
Android Is As Open As The Clenched Fist I’d Like To Punch The Carriers With - credo
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/09/android-open/
======
jrockway
In the end, it's our fault for electing people that refuse to regulate the
cell phone carriers properly. Or, it's our fault for doing business with them.
There are some countries where carriers are not allowed to include un-
uninstallable apps. But not the US. Why? Because consumers in the US don't
care about anything but a low, low price.

Right now, Android is the only popular mobile OS that you can clone from git,
build, and install on some piece of hardware. All hardware? Nope. But some?
Yes. This means it's basically open. Just because someone sells you a box
you're not allowed to open doesn't mean that all boxes are un-openable, after
all.

I had no trouble hacking my EVO 4G, deleting the stock OS with HTC and Sprint
crapware, and installing a build with 100% open code. While it's not possible
to do this with _every_ Android phone ever made, it's not possible to do it
with _any_ iOS or Symbian or WebOS device. This makes Android the most open;
and after the industry has been closed tight for 20+ years, it is quite
refreshing. We haven't achieved perfection yet, but Android is the only
software stack bringing us closer.

(Remember commercial UNIXes? Neither do I. Linux and Free/Open/NetBSD
relegated them to a very tiny niche market. Android is the beginning of this
for mobile; you don't just wake up one day, free of the oppression of closed
hardware and proprietary software. It takes time and effort, and Google is
leading the way right now. Someone else will build on this in the future, and
things will become even more open.)

~~~
gamble
Another possibility is that this is as open as Android is ever going to be.
The original Droid was a high-water mark for openness and standardization on
Android. Subsequent phones have been progressively more customized and locked
down.

Examples: AT&T banning sideloading, Motorola phones taking a more aggressive
approach toward hacking, Verizon signing exclusive deals like Skype and moving
toward a proprietary app store, Google deferring to carriers on tethering,
Verizon's forcing Bing on users, etc.

"I can always hack it" isn't a solution, unless you'd accept that hacking is
also a solution to Apple's App Store censorship. Android's fans are so focused
on how evil Apple is that they're ignoring the way Android itself is becoming
less open. I'm not entirely happy with Apple, but I'll take their curation
over the carrier's vision of a new walled garden based on Android any day.

~~~
wmf
_Another possibility is that this is as open as Android is ever going to be._

This is a great point. Many of us are imagining a hypothetical alternate world
where Google forced all Android phones to be non-evil, but maybe that world
can't exist. Maybe if Google was fascist about openness, the carriers would
just ship Symbian and WinMo instead.

 _The original Droid was a high-water mark for openness and standardization on
Android._

I would say the Nexus One is the high-water mark, although apparently many
people never even knew that it existed due to the lack of marketing.

------
nanairo
This is very close to a previous article blaming Google for turning us back
into the days of strong carrier control. (can't remember the link, but it was
here on HN).

And I agree, though I don't think Google did it on purpose. Their main aim---I
think---was just to avoid Apple (or Blackberry) becoming too powerful. They
wanted to commoditise the smartphone market. And they have succeeded.

And to me it doesn't look like the hardware manufacturers got a great deal
either. It's turning into a cut-throat market, where all phones are pretty
much identical (and interchangeable), and your revenues come from economy of
scale. Basically like the PC market.

Normally (e.g PC market) this would mean that the customer can shop for the
best deal, which is great. However the "customer" here are the carriers: they
buy from the manufacturers and resell to the real customer. And indeed they
got all the power: they can ask this or that company to lock or modify the
phone under threat of taking their business elsewhere.

The real customer, however, is only dealing with the carriers, and Google
hasn't commoditise these. If anything we are getting even more market
concentration.

So yeah, it seems to me to be pretty much what economics theory would suggest.

The only alternative would to get an unlocked phone but then the manufacturer
would lose the massive subsidise and most users seem to prefer those to the
hassle of getting a closed system from their carriers.

~~~
ssp
_The real customer, however, is only dealing with the carriers, and Google
hasn't commoditise these. If anything we are getting even more market
concentration._

Not yet, anyway. But the carriers have to be the next target. The huge capital
requirements to build a network is their main barrier to entry, but that's
unlikely to stop Google.

I wonder if they realize this (they probably do), and if so, what they are
going to about it.

~~~
oiuygtfrtghyju
Google don't want to be in the phone market - they want to be in the selling
ads on search market.

Their worry was a closed iPhone with an Apple only browser might go to an
Apple/ATT only search page with Apple/ATT ads - or they might simply replace
all the Google ads with their own before sending pages to the phone

And once people accepted this on iPhone they might also accept it on all the
other phones then on all the home cable connections - like BT/Phorn.

------
AndrewHampton
I don't understand how he could interpret Verizon making and promoting their
own app store as meaning the platform isn't open. Am I missing something or is
the fact that anyone can make their own app store mean the platform is _more_
open?

Also, one minor nit is the 2.2 stats he's referring to are from August 2. I'm
sure they'll be much higher with the 2.2 rollouts that occurred for Droids and
Incedibles (others?) in August.

In the end, if manufacturers/carriers make a bad product, it will fail in the
market, but with Android, they're free to do that if they want.

~~~
nanairo
It's the usual open for whom argument.

Say Verizon creates its app store, promotes it, and removes Google's
Marketplace. They also make sure you can't install apps any other way,
including the original Google's marketplace.

Now, they have been able to do all of this because it's open, so yeah, it is
more open. However what they will hand over to the customer is more closed,
and possibly a worse experience.

~~~
AndrewHampton
I would agree with you if he was talking about removing the Android Market,
but that's not the argument he made in the article. He said "it would likely
be more prominently displayed than Android’s own Market for apps" which would
leave the Android Market intact.

~~~
wvenable
The fact remains, for all this openness you have vanishingly small amount of
control over your own device. If you don't want Verizon's market and if you
certainly don't want it "prominently displayed" you may end up being out of
luck.

~~~
DougWebb
That's not what Verizon has done, though. I bought a Droid 2 from them
recently, and when I first started up there was a question about V.Cast which
I said no to (because I knew everything there would cost money that I didn't
want to spend) and I wound up with the Android Marketplace icon on my home
page and the V.Cast app buried in my app list. If I want to check it out it's
there, if I don't I don't have to click on it. Same goes for the other apps
that cam pre-installed, which mostly aren't even that bad. I did go and re-
organize most of my home pages, including getting rid of things like the Fox
News widget, but that's just customizing. At no point did I really feel
constrained by running Verizon's rom.

Of course, I _am_ paying $20/month for tethering on top of my unlimited data
plan. The phone by itself is unlimited, but when other devices connect through
it I'm limited to 2GB/month before ungodly data rates kick in. For now I'm
saving it for emergencies, but so far the web browser and email connectivity
are good enough that I don't think I'll even need tethering, so I'll probably
cancel it.

------
pilif
it's not just the carriers. It's the manufacturers too - I know of no phone
(aside of the Google developer phones) that would allow you to freely install
your own build of the OS or even just remove "value added" software that has
been installed for "your" "convenience".

Unless you exploit security holes in the vendors crappy security systems. The
fact that they don't even invest enough resources into a quality security
framework (which helps increasing their revenue) speaks volumes of the quality
of the other "improvements" they make to stock android.

~~~
drivebyacct2
But that is because of the carriers. Why do you think Motorola implemented a
signed multistage boot process? I'm sure they didn't say, "We want to limit
our customers and waste engineering resources on a problem that voids the
warranty anyway and doesn't matter to us".

Nah, they reacted to VZW's threats.

~~~
kelnos
Nitpick: regardless of what the scare-message says when you unlock your N1's
bootloader, changing the software on a device cannot (by law, in the US) void
the warranty on the hardware, unless it is demonstrable that the software
modification actually damaged the hardware.

------
rm-rf
The key here is the unavailability of non-carrier branded unrestricted Android
phones in the US. If I get subsidized by the carrier when purchasing the
phone, dealing with crapware and restriction is part of the cost of getting
$400 or so off the price of the phone at purchase time.

Ideally I could make a choice to buy an Andriod phone from a manufacturer with
no branding and no restrictions, pay full price for it, and accept that the
additional cost is what I'm willing to pay for an unrestricted, unbranded
phone. The inability to purchase a phone like that is the real problem, not
the restrictions placed on carrier subsidized phones.

Two years ago I bought an unrestricted HTC Diamond with Winmo 6.1. I paid over
$600 for the phone and the privilege of being able to do whatever I want with
the phone. The $400 extra over a branded/restricted phone, spread out over 24
months, is $17/month for the privilege of being able to doink around with a
phone.

Having done that once, I'm leaning toward putting up with the crapware and
restrictions and saving the $400. I figure that in two years, I probably only
_really_ used a couple of third party apps. Most of the rest that I tried were
annoying memory leaks and crashes waiting to happen - barely better than
carrier provided crapware.

~~~
jedbrown
If you own your phone, T-mobile smartphone plans are $20/month cheaper. That's
$480 over a 24-month contract, it doesn't pay to get the subsidized phone.
(Yeah, unless you get an N1, it's still a branded phone with some crapware,
but they will unlock it immediately and you can change your plan at any time.)

~~~
enjo
T-mobile, in my experience, is on the right side of almost everything in this
argument. Of course they probably have to be given their relative size
compared to the other big players.

I gave up T-mobile a couple of years ago due to call quality issues here in
Denver. I'm hoping they've fixed it.

------
davidk0101
Does Siegler ever make any points or does he always ramble on like this? Is he
upset that people are buying android based phones or is it that the carriers
are customizing the os too much and google won't force any strict guidelines?
That was the appeal of android from the beginning. Basically anyone could take
the os as a starting point and do some cool stuff with it. The fact that the
carriers are using their monopoly to force certain conditions on their users
is not really the fault of whoever produced the os which happens to be google
in this case.

~~~
demallien
Where does Seigler say that it was Google's fault? Let me quote: "Maybe if
Google had their way, the system would be truly open. But they don’t. Sadly,
they have to deal with a very big roadblock: the carriers."

At the end of the day, Siegler understands that for end users, it _doesn't
matter_ whose fault the whole mess is, all that matters is that users are once
more being herded into operator-controlled ghettos, much as they were pre-
iPhone.

~~~
greenlblue
He is saying google is complicit in some kind of act he finds distasteful so
google is partly to blame. Is that spelled out enough for you to see why I
said he is blaming google?

------
ZeroGravitas
The Android 2.2 Froyo marketshare number he quotes/links (5%) is five weeks
out of date. That may not sound like much but the previous version 2.1 took
25% in just two weeks and climbed by nearly 8% every two weeks since.

[http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-
ve...](http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-
versions.html)

I've been checking that page recently because of the absolute storm of Android
updates, new devices and sales increases announced recently and I expect a big
shift in the stats.

~~~
sandipc
this is especially significant because the original Motorola Droid received
its 2.2 OTA update recently, and that phone accounts for a huge percentage of
US Android handsets.

~~~
chaosmachine
Sadly, the Canadian version of the Droid (Milestone) isn't scheduled to get
2.2 until "Q1 2011"... It's the same hardware, I don't know why we have to
wait 6 months.

~~~
Pengwin
I believe it is because the Milestone is on more than one carrier. Verizon and
Motorola Worked together on the Droid's software and they streamlined the
process because the Droid is only through Verizon, but the milestone is, for
the most part, carrier independent. Even though it isn't to one single carrier
I believe Motorola still works with carriers to make sure the phone updates
don't brake anything. Also, Motorola have done their part with the Milestone
by selling it, and they probably dont make any money with ongoing support,
unlike verizon, who want to keep their contracted users happy.

Thats my opinion of it anyway. and i own a UK Milestone.

------
rakkhi
Seems like we are a bit more lucky in the UK. You can buy virtualy any model
android that is not carrier locked on pay as you go or just signup to a pay
monthly plan with any of the 5 major carriers:
<http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/mobiles/smartphones/android>

In the US I can understand your points.... how is such a large market so
controlled by the carriers? How is there not someone like carphone warehouse
that sells all phones unlocked and carrier free? I mean here I bought even my
iPhone from the Apple UK store unlocked and chose my own carrier, would do the
same with an Android - no crapware any time.

~~~
pierrefar
> _any model android that is not carrier locked on pay as you go_

That's wrong. All PAYG phones are carrier locked - they have to be for the
sake of the business. You can buy SIM-free phones easily (say from expansys).

The only way to get an unlocked phone from a carrier is to get a pay monthly
plan, and that's only on some carriers (IIRC, only O2 gives you an unlocked
phone, and on T-Mobile you have to request an unlock code and they give it to
you 28 days later). The reseller Carphone Warehouse told me that all their
pay-monthly deals, regardless of carrier, come with unlocked phones.

~~~
rakkhi
I would respectfully disagree.

You can buy a phone outright and go on a pay monthly plan without a contract.
That is what I am currently doing with my iPhone - I paid ¬£440 for the phone
outright and pay £20/month on O2 for 300 minutes, unlimited text and unlimited
data.

No reason why you can't do that on n an Android

~~~
pierrefar
That's a SIM unlocked phone rather than a "true" PAYG, and yes you can do that
with Android. Actually I'm about to :)

------
grammaton
I think the author is a little unclear of the definition of "open."
Specifically, what "open source," which is the "open" in question, really
means. The carriers can pull these shenanigans precisely because they have
access to the source for the OS. If they didn't they'd have to go through
Google or pick another option.

~~~
wvenable
I think he's very clear. The ironic point he is trying to make is that people
are citing "openness" as their reason for purchasing Android phones when it
has no benefit for them at all.

~~~
grammaton
How is it not a benefit? If a carrier's actions really disgust me, I can just
switch to a different carrier and still have access to a platform that is
substantially the same. I'm not necessarily locked in to a carrier, unlike,
say, someone who just has to have their iPhone.

~~~
wvenable
You get that same benefit with Windows Mobile or Blackberry, yet nobody would
claim they are open.

------
ugh
Why not buy a unlocked phone? Won’t HTC or Samsung sell them to you?

~~~
Tichy
Where, how?

~~~
uggedal
Here in Norway, and probably in most other parts of Europe, you can buy
unlocked version of all phones, be it HTC, Samsung, iPhone (sold unlocked
directly from <http://apple.no>).

------
lutorm
All of this only applies if you buy a subsidized phone from the carriers.
Until the carriers can legally forbid non-branded phones from being on the
network, they only have the power that their customers, who apparently like
giving up their freedom of choice for a low upfront phone price, voluntarily
give them.

------
brudgers
What Siegler does is pretend that when people say "Android is open" they mean
"Android isn't repackaged by companies for their own purposes."

Of course people don't, but it's a handy strawman.

"Android is open" is used to express the idea that there is competition
between Android products (consumer view).

"Android is open" is also used to express the idea that a companies are free
to enter or exit the marketplace without permission (developer view).

"Android is open" is also used to express the idea that it isn't "Apple's
Gated Community" (brand differentiation).

This is probably the most important, and it's right out of Apple's playbook.

------
lenni
I was just about to write a blog post complaining about this very same
problem. My 2.1 update was 6 month late and I can't root my phone, which was
exactly why I wanted an Android.

I will buy an iPhone next time. If I have the choice of bending over in front
of Apple or T-Mobile, I'd rather have Apple.

------
scotty79
If I can put debian on my phone then I guess I could also put crapware free
android if I wished. Also probably there is some method of uninstalling
crapware without reinstalling whole system and eventually people will find out
what it is.

------
slamo
Techcrunch is a troll site. Do not feed the trolls. Do not post their links.

~~~
andybak
Would you care to engage with the actual points made in this article?

~~~
ergo98
What points? That Android itself being open doesn't guarantee that every piece
of software, every piece of hardware, and every carrier is going to be totally
open?

That's an asinine, utterly idiotic argument. It's a juvenile strawman ("Gosh,
and I thought Android was open...but look I can't install Skype on my Sprint
phone").

MG Siegler has seldom said anything that had any merit or added to the
argument in any meaningful way. Which isn't a suprise, as TechCrunch _is_ a
trollbait emporium: They know that posting such asinine nonsense gets them
hits, so they'll keep doing it. It is, absolutely, feeding the trolls.

------
muyyatin
The default (or potential) to be open shouldn't simply be equal to closed.

~~~
nanairo
-1

The article answers this line of thought (see below)... and instead you offer
no arguments.

"And before all of you pros storm the comments with how great it is to root
your Android phones, consider the average consumers here. They are the ones
being screwed by this exploitation of “open.” Anyone with the desire to do so
can fairly easily hack an iPhone too."

------
ergo98
MG Siegler is a troll of the worst kind.

I have to particularly laugh at the Skype comment he added (a drum that Gruber
has banged on in his dismissively sarcastic manner): That has __NOTHING __to
do with Android. Skype, the company, decided to get in bed with Verizon and
limit their app to certain handsets under certain conditions. What does that
have to do with anything beyond perhaps "Skype and Verizon have a business
relationship"?

Android, the platform, is open, although that of course doesn't mean that
every piece of hardware, software, or carrier will be open. Nonetheless, it's
open enough that if you don't want Verizon crapware you can get a phone
elsewhere. The advantage of Android being everywhere, unlike say the iPhone in
the US, is that you can get a phone from another vendor or another handset
maker if someone gets abusive, as Verizon is becoming.

~~~
dannyr
I decided to stop reading MG Siegler's Android-related posts. His articles
about Android are just absurd. The last straw for me was when he wrote that
Android is only surging because Apple is letting them too.

He's the ultimate fanboy that just cannot accept that the IPhone will not be
the dominant smartphone in the near future. I don't think Apple loses sleep
that they will be outsold by Android since they will still be taking massive
profits.

It's really unfortunate that a writer like him gets a voice in an influential
blog like Techcrunch. I hope he just post things like these on his personal
blog.

------
shareme
Note, several things wrong..

Google/OHA is making progress on opening different parts of the development
process/tree..the android sdk tools including the Adt plugin are now developed
out in the open..ie no closed master tree of code..

Author IS CONFUSING US Telecom Mobile Operator situation with openness of he
Android platform

------
confuzatron
MG Siegler - I just got trolled again.

------
drivebyacct2
Even in the worst case scenario, it's more open than it's competitors and
every single problem in the article can clearly be attributed to the carrier.
Send a message by buying phones that aren't locked down. Thus far, HTC has
left their stock Android phones fairly "hackable". Granted, the Nexus One was
the last stock Android device we've seen. I'm hopeful that their slider qwerty
super phone coming to VZW will run stock Gingerbread, and thus will be open to
running a CM release.

In lieu of that, I hope Google gets back into the phone market (I know, I
know, they said they won't) with a Nexus Two before all of the CM resources
jump ship to Meego or whatever up and coming platform presents itself as more
"truly" open (at least until the carriers monetize and lock it down as well).

------
forensic
This is pretty much business as usual in the computer industry.

If you want a low price you have to put up with retarded bullshit.

If you want a good experience you have to pay the Apple premium.

