Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple changes words in order to change the debate

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#51

Post by jsankey »

danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open relative to the iPhone.

First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not "approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere.

Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are people who can and do take advantage of this to create modified versions (e.g. Cyanogen). If Google decides not to take a particular direction, but enough people want it, it can happen.

Thirdly, it's not tied to one hardware manufacturer. Apple may make great hardware, but they attack a certain target market, which not everyone fits into.

Finally, although your argument about carriers has some truth, it misses a couple of points. It's not like iPhone users are exempt from all carrier restrictions - why can I tether via my Android phone yet iPhone-owning friends cannot? And there is nothing about Android that forces you to use a certain carrier (ironically, in the US, it's iPhone users that have no choice of carrier). I purchased my phone on T-Mobile in the UK, now I use it on another carrier in Australia, no problem.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#52

Post by guelo »

andreyf wrote: post #24
sjs382 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user." Android's openness has made it to those who want the openness. The fact that my phone OS is open is the thing I care about. (I'm running SkyRaider 3.3 on my HTC Incredible on Verizon.)

Even ignoring that 99.9% of users don't know the meaning of "open source", I'll believe Android is truly open in the FSF sense I care about when RMS uses one. Until then, I have trouble as seeing it as much more than rhetoric. Sure, you can compile and put your own OS on your phone, but I don't know of anyone who's actually done it (and nodata points out in an uncle to this post that you can't actually do it on some…

Look up Cyanogenmod.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#53

Post by dman »

danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

Agree with you about android's openness not making it to the end user completely. Its not just an issue with android, even linux based devices (like the Creative Zii) do ship with the source for GPL components but omit the tools required to flash a user built image to the device. I think this takes away the freedoms that the GPLv2 intended to deliver to the end user.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#54

Post by GHFigs »

jsankey wrote: post #51
danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open relative to the iPhone. First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not "approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere. Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are people who c…

I can download an APK from anywhere.

Out of curiosity, do you (or any Android users reading this) find yourself doing this with any frequency?

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#55

Post by jonhendry »

larsu wrote: post #33
danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

The amount of crippling done by the carriers is not Android's fault nor is it in any way advantaged by Android being open. The same crapware has been on Symbian and other (closed) mobile operating systems for a long time. Apple is the only manufacturer that was able to convince carriers to sell their phones without any of that garbage. I don't know what is stopping HTC/Motorala/Samsung from trying to enforce similar…

" I don't know what is stopping HTC/Motorala/Samsung from trying to enforce similar conditions for its Android-based devices."

If say HTC tried to enforce such conditions, they'd have little leverage because their devices are practically Android-running commodities. If HTC threatened to walk away from a carrier, it likely wouldn't hurt the carrier that much.

Since Apple's the only iOS device vendor, they have a bit more leverage over carriers.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#56

Post by thwarted »

GHFigs wrote: post #54
jsankey wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open relative to the iPhone. First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not "approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere. Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are people who c…

I can download an APK from anywhere. Out of curiosity, do you (or any Android users reading this) find yourself doing this with any frequency?

I'll often use the barcode reader app to read QR codes for apps, some of which take you to the market page, others are links directly to apk files.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#57

Post by guelo »

irons wrote: post #47
guelo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think Apple "managed to steal" the AT&T deal because of AT&T's competition with Verizon?

My point is that the "competitive market" you'd applauding was designed by the carriers with the specific goal of preventing anyone from ever doing what Apple did. That Apple was able to do it was marvelous, but it was also stupendously unlikely: a combination of the willingness to enter an unpromising market, the ability to pull it off, and the timing to convince a weakened Cingular to let them produce a phone witho…

So your argument is that the only company capable of creating competition is Apple. Strange.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#58

Post by tealtan »

enjo wrote: post #28
credo wrote: post #22

Good point, it is in Apple's interest to reframe the debate. Theoretically, Apple could argue that Google's core assets (search and advertising) aren't open-sourced. Their Android apps (like Maps) aren't open-source and Apple could say that "open" is just a marketing buzzword that Google uses to try and beat Apple with. However, that will be an argument on turf picked by Google. "What is best for the customer" (and a…

It certainly resonates with developers. Ultimately, however, that hardly matters. Apple allowed an Android toe-hold in the market and they're going to continue to pay dearly for it. Google has steadily improved the OS, and the phones reflect that. The hardware has gotten better and the overall user experience has continued to improve. Not to mention that that quality of the third party apps has continued to improve a…

I don't think fragmentation is only a developer issue. It breaks up the target market into silos, which means it will require more effort from a developer for less potential revenue. If this results in fewer and lower-quality apps on the Android Market, this will impact the perceived value from the viewpoint of the customer.

If I were to buy a phone, I don't want to have to worry about whether the apps on my friend's Android phone will work on mine. It's one more thing for me to worry about, and it may be just the thing to stop me from buying it.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#59

Post by jsankey »

GHFigs wrote: post #54
jsankey wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open relative to the iPhone. First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not "approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere. Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are people who c…

I can download an APK from anywhere. Out of curiosity, do you (or any Android users reading this) find yourself doing this with any frequency?

I have indeed installed apps this way. I admit that most apps I've installed are from the market, although that's missing the point. Frequency doesn't matter as much as the actual ability to make the choice independent of Google (or indeed any single corporation).

If you think this doesn't matter in practice, consider Apple vs Google Voice on the iPhone. Apple rejected (or "didn't approve") voice, leaving iPhone users with no way to access it. Users would be better off if Google could have hosted a Google Voice package external to the app market.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#60

Post by evgen »

thwarted wrote: post #45
danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible. One doesn't require "ruthless control" to "deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible". Apple could relax its control a little and let people who want to use their hardware for other purposes, and void the warranty, do so easily.…

One doesn't require "ruthless control" to "deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible".

Would it be possible for you to provide a counter-example that demonstrates your point? You may have a point, but it seems completely unsupported by available facts and I am hoping there is an example out there of what you think would be the "proper" degree of control to hit those goals.

Post reply on HN