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

The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 23, 2010 19:48 UTC (Mon) by ikm (guest, #493)
Parent article: The dirty little secret about Google Android (ZDNet)

> 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?

to post comments

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 (subscriber, #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 (subscriber, #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 ;-)