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.)
I think the beef some of us have with Google is that they seem to have left their balls at the door. However much Google is or isn't living up to "don't be evil" these days, I suspect most of us can agree that we'd rather have their rules than Verizon's or AT&T's. Why aren't they being stronger? They've had the only really credible alternative to the iPhone for a long time now -- why aren't they using that fact to make the carriers play ball?
Nerds love to rag on Apple for their controlling ways, but seem to forget how completely locked down -- and utterly, horribly, greedily tacky -- the mobile universe was before the iPhone. Apple, through, I don't know, sheer force of will, cracked a huge hole in the status quo. Google could have landed a deathblow if they'd just stuck to their guns. Oh well.
jrockway, I hope you're right, and this is the beginning. I fear that the best window of opportunity is already past. Sensible regulation would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Irony of ironies, perhaps it will be Microsoft that comes in and forms the second leg.
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.
"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."
100% open code? So this means your not running any of the gmail/gtalk/gvoice/g... ? None of those are open code, and quite frankly, they are the most used applications on my android phone.
I would also argue that the android OS is one of the least 'open' open source mobile OSes available. When you compare android's development practices to companies like Nokia with their N900 and Intel with Meego, both companies who are actively concerned with making sure their changes get back upstream, and then you'll see that the openness of android is more of a facade.
What are you running on your EVO? I toyed with Cyanogenmod a few weeks ago, but gave up because it had some rough edges compared to Sense (like two text messages coming with every voicemail). However after a day of tinkering with various home replacements just to make the phone more usable sideways, I'm thinking I may have given up on the open source option too soon. It'd be nice to have a de-facto community distribution to repave the various carrier-specific installs, but I didn't get the impression that Cyanogenmod was there yet. Should I give it (or something else) a second look?
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.
Saying back into the days of strong carrier control assumes that you ever left those days behind in the U.S. Since the great white hope for this happening was the iPhone, which is still only available on one single carrier, this seems somewhat naive.
Either Apple couldn't get any concessions from the other carriers or they accepted a big bag of cash to give one carrier an advantage over the others. Either way carriers are in control. All you get is a slightly different set of consumer hostile activities that affect different demographics.
At best you could argue that Apple is demonstrating a better way to do things on the AT&T network and customer pressure will force other carriers to emulate (if/when allowed by whatever contract binds Apple and AT&T), but exactly the same could be said about Android. And similar could be argued across mobile OSes too e.g. with Android pressuring Apple into relaxing its arbitrary developer tool restrictions and iPhones showing a market for unbranded (by carriers at least) phones.
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.
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.
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.
He's not arguing that it makes it less open, he's saying it brings down the quality of the OS, since carriers can remove features and add their own junk.
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.
Totally agree, after all Android is just an OS, there's no guaranteed quality or user experience across different carriers and manufacturers are the same just because they are all "Android phones". This could totally ruin the Android brand since there is too much uncertainty about what people will get.
Unlocked Nokia N900 allow you to do that. Available on Aamazon for $400. It runs maemo, but people are trying to port android over to it. I myself own the N900 and I am quite happy with it.
On a side note, I like the Nokia's hardware over Apple's.
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".
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.
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.)
This has been the case since october of 2008. There has always been an unlocked option for developers/users. Consumers can buy those too, but they'd obviously rather purchase carrier related phones to save money on the phone purchase.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] kemiller|15 years ago|reply
Nerds love to rag on Apple for their controlling ways, but seem to forget how completely locked down -- and utterly, horribly, greedily tacky -- the mobile universe was before the iPhone. Apple, through, I don't know, sheer force of will, cracked a huge hole in the status quo. Google could have landed a deathblow if they'd just stuck to their guns. Oh well.
jrockway, I hope you're right, and this is the beginning. I fear that the best window of opportunity is already past. Sensible regulation would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Irony of ironies, perhaps it will be Microsoft that comes in and forms the second leg.
[+] [-] gamble|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chewbranca|15 years ago|reply
100% open code? So this means your not running any of the gmail/gtalk/gvoice/g... ? None of those are open code, and quite frankly, they are the most used applications on my android phone.
I would also argue that the android OS is one of the least 'open' open source mobile OSes available. When you compare android's development practices to companies like Nokia with their N900 and Intel with Meego, both companies who are actively concerned with making sure their changes get back upstream, and then you'll see that the openness of android is more of a facade.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|15 years ago|reply
Also, rooting phones is now legal in the US, so to the degree that customers want that option, that option is available.
[+] [-] j_baker|15 years ago|reply
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but OS X is a commercial UNIX and isn't what I would call a "very tiny niche market". Just sayin. :-)
[+] [-] mindslight|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nanairo|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|15 years ago|reply
Either Apple couldn't get any concessions from the other carriers or they accepted a big bag of cash to give one carrier an advantage over the others. Either way carriers are in control. All you get is a slightly different set of consumer hostile activities that affect different demographics.
At best you could argue that Apple is demonstrating a better way to do things on the AT&T network and customer pressure will force other carriers to emulate (if/when allowed by whatever contract binds Apple and AT&T), but exactly the same could be said about Android. And similar could be argued across mobile OSes too e.g. with Android pressuring Apple into relaxing its arbitrary developer tool restrictions and iPhones showing a market for unbranded (by carriers at least) phones.
[+] [-] ssp|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] AndrewHampton|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...
28% on 2.2 and almost 75% on 2.x
[+] [-] kyleslattery|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pilif|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tyng|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lunatech|15 years ago|reply
On a side note, I like the Nokia's hardware over Apple's.
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|15 years ago|reply
Nah, they reacted to VZW's threats.
[+] [-] rm-rf|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cdibona|15 years ago|reply
This has been the case since october of 2008. There has always been an unlocked option for developers/users. Consumers can buy those too, but they'd obviously rather purchase carrier related phones to save money on the phone purchase.
[+] [-] davidk0101|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] demallien|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|15 years ago|reply
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rakkhi|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chadmalik|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grammaton|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oiuygtfrtghyju|15 years ago|reply
Now imagine you bought your new crapware loaded PC but weren't allowed admin access. And weren't allowed on 'their' internet if you deleted anything
[+] [-] wvenable|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ugh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nimai|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodata|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lutorm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] slamo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andybak|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muyyatin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nanairo|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply