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

Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#21

Post by rbarooah »

mambodog wrote: post #4

If this interpretation of the rules correct, then by the same logic all carrier-locked-down Android phones would surely also be affected.

Nice. If this rule forced real open devices to come into existence then it would be very interesting.

To me a genuinely open device would be one where we can reasonably fork Android and make a real open source variant. The idea of a much more flexible, user modifiable device (think dynabook) is very appealing to me.

This isn't possible now because most devices are locked, and even rooting isn't an end-user operation, so it's impractical for unofficial variants to propagate. (which for my purposes means that Android may as well not be 'open')

Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#22

Post by rbarooah »

chapel wrote: post #6
zitterbewegung wrote: post #3

What would be the alternative then? If apple can't field a 4g phone what would they have to do to get one? Relax app store standards? (That doesn't seem very likely) I seriously doubt that they will never have a 4g phone ever and not releasing one doesn't seem to be an option.

All they would have to do to comply with this rule is to allow people to install apps not served from the App Store, much like Android already does. Seems like a simple enough request, and would only benefit users.

Not true. Look at the mess windows is in because of bad software.

If you've ever had to help a non-tech-savvy user who has messed up their computer by installing bad software that was recommended to them by a well meaning friend, you'll know that there are real benefits to the app store model.

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#23

Post by Hoff »

I'm waiting for the Wired article entitled:

"Why Wired Uses Titles Referencing iPhone and Verizon and ending in a Question Mark?"

As for this case, this appears entirely analogous to the Carterfone decision.

Other folks can connect FCC-approved and unlocked gear onto 700 MHz without encountering a carrier prohibition (akin to what we have with wired telephone connections) while paying the 700 MHz carrier(s) for their services.

I seriously doubt that Verizon would be denied the ability to sell locked phones out of this. There's no way Verizon lawyers would sign that one.

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#24

Post by rbarooah »

xsmasher wrote: post #12
zitterbewegung wrote: post #3

What would be the alternative then? If apple can't field a 4g phone what would they have to do to get one? Relax app store standards? (That doesn't seem very likely) I seriously doubt that they will never have a 4g phone ever and not releasing one doesn't seem to be an option.

Apple could allow the phone to be set up in one of two "modes" - one that allows any app to be installed from any source but does not allow connections to iTunes, app store, Game Center, notifications, subscriptions, or any of Apple's other services; and the normal mode that functions like a regular iPhone does now. Viola, the user has a "choice" of open/crippled or locked/functional modes; they're meeting the letter…

Actually that would be a pretty interesting mode. Presumably alternative app stores would spring up - Cydia would probably be repurposed immediately. As long as there's a clear division between 'closed' and 'open' modes so that people who want the closed model still get the benefits, this would be a pretty interesting experiment.

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#25

Post by bad_user »

rbarooah wrote: post #19
bad_user wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win? No, because the effects of openness, or lack thereof, are very long term ... just as smoking, or lack of it, just as eating lots of candy or not. Even if "open" is so great, people choose shiny/tasty (i.e. short term gains) over "open" all the time. This is actually the greatest example of capitalism I've ever seen or heard. In corner A we've got…

I am a developer. With Apple's model I gain from having an environment where users feel safe to buy apps. I don't fear an open model, but it has not been proven to be better for users - windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. Seems like a pretty diseased ecosystem to me. As a developer I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software. Maybe Google can create that too, but…

     windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'.
I don't know at what you're hinting at, but openness wasn't Windows' problem. You're setting up a strawman.

The problem with Windows was that Microsoft, by means of this monopoly, could force its entry into other markets. The problem with Windows is that Microsoft could force the hands of computer manufacturers to bundle it, forcing competition out of the market. The problem with Microsoft products in general were the closed protocols that only worked right with other Microsoft software.

     ... pretty diseased ecosystem to me
References please.

Secondly, for all its flaws, its openness allowed for the birth of Corel, Adobe, Autocad, SAP, Yahoo, Mozilla, Hewlett Packard, AMD and countless of others.

    I want an environment where everyday users 
    are not afraid of software
You either have a wild imagination, or you're setting up another strawman.

Everyday users wouldn't even know how a computer looks like if the only company from which you could buy one would be Apple or IBM. And everyday users are only afraid of software complexity (i.e. things for which they cannot form a mental model / not working the way they expect to). If you want to save the world for everyday users, build less shittier apps and set a standard in your domain.

This is actually interesting: you obviously are a software developer that built his skills and even reputation by relying on open systems; and yet you obviously preach against doing whatever users want with the hardware they've bought, even if you did so yourself while growing up. Will that "save the children" in the process?

That's a double standard.

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#26

Post by dalore »

tzs wrote: post #14

> The problem is that the “open access” rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network. So if the carrier CAN prove that it won't damage the network, it can block it? That can't be right.

By strict logical standards you would be right. If they can prove it won't damage then it fails the test. But if that is the case then also "if they can't prove it will damage the network" also fails the test and they could block those.

I would think if we looked at the specific ruling it would be:

can't prove it won't damage -> allowed

can prove it will damage -> can block

can prove it won't damage -> allowed

can't prove it will damage -> allowed

So it would have been clearer if they said if they can prove it will damage the network.

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#27

Post by jrockway »

rbarooah wrote: post #21
mambodog wrote: post #4

If this interpretation of the rules correct, then by the same logic all carrier-locked-down Android phones would surely also be affected.

Nice. If this rule forced real open devices to come into existence then it would be very interesting. To me a genuinely open device would be one where we can reasonably fork Android and make a real open source variant. The idea of a much more flexible, user modifiable device (think dynabook) is very appealing to me. This isn't possible now because most devices are locked, and even rooting isn't an end-user operation,…

Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.

I hate to break it to you, but non-enthusiasts won't be able to deal with anything that is not pre-installed. The good "mods" are typically full AOSP forks, which is as open as you can get.

And of course, you don't have to have root to download the source code of the built-in apps, edit it, and deploy to your phone.

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#28

Post by rbarooah »

jrockway wrote: post #27
rbarooah wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice. If this rule forced real open devices to come into existence then it would be very interesting. To me a genuinely open device would be one where we can reasonably fork Android and make a real open source variant. The idea of a much more flexible, user modifiable device (think dynabook) is very appealing to me. This isn't possible now because most devices are locked, and even rooting isn't an end-user operation,…

Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones. I hate to break it to you, but non-enthusiasts won't be able to deal with anything that is not pre-installed. The good "mods" are typically full AOSP forks, which is as open as you can get. And of course,…

You're not breaking anything to me. You're agreeing with me - the current situation isn't open in any meaningful way.

Given they can install apps, non enthusiasts could certainly deal with a one-click install of an alternative OS if it had compelling benefits.

I didn't think the source for the built-in apps was actually available. In any case even if it is, what possible good does it do me to fork Google's apps to make minor modifications to them? Why do you even bring that up?

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#29

Post by trotsky »

rbarooah wrote: post #28
jrockway wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones. I hate to break it to you, but non-enthusiasts won't be able to deal with anything that is not pre-installed. The good "mods" are typically full AOSP forks, which is as open as you can get. And of course,…

You're not breaking anything to me. You're agreeing with me - the current situation isn't open in any meaningful way. Given they can install apps, non enthusiasts could certainly deal with a one-click install of an alternative OS if it had compelling benefits. I didn't think the source for the built-in apps was actually available. In any case even if it is, what possible good does it do me to fork Google's apps to ma…

I think AOSP forks are open in a meaningful way. Yes, you can't one click install an alternate Android build. But you can choose to buy handsets that have no hardware lock, or others that have trivial (intentionally?) roadblocks to installing a new ROM. CyanogenMod doesn't run on many handsets, but it does run on many others.

Linux had similar difficulties much later in its life than Android is, and *BSD still has them in terms of driver support. None of the open solutions are anywhere close to a one click install. But I wouldn't say Linux/BSD aren't open in a meaningful way.

I think you're expecting a bit too much in terms of your standard for "meaningful" openness. Granted, open Android builds still are getting their legs and have a lot of work still to do.

Re: Did Google Pre-Emptively Block a 4G iPhone on Verizon?

#30

Post by rbarooah »

trotsky wrote: post #29
rbarooah wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not breaking anything to me. You're agreeing with me - the current situation isn't open in any meaningful way. Given they can install apps, non enthusiasts could certainly deal with a one-click install of an alternative OS if it had compelling benefits. I didn't think the source for the built-in apps was actually available. In any case even if it is, what possible good does it do me to fork Google's apps to ma…

I think AOSP forks are open in a meaningful way. Yes, you can't one click install an alternate Android build. But you can choose to buy handsets that have no hardware lock, or others that have trivial (intentionally?) roadblocks to installing a new ROM. CyanogenMod doesn't run on many handsets, but it does run on many others. Linux had similar difficulties much later in its life than Android is, and *BSD still has th…

You're right that I'm expecting a lot. If the 'openness' that is claimed for Android is only accessible to expert enthusiasts and tinkerers, that's fine, but then those people have what they want already so why are they complaining about the iPhone?

I think the answer is that like me, they see computers and software as a medium for sharing ideas and creativity. The more people who can participate, even if just as recipients, the better.

This leads some people to be angry about the closedness of the iPhone because it's so popular.

For me, the iPhone is what it is. It solves a lot of problems for a lot of people very nicely. It ends an era of software nightmares for everyday people, but it doesn't usher in an era of true software openness for those of us who believe in the potential of software to improve our world. Personally, I don't think the way forward is to try to undo what Apple have done. You don't change the world by being 'against' something - you change it by creating the thing you think is missing.

Given this, I am disappointed with Android because I don't see it leading us in the direction of a universal medium. Its direction is controlled by a combination of Google and the Carriers, and the fragmentation (don't flame me - I'm not talking about the exaggerated hardware differences) between the levels of openness of handset to having the ROM replaced severely limits the viability of a long lived fork coming from the community.

Linux and BSD are open, but more importantly the PC is open. Even the Mac is open - I can install BSD or Linux or Windows or some homebrew OS (for which there are plenty of kits), or an Ocaml App running in Mirage on to of Xen, or whatever else I want on these computers. That's the kind of openness I believe in.

Android isn't just a source tree. It's the complete system - you can't use the source tree without hardware and a network. If these spectrum rules have any bearing on this (which I doubt), then what would be interesting is if they forced all the Android devices to be open.

Obviously it's easy to demonize Apple, and make Google into the hero in these debates. Apple isn't even pretending to be open and they don't care if they're criticized for it. If we want an open world, and Google are claiming to be part of building that, then they are the ones who should bear scrutiny.

And if we want non-geeks to switch to this amazing open world - the answer is simple too - make it easy to switch and better than what Apple offers.

Post reply on HN