To me all those problems with carriers dictating anything looks like a US-only problem.
You can fix this! Just buy more unlocked phones. Since 1994 I never bought a net locked phone. Subsidizing does not have to be linked to a net lock. Subsidizing was never (AFAIR) linked to a net lock in Germany. The iPhone was a first for us (here in Europe). From here it looks like the iPhone brought this consumer-unfriendly practice to us. Thank goodness no Android phone is net locked here in Germany at least no net locked only.
In my experience, if you buy an unlocked phone, you hand the carrier a bonus payment of the cost of the phone. They don't give you any cheaper service.
And, when I went to replace a Nokia POS that died 3 days after warranty, I discovered that Verizon even subsidizes their prepaid phones: you can get an LG VX5600 for $40 with new service, but to replace the Nokia with the existing account, they wanted $200. (Allegedly, they "don't sell" the Nokia in question as a prepaid, and thus couldn't offer a direct replacement; which raises the question of why phones they "don't sell" come with their branding and work on their network.)
I would also like to point out, that the reason for this is that Nokia has been fighting carriers from since they started making phones, up to and including lobbying for legislation that banned network-locked cell phones in many countries.
Why do you thing they never made much headway in the USA? Because Verizon and AT&T spent more money greasing the congress, and Nokia didn't want to give up.
Android phones in Germany (except for G1 and N1) are still dependent on the manufacturer for OS updates and so on. The user (you) can't decide you want 2.2 on your phone when it's released.
It is worth noting that in every region where Apple does not have carrier exclusivity, they sell unlocked phones.
So the locking is an exclusivity / subsidy component.
It seems clear to me, by studying Apple's patents, that they originally wanted the phone to be unlocked and on every carrier, they even tried to end the subsidy system by selling the iPhone direct....
Android is only free of carrier abuse if you're geeky enough. However, Apple is only free of carrier abuse if you're affluent enough. The average joe is getting shafted either way. (Though, to continue the class theme, note how offended people are that it's NASCAR apps that they can't uninstall, as opposed to the stock market apps they can't uninstall from Apple). Remember when Sony charged more to remove the junk they themselves put on their machines? The subsidies earned by these bits of software lowered the price for those who would struggle to afford them otherwise and for the geeks who repave as an automatic response, similar to how people spending at the overpriced hotel minibar reduce the room prices for everyone else.
If this is actually considered important for folk in the US, then they're going to have to stop the Apple fanboys in the media using it as a stick to beat Google with and face up to the reality that Apple has failed to change the carrier business model too, just as Google's Nexus One failed. I seem to recall that just like the Nexus One, the iPhone was supposed to be sold direct to consumers at the full unsubsidized price.
I seem to recall that just like the Nexus One, the iPhone was supposed to be sold direct to consumers at the full unsubsidized price.
Excellent point. It was sold unsubsidized initially, but people were apoplectic about spending $600 for a phone. Apple quickly realized that joining the subsidy model was better than fighting it, so they announced the price "cut" on the 3G model and got glowing press, while hardly anyone noticed that with the monthly rate increase customers would be paying more over two years.
Apple has far better taste than the carriers, to be sure. But both agree that you should not have control over "your" hardware.
There's a big difference between the NASCAR app and Apple stock market app. It is exceedingly clear that the NASCAR app was bought by somebody outside of the phone chain (me, manufacturer, service provider) and forced on me. The Apple stock app is a goofy app the manufacturer put on to make sure the home screen wasn't empty.
Yes, it annoys me I have to have a folder of "stuff I don't care about" on my iPhone, but I know Apple and/or AT&T didn't put it there to pad their pockets at my expense and that makes all the difference.
"people spending at the overpriced hotel minibar reduce the room prices for everyone else" only works in a very competitive marketplace where prices are necessarily driven down by competition. Otherwise, the hotel just figured out how to wring out more profit by simply offering an overpriced minibar.
I agree with the main arguments. Although as others pointed out this is mostly an american problem (though it still occurs abroad, but less so).
But I find this argument naive:
"But this pipe dream is being crushed quickly. The carriers, after giving up ground initially, are fighting back. They are using Android’s openness against the company."
The point is: if Google hadn't done that, the carriers may very well not have supported it. Let's remember that although now we consider Android a strong contender, at the time Android was neither that strong, nor the only contender. I'd be ready to bet that other carriers supported Android as much to hurt Apple as because they knew they could control it.
Personally I'd go as far as to say that Google developed Android the way they did fully aware that this could happen: the bottom line is that Google doesn't make money from Android, and as nobody holds the market in the palm of their hand Google is happy... even though it may mean basically subsidising other companies fight against Apple (at the time).
> The point is: if Google hadn't done that, the carriers may very well not have supported it.
I don't buy this argument. This is one of those slippery slope arguments that are used to justify everything. Let's say you're a Cisco and you want to sell routers and network gear to the Chinese. You can either give their government back doors to spy on traffic and make it easy for them, guaranteeing the business will go to you, or you can take the moral high ground and refuse to build these features into your products. Too often big companies like Cisco, Google, and Microsoft take the approach that money trumps all morality concerns, and we end up with a big brother police state enabled by the very technology companies that were supposed to save us from this future.
Google should do what Apple did and stick to their guns - refuse to let carriers mess with Android.
I don't see it as the same as Apple vs. Google. Apple and Google both have to fight the carriers and they have positions with different strengths and weaknesses.
I think both want to break the carriers power and end up with open networks, but their strategies are very different.
Yesterday I gave a friend's Galaxy S a spin and was mighty impressed. It's light as a feather, the screen is gorgeous and it's an order of magnitude more responsive than my old iphone 3G. I was all set to buy an iphone4, but samsung's device game me pause. So I asked about the apps. What good stuff was there on the Android Market? "Well", he started, "there really isn't one, because the carrier doesn't allow it. I just get the apps my carrier lists on its website". I think that's preposterous, so as impressed as I am with the Galaxy S, I'm afraid I'll be sticking with Apple's product (I live in Portugal... experience will probably vary from carrier to carrier and country to country).
Blocking the Market is something Google really should put a stop to. I've never seen this, though, myself. Then again, buy unlocked and it's not a problem
Still, if you you liked the phone, then get one via another carrier.
Keep in mind you're comparing a brand new, state of the art Android phone with a 2 year old iPhone. Technology has improved quite a bit on both platforms. You should probably check out an iPhone 4 and compare it with the Galaxy S instead of the iPhone 3G.
What is the rationale behind blocking the market? Is it because the carriers are worried that you'll get a bandwidth hungry app? It just strikes me as completely preposterous and backward thinking.
That's very strange (the carrier not allowing access to the market). I've never heard of such a thing in any of the Portuguese carriers (TMN/Vodafone/Optimus). Are your sure that's the problem?
Also, It's pretty easy to install apps through the .apks and unofficial markets. Aptoide is an alternative to the Official Android Market.
Back in the 1990s, Apple, as prescient as always, proposed to the FCC that certain spectrum be set aside for "wireless internet use". This spectrum would have been open to anybody, and would have allowed anybody, using spread spectrum to operate a data network, nationwide.
The reason we're in the spot we're in, and the carriers have so much control, is that the FCC issued only three licenses for each goegraphic area in the spectrum auctions. This limits competition and ensures a near monopoly pricing power for the big three carriers. Subsequent changes have loosened this a little bit, but not a lot.
The real problem here is the idea that spectrum can be "owned" and that our government gets to dictate (based on bribes- which is what spectrum "Sales" are really) who gets to "own" the spectrum.
Apple tried, and I believe google tried recently, to create unowned spectrum. Spread spectrum technology lets people share space-- hell Wifi works on the same frequency as microwave ovens, and still manages to work when the microwave is running. I cant think of a harsher environment than that!
So long as government has a ruthless grip on spectrum, and forces us to deal with the three headed monopoly, there is a limit to how much freedom of choice we can have.
In my opinion, Apple & the carriers are on the same side of this fight. Who controls your phone? The user or some big corporation?
The difference between Apple & the carriers is that Apple is far more competent in its control, carefully avoiding short term gains at the expense of long term gains. Locking crappy adware apps into your phones is an obvious long term mistake that Apple would never make.
Being more competent, Apple is much more dangerous.
Clearly the carriers should be regulated. In the Netherlands they are and we have the cheapest rates (between our narrow borders, outside the borders they screw us double).
For instancen we can keep our number when switching carriers or unlock phones after the contract's finished.
I'd say regulations are needed in order to keep the market from degrading into customer-slavery. :)
> For instancen we can keep our number when switching carriers
This has also been possible in the U.S. for as long as cell phones have been widespread. Presumably there is a regulatory reason because I can't imagine a strong reason a carrier would implement it otherwise.
Keep in mind that regulation that forces carriers to be open will entrench the incumbents (that will do absolutely nothing in favour of customers when not a gunpoint) at the cost of new offerings that makes a play to disrupt the market.
The time when regulators gets their eyes open to this problem, is about the same time that regular customers do the same and get ready to leave the incumbents. Best case, you've regulation that says the carriers are supposed to do something they were already going to do, worst case you stripped a potentially disruptive play of it's advantage.
It seems that only Apple is left trying to maintain control over the device/experience/software. This is a shame since with some decent competition (read: Google), the grip of the carriers could have been loosened further.
Jobs deserves credit for convincing the carriers to relinquish some control (despite the fact we might not like who he made those deals with). It would be tragic if things went back to the way they were before.
".. reducing them to what they should be: regulated pipe providers just like your gas and electric company."
I come from India, the second largest mobile market in the world. (Its a complete mystery why we got 3G just a few months back, but atleast we re getting there). The key in India is that the providers are just that, regulated pipe providers and one only pays for service. I m free to go buy whichever phone I want and do whatever the hell I want with it. I dont have to be in "contract" and I dont have to keep going near windows to make phone calls.
This has certainly been my experience with my Verizon DroidX. Fantastic hardware, and I love Android, but it came loaded up with crapware I can't uninstall. A Blockbuster App!? Hell, why not put AOL on it while we're at it.
It's tempting to envision a world where phones are like PCs, that you'd just pick one out from Fry's and then install any apps you want (after choosing an app store that you liked) and then hooking up to some voice/text/data plan that you liked, and competition makes all the players work hard for your business...
But I think the paradox of choice kicks in, somewhat, in that users really like the iPhone world's somewhat-curated experience, and that you get a base set of well-built apps that are provided by Apple for the basics (phone, texting, web, email) and they form the core of your mobile usage until you start adding in your own apps.
Having said that, I'd love to be able to pick a carrier for my iPhone, but I don't want the fractured environment/ecosystem of Android.
The scenario you describe - where you just pick a phone like a PC - is what the carriers are trying to avoid. That turns them into a commodity, a bunch of wires.
They'll obviously fight that to the death, hence the customising of phones, the exclusive models, the provision of non-transferable services, handset subsidies and doing everything they can to prevent the average user seeing the alternatives.
The problem is that so long as they keep doing handset subsidies, they'll likely keep winning. I know someone who has just bought a Dell Streak on a two year contract. He got it free but over time he's going to pay more for it than he would for an iPad. Now he's a smart guy - if he's not thinking in those terms you can bet the average consumer isn't.
Basically the networks are providing cheap credit to tie people in to overpriced telecoms services and the consumers love it because it means that for $50 a month (which you can afford) you can have a $600 phone (which you can't, at least not easily).
The system you described is implemented in parts of Europe, specifically in Eastern Europe - the cell phone and voice/data plan markets are separated completely. As a result, the prices are very low and the network coverage is much better than in the North America.
Let's not forget that this is all fairly US-centric; In Europe the handset manufacturers are more powerful. As a consumer, you select a device first and add-on the network operator after. That's 180 off from what's going on the in US. However, it hasn't created the device innovation that we see now in the US with Google and Apple weighing in...
I am not a fan of the iPhone because of its dependency on iTunes. iTunes is an overweight bloated piece of junk and I won't go back to Windows just to run it.
I am not a fan of Android because each individual maker gets to decide if you can have an update or not. That would be like buying a Dell PC and then having to go through Dell, not Microsoft, for Windows Updates.
So for now, I will keep going with my non-smart phone. At least until things change.
"I am not a fan of the iPhone because of its dependency on iTunes. iTunes is an overweight bloated piece of junk and I won't go back to Windows just to run it."
You do know they will activate for you in the store and then only time you ever have to use iTunes again is when an update comes out? Now, this means your phone will not get backed up, but if you set Google up as an Exchange server all your emails, contacts, and calendar items are stored on the cloud anyway.
Something else to question: is the GSM/CDMA split partially to blame here for intensive carrier lock-ins? I like to follow the US carrier market, but from the perspective that in my own country the last CDMA network was shut down in 2008. Here I can choose to buy a carrier branded phone with a subsidy, or as many people do - just buy a phone outright and pay month-to-month swapping carriers as simply as swapping the SIM card.
Given Google's approach to Android, it looks like carriers are going to treat Android phones as feature phones and not smart phones. This might be ok for the user, but it certainly is looking like it will hurt developers and power users.
The continued existence of non-commodity broadband providers is going to be a pain for everything on top of the stack.
[+] [-] biafra|15 years ago|reply
You can fix this! Just buy more unlocked phones. Since 1994 I never bought a net locked phone. Subsidizing does not have to be linked to a net lock. Subsidizing was never (AFAIR) linked to a net lock in Germany. The iPhone was a first for us (here in Europe). From here it looks like the iPhone brought this consumer-unfriendly practice to us. Thank goodness no Android phone is net locked here in Germany at least no net locked only.
[+] [-] sapphirecat|15 years ago|reply
In my experience, if you buy an unlocked phone, you hand the carrier a bonus payment of the cost of the phone. They don't give you any cheaper service.
And, when I went to replace a Nokia POS that died 3 days after warranty, I discovered that Verizon even subsidizes their prepaid phones: you can get an LG VX5600 for $40 with new service, but to replace the Nokia with the existing account, they wanted $200. (Allegedly, they "don't sell" the Nokia in question as a prepaid, and thus couldn't offer a direct replacement; which raises the question of why phones they "don't sell" come with their branding and work on their network.)
[+] [-] Tuna-Fish|15 years ago|reply
Why do you thing they never made much headway in the USA? Because Verizon and AT&T spent more money greasing the congress, and Nokia didn't want to give up.
[+] [-] aphexairlines|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lzw|15 years ago|reply
So the locking is an exclusivity / subsidy component.
It seems clear to me, by studying Apple's patents, that they originally wanted the phone to be unlocked and on every carrier, they even tried to end the subsidy system by selling the iPhone direct....
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|15 years ago|reply
If this is actually considered important for folk in the US, then they're going to have to stop the Apple fanboys in the media using it as a stick to beat Google with and face up to the reality that Apple has failed to change the carrier business model too, just as Google's Nexus One failed. I seem to recall that just like the Nexus One, the iPhone was supposed to be sold direct to consumers at the full unsubsidized price.
[+] [-] orangecat|15 years ago|reply
Excellent point. It was sold unsubsidized initially, but people were apoplectic about spending $600 for a phone. Apple quickly realized that joining the subsidy model was better than fighting it, so they announced the price "cut" on the 3G model and got glowing press, while hardly anyone noticed that with the monthly rate increase customers would be paying more over two years.
Apple has far better taste than the carriers, to be sure. But both agree that you should not have control over "your" hardware.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|15 years ago|reply
Yes, it annoys me I have to have a folder of "stuff I don't care about" on my iPhone, but I know Apple and/or AT&T didn't put it there to pad their pockets at my expense and that makes all the difference.
[+] [-] grhino|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Terretta|15 years ago|reply
Not sure about that dichotomy: unsubsidized, both cost roughly the same, and for both, root/jailbreaks are free.
[+] [-] biafra|15 years ago|reply
Or if your carriers behave. In most parts of the world they do nowadays.
[+] [-] nanairo|15 years ago|reply
But I find this argument naive: "But this pipe dream is being crushed quickly. The carriers, after giving up ground initially, are fighting back. They are using Android’s openness against the company."
The point is: if Google hadn't done that, the carriers may very well not have supported it. Let's remember that although now we consider Android a strong contender, at the time Android was neither that strong, nor the only contender. I'd be ready to bet that other carriers supported Android as much to hurt Apple as because they knew they could control it.
Personally I'd go as far as to say that Google developed Android the way they did fully aware that this could happen: the bottom line is that Google doesn't make money from Android, and as nobody holds the market in the palm of their hand Google is happy... even though it may mean basically subsidising other companies fight against Apple (at the time).
[+] [-] illumin8|15 years ago|reply
I don't buy this argument. This is one of those slippery slope arguments that are used to justify everything. Let's say you're a Cisco and you want to sell routers and network gear to the Chinese. You can either give their government back doors to spy on traffic and make it easy for them, guaranteeing the business will go to you, or you can take the moral high ground and refuse to build these features into your products. Too often big companies like Cisco, Google, and Microsoft take the approach that money trumps all morality concerns, and we end up with a big brother police state enabled by the very technology companies that were supposed to save us from this future.
Google should do what Apple did and stick to their guns - refuse to let carriers mess with Android.
[+] [-] moultano|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lzw|15 years ago|reply
I think both want to break the carriers power and end up with open networks, but their strategies are very different.
[+] [-] extension|15 years ago|reply
http://www.videotron.com/mobile/service/mobile/appareils/det...
I'm not sure how much they've modded it though, or if it can be as easily unlocked/rooted as one bought straight from Google.
[+] [-] PedroCandeias|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] auxbuss|15 years ago|reply
Still, if you you liked the phone, then get one via another carrier.
[+] [-] illumin8|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swilliams|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] presty|15 years ago|reply
Also, It's pretty easy to install apps through the .apks and unofficial markets. Aptoide is an alternative to the Official Android Market.
[+] [-] slantyyz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lzw|15 years ago|reply
The reason we're in the spot we're in, and the carriers have so much control, is that the FCC issued only three licenses for each goegraphic area in the spectrum auctions. This limits competition and ensures a near monopoly pricing power for the big three carriers. Subsequent changes have loosened this a little bit, but not a lot.
The real problem here is the idea that spectrum can be "owned" and that our government gets to dictate (based on bribes- which is what spectrum "Sales" are really) who gets to "own" the spectrum.
Apple tried, and I believe google tried recently, to create unowned spectrum. Spread spectrum technology lets people share space-- hell Wifi works on the same frequency as microwave ovens, and still manages to work when the microwave is running. I cant think of a harsher environment than that!
So long as government has a ruthless grip on spectrum, and forces us to deal with the three headed monopoly, there is a limit to how much freedom of choice we can have.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|15 years ago|reply
The difference between Apple & the carriers is that Apple is far more competent in its control, carefully avoiding short term gains at the expense of long term gains. Locking crappy adware apps into your phones is an obvious long term mistake that Apple would never make.
Being more competent, Apple is much more dangerous.
[+] [-] cies|15 years ago|reply
For instancen we can keep our number when switching carriers or unlock phones after the contract's finished.
I'd say regulations are needed in order to keep the market from degrading into customer-slavery. :)
[+] [-] gxti|15 years ago|reply
This has also been possible in the U.S. for as long as cell phones have been widespread. Presumably there is a regulatory reason because I can't imagine a strong reason a carrier would implement it otherwise.
[+] [-] mseebach|15 years ago|reply
The time when regulators gets their eyes open to this problem, is about the same time that regular customers do the same and get ready to leave the incumbents. Best case, you've regulation that says the carriers are supposed to do something they were already going to do, worst case you stripped a potentially disruptive play of it's advantage.
[+] [-] orangecat|15 years ago|reply
Quite disturbing that "the user" is not one of the plausible answers.
[+] [-] eogas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheesey|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amirmc|15 years ago|reply
Jobs deserves credit for convincing the carriers to relinquish some control (despite the fact we might not like who he made those deals with). It would be tragic if things went back to the way they were before.
[+] [-] ankimal|15 years ago|reply
I come from India, the second largest mobile market in the world. (Its a complete mystery why we got 3G just a few months back, but atleast we re getting there). The key in India is that the providers are just that, regulated pipe providers and one only pays for service. I m free to go buy whichever phone I want and do whatever the hell I want with it. I dont have to be in "contract" and I dont have to keep going near windows to make phone calls.
[+] [-] NumberFiveAlive|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egb|15 years ago|reply
But I think the paradox of choice kicks in, somewhat, in that users really like the iPhone world's somewhat-curated experience, and that you get a base set of well-built apps that are provided by Apple for the basics (phone, texting, web, email) and they form the core of your mobile usage until you start adding in your own apps.
Having said that, I'd love to be able to pick a carrier for my iPhone, but I don't want the fractured environment/ecosystem of Android.
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|15 years ago|reply
They'll obviously fight that to the death, hence the customising of phones, the exclusive models, the provision of non-transferable services, handset subsidies and doing everything they can to prevent the average user seeing the alternatives.
The problem is that so long as they keep doing handset subsidies, they'll likely keep winning. I know someone who has just bought a Dell Streak on a two year contract. He got it free but over time he's going to pay more for it than he would for an iPad. Now he's a smart guy - if he's not thinking in those terms you can bet the average consumer isn't.
Basically the networks are providing cheap credit to tie people in to overpriced telecoms services and the consumers love it because it means that for $50 a month (which you can afford) you can have a $600 phone (which you can't, at least not easily).
[+] [-] knowledgesale|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dikbrouwer|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aphexairlines|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RexRollman|15 years ago|reply
I am not a fan of Android because each individual maker gets to decide if you can have an update or not. That would be like buying a Dell PC and then having to go through Dell, not Microsoft, for Windows Updates.
So for now, I will keep going with my non-smart phone. At least until things change.
[+] [-] matwood|15 years ago|reply
You do know they will activate for you in the store and then only time you ever have to use iTunes again is when an update comes out? Now, this means your phone will not get backed up, but if you set Google up as an Exchange server all your emails, contacts, and calendar items are stored on the cloud anyway.
[+] [-] jackvalentine|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyng|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|15 years ago|reply
The continued existence of non-commodity broadband providers is going to be a pain for everything on top of the stack.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]