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

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#71

Post by daten »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #39
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…

I keep hearing about the "branded crapware" that comes with lots of Android phones. I've had a G1 since they first came out, it didn't have anything like that on it, and I haven't upgraded yet. I know this does happen though, but I'm not sure to what extent? What proportion of new Android phones have this? 90%? 5%?

A few weeks ago I bought an "Epic 4G" phone from Sprint. This is one of the Samsung Galaxy S variants. It has a custom GUI called "TouchWiz" made to look more like the iphone and is loaded with Sprint applications including a game demo, nascar related and football related applications that are installed as "system applications" and cannot be removed by the user.

It also has a Sprint replacement for the wifi hotspot tethering so the user is required to pay $30/mo for that feature that is normally native to Android even when they're already paying for an unlimited data plan.

It has sprint logos and music that plays on startup and shutdown that cannot be removed without rooting the phone.

A recent update added a media portal where the user can purchase movies and tv shows from Sprint partners. Also a "system app" that cannot be uninstalled.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#72

Post by etherael »

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…

Android is no longer Google. Android is the carriers.

If you play their ball game and buy subsidised through their retail outlets and thus subject yourself to their twisted rules. That's a far call from the Apple side of the equation where regardless of how you acquire the device, short of exploiting security holes, you play by their rules.

I have a Nexus One, I bought it unsubsidised up front, it is a truly open device, I didn't have to hack it to get it this way. The fact that Joe Public can be conned by carrier retail sales to buy a different device and be subjected to a different experience is more his problem than Google's. The "unbreakable tying" between the carriers and Google does not exist.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#73

Post by grinich »

matwood wrote: post #27
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…

You make a lot of great points. If we are to believe the rumors that Apple offered the first iPhone to VZW, but refused to let VZW screw it up it adds to your point about the carriers being the real problem. I have to wonder if that is still a sticking point and one of the reasons that VZW has yet to get the iPhone. Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver th…

>> While this is true, never forget that Apples end goal is also to make money.

But they don't design products to make money. That's what separates them from other companies. They design products that people will love.

    Apple's goal isn't to make money. Our goal is to design 
    and develop and bring to market good products. We trust 
    as a consequence of that, people will like them, and as 
    another consequence we'll make some money. But we're 
    really clear about what our goals are.*

    Jonathan Ive
    Senior VP Industrial Design, Apple
In my experience, this view is shared by all the execs at Apple.

* quote via http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2009/07/j...)

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#74

Post by irons »

guelo wrote: post #57
irons wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My argument is that "Markets! Yay!" is not an argument. Most markets require some regulation, and some luck, to function optimally. This particular market needs more of both.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#75

Post by stanleydrew »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #39
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…

I keep hearing about the "branded crapware" that comes with lots of Android phones. I've had a G1 since they first came out, it didn't have anything like that on it, and I haven't upgraded yet. I know this does happen though, but I'm not sure to what extent? What proportion of new Android phones have this? 90%? 5%?

I have a Nexus One which also has no crapware. I had a G1 before that. I got rid of the Sprint EVO that Google gave me at I/O for many of the reasons people are bringing up in this discussion. At this point I would doubt that less than 90% of new Android phones are crapware free, or aren't crippled in some way (wifi hotspot removal is the big one).

It's really a shame. But maybe Google is taking a longer-term view than many here give them credit for. I still believe that their goal is to commoditize carriers. They tried to push too fast with the Nexus One and google.com/phone and got burned, but that doesn't mean they've given up.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#76

Post by danilocampos »

etherael wrote: post #72
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…

Android is no longer Google. Android is the carriers. If you play their ball game and buy subsidised through their retail outlets and thus subject yourself to their twisted rules. That's a far call from the Apple side of the equation where regardless of how you acquire the device, short of exploiting security holes, you play by their rules. I have a Nexus One, I bought it unsubsidised up front, it is a truly open dev…

That would be a really, really great avenue for The Right Android to flourish.

Except that Google discontinued the Nexus One.

There just aren't sufficient financial incentives for an unlocked, un-fucked-with Android phone, bundled with rainbows and puppy dogs, to come to market. So if even Google won't stand behind that approach, who will?

The fact remains that 99% of Android devices will ship because a carrier decrees it – especially in the United States. Academically, your approach is fine but it doesn't really apply to the reality of how people can actually buy the Android experience.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#77

Post by jamesbritt »

grinich wrote: post #73
matwood wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a lot of great points. If we are to believe the rumors that Apple offered the first iPhone to VZW, but refused to let VZW screw it up it adds to your point about the carriers being the real problem. I have to wonder if that is still a sticking point and one of the reasons that VZW has yet to get the iPhone. Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver th…

>> While this is true, never forget that Apples end goal is also to make money. But they don't design products to make money. That's what separates them from other companies. They design products that people will love. Apple's goal isn't to make money. Our goal is to design and develop and bring to market good products. We trust as a consequence of that, people will like them, and as another consequence we'll make so…

     But we're really clear about what our goals are.
It seems that when the topic is Google, and someone mentions their "Don't be evil" motto, someone else points out that in the end they are a for-profit company, and the shareholders will have something to say if they are not behaving that way.

This is no less true for Apple, though it is less often pointed out.

As a money-making scheme, making good products seems a pretty good plan. However, if and when enough consumers differ with Apple as to what constitutes "good", Apple will be in the same position as every other publicly-held company: they will be required, under penalty of a stockholder lawsuit, to adjust.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#78

Post by zmmmmm »

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…

> If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss

I have about 15 home screen widgets, an alternative dialer, alternative browser and a bunch of other programs that would never be allowed on iOS that beg to differ.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#79

Post by [deleted] »

guelo wrote: post #57
irons wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#80

Post by [deleted] »

guelo wrote: post #57
irons wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN