Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:05 UTC
Google TechCrunch held a little in-promptu poll a few days ago, asking its readers why they chose to go with Android instead of something else. Most people stated they choose Android because of "openness". The author of the article calls this "a load of crap", arguing that because carriers can do with Android as they so desire, the reality now is that Android isn't open. Clearly, the author doesn't get openness.
Order by: Score:
some v. all
by jack_perry on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:21 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

No, Android users care about another advantage of openness: it leads to choice.


I think both you and whats-his-name are making a logical error: generalizing from the specific. Insert the word "many" into your sentence, and it becomes true. If you insert "most" instead, that's probably true, too. But I think a lot of Android users do care about the source as well.

By the way, Siegler is talking about the US market (he states this explicitly, and in the opening sentence no less). Indeed, the way I read it, he's trying to browbeat Android fans into pressuring Google & the carriers to open their phones in the US.

You really have misread him completely.

Edited 2010-09-09 22:25 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: some v. all
by mrhasbean on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:57 UTC in reply to "some v. all"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

You really have misread him completely.


It's called interpreting something in a manner that fits your agenda. Happens a lot on both sides of the paddock. Some of us acknowledge our bias, others try to make out they don't have any.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: some v. all
by Moredhas on Fri 10th Sep 2010 08:18 UTC in reply to "RE: some v. all"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

I'm never biased, I'm just always right, and anyone who disagrees with me is a vile, hatefilled troll who just wants to tear down good products! </sarcasm>

Edited 2010-09-10 08:19 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: some v. all
by Neolander on Thu 9th Sep 2010 23:04 UTC in reply to "some v. all"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think both you and whats-his-name are making a logical error: generalizing from the specific. Insert the word "many" into your sentence, and it becomes true. If you insert "most" instead, that's probably true, too. But I think a lot of Android users do care about the source as well.

I don't think so. Unless you don't mean "more than 10%" or something like this by "a lot". Android is not just a geeky phone OS anymore, it also powers phones which target the mass market, and the mass market doesn't even know what a source code is...

Reply Score: 2

RE: some v. all
by poundsmack on Thu 9th Sep 2010 23:07 UTC in reply to "some v. all"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

statistically, the majority of android users (via their cell phone), are end users who, from my experiences with them (all to frequent), couldn't care less about the source, they just like that it's a touch screen and has google features built in.

I like the openness personally.

Reply Score: 6

RE: some v. all
by polaris20 on Sat 11th Sep 2010 19:49 UTC in reply to "some v. all"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Android does suck in the US, IMO. It started out well; the G1 was a decent start, and the Droid is/was a good phone. Both had the pure/vanilla Android install, and what Google intended Android to do, so did these phones. That continued on with the Nexus One.

But now, here we are with 3-4 different versions of Android, 4 different UI's, some have free tethering and wifi hotspot, some charge $20-$25 a month for something that was supposed to be apart of the OS.

Looking on the Android Market, you can read the reviews, and many app reviews say "doesn't work on <insertphonehere>".

You've got crapware on the Samsung Galaxy S, Droid X, and Evo. Sure, it can be removed, but it's a pain in the ass for a average user. Copy and paste is dead simple on the HTC phones with Sense, but it sucks on the Samsung phones.

Luckily most phones are coming with Swype at least.

So yes; Android is open. Yay! Too bad there's not really a phone I want anymore using it. My Droid is cool, and I enjoy it. But after this, I haven't the slightest idea where I'll go. I definitely would have bought a Nexus One or whatever that day's version would be, even subsidized through T-Mobile. But now that Google has abandoned selling "Google Experience" phones, I have no idea.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Stratoukos
by Stratoukos on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:26 UTC
Stratoukos
Member since:
2009-02-11

I think you nailed it in the first paragraph. The author doesn't get openness.

Open also means open to abuse. Google's stance is evidently to leave the carriers and manufacturers do as they wish and let the consumer decide with their wallet.

In contrast, Apple's stance is to control every aspect of the device leading to a device that, by their standards, is superior.

Which strategy will win in the long term, we've yet to see.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Stratoukos
by ebasconp on Thu 9th Sep 2010 23:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stratoukos"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Saying the iPhone is superior is quite subjective:

* Hardware wise, there are several things where Android phones are superior... a screen with better resolution does not mean the phone is superior.

* Software wise, I find Android very powerful and able to compete in "normal user" arena with iPhone feature by feature. In the other hand, I did not find yet any "geeky" OS superior to Maemo in real multithreading, real "openness" and versatility.

Edited 2010-09-09 23:39 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Stratoukos
by Stratoukos on Thu 9th Sep 2010 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stratoukos"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

I didn't say that the iPhone is superior. I said that the iPhone is superior by Apple's standards. Maybe I didn't phrase this as best as I could, but what I meant is that I believe that Apple considers the iPhone to be superior.

As for myself, I really can't comment. I do have an iPhone, but since there isn't a single Android device for sale in my country, I haven't even seen one.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Stratoukos
by ebasconp on Thu 9th Sep 2010 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stratoukos"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Quite interesting ;)

Here in my country (Bolivia), all the iPhone devices I see are jailbroken because there is no carrier supporting it officially.

Edited 2010-09-10 00:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Stratoukos
by lopisaur on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stratoukos"
lopisaur Member since:
2006-02-27

And don't forget the Playstations, Xboxen and so many other things that you get "chipped" from the store in that lovely country of ours!
Btw, I thought I was the only OSNews reader from Bolivia. (Even though I now live somewhere else)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Stratoukos
by ebasconp on Fri 10th Sep 2010 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stratoukos"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

I thought the same! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Stratoukos
by No it isnt on Fri 10th Sep 2010 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stratoukos"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Their standard tends to change with the features of the phone, though. In the beginning, a good camera was irrelevant to the Apple Experience(tm), now it's another selling point. Not that their camera really is noticably better than other 5mp cams, but then again: Apple is all about magic.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Stratoukos
by ebasconp on Fri 10th Sep 2010 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stratoukos"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

That is because Steef knows better than us when we users need a feature we did not need before.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Stratoukos
by Torbjorn Vik Lunde on Fri 10th Sep 2010 08:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stratoukos"
Torbjorn Vik Lunde Member since:
2009-09-04

I may not be familiar with enough Android phones but I find a lot of them lacking, especially in design. (The exception is the HTC Legend, which looks, and more importantly feels awesome.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Stratoukos
by Dryhte on Fri 10th Sep 2010 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stratoukos"
Dryhte Member since:
2008-02-05

... but has bad RF reception.

oops!

Reply Score: 1

Definitions
by malxau on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:50 UTC
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

I think the author made a key point:

“Open” is great until you have to define it or defend it.


His point follows that currently many carriers have a lot of "openness", and immediately try to remove it from end users, then concludes this doesn't make it open. Thom's point is that everyone has the source, and could take advantage of that openness (although in the process would lose a lot of phone/carrier specific support.)

I can't help see parallels between this and GPL vs. BSD licensing wars of old. Is "open" letting anyone do what they want? Or is "open" preventing anyone from preventing anyone else from doing what they want?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Definitions
by Timmmm on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:15 UTC in reply to "Definitions"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

You know there's a simple solution: buy your phone unlocked (e.g. from Expansys). It also works out cheaper in a lot of cases.

Reply Score: 2

Thom is too sensitive
by Envying1 on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:56 UTC
Envying1
Member since:
2008-04-22

MG's article had his own point regarding the reality in US, which he stated clearly. I don't see any problem there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thom is too sensitive
by fatjoe on Fri 10th Sep 2010 14:25 UTC in reply to "Thom is too sensitive"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Have a Point? I would say this guy has an Agenda ;)

Please read some more articles and comments by the dude and educate yourself! You can start with this one:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/14/fanboy/ (You’re Damn Right I’m A Fanboy)

Edited 2010-09-10 14:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

did you read the article?
by kristoph on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:58 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

The article is very clearly about the restrictions imposed by US carriers on the Android platform. These are very real and restrict openness for most users without the technical skill needed to hack the device.

You need to actually consider writing a rebuttal if you have something to say about the writing of another author. One a little more substantive then 'this guy does not know what he is talking about'.

Would you really post an article from someone who criticized your position in such a lame manner?

Reply Score: 2

RE: did you read the article?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Sep 2010 23:12 UTC in reply to "did you read the article?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The article is very clearly about the restrictions imposed by US carriers on the Android platform. These are very real and restrict openness for most users without the technical skill needed to hack the device.


Yes, and I'm saying that calling Android closed because some US carriers are doing annoying thins with some Android phones is short-sighted,

Would you really post an article from someone who criticized your position in such a lame manner?


We're letting people like you comment, don't we? Also, feel free to submit something. We've published countless rebuttals to my stuff.

Reply Score: 4

RE: did you read the article?
by sithlord2 on Fri 10th Sep 2010 07:37 UTC in reply to "did you read the article?"
sithlord2 Member since:
2009-04-02

Would you really post an article from someone who criticized your position in such a lame manner?


It's because name-calling and tabloid-like headlines are becoming the norm here on OSNews. Sad but true ...

Reply Score: 1

chuck_mcknight
Member since:
2008-03-10

The problem with the term openness is that it's become meaningless. If you speak to the carriers it means one thing. If you speak to open source people it means another.

At this point, the most accurate statement is that Android is open to the handset manufacturers and carriers to modify because the carriers buy their handsets from the manufacturers. Handsets are not PCs, so the whole issue over Android's openness is a canard.

The carriers and handset manufacturers will fragment Android just like they fragmented JME. It's already happening.

Therefore, the whole openness argument is just wasted breath and hype to push a platform that may have viewable source code but is nonetheless off limits when it comes to mobile devices for anyone but the two previously mentioned parties.

Can we quit beating this dead horse now? It's a dull topic that got old months ago.

Reply Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I was all geared up to write exactly the same thing ;)

"Open" _really_ doesn't mean anything without a great deal more context.

Reply Score: 2

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem with the term openness is that it's become meaningless. If you speak to the carriers it means one thing. If you speak to open source people it means another.


I'd say, on the contrary. The problem is not that it's meaningless, it's that it has been tortured and twisted so long, that it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. That's what happens if you [not you per se, but someone with enough media exposure] purposefully use a word in the wrong contexts for enough time. Just how the relation and difference between open and free have been mangled and mixed around so much.

Carriers know all too well what openness [should] mean. It just doesn't suit their purposes.

Reply Score: 3

Android is open...
by nbensa on Fri 10th Sep 2010 02:03 UTC
nbensa
Member since:
2005-08-29

Makers are not (Motorola Milestone anyone?)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Android is open...
by aesiamun on Fri 10th Sep 2010 03:39 UTC in reply to "Android is open..."
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

The Milestone, the DroidX, the Droid2...Motorola is on a role.

Reply Score: 2

Bizarro Universe
by joshv on Fri 10th Sep 2010 02:16 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

In what Bizarro universe does the ability of the carrier (or any third party for that matter) to create it's own app store make the device *less* open? I mean seriously.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by _xmv
by _xmv on Fri 10th Sep 2010 03:11 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

As a developer that's what I care about with Android:

It's not that it's open, it's that it's mostly GPL-based. That means, the source code is redistributed. That means, when they're modifying the kernel, it's released and so on for other GPL components.

That means also, that we can modify the software of nearly any device too.

It means freedom, for me. Take a look at the Apple side if you will:

- you need a jailbreak - and it's not really there for iPhone 4 and it's been month!
- jailbroken apps sucks and don't get updated cause the "hackers" interest shifted to open platforms. mplayer on iOS4 ? nope. etc.


Now here's my random android device.. mplayer? yeh if i want to. it's not even java or running in the android sandbox btw!
Changing the filesystem? No problem.

What this means for end users who aren't devs like me, is that they're mostly guaranteed to keep their "software" freedom in the future.

If ISP's or what-not push it too far, we can always release versions without the limitations quite easily. The whole base is open source.


That's actually already happening, see mod cyanogen for example. Bare android for most android phones. Doesn't matter the amount of crapware, it's gone once you install it. It's not hard either! Plus, you can updates your carrier might not bother doing, and longer support.

As for stuff like "skype only on verizon" is a utter non-sense for example. While Skype is closed source, it's very easy to make it work on another android device. Only stupid laws can enforce such a thing (if it's illegal you can't do it), technology, can't.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by _xmv
by vivainio on Fri 10th Sep 2010 04:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by _xmv"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


It's not that it's open, it's that it's mostly GPL-based.


They are so GPL based, they are using NetBSD userland (IIRC).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by _xmv
by Timmmm on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by _xmv"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

Only the kernel is GPL.

Reply Score: 2

v why wait time...
by martini on Fri 10th Sep 2010 04:02 UTC
Android is Not Open
by AnythingButVista on Fri 10th Sep 2010 04:46 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

Well, Android is open... to the manufacturers who can then lock it down to the end users and then send cease and dessist letters to users in the modding community.

Android gives users choice? What choice? All Android handsets look alike - although the same can be said for the upcoming Windows iPhone 7 handsets. They are all copycats of the iPhone and when the original is not good, the imitators can't be good either. All those touchscreen slabs with not much of anything else make me yawn to the extreme.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Android is Not Open
by fatjoe on Fri 10th Sep 2010 14:32 UTC in reply to "Android is Not Open"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

At the same time, Android is open so a bunch of young guys working in a basement can/will use it to create the Next Big Thing (tm). And then you will have the choice to buy the NextBigThing from them instead of the shiny new expensive iOS7 phone.


In the end, this openness will help us - the consumers. We have already seen this in the phone and tablet market where you can buy really amazing android products for less then 200 USD.

Edited 2010-09-10 14:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

sample size?
by crimperman on Fri 10th Sep 2010 07:59 UTC
crimperman
Member since:
2006-11-09

I find it interesting that both techcrunch and the author here take the results of a survey and convert them to "Android users" in general.

I appreciate that that is what surveys are for but I don't see any evidence of the sample size and make-up being taken into account.

For example in my own circle of friends around 40% own Android 'phones. Of those I would say 50% selected it because it was not closed. Of those 100% work with and understand what free and open source software means.

The rest either selected the 'phone not the OS or like the idea of lots of apps but don't like the iPhone.

Reply Score: 1

Who was the writer?
by Dekonega on Fri 10th Sep 2010 09:21 UTC
Dekonega
Member since:
2009-07-28

If the writer was MG Siegler then you should see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybsRCQy_3xQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxYlmF2NV2E

Reply Score: 1

Funny thing
by RagaR on Fri 10th Sep 2010 10:02 UTC
RagaR
Member since:
2010-06-22

I have noticed, you avoided the term "free software" like hell. And you have chosen the funny term "open" and "openness". With the only reference, that you have a choice between different manufactures and providers.

A cold and deadly world, you are suggesting.

Lets have a look on free software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).

By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

It does not matter, how often free software is delivered. If there is just one case where it fails, than it is not "free software".

You said there are some.

Conclusion: Android is not free software.

Your argumentation is weak, as you know. Because you even have more freedom when you can choose between several distributions, when you have free choice about providers and manufactures. And I don't care about tyrants and self chosen slavery. If they like their iPhone, let it be. But I do care about freedom, even freedom for the end users. And that is where Android fails. And just once is enough.

It is true. Android is a load of crap.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Funny thing
by n.l.o on Fri 10th Sep 2010 12:25 UTC in reply to "Funny thing"
n.l.o Member since:
2009-09-14

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).


Android provides end users and developers with all four of those freedoms.

Reply Score: 1

variety versus "open"
by jabbotts on Fri 10th Sep 2010 10:29 UTC
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

I think what your talking about, I see as variety in a market. Different software running on different hardware and some on a variety of different hardware. It is an attribute of the market rather than an attribute of the individual items within it. The market is open because there is more choice.

When you talk of Android, it's a specific item within the market. As an item, "open" would refer to the transparency and tinker-ability of it. At one extreme, it's open source hardware with specs published online with parts lists. At the other end you have the closed hardware that goes out of it's way to hide it's guts. The product has to favor owner's access at minimum as an opt-in to advanced features.

With Android specifically, the things I'd like to be corrected on if I misunderstand are:

- each vendor has customized versions of Android beyond real differences like hardware modules in the kernel. You now need to find firmware based on device/vendor instead of just getting the core Android distro and dropping it on any "android" phone. When a new version of Android becomes available, you have to wait for a vendor/device official version or buy the newer hardware that ships with it.

- In terms of core versions, is Google developing it behind closed doors and releasing it publicly at the major version launch?

- each vendor/device has different "rooting" methods. If a device is open, "root" should be an easy config checkbox. Even Maemo's root package from the apps repository is a simple opt-in root shell for a device where tinkering is encouraged.

- What data processing is done on Google's servers versus the local device? Is all voice to text processed locally? Do my calendar changes on the device stick without a network connection or do I really need to bounce all changes through Google and back to my device? I question the openness of a product that does all it can to make my information property of the service provider.

For an open device or mobile OS, I should be able to grab the central distribution and flash it through a standard process on any device. Hardware drivers in the distribution kernel or maybe a secondary kernel+mods bin file included during the firmware flashing process. Any app that is a distro app installs. If it's for a missing hardware function, it just doesn't work or do that specific part of what it does. Manage the app market on a three step unstable,testing,production process. If I choose to go beyond prepackaged downloads, I should be able to simply "su" to root, select something in the options (even if it's a easter egg secret thing) or grab a standard repository package that enables it. If it's Java on top but *nix kernel, I want to be able to use the userland between kernel and gui.

Reply Score: 2

Land of the free to be ignorant?
by n.l.o on Fri 10th Sep 2010 12:03 UTC
n.l.o
Member since:
2009-09-14

Had Siegler taken the time to look beyond the borders of the country he lives in


How very un-American! ;)

Reply Score: 1

Openness
by Paradroid on Fri 10th Sep 2010 14:11 UTC
Paradroid
Member since:
2010-01-05

This whole openness argument has turned into a pointless idealistic debate at times.

You buy the device that suits your needs best, based on available apps, hardware capability and preferred user interface. Anyone who doesn't is just shooting themselves in the foot imho.

I have three PC's, a Mac, an xbox360 and an Amiga in my house. I also have an iPhone. I can't think of anything that I actually want/need to do on my iPhone but cannot. I "get" the concept that it's a smartphone and not a general purpose computer.

Consoles (home and handheld) all work the same way as the iPhone yet they don't get criticed in the same way, why not? Sony don't develop games for the xbox, and why should they, they protect their market. I think Apple still has a small player mindset at times and is careful not to let the big boys in to trample all over their market.

Reply Score: 1

Open to whom?
by ezylstra on Fri 10th Sep 2010 14:33 UTC
ezylstra
Member since:
2010-07-16

Android is not open to users. Vendors, yes. But not to users.

Now to backstep a bit...sophisticated users with plenty of time on their hands can do "wonderful" things with Android.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Open to whom?
by n.l.o on Fri 10th Sep 2010 14:45 UTC in reply to "Open to whom?"
n.l.o Member since:
2009-09-14

Android is not open to users. Vendors, yes. But not to users.


So closed that I downloaded the source to android built it and installed it on my HTC HD2, replacing WinMo with it.

Damn I wish it was open.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Open to whom?
by polaris20 on Sat 11th Sep 2010 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Open to whom?"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

"Android is not open to users. Vendors, yes. But not to users.


So closed that I downloaded the source to android built it and installed it on my HTC HD2, replacing WinMo with it.

Damn I wish it was open.
"

You just proved the point of the person whom you quoted.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Open to whom?
by n.l.o on Sat 11th Sep 2010 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open to whom?"
n.l.o Member since:
2009-09-14

"[q]Android is not open to users. Vendors, yes. But not to users.


So closed that I downloaded the source to android built it and installed it on my HTC HD2, replacing WinMo with it.

Damn I wish it was open.
"

You just proved the point of the person whom you quoted. [/q]

I am a user, Android is open to me to do whatever I want with it and I have done so.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Open to whom?
by polaris20 on Sun 12th Sep 2010 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open to whom?"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06



I am a user, Android is open to me to do whatever I want with it and I have done so.


You're ignoring where he says:


"Now to backstep a bit...sophisticated users with plenty of time on their hands can do "wonderful" things with Android."

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Open to whom?
by n.l.o on Sun 12th Sep 2010 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Open to whom?"
n.l.o Member since:
2009-09-14

"

I am a user, Android is open to me to do whatever I want with it and I have done so.


You're ignoring where he says:


"Now to backstep a bit...sophisticated users with plenty of time on their hands can do "wonderful" things with Android."
"

I wouldn't refer to myself as a "sophisticated user", I'm just a user.

Just like most other people.

Android is not closed, if you believe otherwise then the onus is upon you to prove it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open to whom?
by Bounty on Fri 10th Sep 2010 16:52 UTC in reply to "Open to whom?"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Android is not open to users. Vendors, yes. But not to users. Now to backstep a bit...sophisticated users with plenty of time on their hands can do "wonderful" things with Android.


Lets ask. Is linux 'open' to generic users? I could sell a PC with linux pre-loaded with a bunch of 'uninstallable' bloatware (unless you're a 'hacker'.) Would that suddenly make linux not open? NO. Joe public could still get my source and do anything he wants with it that is allowed by the license and within reach of his ambition.

There is exactly 1 vendor who supplies iPhones. That is obviously not open. There are a $#!+ ton of vairious Android phones. Some with a keyboard, some are clamshell, some small, some large, some fast, some cheap. That IS choice.

In closing. http://source.android.com/source/download.html

Go build a vending machine, RC airplane or sexbot. Or if you want to do something really crazy, a phone YOU coinsider "open."

Reply Score: 1

Verizon - Skype
by vodoomoth on Sat 11th Sep 2010 16:44 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

I'm surprised nobody reacted to this:


Then there's the curious case where Verizon has made a deal with Skype, so that Skype only works on Verizonified Android phones


That is serious! Is it true? But first, what does it mean that "so that Skype only works on Verizonified Android phones"? Does it mean that no Android phone (be it AT&T, Sprint, or else) in the US can use Skype unless it's on Verizon? Or does it mean that on the Verizon network, a standard phone (bought elsewhere without the carrier subvention) can't use Skype unless it's been pimped by Verizon?

In any case, and if true, how could people (government, local authorities, governing bodies, consumers, etc.) let that happen? I don't even understand the nature of the incentives Skype would have received to accept such a thing. Aren't there consumer associations in America like here in France?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Verizon - Skype
by tantalic on Mon 13th Sep 2010 20:49 UTC in reply to "Verizon - Skype"
tantalic Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe the Skype app for Android is only available if you're on Verizon and even then you must makes calls via 3G not over Wi-Fi.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Verizon - Skype
by vodoomoth on Mon 13th Sep 2010 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Verizon - Skype"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

What a sad day for the world. What a sad world.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Mon 13th Sep 2010 17:02 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

so·phis·ti·cat·ed   /səˈfɪstɪˌkeɪtɪd/
[suh-fis-ti-key-tid]

–adjective
1. (of a person, ideas, tastes, manners, etc.) altered by education, experience, etc., so as to be worldly-wise; not naive: a sophisticated young socialite; the sophisticated eye of a journalist.

I think sophisticated (not naive) is a pre-requisite for enjoying any 'open' software system for it's 'open' attributes. If you're pissed off about what buttons are on the home screen, that has nothing to do with how 'open' it may be.

Reply Score: 2

That's open?
by tantalic on Mon 13th Sep 2010 20:47 UTC
tantalic
Member since:
2005-07-06

"No, Android users care about another advantage of openness: it leads to choice. You can get multiple Android phones on multiple carriers."

So Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 are both open?

Reply Score: 1