The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

Here's a ZDNet article claiming that the openness of Android is handing control back to carriers and handset manufacturers. "As a result, we now have a situation where the U.S. telecoms are reconsolidating their power and putting customers at a disadvantage. And, their empowering factor is Android. The carriers and handset makers can do anything they want with it. Unfortunately, that now includes loading lots of their own crapware onto these Android devices, using marketing schemes that confuse buyers (see the Samsung Galaxy S), and nickle-and-diming customers with added fees to run certain apps such as tethering, GPS navigation, and mobile video."

to post comments

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 23, 2010 18:46 UTC (Mon) by mmcgrath (guest, #44906) [Link] (6 responses)

This will encourage the use of alternatives like CyanogenMod

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 23, 2010 18:50 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (5 responses)

Only if as consumers we are _allowed_ to jailbreak the locked down android phones. I imagine the same market pressures that is encouraging ISP's to nickel and dime people for software features is also going to encourage them to fight back..hard..against any policy which would give consumers the right to jailbreak. I expect legislative lobbying to closedown jailbreaking as a legal activity.

-jef

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 23, 2010 19:36 UTC (Mon) by SEJeff (guest, #51588) [Link] (2 responses)

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-j... Good luck getting that reversed.

Jailbreaking

Posted Aug 23, 2010 19:47 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

Unfortunately, reversing that ruling could prove all too easy. It will reverse itself in three years unless it's explicitly renewed. "Fixing" it sooner than that simply requires an act of Congress - a last-minute amendment to the farm bill or something will do it. I would not be at all surprised to see an attempt at that made.

Jailbreaking

Posted Aug 24, 2010 4:44 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Well plus you have to take into account is that the only reason people have to put up with this crap in the first place is specifically because the goverment.

If it was not for the rules, regulations and (more importantly) the enforcement that the USA government provides for corporations against individuals then all this jailbreaking and restrictions that companies like Apple or Motorola try to implement would not be even worth the effort. There literally would be a industry that would develop that would exist solely to help individuals work around DRM and other technical restrictions.

The jails and DRM does not work because people like Apple or the MPAA/RIAA will it into existence... it works because the government is willing to enforce their will at the point of the gun, if push comes to shove.

So it's extremely unlikely that the government is going to provide a sort of long term relief since they are core to the problem in the first place. They may provide little hand-wavy gesture like linked above to placate people in specific cases, but it's a hollow non-the-less.

------------------------------------------

For us what is important is just not to give companies that collude with the government to remove our freedoms money. That is the #1 control you have over them and is far far more effective then any sort of law that can possibly hope to get passed any time this decade (or two or four).

That is if you have a choice between something like the Motorola Droid-X or iPhone vs a Samsung Galaxy-S then for god sakes don't get the Droid-X or iPhone... your not only part of the problem, your are making things worse. Your dollars are literally justifying those corporation's negative behavior.

I've heard good things about the Galaxy-S stuff.... but I don't know how much the carriers have stomped on the platform. At least the i9000 is a decent in terms of openness. No OpenMoko, but in terms of what is on the market it seems to be a good platform.

I've seen stuff like this:
http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2010/08/21/#20100821-p...

So... it seems decent enough, but please do not take my word for it.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 23, 2010 23:35 UTC (Mon) by literfizzer (subscriber, #31274) [Link]

Fortunately, most if not all Android phones to date seem fairly easy to reflash with any of a number of alternative Android images with the carrier crap and restrictions removed and useful stuff added.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 31, 2010 14:07 UTC (Tue) by juanjux (guest, #11652) [Link]

There is "Geeks Phone", a phone maker that encourage unlocking and installing custom firmwares, even supporting Cyanogen stable releases:

http://www.geeksphone.com/en/

They only need an interesting phone (their current "GeeksPhone One" is a little outdated) to have my money.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 23, 2010 19:48 UTC (Mon) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link] (15 responses)

> The carriers and handset makers can do anything they want with it.

Couldn't they do this before, with OSes like Symbian? What has actually changed here, apart from the fact that Android doesn't seem to be fulfilling its initial promise of openness to the end consumer?

Nothing actually changed...

Posted Aug 23, 2010 20:12 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (14 responses)

U.S. was the rare country where carries were allowed to dictate the rules. Google tried to change it: first with ADP1 and later with Nexus One. Customers decided that they like to sell their freedom for 30 silvers (ok, for 300 dollars actually, but who's counting). Google decided that it can not fight carriers without customer's support and stopped the whole endeavor.

Nothing really changed: non-carries locked phones were available before and they are available now. Yes, it's little sad that people in "free country" actually value freedom so little, but oh, well. Google is not Don Quixote.

Nothing actually changed...

Posted Aug 23, 2010 20:25 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (5 responses)

iPhone what? ;)

How the iPhone is relevant?

Posted Aug 23, 2010 22:14 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

The bit about iPhone just shows level of cluelessness of Jason. Most phones sold before iPhone were sold without contract and without carrier logo. Most phones sold today are sold without contract and without carrier logo. Only in few countries (like US and to lesser degree Japan) phones were sold under carrier name, not under manufacturer name.

Android promised something better, bigger and to some degree actually new: the phone which is not locked by handset maker, not just a phone without carrier logo. Of course Neo 1973 happened before that and so it was not actually new, but it was good phone (unlike Neo 1973 or even FreeRunner) and if people actually cared about freedom they had a chance to change the telecom industry... alas, people wanted their subsidized phones, not freedom.

people want functional phones

Posted Aug 23, 2010 23:32 UTC (Mon) by literfizzer (subscriber, #31274) [Link] (2 responses)

I wanted to like Freerunner, but GPRS data speeds killed that idea. If it could do HSDPA on 850/1900 MHz I might have bought one.

But I'd probably still buy (and resell) a subsidized phone from my carrier. I pay the same amount per month whether I'm working off a two-year phone subsidy or not, so financially that makes the most sense.

Carriers in the US should be required to reduce monthly fees by 1/24th of the subsidy value for customers who buy unsubsidized phones, among other things.

people want functional phones

Posted Aug 23, 2010 23:43 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

I *think* t-mobile gives you $10 off each month if you bring your own phone.

people want functional phones

Posted Aug 25, 2010 13:21 UTC (Wed) by jedbrown (subscriber, #49919) [Link]

It is a $20/month difference for smartphone plans. If the difference between the subsidized price and the off-contract price is less than $20 * 24 months = $480, you should buy off-contract.

How the iPhone is relevant?

Posted Aug 23, 2010 23:48 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]

the iphone comment was intended as regarding "Yes, it's little sad that people in "free country" actually value freedom so little, but oh, well."

Nothing actually changed...

Posted Aug 23, 2010 22:33 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (3 responses)

If the N1 cost $300, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. It's always been $530, was only available online and only on T-Mobile, was never really marketed, and had questionable return and cancellation policies. Google never gave it a chance.

That the N1 sold as well as it did is downright amazing. It shows that there are tons of Americans that are willing to give up convenience for a better, freer phone experience. If Google would release an N2, with better distribution and marketing, I think they would have a clear hit.

Alas, Google and Verizon appear to be best buddies these days. :(

Nothing actually changed...

Posted Aug 23, 2010 22:58 UTC (Mon) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link]

There was an AT&T version of the N1 released, and it wasn't just americans that bought them. In fact, I bought one up here in Canada specifically to use with a brand new wireless carrier called Wind Mobile that operates with the model google had in mind (pay full price for the phone, get a discount on the monthly plan). They are actually doing fairly well, too.

Actually it's 100% backwards...

Posted Aug 25, 2010 6:37 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

If the N1 cost $300, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. It's always been $530, was only available online and only on T-Mobile, was never really marketed, and had questionable return and cancellation policies. Google never gave it a chance.

Actually Google gave it all the chances it could: it price was the same as iPhone (for example is Russia they both will cost you about $650), it was available from independent sellers (Google in this case), etc. It was not sold below it's market price because only carriers can do this by compensating iPhone price with contract price. If people insist on phones sold by carrier rules they should not be surprised to get phones made by carrier rules - that's my point. And of course it's includes crapware and lockdown. The fact that Apple was able to replace carriers crap with it's own crap is kinda amazing but does not really change anything in the grand theme of things.

Alas, Google and Verizon appear to be best buddies these days. :(

I seriously doubt it. It's more like marriage of convenience. But well, if people will only consider buying phones sold by carrier's rules then it's good idea to not antagonize carriers. The biggest handset maker in the world (in all categories: dumbphones, freaturephones and smartphones) tried this - and what is the result. Once more: Google is many things, but Don Quixote it's not.

Actually it's 100% backwards...

Posted Aug 25, 2010 15:48 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

I gave a number of reasons the N1 failed other than price, ferinstance Apple's marketing and support was impeccable and Google's was nonexistent. I forgot to mention that Apple's appstore was easy to use and worked great while Google's Market didn't work at all in many (most?) foreign countries and had very unclear charging and return policies.

People are happy to buy phones from non-carriers, but they need to (a) know about them, (b) feel confident that they will work, and (c) if not, they can easily return them. This was certainly not the case with the N1. And that's 100% Google's fault.

Nothing actually changed...

Posted Aug 24, 2010 7:34 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (guest, #2582) [Link] (3 responses)

Also, the US is a rare country that primarily uses CDMA (and, till quite recently, GSM was a negligible part of the market). Countries that grew up on GSM got used to the idea that you can take your SIM card and put it in another phone and it will "just work". US consumers never had that expectation: switching phones with CDMA wasn't so easy, and the GSM providers don't see any reason to make it easy, either...

It is paradoxical, almost, that phones are subsidised in the US (a rich market where many people can afford a $400 phone) and not in India (where the market for such phones is relatively tiny). But the reason, of course, is that in India the people who can't afford a $400 phone can't afford a $40 monthly bill either. Many prepaid users probably pay $1 a month, or less (it helps that incoming calls are always free, but even outgoing calls now cost a couple of US cents a minute) and get a low-end phone for about $40 (new) or much less (after-market). Those who can afford the high-end phones are happy to pay. Meanwhile, in the US, if you buy your phone separately it really doesn't help you much with the monthly bill. (Someone posted above that T-Mobile gives you a discount of $10, which works out to $240 in two years: that's not a huge incentive to buy a $400 phone outright.)

Actually it's more-or-less fair...

Posted Aug 25, 2010 6:50 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Someone posted above that T-Mobile gives you a discount of $10, which works out to $240 in two years: that's not a huge incentive to buy a $400 phone outright.

Why should carriers offer any incentive for the buyers to avoid carrier's lockdown? That's just stupid. $240 is close to what AT&T pays Apple when someone buys subsidized phone so it's fair offer. That the people prefer "here and now" is well-known fact, but it does not make offer unfair. If people valued freedom the'd chosen this option every time, but alas, they don't. What else is new?

Actually it's more-or-less fair...

Posted Aug 25, 2010 7:51 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (guest, #2582) [Link]

Why should carriers offer any incentive for the buyers to avoid carrier's lockdown?

I didn't suggest that they should.

Actually it's more-or-less fair...

Posted Aug 27, 2010 7:25 UTC (Fri) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link]

"If people valued freedom the'd chosen this option every time"

Reality's not really that black and white though is it? And 'value' isn't binary, so it's not a case of either valuing freedom or not, it's a case of whether they value freedom more or less than they value having the phone now while paying less now. From what I gather about America, 'credit' is the usual way, where 'save up first' is not, and so getting a phone on credit (ie, subsidised) just fits the culture. Finding the money to hand over in one go straight away may be more difficult, but for people who are already on a price plan, "upgrading" appears to be free. It's not, of course, but it is in terms of the budget they're used to spending.

Plus, the majority of people just don't understand these issues enough to really appreciate them, even if their financies do allow them the choice. Now you may argue "if they really appreciated their freedom, they would learn this stuff" and in some cases you of course would be right, and in some other cases, there may be perfectly valid reasons why it doesn't happen. Either way, if people felt their freedoms were being challenged, I'm sure you'd see them acting in a different way, but if you only ever walk a mile away from your home, the existence of a fence two miles out from your home doesn't stop you doing what you do, so it doesn't feel like freedom infringement. In other words, they might not be as free as you'd like them to be, but they're as free as they want to be, and they are free to want to be less free! *lol*

Anyway, I'm sure if you value truth over message you understand what I'm saying ;-)

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 23, 2010 21:39 UTC (Mon) by emunson (subscriber, #44357) [Link] (1 responses)

This isn't true on unbranded phones so perhaps Android isn't really to blame so much as consumers not paying attention to the _real_ cost of a free phone.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 24, 2010 9:52 UTC (Tue) by MortenSickel (subscriber, #3238) [Link]

There is no such as a free phone... ;)

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 23, 2010 23:59 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (4 responses)

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. Motorola and Samsung have begun taking the same approach. The collaborative spirit is gone if it ever existed at all. And, Google is proving to be a poor shepherd for the wolves-in-sheeps-clothing that make up the telecoms and the handset makers in the Alliance.

Perhaps this is the big lesson from all this. Had GOOG chosen GPL instead of apache, this would have been less of a problem (still a problem to some extent, since you can't control programs that don't interact with your software) but less of one. And it's not like this is shocking; Ryan Paul cites "critics" predicting it back in 2007

Permissive licenses like the ASL and BSD license are preferred by many companies because such licenses make it possible to use open-source software code without having to turn proprietary enhancements back over to the open source software community. [...]critics argue that Google has sacrificed an opportunity to encourage greater openness in the broader mobile software space. If Android was distributed under the GPLv2, companies building on top of the platform would have to share their enhancements, which could theoretically lead to widespread sharing of code and a more rapid acceleration of mobile software development.

The claim is that

Although it would be beneficial to all if Google were to use Android licensing to further open the market, that likely would have stifled adoption of the platform by handset makers

Which may be correct; we won't know for certain unless we can magically go down that other hypothetical timeline. I think the success of Linux in the embedded space indicates that the arguments against using GPL are overblown, but we don't know. We do know, however, that it looks like the naysayers may well have been right.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 24, 2010 4:58 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (2 responses)

The GPL is certainly and absolutely a problem for most companies compared to other licenses. It's not just having to 'force' to be open, but the license is fairly complex, there are a lot of subtle issues with copyright, and the overhead of compliance is not small. If your just dealing with hosting and such then its' relatively low overhead.. but the more software and the more hardware and drivers and mix and match of everything you have in complex consumer devices the more and more overhead you run into.

Now all that is true. No question about it.

But it seems that the benefits are worth putting up with the negatives. To make the GPL more attractive often what is needed is just higher quality and more competitive GPL'd software. Companies and individuals need proof that 'copyleft' licenses are beneficial to them and that copyright restrictions may seem be attractive way to get licensing fees.... but that ultimately it's self-defeating and that working collaboratively with other companies and other groups is the way to go.

Better software, better design. Faster, more secure, better. Always improving. That's the way it needs to be and the more companies you can convince that being open is better the more attractive the GPL will get. It's a self-feeding cycle.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 24, 2010 7:59 UTC (Tue) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (1 responses)

"but the license is fairly complex, there are a lot of subtle issues with copyright, and the overhead of compliance is not small."

Maybe We are not talking about the same 'GPL' ?
One would hope that any company putting out a smartpone has an engineering process in place: that is at least some kind of source-control system and a build, package and QA processes.
How hard is it to Tag a release and put a tar-gz on a web site ?

"but the more software and the more hardware and drivers and mix and match of everything you have in complex consumer devices the more and more overhead you run into."

The GPL license only require that the source are made available, Not that all the pieces be neatly bundled together with a single autoconf/automake for each 'device'.
So all that 'mix and match of everything' can be publish as a 'mix and match' of tar.gz

This is changing... but slowly...

Posted Aug 24, 2010 14:10 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

One would hope that any company putting out a smartpone has an engineering process in place: that is at least some kind of source-control system and a build, package and QA processes.

Smartphones are new wave and the companies are starting to develop these things. For dumbphones and even featurephones it was just not needed: you made the firmware and hardware, you tested it and sold it and then you forget it. It was not easy to reproduce build: it was not uncommon to have no scripts commited to VCS and to have just one or two guys in the 10'000 person company who can build said code. This is still true for most Chinese companies (they just don't care about licenses and happily build fake iPhones using Windows CE, for example).

How hard is it to Tag a release and put a tar-gz on a web site ?

Quite hard actually. You need to track origins of all components (you can not release what you don't own, after all) and it's not easy to do if it was not done in the course of development. When contractors are involved they need to do that as well - and they often don't bother.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 24, 2010 7:22 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

Google can always change Android's licensing terms to GPL for future versions. Will that happen? I would not bet on that. Android looks more like an attempt to be a stone into Apple's shoe than anything else. This is not a bad thing 'per se', but I don't believe that it could survive should Google lose interest in it as a strategical weapon.

If we really do want open smartphones for the future we should be building a community backed effort that does not rely on the interest of corporations. There are lessons to be learned from what is happening to OpenSolaris.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 24, 2010 5:09 UTC (Tue) by RogerOdle (subscriber, #60791) [Link] (1 responses)

Why is there so much complaining about service providers putting proprietary applications on their phones? Can you put open source applications on the phones or not? Can you take or leave the proprietary applications as you wish or will you break the phone if you get rid of them? You have more freedom with Android phones than you have with Apple products.

Anyone can write proprietary applications for Linux. Many companies do. But they often have to compete with open source projects. There isn't an open source solution for every problem out there. There are niches where open source does not work well because special knowledge is required and few people have the time or interest to pursue it. There are systems which are only disclosed under non-disclosure agreements.

You can say that these should be based on open standards but look at the video compression mess. We are stuck with MPEG4 and H.264 because Hollywood wants it that way. Our primary sources of entertainment material have made exclusive deals with the patent holders of these video formats. There are open source alternatives to the formats but who is producing new material using them? It is not enough to produce open source applications to compete with these formats if you can't get the material you want to play with it.

Maybe what we need is an OpenWood project that produces online TV like serials and movies using open standard formats. It could be advertising supported like traditional TV. It could release material with a license that prohibits DRM encoding. That would prohibit the use of iTunes or other similar application that adds DRM to unprotected material.

Well, that's the problem...

Posted Aug 24, 2010 15:02 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Can you take or leave the proprietary applications as you wish or will you break the phone if you get rid of them?

Only if you root your phone. Carrier programs were unremovable starting from the very first released Android phone (G1, not ADP1).

You have more freedom with Android phones than you have with Apple products.

Well, that's true but you can only say that you, not carrier, own the phone if you use ADP1 or N1. Everything else is locked - if not by carrier then by manufacturer.

Maybe what we need is an OpenWood project that produces online TV like serials and movies using open standard formats. It could be advertising supported like traditional TV. It could release material with a license that prohibits DRM encoding. That would prohibit the use of iTunes or other similar application that adds DRM to unprotected material.

It'll fail. FOSS wins but only if it's in equal position with proprietary offerings. If the government supports Hollywood and does not support FOSS then Hollywood wins. It's that simple.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 24, 2010 13:52 UTC (Tue) by sdague (guest, #7731) [Link] (4 responses)

It's been a little weird to watch how anti android the kernel community has gotten (the Android Kernel talk at Linuxcon was an eye openner there). There were rumblings in that crowd that Google should make their platform less open to applications to avoid wakelocks. Being more like Apple doesn't really seem to be very open source friendly.

As someone that likes open source at all levels of the stack, and has tried to do mobile development before, Android is a breath of fresh air. It has an SDK that works great on Linux desktops, lets you access all the sensors without having to pay additional fees, and every carrier except AT&T hasn't restricted the phone to the official android market. I do get that people want even more openness, but this is a pretty big step in the right direction.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 26, 2010 8:04 UTC (Thu) by lab (guest, #51153) [Link] (1 responses)

Amen! I'm getting a bit tired of all the Google bashing (and to a lesser extent - Android bashing). Once again, thanks to the editor for another balanced view, and his always cool thinking. That's exactly why LWN.net is the only online thing I've ever paid for, and will happily continue to pay for.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 26, 2010 8:08 UTC (Thu) by lab (guest, #51153) [Link]

Sorry, the last part was obviously in reference to the article "Android: the return of the Unix wars?", which I enjoyed.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 26, 2010 9:06 UTC (Thu) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link] (1 responses)

I'd like to draw attention to a little project I started, fully open source version of the sensor driver for HTC. I'm not yet feature complete, mostly I'm missing accelerometer calibration, but here goes:

http://github.com/alankila/Junk/tree/master/akmd/

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 27, 2010 5:52 UTC (Fri) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

Please get that merged into Linux mainline, it is bound to be useful down the track.

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 26, 2010 11:19 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]

As is said in the article, this is mostly a problem in the USA. Here in Denmark it is practically impossible to find a phone with a lot of carrier added crapware. Furthermore, the carriers are allowed to sell the phones locked but they have to unlock it for free for you after 6 months if you request it.