who do not have to rely
on a unique and official "Appstore".

One can prefer Apple products for a number of reasons, but taking the angle of
"net neutrality" to justify one's position is hardly understandable in this
case.

------
51Cards
_Apple, for all the shit they get for being “closed” and “evil”, has actually
done far more to wrestle control back from the carriers and put it into the
hands of consumers._

Don't think i agree here. Apple wrestled control from the carriers to put it
in their own hands, not consumers. Just as any other profit oriented company
would like to do... but it was no altruistic move. In fact you went from
several carriers having to compete to one company calling the shots for the
majority of the mobile market for awhile. Android has realistically been one
of the few things that has kept the mobile market from being a monopoly (which
would have been far worse than it was ).

~~~
seqastian
He also makes the point that Apple is a retail store where you are the
customer and Google is building a advertising platform where you are the
number in a spreadsheet of a guy who sells ad space.

~~~
betterth
It's a fair point. Android isn't free. Sooner or later people will realize
that they're the product. Google is building/has an amazing database of your
life, your browsing habits, your app habits, your emails, your calendar, all
of it hooked up to your phone when you first turn it on.

They make literally billions helping advertisers find you.

Apple makes billions selling hardware.

Honestly, I prefer the demon I know. I have no idea what Google is doing and
is capable of, and what decisions they will make in the future with my data to
protect their advertising revenue.

With Apple it's simple. They want me to buy another device, and they're
willing to make a good enough device to convince me to upgrade.

~~~
gergles
If you don't like what Google is doing with Android, install a custom ROM. You
can recompile it and strip out any code that you don't approve of.

Try doing that on your iPhone.

------
stitchy
I've always wondered why +MG Siegler disliked Android so much. After reading
this article, I find his arguments to be less than compelling. He equates
Android's failed dream of turning carriers into dumb data pipes, with the
worst sort of insidious backstabbing. I'll admit that I was angry when Google
sided with Verizon on axing Wireless Net Neutrality, but it wasn't going to
happen any other way. Does he honestly think that Google was the deciding
factor for the FCC? Does he think that the FCC was going to say no to Verizon,
but since Google said that it was OK, they decided to skip on Wireless Net
Neutrality? I'm not defending Google's decision, but I'm confident that Apple
and Microsoft would have done the same thing if they were in the same
position. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Also, what does Android being open source have anything to do with his
argument? He sneers at Android calling itself open. Why? Sure, Google made a
bad decision by supporting Verizon's take on Net Neutrality, but how does that
make their source code less open for modification? It may mean that we can't
treat carriers as dumb data pipes, but that fact makes Android less open?

~~~
technoslut
>Does he honestly think that Google was the deciding factor for the FCC? Does
he think that the FCC was going to say no to Verizon, but since Google said
that it was OK, they decided to skip on Wireless Net Neutrality?

Genachowski used Android as part of the reason for killing net neutrality.

Genachowski: "We recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward
openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android"

[http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/12/21/fcc.says.andro...](http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/12/21/fcc.says.android.makes.lightened.rules.ok/)

~~~
stitchy
Fair enough. I still think that the FCC would have sided with Verizon even if
Google hadn't.

------
zeppelin_7
I hope he knows that Android is sold world over, including countries where
there is no concept of subsidy.

Also I hope he knows Android is being used for many more things than just
elitist phones.

------
VolatileVoid
I seriously dislike vitriol like this in general. It makes it sound like Apple
was entirely benevolent in wanting to wrest control from the carriers but
Apple, like any other corporation, wants to make money. There is no altruism
in business - it's dollars all the way down. And Apple, in bending carriers to
their will, did not give control back to the end user, but rather back to
Apple.

You see the "evil" behind Android because you WANT to. I see the evil behind
iOS because I WANT to. The truth is, they're equally evil - which is to say,
they are the yangless yings.

~~~
diminish
Exactly the same idea as my comment about emotions (which is downvoted). A
deep emotional connection to a company makes us see all of they do as right
(Apple, 30% cut, weird app store policies, SOPA support etc).

------
loso
A bigger question arises. Since we now know that his Android feelings comes
from hatred of Google and their policies, how do we trust his opinion on the
actual devices? I guess him not being a full time staffer at techcrunch
anymore helps with that. But what about past reviews from when he was?

~~~
Cadsby
"Trust" doesn't, and should never, enter into the equation in matters such as
these.

------
RexRollman
"Apple, for all the shit they get for being closed and evil, has actually done
far more to wrestle control back from the carriers and put it into the hands
of consumers."

What Apple did was to gain control for themselves; not the user. You need look
no farther than Apple's opposition to the DMCA exception for smart phone
jailbreaking to see what they think of user control.

------
tariqk
I saw this on my feed, opened the tab on the background, saw it was from MG
Siegler, closed the tab.

I don't deny he doesn't have some genuine insight. I just find that the amount
of work I have to do to sift past his bias is so draining that I prefer to
outsource it to people who _can_ tolerate his... foibles (read: bullshit).

------
iscrewyou
The fact that he's saying that apple tried to put carriers afterwards and
lookout for consumers first is total bull. ATT iPhone exclusivity. His whole
essay is invalid.

Apple tried to control everything. That's the truth. Google interfered and
shit hit the fan.

This guy just likes apple and hates android. Like a true apple fanboy.

~~~
diminish
Thanks, AT&T was exactly the point in my mind; and this exclusivity. Apple
doomed its US users to one carrier without any choice for years.

------
pratster
Sometimes folks need to realize that there are parts of the World that aren't
the US

[http://shawndrape.tumblr.com/post/15606937775/why-i-hate-
and...](http://shawndrape.tumblr.com/post/15606937775/why-i-hate-android)

~~~
vetler
Same here in Norway, although I believe carriers have control similar to the
US in larger European countries such as UK and Germany, at least.

~~~
ifearthenight
Carriers (operators to us non-Americans) do actually have a similar control in
all of Europé, including the Nordics, as well as in Asia and Oceania. While as
a consumer you may have seemingly more open options for pre-paid etc, for a
handset manufacturer you cannot shift significant volumes without subsidies
and POS space in operator stores. A lot of people cannot afford a handset at
retail price and that is what keeps the power with the operators despite
having some of the most horrendous customer service of any industry.

~~~
Eeko
All I see is the 99e chinese android-sets on the shelf (free if you take a
contract) and 15e/month unlimited data-plans (without a speed cap. Practically
offering 1mbps to 6mbps depending on area.) If you want to talk, one can get a
flatrate for that too. (actually not flatrate, but a price cap of 1e/24h, so
monthly bill won't exceed 30e).

They might have shitloads of control, but I'm not complaining.

------
kibaekr
If anything, I think the US carriers should be blamed for the imprisonment of
mobile technology. It doesn't matter how advanced the Android OS becomes if
the hardware on the market can't handle it. Consumers are locked up for 2
years with outdated devices, and the OS developers need to intentionally lag
themselves to suit the entire market.

I understand that the carriers are only doing their job, but I feel like a new
system needs to take place - maybe sign a 3 year contract, but allow updates
each year with discounts.

I don't exactly know what other ramifications such a system may cause, but I
for one would love it. I don't see myself changing carriers unless something
major happens, so I would be happy to sign for a longer "enslavement" for the
tradeoff of being able to update my phone more regularly.

------
zak_mc_kracken
MG Siegler vastly overestimates the importance of the Droid deal with Verizon.
There are hundreds of Android devices running on dozens of carriers around the
world. The Verizon deal is completely inconsequential.

------
zak_mc_kracken
> But I cannot respect their decision to continue to work on this platform
> that perpetuates our imprisonment.

This sentence about Android coming from an iPhone enthusiast is priceless.

------
cturner
There's a gap in his flow, at the beginning of the point where he goes off the
rails.

"To be clear: Net Neutrality was thrown out in the wireless space because
Google sided with Verizon’s ridiculous and horribly conflicted stance on the
matter."

There is a strong and viable position that net neutrality is bad policy. In NN
government declares winners and sandboxes areas where innovation is allowed.

You might not agree, but that's besides the point I'm seeking to make.

What's important is this: opposition to net neutrality is often falsely
characterised, as here, as a pure corporate marketdroid position. It's not -
it's a position with a firm idealogical basis that you may happen to disagree
with.

The writer here borders on conspiracy mode here, "The open spectrum enemy,
turned Net Neutrality enemy, became Google’s bedmate thanks to a business
deal. Straight up. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." The available
evidence doesn't support that conclusion. It might be true, but the writer
should hold his emotions back for things where the facts support a conclusion.

    
    
        > But I cannot respect their decision to continue
        > to work on this platform that perpetuates our
        > imprisonment. 
    

It's not good for anyone to have too much power. I don't want to live in a
world where carriers dominate, but neither where a Microsoft or Apple can
dominate through control of the software stack. We've only just emerged from a
situation of Windows being all-powerful - by some interpretations it still is.
Android is a great countermove to Apple's play to dominate the next twenty
years. Even if there are some tradeoffs it's good for our freedom. Think
church and state.

------
muro
> What no one knew at the time, and I only heard months later, was Google’s
> original vision for the Nexus One. Google intended to sell it for $99
> without a contract and unlocked. Yes, a $99 unlocked phone, subsidized by
> Google ads.

haha... that's a good one.

~~~
muro
Can anyone really think that a phone that sells for more than 500 without
subsidy can be sold for 99 with ads making up for the difference?

------
dgrant
"But in the case of Android, 'open' has been hijacked and wildly contorted so
as to mask the shady side of what’s really been going on."

I hate when people bitch that Android isn't open. I guess it depends on your
definition of "open" but whatever way you look at it, Android is the most open
in my opinion because it's the only smartphone platform I know of where you
can build your own modified ROM or kernel and replace the one on your phone
with it. So maybe it's not perfectly open but it's the most open and I like
that about it.

Edit: as someone else here has mentioned, we have Android on hundreds of
different phones, as well as Nook and GoogleTV devices. That's not something
you see with BlackberryOS or iOS.

------
fauigerzigerk
I know a prison when I see it. Paying carriers a little more than if they had
been turned into dumb pipes is not prison. Having my content restricted to
Apple's disneyfied subset of the world is as close as any prison metaphor gets
to the real thing.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Oh please, let's not get out of hand.

If Apple is a prison it's the most liberal open prison in the history of the
justice system. It may be constrained but it's hardly four to a cell and
making sure you don't drop the soap in the showers.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I guess you're also unhappy about the "jailbreaking" metaphor then, or about
"opiate for the masses".

I was just responding to this phrase from the article: "But I cannot respect
their decision to continue to work on this platform that perpetuates our
imprisonment"

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
To be honest (and this isn't aimed at you), I'm just bored of tediously
overstated metaphor across the board when it comes to the Googe / Apple
discussions. I think it does nothing for useful debate and just flames the
tribalism and I think that there are genuinely interesting things to discuss
that are being obscured.

That and wanting to make the soap in the showers gag.

But as I say, not specifically aimed at you, I'm just getting increasingly
anti-metaphor in what should be factual discussions between technical people.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I can see where you're coming from, but meta discussions about the use of
metaphors aren't going help. As I see it, you have obscured my actual point by
starting a debate about the wording.

Apple's narrow minded content restrictions are a real and serious limitation
of what I can do professionally as a developer. Carriers overcharging for some
services is not, so the choice is very clear to me and it's the choice between
less freedom and more freedom.

I do not insist on using the "prison" metaphor for that and I didn't invent it
either. I merely responded to someone who did use it and he even criticised
people for continuing to work on Android. If that is not over the top I don't
know what is.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
I disagree. If people are using unhelpful metaphors it's worth pulling them up
on. As I say, it's not specifically you (and I perpetuated the metaphor too so
am similarly guilty).

In terms of obscuring your point, what I'm saying is that I don't understand
your point precisely because you've compared prison to two things neither of
which, to me at least, are remotely like prison.

I do agree with you that I don't think the way in which he describes certain
models of carrier as like prison is accurate, but I don't understand how it
really applies to the iPhone. Apple places a small number of restrictions on
one very specific element of your life (your smart phone). Prison is a very
poor metaphor for that unless there's something I'm missing.

Personally I've been an iPhone user for three years now and I've never felt
remotely "imprisoned" (and in the pro-Google camp I've been a G-mail user for
10 years and have never felt like a "product" and believe that metaphor to be
equally faulty).

We could go looking for better metaphors obviously or we could frame the
debate in terms of straight forward facts that smart, technically aware people
can understand and avoid either the lack of clarity or the incendiary
comments.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I think you do understand my point better than you care to admit. Here's me,
there's my customer and smack in the middle is Apple in a position to veto
everything I sell to my customers and kick me off the platform whenever they
want without even owing me an explanation.

Depending on this kind of all powerful middleman is not just "a small number
of restrictions on one very specific element of your life". The element of my
life we're talking about is my professional and financial existence. Or rather
it would be if I built my startup on top of iOS or a similar platform like
Facebook.

The impact of this kind of dependency on small software companies can hardly
be overstated.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
OK, so the first thing is I assumed you were speaking as a consumer, not as a
developer. As a consumer I have a choice to sell my iPhone and buy something
else if I don't like it. That's a massive freedom that Apple can't constrain.
It's probably the single biggest issue with the lock in argument - the fact
that you can walk away at any time (even in contract - an iPhone will almost
certainly have a higher resale value that a decent Android phone so sell the
iPhone, buy a non-Apple replacement and stick the SIM in it).

Speaking as a developer you have similar freedom - you can choose to develop
for another platform. Apple are up front about their policies, certainly now
that they've stabilised. Yes they've messed a few people about (and that
sucks, I accept) but a vast, vast majority of people writing software for iOS
are able to do so with no real fear. Yes Apple might stick whatever
functionality your app has into iOS but Google might do that with Android, MS
with Windows and so on.

And it's not all negative - they provide a very simple distribution channel to
a massive market of proven, paying customers and cover off billing, payment
and a whole load of other things.

There are many businesses that have a dependency on a middleman (which is what
Apple are) but they accept that dependency because on balance the opportunity
outweighs the downside.

But even if you take away the other positive stuff there and only look at the
negatives, that choice, essentially the ability to ignore them completely and
do something else, is what stops it being remotely like a prison, because the
one thing that you can't do with a prison is just walk away from it.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
As a developer, I cannot easily ignore one of the most widely used platforms.
Their policies are not upfront at all. They are not even published for
everyone to see. They are vague and open ended.

Apple is known for kicking people out simply for competing with Apple itself
or its selected partners. They also throw out apps simply because someone
makes a copyright infringement claim, regardless of merit. You cannot know if
these things will happen to you. It's outside of your control, even if you
stick slavishly to the rules.

I do appreciate the positives, otherwise I wouldn't bother to argue about this
in the first place. But these positives are not predicated on mandating the
App Store as the exclusive distribution channel.

As a consumer, it's not that big a deal for me, but it is regrettable that I
cannot use Apple's mobile devices as I am a Mac and iPod user. I just can't
have some device maker censor the content I put on _my_ device.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
I get all that, my argument is not that Apple are right, just that the
commonly used metaphor, as well as being inflammatory, isn't really an
accurate reflection of the real situation.

You say as a developer you can't easily ignore one of the most widely used
platforms but I've made a very good living as a developer for 20 years without
writing a single line of code for iOS as I'd venture have most developers in
the world. If I don't like iOS as a developer platform I can write for
Windows, or Linux, or Windows Mobile or Windows Phone or Android, or Unix or
Symbian or any other of the multitude of platforms.

What you're saying is that you really want access to that market because it's
interesting and potentially lucrative but don't like the restrictions.

That's fine but it's not some unavoidable choice, it's just a decision that
has to be made. You've decided no and that's great, I respect that, but I
don't think it should be made out to be more than it is.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I'm concerned about Apple's success attracting copycats (like Microsoft) who
may think that being as nasty as Apple is somehow a prerequisite for success.

It could also attract lawmakers' interest, as tight control over client
devices provides a possible angle for law enforcement in democratic and not so
democratic countries alike.

At the end of the day, what Apple's model means, if it becomes standard, is
the greatest possible loss of freedom for developers and users alike. That's
what prison stands for when used as a metaphor.

But I certainly hope that my fears are overblown and you turn out to be right
that it's not such a big deal.

------
trimbo
If you hate what Google did with Android, then fork it and make a company that
does with it what you believe is right.

~~~
alperakgun
The whole idea of open source is here in trimbo's comment. Android does not
empower even Google to a total control; anybody forks (Amazon, Nook) does what
they want. iOS can't do this.

------
Tichy
He seems to confuse several things. What has the openness of Android to do
with whatever deals Google strikes with some random carriers? They are
completely separate things.

Also wondering what Apple's stance on net neutrality is - I suppose they
support it, as long as all content passes through the iCloud with a fee
attached first.

------
skrebbel
Can someone explain this article to me? If I understood it well, the author
hates Android because Google made some deal with an American carrier. I don't
exactly understand what deal that really is, he seems to imply that we all
know that.

I'm in Europe, where Google made no deals with carriers that I know of, but
I'm genuinely interested: should I care? Should I hate Android for the same
reason, whatever that may be? I mean, right now the closedness of Apple
products is the only thing keeps me away from Apple. Am I being an ignorant
hypocrite?

~~~
manmal
That's exactly what I was thinking - when I saw the headline, I thought this
would be another "Android lags, Android's UX sucks" post.. instead, it's some
abstract rant about net neutrality and openness - I say, let the users decide.

------
nextparadigms
I thought he hated his commenters for their bile comments. Then why is he
writing bile posts himself?

------
lawdawg
it amazes me that anyone listens or cares what MG has to say. His posts are
full of factual inaccuracies and personal opinions stated as fact.

~~~
joshes
Which of his statements do you find to be factually inaccurate?

~~~
windexh8er
The ones that are his opinions - which is the majority of it.

~~~
adambyrtek
Do you seriously claim that he is not allowed to post his own opinions on his
personal blog?

------
sathishmanohar
Hmmmm its interesting, when iPhone 4 was slammed for signal death grip issues,
MG argued, people use phones as computers nowadays, so voice/carriers are not
important. Now, He hates android, because carriers are screwing android
ecosystem. I sense a contradiction here.

------
muyuu
This is exactly why I buy all my phones SIM-free, unlocked. Carriers ought to
be treated as dumb pipes.

People who speak a lot on the phone would have to pay a big premium for this,
but if you don't talk much on the phone, PAYG data plans in the UK have really
cheap, sufficient broadband. I reckon here in the UK people do unlock their
phones a lot and this keep the market very competitive.

It's not just carriers that dislike competition. Makers also want to
artificially "differentiate" their phones. (Translate: try their best to lock
you up). This is all fair and part of the game. It's users who can make the
market more competitive by favouring less crapified phones and doing it
clearly, or doing their best to strip their phones of crap.

------
etherael
I must say, after a whirlwind career of bashing android for all the wrong
reasons it seems like the cognitive dissonance has reached a point where even
his bullshit excuses were not acceptable to his internal meter anymore and
this just comes across as a "Why I'm Still Right About Android" post.

The article even goes to great lengths to point out the responsible party for
the situation with the mobile market in the US, and then fails to make the
obvious leap and blame them instead choosing to blame google. The average
american consumer is who to blame for the shitty situation the US market is
in, and frankly that's a kind of poetic justice.

------
limeblack
The title feels like link bait.

"Why I Hate Android"

2nd paragraph in, "Believe it or not, I actually don’t hate Android."

~~~
redthrowaway
Two sentences later, "What I hate is what Android has become."

Not linkbait, just clarifying that he doesn't hate the OS, he hates what
Google has done with it. I'm by no means an MG Siegler fan, and I think he's
being facetious here, but there is a legitimate point to be made that Google's
capitulation to the carriers has come at the expense of their vision for
Android and its users.

~~~
dannyr
What do you think is Google's vision for Android?

Android is in the hands of hundreds of millions of people.

It is the cheapest smartphone that even people from Africa can afford to buy
an Android phone sans contract.

Google made a lot of compromises but I believe the original vision will still
be achieved which is to bring computing to the masses.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
_"Google made a lot of compromises but I believe the original vision will
still be achieved which is to bring computing to the masses."_

Isn't Google's vision to bring _ads_ to the masses? Getting everyone to use
smartphones is a way to accomplish that. Android Market has the highest
proportion of ad-supported apps (70%) of all the major platforms, and most of
the ads are served by Google.

------
mcantelon
Funny that Seigler neglects to mention what Apple did in the great net
neutrality fight: nothing.

~~~
betterth
You can't let someone down if you don't build them up.

Google fought for years on net neutrality.

And they caved completely on it to make Android popular.

Apple didn't help but they didn't say they would. You're welcome to criticize
Apple's inaction but that's very different than spending years promising to
the world and fighting for a cause, only to do a total 180 and sell out what
you claimed were your core values for the sake of market share.

~~~
mcantelon
I judge companies more by what they do than what they say. Yes Google said
things that let folks down: absolutely. But Apple is actually doing things
that poison the technological ecosystem: its zealous patent-wielding and its
changing people $99/year to develop software for their own hardware. So in the
realm of technology, who to hate more seems an easy choice. Seigler's focus is
pretty narrow.

That being said, Google may end up being a greater historic villain given
where it has positions itself in terms of access to our personal information
and its legal obligation to divulge that to the state.

------
RyanMcGreal
_Apple, for all the shit they get for being "closed" and "evil", has actually
done far more to wrestle control back from the carriers and put it into the
hands of consumers._

/s/consumers/Apple/

------
laconian
All emotion and no logic in that post.

MG, enjoy your slide into irrelevancy. The torrent of negative rhetoric will
only get you so far in journalism.

Eh, who am I kidding? It's made Rupert Murdoch rich!

------
felixfurtak
can you really not purchase a pay as you go SIM card in the US? I've
successfully bought these in many countries around the world (UK, Australia,
New Zealand, pretty much anywhere in Europe, Thailand, Malaysia, etc.) When
visiting a foreign country I usually buy a local SIM as a matter of course in
order to avoid excessive roaming charges. Surely this is also possible in the
USA?

~~~
apress
You most certainly can buy a pay-as-you-go SIM in the US. See
<http://amzn.to/wKySJq> for example. The issue is complicated here however by
the CDMA/GSM split, incompatible signal bands used by different carriers and
not-truly-unlocked unlocked phones. Something like a million people in the US
bought full-priced, unlocked iPhones to use on the lower cost T-Mobile netowkr
but they don't get 3G bands. See [http://blog.t-mobile.com/2011/09/26/about-
the-iphone-a-lette...](http://blog.t-mobile.com/2011/09/26/about-the-iphone-a-
letter-to-t-mobile-customers/)

~~~
felixfurtak
Sounds like the US cell phone carriers need a bit more regulation to me,
together with a bit more sharing of frequency allocation. I really don't think
this is the fault of Android. For example, in the UK I think pretty much all
3G carriers run within a common 2100MHz band.

------
idspispopd
I'd be appreciative to read a more informative and well-formed counter-
argument instead of pages of thinly veiled attacks on the author.

I for one recognise that they're all the 'devil'. It's about time we stopped
pretending that these companies are trying to do us a favour. They don't
report favours and hugs in their quarterly earnings results.

------
angryasian
this is neither manufacturers fault, and the blame lies strictly in the
consumer. Change comes from where the money is spent. Instead of upgrading to
the latest hardware , getting stuck in 2 year contracts and giving carriers
passive income, for all those minutes, data, and text you don't use. Consumers
do need to go with phones that work for them and prepaid. Once carriers don't
have this hold any more they will have to compete on features and price. This
is the real path to change.

------
Apocryphon
I'm really hoping that webOS becomes a viable alternative. Come on, HP, roll
out a generous license and promise to support the project already!

------
signalsignal
I don't seem to understand the author's intent in the realm of
entrepreneurship. Is this an business related article or is it an editorial?

------
Som
This article in not about Android, yes Google lost battle. Hope they win war.

------
ifearthenight
It's well past time for widespread usage of programmable SIM cards.

------
vacri
Low contrast text is a pain to read, and if I'm already annoyed at how you've
presented your rant, I'm less likely to be swayed by your arguments,
regardless of merit.

------
sunils34
exactly 'why i hate mg siegler'

------
drivebyacct2
"I hate Android because Google doesn't market/sell it how I like" ?

He objects for seemingly, what, "moral" reasons? Yet he merely argues that
Apple is "more open" via a closed ecosystem because of the power the carriers
currently wield? His post chronicles the truths of this situation. Google
tried to sell their phones directly, that failed miserably because Americans
refuse to understand how contracts work and buy unsubsidized phones. So, they
tried something else. I'm happily running a custom rom on an `oem unlock`ed
phone as I speak. It doesn't bother me that my friend bought a locked Android
phone, he's perfectly happy too.

I don't understand this post. Did he expect Google to give up or fail for
ideological reasons? The way he hyped this on Twitter and his last post at TC,
I wonder if he is just a troll anymore.

And an implication that Google is going to... do what exactly, in the patent
war? Somehow they're siding with the carriers and they're worse than Apple or
Microsoft in the use of their patents. I honestly don't understand what is
being alleged or suggested by that paragraph.

So, _Google compromises with Verizon_ = "[Android being open] nuclear
bullshit.", that's what this boils down to, right?

------
Slimy
Summary: MG says he doesn't give Android a fair chance when he compares it to
the iPhone not because he loves Apple but because he hates Google.

------
andersh
Matt Siegler: his wanky, self-applied moniker made me curious enough to find
out his actual name.

~~~
timrichard
Oh, it doesn't stand for Mini Gruber? :-)

------
lucisferre
Really? I was completely expecting this to be a tear down of Androids horrible
UX. Color me surprised.

~~~
Karunamon
Look at a v4 device. They've come a long way from Android 1.0.

~~~
lucisferre
That's what I'm hoping to find when it's available for my phone, honestly
unlike the other response suggests (and two unwarranted fan boy downvotes) I
can safely say unfamiliarity has nothing to do with it. 2.x is terrible when
pitted against even the 4.x iOS.

