TechCrunch held a little in-promptu poll a few days ago, asking its readers why they chose to go with Android instead of something else. Most people stated they choose Android because of “openness”. The author of the article calls this “a load of crap”, arguing that because carriers can do with Android as they so desire, the reality now is that Android isn’t open. Clearly, the author doesn’t get openness.
The author of the piece, MG Siegler, argues that because carriers can abuse the openness of Android – and in the United States, they do – the net result is that Android isn’t open at all. Siegler points to a number of examples where carriers taking advantage of Android’s openness actually leads to a more closed environment.
For instance, the EVO 4G on Sprint and the Droid 2 on Verizon have crapware on them, which in some cases can’t be removed. Siegler also points to rumours that Verizon may be working on its own application store for its Android devices (they’re already doing this for BlackBerry devices). Then there’s the curious case where Verizon has made a deal with Skype, so that Skype only works on Verizonified Android phones.
Siegler then argues that these issues make Android less open. The problem with this line of thought, however, is that openness manifests itself in more ways than one. The openness Android users care about is not the fact that they could, potentially, access the source code or whatever – this only goes for a very small geek elite, and since Siegler clearly states he’s talking about average consumers, he also knows this.
No, Android users care about another advantage of openness: it leads to choice. You can get multiple Android phones on multiple carriers. You’re not locked into AT&T with a single device – you can choose which device and which carrier fancy you the most. Without Android’s openness, this would not be possible.
On top of that, it’s rather short-sighted to look at the US market alone. Here in The Netherlands you can pretty much mix and match whatever devices you want, and carriers don’t fiddle with their phones as much as US carriers do. Had Siegler taken the time to look beyond the borders of the country he lives in, he’d see what openness can lead to.
That doesn’t mean that the actions undertaken by US carriers do not suck – because trust me, they do. However, calling Android’s openness “a load of crap” because US carriers are crap seems a bit short-sighted to me.
I think both you and whats-his-name are making a logical error: generalizing from the specific. Insert the word “many” into your sentence, and it becomes true. If you insert “most” instead, that’s probably true, too. But I think a lot of Android users do care about the source as well.
By the way, Siegler is talking about the US market (he states this explicitly, and in the opening sentence no less). Indeed, the way I read it, he’s trying to browbeat Android fans into pressuring Google & the carriers to open their phones in the US.
You really have misread him completely.
Edited 2010-09-09 22:25 UTC
It’s called interpreting something in a manner that fits your agenda. Happens a lot on both sides of the paddock. Some of us acknowledge our bias, others try to make out they don’t have any.
I’m never biased, I’m just always right, and anyone who disagrees with me is a vile, hatefilled troll who just wants to tear down good products! </sarcasm>
Edited 2010-09-10 08:19 UTC
I don’t think so. Unless you don’t mean “more than 10%” or something like this by “a lot”. Android is not just a geeky phone OS anymore, it also powers phones which target the mass market, and the mass market doesn’t even know what a source code is…
statistically, the majority of android users (via their cell phone), are end users who, from my experiences with them (all to frequent), couldn’t care less about the source, they just like that it’s a touch screen and has google features built in.
I like the openness personally.
Android does suck in the US, IMO. It started out well; the G1 was a decent start, and the Droid is/was a good phone. Both had the pure/vanilla Android install, and what Google intended Android to do, so did these phones. That continued on with the Nexus One.
But now, here we are with 3-4 different versions of Android, 4 different UI’s, some have free tethering and wifi hotspot, some charge $20-$25 a month for something that was supposed to be apart of the OS.
Looking on the Android Market, you can read the reviews, and many app reviews say “doesn’t work on <insertphonehere>”.
You’ve got crapware on the Samsung Galaxy S, Droid X, and Evo. Sure, it can be removed, but it’s a pain in the ass for a average user. Copy and paste is dead simple on the HTC phones with Sense, but it sucks on the Samsung phones.
Luckily most phones are coming with Swype at least.
So yes; Android is open. Yay! Too bad there’s not really a phone I want anymore using it. My Droid is cool, and I enjoy it. But after this, I haven’t the slightest idea where I’ll go. I definitely would have bought a Nexus One or whatever that day’s version would be, even subsidized through T-Mobile. But now that Google has abandoned selling “Google Experience” phones, I have no idea.
I think you nailed it in the first paragraph. The author doesn’t get openness.
Open also means open to abuse. Google’s stance is evidently to leave the carriers and manufacturers do as they wish and let the consumer decide with their wallet.
In contrast, Apple’s stance is to control every aspect of the device leading to a device that, by their standards, is superior.
Which strategy will win in the long term, we’ve yet to see.
Saying the iPhone is superior is quite subjective:
* Hardware wise, there are several things where Android phones are superior… a screen with better resolution does not mean the phone is superior.
* Software wise, I find Android very powerful and able to compete in “normal user” arena with iPhone feature by feature. In the other hand, I did not find yet any “geeky” OS superior to Maemo in real multithreading, real “openness” and versatility.
Edited 2010-09-09 23:39 UTC
I didn’t say that the iPhone is superior. I said that the iPhone is superior by Apple’s standards. Maybe I didn’t phrase this as best as I could, but what I meant is that I believe that Apple considers the iPhone to be superior.
As for myself, I really can’t comment. I do have an iPhone, but since there isn’t a single Android device for sale in my country, I haven’t even seen one.
Quite interesting
Here in my country (Bolivia), all the iPhone devices I see are jailbroken because there is no carrier supporting it officially.
Edited 2010-09-10 00:00 UTC
And don’t forget the Playstations, Xboxen and so many other things that you get “chipped” from the store in that lovely country of ours!
Btw, I thought I was the only OSNews reader from Bolivia. (Even though I now live somewhere else)
I thought the same!
Their standard tends to change with the features of the phone, though. In the beginning, a good camera was irrelevant to the Apple Experience(tm), now it’s another selling point. Not that their camera really is noticably better than other 5mp cams, but then again: Apple is all about magic.
That is because Steef knows better than us when we users need a feature we did not need before.
I may not be familiar with enough Android phones but I find a lot of them lacking, especially in design. (The exception is the HTC Legend, which looks, and more importantly feels awesome.)
… but has bad RF reception.
oops!
I think the author made a key point:
His point follows that currently many carriers have a lot of “openness”, and immediately try to remove it from end users, then concludes this doesn’t make it open. Thom’s point is that everyone has the source, and could take advantage of that openness (although in the process would lose a lot of phone/carrier specific support.)
I can’t help see parallels between this and GPL vs. BSD licensing wars of old. Is “open” letting anyone do what they want? Or is “open” preventing anyone from preventing anyone else from doing what they want?
You know there’s a simple solution: buy your phone unlocked (e.g. from Expansys). It also works out cheaper in a lot of cases.
MG’s article had his own point regarding the reality in US, which he stated clearly. I don’t see any problem there.
Have a Point? I would say this guy has an Agenda
Please read some more articles and comments by the dude and educate yourself! You can start with this one:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/14/fanboy/ (You’re Damn Right I’m A Fanboy)
Edited 2010-09-10 14:35 UTC
The article is very clearly about the restrictions imposed by US carriers on the Android platform. These are very real and restrict openness for most users without the technical skill needed to hack the device.
You need to actually consider writing a rebuttal if you have something to say about the writing of another author. One a little more substantive then ‘this guy does not know what he is talking about’.
Would you really post an article from someone who criticized your position in such a lame manner?
Yes, and I’m saying that calling Android closed because some US carriers are doing annoying thins with some Android phones is short-sighted,
We’re letting people like you comment, don’t we? Also, feel free to submit something. We’ve published countless rebuttals to my stuff.
It’s because name-calling and tabloid-like headlines are becoming the norm here on OSNews. Sad but true …
The problem with the term openness is that it’s become meaningless. If you speak to the carriers it means one thing. If you speak to open source people it means another.
At this point, the most accurate statement is that Android is open to the handset manufacturers and carriers to modify because the carriers buy their handsets from the manufacturers. Handsets are not PCs, so the whole issue over Android’s openness is a canard.
The carriers and handset manufacturers will fragment Android just like they fragmented JME. It’s already happening.
Therefore, the whole openness argument is just wasted breath and hype to push a platform that may have viewable source code but is nonetheless off limits when it comes to mobile devices for anyone but the two previously mentioned parties.
Can we quit beating this dead horse now? It’s a dull topic that got old months ago.
I was all geared up to write exactly the same thing
“Open” _really_ doesn’t mean anything without a great deal more context.
I’d say, on the contrary. The problem is not that it’s meaningless, it’s that it has been tortured and twisted so long, that it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. That’s what happens if you [not you per se, but someone with enough media exposure] purposefully use a word in the wrong contexts for enough time. Just how the relation and difference between open and free have been mangled and mixed around so much.
Carriers know all too well what openness [should] mean. It just doesn’t suit their purposes.
Makers are not (Motorola Milestone anyone?)
The Milestone, the DroidX, the Droid2…Motorola is on a role.
In what Bizarro universe does the ability of the carrier (or any third party for that matter) to create it’s own app store make the device *less* open? I mean seriously.
As a developer that’s what I care about with Android:
It’s not that it’s open, it’s that it’s mostly GPL-based. That means, the source code is redistributed. That means, when they’re modifying the kernel, it’s released and so on for other GPL components.
That means also, that we can modify the software of nearly any device too.
It means freedom, for me. Take a look at the Apple side if you will:
– you need a jailbreak – and it’s not really there for iPhone 4 and it’s been month!
– jailbroken apps sucks and don’t get updated cause the “hackers” interest shifted to open platforms. mplayer on iOS4 ? nope. etc.
Now here’s my random android device.. mplayer? yeh if i want to. it’s not even java or running in the android sandbox btw!
Changing the filesystem? No problem.
What this means for end users who aren’t devs like me, is that they’re mostly guaranteed to keep their “software” freedom in the future.
If ISP’s or what-not push it too far, we can always release versions without the limitations quite easily. The whole base is open source.
That’s actually already happening, see mod cyanogen for example. Bare android for most android phones. Doesn’t matter the amount of crapware, it’s gone once you install it. It’s not hard either! Plus, you can updates your carrier might not bother doing, and longer support.
As for stuff like “skype only on verizon” is a utter non-sense for example. While Skype is closed source, it’s very easy to make it work on another android device. Only stupid laws can enforce such a thing (if it’s illegal you can’t do it), technology, can’t.
They are so GPL based, they are using NetBSD userland (IIRC).
Only the kernel is GPL.
…I just waisted my time reading that article. OSNews should try to qualify the Apple FanBoi Articles to don’t waist our time reading that stuff.
Edited 2010-09-10 04:05 UTC
Well, Android is open… to the manufacturers who can then lock it down to the end users and then send cease and dessist letters to users in the modding community.
Android gives users choice? What choice? All Android handsets look alike – although the same can be said for the upcoming Windows iPhone 7 handsets. They are all copycats of the iPhone and when the original is not good, the imitators can’t be good either. All those touchscreen slabs with not much of anything else make me yawn to the extreme.
At the same time, Android is open so a bunch of young guys working in a basement can/will use it to create the Next Big Thing ™. And then you will have the choice to buy the NextBigThing from them instead of the shiny new expensive iOS7 phone.
In the end, this openness will help us – the consumers. We have already seen this in the phone and tablet market where you can buy really amazing android products for less then 200 USD.
Edited 2010-09-10 14:34 UTC
I find it interesting that both techcrunch and the author here take the results of a survey and convert them to “Android users” in general.
I appreciate that that is what surveys are for but I don’t see any evidence of the sample size and make-up being taken into account.
For example in my own circle of friends around 40% own Android ‘phones. Of those I would say 50% selected it because it was not closed. Of those 100% work with and understand what free and open source software means.
The rest either selected the ‘phone not the OS or like the idea of lots of apps but don’t like the iPhone.
If the writer was MG Siegler then you should see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybsRCQy_3xQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxYlmF2NV2E
I have noticed, you avoided the term “free software” like hell. And you have chosen the funny term “open” and “openness”. With the only reference, that you have a choice between different manufactures and providers.
A cold and deadly world, you are suggesting.
Lets have a look on free software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).
By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
It does not matter, how often free software is delivered. If there is just one case where it fails, than it is not “free software”.
You said there are some.
Conclusion: Android is not free software.
Your argumentation is weak, as you know. Because you even have more freedom when you can choose between several distributions, when you have free choice about providers and manufactures. And I don’t care about tyrants and self chosen slavery. If they like their iPhone, let it be. But I do care about freedom, even freedom for the end users. And that is where Android fails. And just once is enough.
It is true. Android is a load of crap.
Android provides end users and developers with all four of those freedoms.
I think what your talking about, I see as variety in a market. Different software running on different hardware and some on a variety of different hardware. It is an attribute of the market rather than an attribute of the individual items within it. The market is open because there is more choice.
When you talk of Android, it’s a specific item within the market. As an item, “open” would refer to the transparency and tinker-ability of it. At one extreme, it’s open source hardware with specs published online with parts lists. At the other end you have the closed hardware that goes out of it’s way to hide it’s guts. The product has to favor owner’s access at minimum as an opt-in to advanced features.
With Android specifically, the things I’d like to be corrected on if I misunderstand are:
– each vendor has customized versions of Android beyond real differences like hardware modules in the kernel. You now need to find firmware based on device/vendor instead of just getting the core Android distro and dropping it on any “android” phone. When a new version of Android becomes available, you have to wait for a vendor/device official version or buy the newer hardware that ships with it.
– In terms of core versions, is Google developing it behind closed doors and releasing it publicly at the major version launch?
– each vendor/device has different “rooting” methods. If a device is open, “root” should be an easy config checkbox. Even Maemo’s root package from the apps repository is a simple opt-in root shell for a device where tinkering is encouraged.
– What data processing is done on Google’s servers versus the local device? Is all voice to text processed locally? Do my calendar changes on the device stick without a network connection or do I really need to bounce all changes through Google and back to my device? I question the openness of a product that does all it can to make my information property of the service provider.
For an open device or mobile OS, I should be able to grab the central distribution and flash it through a standard process on any device. Hardware drivers in the distribution kernel or maybe a secondary kernel+mods bin file included during the firmware flashing process. Any app that is a distro app installs. If it’s for a missing hardware function, it just doesn’t work or do that specific part of what it does. Manage the app market on a three step unstable,testing,production process. If I choose to go beyond prepackaged downloads, I should be able to simply “su” to root, select something in the options (even if it’s a easter egg secret thing) or grab a standard repository package that enables it. If it’s Java on top but *nix kernel, I want to be able to use the userland between kernel and gui.
How very un-American!
This whole openness argument has turned into a pointless idealistic debate at times.
You buy the device that suits your needs best, based on available apps, hardware capability and preferred user interface. Anyone who doesn’t is just shooting themselves in the foot imho.
I have three PC’s, a Mac, an xbox360 and an Amiga in my house. I also have an iPhone. I can’t think of anything that I actually want/need to do on my iPhone but cannot. I “get” the concept that it’s a smartphone and not a general purpose computer.
Consoles (home and handheld) all work the same way as the iPhone yet they don’t get criticed in the same way, why not? Sony don’t develop games for the xbox, and why should they, they protect their market. I think Apple still has a small player mindset at times and is careful not to let the big boys in to trample all over their market.
Android is not open to users. Vendors, yes. But not to users.
Now to backstep a bit…sophisticated users with plenty of time on their hands can do “wonderful” things with Android.
So closed that I downloaded the source to android built it and installed it on my HTC HD2, replacing WinMo with it.
Damn I wish it was open.
You just proved the point of the person whom you quoted.
You just proved the point of the person whom you quoted. [/q]
I am a user, Android is open to me to do whatever I want with it and I have done so.
You’re ignoring where he says:
“Now to backstep a bit…sophisticated users with plenty of time on their hands can do “wonderful” things with Android.”
I wouldn’t refer to myself as a “sophisticated user”, I’m just a user.
Just like most other people.
Android is not closed, if you believe otherwise then the onus is upon you to prove it.
Lets ask. Is linux ‘open’ to generic users? I could sell a PC with linux pre-loaded with a bunch of ‘uninstallable’ bloatware (unless you’re a ‘hacker’.) Would that suddenly make linux not open? NO. Joe public could still get my source and do anything he wants with it that is allowed by the license and within reach of his ambition.
There is exactly 1 vendor who supplies iPhones. That is obviously not open. There are a $#!+ ton of vairious Android phones. Some with a keyboard, some are clamshell, some small, some large, some fast, some cheap. That IS choice.
In closing. http://source.android.com/source/download.html
Go build a vending machine, RC airplane or sexbot. Or if you want to do something really crazy, a phone YOU coinsider “open.”
I’m surprised nobody reacted to this:
That is serious! Is it true? But first, what does it mean that “so that Skype only works on Verizonified Android phones”? Does it mean that no Android phone (be it AT&T, Sprint, or else) in the US can use Skype unless it’s on Verizon? Or does it mean that on the Verizon network, a standard phone (bought elsewhere without the carrier subvention) can’t use Skype unless it’s been pimped by Verizon?
In any case, and if true, how could people (government, local authorities, governing bodies, consumers, etc.) let that happen? I don’t even understand the nature of the incentives Skype would have received to accept such a thing. Aren’t there consumer associations in America like here in France?
I believe the Skype app for Android is only available if you’re on Verizon and even then you must makes calls via 3G not over Wi-Fi.
What a sad day for the world. What a sad world.
so·phis·ti·cat·ed   /səˈfɪstɪˌkeɪtɪd/
[suh-fis-ti-key-tid]
–adjective
1. (of a person, ideas, tastes, manners, etc.) altered by education, experience, etc., so as to be worldly-wise; not naive: a sophisticated young socialite; the sophisticated eye of a journalist.
I think sophisticated (not naive) is a pre-requisite for enjoying any ‘open’ software system for it’s ‘open’ attributes. If you’re pissed off about what buttons are on the home screen, that has nothing to do with how ‘open’ it may be.
“No, Android users care about another advantage of openness: it leads to choice. You can get multiple Android phones on multiple carriers.”
So Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 are both open?