Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The dirty little secret about Google Android
TechRepublic ^ | August 23rd, 2010 | Jason Hiner

Posted on 08/23/2010 4:53:52 PM PDT by Swordmaker

Google Android began with the greatest of intentions — freedom, openness, and quality software for all. However, freedom always comes with price, and often results in unintended consequences. With Android, one of the most important of those unintended consequences is now becoming clear as Google gets increasingly pragmatic about the smartphone market and less and less tied to its original ideals.

Here’s the dirty little secret about Android: After all the work Apple did to get AT&T to relinquish device control for the iPhone and all the great efforts Google made to get the FCC and the U.S. telecoms to agree to open access rules as part of the 700 MHz auction, Android is taking all of those gains and handing the power back to the telecoms.

That is likely to be the most important and far-reaching development in the U.S. mobile market in 2010. In light of the high ideals that the Android OS was founded upon and the positive movement toward openness that was happening back in 2007-2008, it is an extremely disappointing turn of events.

When Apple convinced AT&T not to plaster its logo on the iPhone or preload it with a bunch of AT&T bloatware, it was an important first step for smartphones to emerge as independent computers that were no longer crippled by the limitations put on them by the selfish interests of the telecom carriers, who typically wanted to upsell and nickle-dime customers for every extra app and feature on the phone.

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs said, “iPhone is the first phone where we separated the carrier from the hardware. They worry about the network, while we worry about the phone.”

Almost for that reason alone, the iPhone was an immediate hit with customers, despite the many limitations of the first generation iPhone when it was released in June 2007.

Later that year, Google announced the Android mobile operating system and the Open Handset Alliance. Here was Google’s statement made at the time:

“This alliance shares a common goal of fostering innovation on mobile devices and giving consumers a far better user experience than much of what is available on today’s mobile platforms. By providing developers a new level of openness that enables them to work more collaboratively, Android will accelerate the pace at which new and compelling mobile services are made available to consumers.”

Then in the spring of 2008, Google pulled off a brilliant coup in the U.S. government’s 700 MHz auction when it bid enough to drive up the price for Verizon and AT&T to lock them into the FCC’s open access guidelines (which Google helped form). Verizon had initially fought the open access concept with legal action, but eventually made a 180-degree turnaround and trumpeted its own plans to become an open network.

However, Verizon’s open network plans have never really materialized. To say the company is dragging its feet would be a massive understatement. The best hope for a popular, unlocked handset on Verizon was Google’s own Nexus One.

After launching in January 2010, first with access to the T-Mobile network, the Nexus One was planned to arrive on all four of the big U.S. wireless carriers by spring. The phone was sold by Google, unlocked, for roughly $500. Then users could simply buy service (without a contract) from a wireless carrier. That’s the model that has worked so well for consumers in Europe and the Nexus One was supposed to be Google’s major initiative to start moving the U.S. in the same direction.

Unfortunately, sales of the Nexus One were tepid and customers were frustrated by Google’s poor customer support. By the time spring rolled around, Verizon was still dragging its feet and eventually the Nexus One on Verizon was canceled and replaced with the HTC Incredible, a nice device that nonetheless completely followed the old carrier model.

By some reports, the Open Handset Alliance is in now shambles. Members such as HTC have gone off and added lots of their own software and customizations to their Android devices without contributing any code back to the Alliance. Motorola and Samsung have begun taking the same approach. The collaborative spirit is gone — if it ever existed at all. And, Google is proving to be a poor shepherd for the wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing that make up the telecoms and the handset makers in the Alliance.

As a result, we now have a situation where the U.S. telecoms are reconsolidating their power and putting customers at a disadvantage. And, their empowering factor is Android. The carriers and handset makers can do anything they want with it. Unfortunately, that now includes loading lots of their own crapware onto these Android devices, using marketing schemes that confuse buyers (see the Samsung Galaxy S), and nickle-and-diming customers with added fees to run certain apps such as tethering, GPS navigation, and mobile video.

Just as Google is overwhelming the iPhone with over 20 Android handsets to Apple’s one device, so the army of Android phones that can be carrier-modified is overwhelming the one Apple phone on a single carrier that allows it to stand apart and not play the old carrier-dominated game that resulted in strong handsets weakened by the design, software, and pricing ploys of the telecoms.

Despite the ugly truth that Android is enabling the U.S. wireless carriers to exert too much control over the devices and keep the U.S. mobile market in a balkanized state of affairs, Android remains the antithesis of the closed Apple ecosystem that drives the iPhone and so it’s still very attractive to a lot of technologists and business professionals.

But, the consequence of not putting any walls around your product is that both the good guys and the bad guys can do anything they want with it. And for Android, that means that it’s being manipulated, modified, and maimed by companies that care more about preserving their old business models than empowering people with the next great wave of computing devices.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: android; apple; droid; google; iphone; telecom; verizon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 08/23/2010 4:53:56 PM PDT by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~; 1234; 50mm; Abundy; Action-America; acoulterfan; AFreeBird; Airwinger; Aliska; ...
Is Android handing the power back to the cellular carriers after Apple broke their locked doors down? This opinion says yes—PING!

Please!
No Flame Wars!
Discuss technical issues, software, and hardware.
Don't attack people!


Google v. Apple Ping!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

2 posted on 08/23/2010 4:56:57 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

bflr = bump for later reading.


3 posted on 08/23/2010 5:01:27 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Brilliant.

There is nothing more that can be said than what was in this article.


4 posted on 08/23/2010 5:03:34 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
"The phone was sold by Google, unlocked, for roughly $500...Unfortunately, sales of the Nexus One were tepid "

Hm....wonder why?

5 posted on 08/23/2010 5:04:30 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

The even bigger scam perpetuated in the cellphone industry is text messaging. It’s ridiculous.


6 posted on 08/23/2010 5:10:16 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (Iowa floods, Obama vacations. Moochelle Obama, please pass the cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
This was predicted many months ago. Android is so open that it leads to fragmentation.
7 posted on 08/23/2010 5:12:26 PM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith
There is nothing more that can be said than what was in this article.

That's a dangerous way to get educated.

8 posted on 08/23/2010 5:14:13 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
These aren't the droids you're looking for.

These aren't the droids we're looking for.

He can go about his business.

You can go about your business.

Move along.

Move along... move along

9 posted on 08/23/2010 5:14:26 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

LOL just got through reading this at TR and sent TheStickman a link.
Of course the unsaid thing in the article is it should have been expected that Google’s main goal is money (and growth/power). They may occasionally have some lofty geeky goals but they come to their senses soon enough.


10 posted on 08/23/2010 5:21:11 PM PDT by visualops (Proud Air Force Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I assure you, I was not educated by this article, nor was I suggesting anything of the kind.

I read it and I concur with it. That means I can add nothing to it. Which is exactly what I said.

To imply anything else is projection.


11 posted on 08/23/2010 5:26:19 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

VERY sorry excuse for an article... I guess the ‘author’ never tried any of the wide variety of HTC or Motorola phones, which come with HTC and Motorola software. You MAY get a carrier logo on it, but that’s about it - it’s the phone maker’s software.

My last two smart phones came with bone-stock WinMo 6 (Samsung i760 bought September 2007) and WinMo 6.1 with HTC’s Touch UI on it (HTC Touch Pro2, bought September 2009). No Verizon software, and the only “Verizon” mark on either was a small logo up by the earpiece and the splash screen when booting (which, of course, you could change as you want - I changed both).

This article is nothing more than FUD meant to stop the tsunami that is Android. Android actually lets manufacturers, dealers, carriers, sellers - heck, even you if you wanted - brand and customize the phone as you desire. That’s called freedom and choice, and used to be celebrated by the technology press. My how times have changed...


12 posted on 08/23/2010 5:36:07 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Google is fascist.


13 posted on 08/23/2010 5:38:08 PM PDT by NoLibZone (I am currently under federal investigation by the DNC for my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RachelFaith

“There is nothing more that can be said” is a much different proposition than “There is nothing I can add”.


14 posted on 08/23/2010 5:39:43 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
VERY sorry excuse for an article... I guess the ‘author’ never tried any of the wide variety of HTC or Motorola phones, which come with HTC and Motorola software. You MAY get a carrier logo on it, but that’s about it - it’s the phone maker’s software.

Good point. I have the EVO 4G - and it's a fantastic phone. I really could care less that my carrier has a 3/4" wide logo at the top of the phone. It's like a mini-laptop.

15 posted on 08/23/2010 5:40:47 PM PDT by AlaninSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Gotta agree with PSS here. Tell me, what was the holdup on tethering on the iPhone for the past few years? Was it AT&T stopping Apple from allowing it? Of course it was (AT&T now allows it, if you pay the $20/mo fee). Why did it take so long for Apple to approve a SlingPlayer for iPhone despite the fact that Sling has had one ready for years? Was it because AT&T was afraid of what it would do to their already over-burdened network?

To say that Apple somehow kept AT&T away from the device is nonsense. The article’s point seems to be that Android isn’t as open as it was made out to be. So what? Is the answer to go to a totally closed system created by Apple?


16 posted on 08/23/2010 5:46:00 PM PDT by Echo4C (We have it in our power to begin the world over again. --Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Whatever...


17 posted on 08/23/2010 5:47:00 PM PDT by RachelFaith (2010 is going to be a 100 seat Tsunami - Unless the GOP Senate ruins it all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA; Echo4C; NoLibZone
And - surprise, surprise - you can LOAD your own applications as you desire, they don't have to be approved by someone else. You can DO with your phone what you want! No need to check with a Big Brother whether or not you can load some application or tool. No need to worry about having your warranty revoked because you want to open your phone's OS so you can use it. No threat (since removed) of being sued because you dared unlock your phone so you could DO what YOU wanted to do.

In fact, you have the source code to the OS - you can change the kernel, write and distribute applications and extensions as you desire. No restrictions from Google or the carriers. Android's kernel is freely downloadable, as are the development tools. You don't have to buy anything or pay anyone to write and distribute programs - it's the ultimate in open platforms.

Yet somehow this is being spun as "Google is Evil", or as we see right above (any coincidence it's post 13?) "Google is Fascist". Open and extensible and control in the user's hand is wrong, closed and capriciously restricted and power only for the carrier or manufacturer is right!

Freedom and choice used to be values of America, and foundations of the tech world. Closed, proprietary, heavily controlled/restricted systems were bad; open and flexible and user-configurable systems were good. I guess we've reached Orwellian time (those "1984" commercials of decades ago notwithstanding) when open and free and power-in-the-user's-hands systems are no fascist, hurtful, and bad...

18 posted on 08/23/2010 5:57:06 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

I have the Samsung Vibrant, without rooting my phone I cannot remove a variety of apps from the phone. To add insult to injury these apps often start themselves. How is this better? It seems this doesn’t do much to give me control. I hope in the next iteration of android they at least make the manufacturer skins totally decoupled from the base os.


19 posted on 08/23/2010 6:41:16 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

“Freedom and choice used to be values of America”

I admit it. Oracle Android is an excellent smartphone operating system. I’m sure Larry Ellison is happy Google chose to distribute it freely... without the proper license agreement. $10 per phone and a revenue share percentage for all mobile advertising will certainly help the Oracle bottom line. :-)


20 posted on 08/23/2010 6:42:11 PM PDT by o2bfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

Welcome to T-Mobile...;)

At least you can root your phone, get a custom ROM and go forward as you want. That’s quite a bit different than what you can do with other phones, and what the article was trying to infer.


21 posted on 08/23/2010 6:49:34 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: o2bfree

Unfortuately for ol’ Larry, Google uses Java SE (which was released to the public domain, nothing Oracle can do about it) and they rolled their own VM. Other than sharing the name “Java”, there is no crossover between Google’s implementation and the proprietary ME engine that Oracle bought when they bought Sun.

Larry needs a new yacht, I guess, and is hoping for some sort of payoff!


22 posted on 08/23/2010 6:54:20 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Not without voiding my warranty which is quite similar to other phones. There are definite advantages to android, but it isn’t in any way far and away better than the iPhone.

One nice thing about a Mac is that when you buy one there is no bloatware (full disclosure there might not be on 2K PCs but I’ve never owned one) this is turning into one of the advantages of the iPhone over android. Another 100 would have been acceptable to pay to not have any unwanted apps.


23 posted on 08/23/2010 6:59:54 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Echo4C

Big problem is the 3G pipe can only carry only so much data.

Witness the advent of iPad 3G: the highly touted unlimited data plan stopped real quick when they realized how much data users would move.


24 posted on 08/23/2010 7:01:51 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Google monitors all that runs through their systems.

Speaking of Orwellian, they even photograph and log photos, IPS, surfing history of our homes and businesses.


25 posted on 08/23/2010 7:08:23 PM PDT by NoLibZone (I am currently under federal investigation by the DNC for my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
California: Google Sued Over Claims Street View Invades Privacy

Google Sued in Spain Over Data Collecting

Google Wi-Fi Spy Lawsuits Head to Silicon Valley

26 posted on 08/23/2010 7:17:25 PM PDT by NoLibZone (I am currently under federal investigation by the DNC for my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Echo4C
The article’s point seems to be that Android isn’t as open as it was made out to be.

That's the problem. Apple controls iOS completely, and the iPhone hardware. There is a clear line there between Apple and the carrier. Things must be negotiated between the two. This is the new model that Apple created, breaking the carrier stranglehold, and the Android promised to follow.

But Android's openness turns out to be its Achilles heel. It gave complete control of the software back to the carriers, who are up to their old tricks again. For example, Verizon pushes the Amazon MP3 store, I can't delete that app from my Android phone if I want to stay stock and supported. Verizon gets a special section on the Market for me, and read all app descriptions carefully, because downloading and using many of them will automatically add $$$ to your bill. They're not back to the old ways yet, but they're heading in that direction, enabled by Android.

27 posted on 08/23/2010 7:39:50 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; AlaninSA; Echo4C; NoLibZone
You can DO with your phone what you want! No need to check with a Big Brother whether or not you can load some application or tool.

Modern Android phones are coming out locked just like the iPhone is. Remember, Google has shown it can and will revoke apps from your phone. So far it has done that only for fraudulent apps. So far.

No need to worry about having your warranty revoked because you want to open your phone's OS so you can use it.

See above about locked phones. If you change your phone to an unsupported configuration, you don't deserve warranty support. Producers carefully calculate warranties according to a specified set of operating criteria, and to ask them to support other criteria is unfair. I wouldn't expect Ford to honor the warranty on a custom stroked, bored and blown Mustang engine either.

No threat (since removed) of being sued because you dared unlock your phone so you could DO what YOU wanted to do.

No, they just threaten to sue all the sources of the complete Android OS that you can download from. Instead, you can legally get a substandard Android, stripped of most of the standard apps that it's known for. Oh yes, not all of Android is free, just the basic core system. All those cool apps that come with it are Google proprietary, the custom carrier user interfaces are carrier proprietary.

In fact, you have the source code to the OS - you can change the kernel, write and distribute applications and extensions as you desire.

Quite true, but that's a geek thing. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of buyers.

28 posted on 08/23/2010 7:49:31 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
Google monitors all that runs through their systems.

And you don't think Apple or AT&T don't do that as well?

29 posted on 08/23/2010 7:58:11 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Modern Android phones are coming out locked just like the iPhone is. Remember, Google has shown it can and will revoke apps from your phone. So far it has done that only for fraudulent apps. So far.

Likewise Apple. However, Google only does that for apps in the Android Market; the other marketplaces, Google cannot touch.

30 posted on 08/23/2010 8:00:03 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Quite true, but that's a geek thing. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of buyers.

Given that Android shipments are outstripping the iPhone, I think the majority of buyers are fine with Android. It's taking over the market, already having a larger marketshare than iOS, and extending that lead.

31 posted on 08/23/2010 8:12:38 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Wow! I guess people love ads, bloatware. Some people around here sure do ...


32 posted on 08/23/2010 8:35:22 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (I love BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers; Swordmaker
Wow! I guess people love ads, bloatware. Some people around here sure do ...

Jobs attempted to wow potential iAdvertisers with the claim that the platform could offer as many as a billion ad impressions per day. How does he arrive at that figure? It’s one ad delivered every three minutes across the average app usage time of 30 minutes per day, and then multiplied by 100 million devices...

- Source

An ad every 3 minutes. A 1 billion ads a day (10+ ads per day per phone). Yeah, some people really love ads!

33 posted on 08/23/2010 9:26:21 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; Swordmaker

How about bloatware?


34 posted on 08/23/2010 9:35:34 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (I love BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers; Swordmaker
Usually caused by excess gas and accompanied by a bloated feeling...

Seriously, though, you have the actual SOURCE to the OS; you can remove and reload what you want. And one man's bloatware is another man's must-have application. How do you get rid of unwanted default apps on the iPhone? CAN you get rid of unwanted default apps on the iPhone?

And it still doesn't change the fact that the original article was pure, unadulterated FUD.

35 posted on 08/23/2010 9:47:38 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

And you don’t think Apple or AT&T don’t do that as well?

Your argument is now that two wrongs negate the fabulous Orwell diatribe.


36 posted on 08/24/2010 12:02:02 AM PDT by NoLibZone (I am currently under federal investigation by the DNC for my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

On the contrary, with an open system I can block reporting, I can change things up, I can use different browsers. On a closed system, I can’t.

Both want to collect information on you; only one gives you the freedom to avoid that collection.


37 posted on 08/24/2010 1:00:28 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
On the contrary, with an open system I can block reporting, I can change things up, I can use different browsers. On a closed system, I can’t.

Let's look at the easily discovered facts, instead of your erroneous claims.

On the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad, the iOS4 "closed system" that you imply does not allow a user to "change things up" and use a different browser, how come there are 30 browser apps from third parties available in the app store either for free or for a nominal cost including Opera, Mercury browser, Atomic Browser, several "privacy" browsers promising anonymity, a double page browser, a browser that shares a page with a notepad, Quick browser, and Anonymous Browser? Apparently you CAN "change things up" and run other browsers than Apple's default Safari on the iPhones and it's kin.

38 posted on 08/24/2010 1:47:34 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Let's look at the easily discovered facts, instead of your erroneous claims.

Erroneous, indeed? How many of those 'alternate' browsers are nothing more than reskins or extended versions of Safari? Because it seems that Apple doesn't really let you use something other than their browser engine. Hmmm... You can extend and skin their browser, but actually replace it? Seems that's not an option.

Oh, and can I take a look at the TCP stack, make sure stuff's not being sent back to Apple HQ? Can I run a block on all outbound traffic that's not on an approved port, and ensure that the block is functioning?

Seems you're the one being a bit erroneous, and loose with the facts...

39 posted on 08/24/2010 1:55:55 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Erroneous, indeed? How many of those 'alternate' browsers are nothing more than reskins or extended versions of Safari? Because it seems that Apple doesn't really let you use something other than their browser engine. Hmmm... You can extend and skin their browser, but actually replace it? Seems that's not an option.

Yes, erroneous. You are wrong. From your own year-and-a-half old, out-dated link:

I suspect that it’ll be a long time until Apple allows Firefox or Opera or any other true Safari rival onto the iPhone; I’d love to be proven wrong, though…

What was the very first browser I list in the alternative browsers available through the Apple app store? OPERA!

Again, as many times before, your own links prove you wrong! Why not READ your so called evidence before making your claims that I don't know what I'm talking about. I OWN THE PRODUCTS. YOU DON'T.

40 posted on 08/24/2010 2:21:51 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

By-the-way, Opera on the iPhone is not too good as a browser. It renders strangely and not too predictably.


41 posted on 08/24/2010 2:29:49 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Oh, and I’ve played around with some of the other non-webkit alternative iPhone/iPad browsers. My conclusion is they are not ready for prime time and are not good browsers. I would like to see a FireFox or Chrome iOS browser. . . But they are WebKit based.


42 posted on 08/24/2010 2:33:24 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Did you check the other links? They completely back up my claims. As did the first one that seems to have gotten a burr under your saddle.

Opera isn’t a ‘browser’ in the traditional sense, in that everything that is rendered is first rendered on Opera’s own servers, then sent down as, essentially, animated GIFs to show on your phone. It’s not a traditional browser at all, but more akin to the older Skyfire browser that was the rage on WinMo about 3 years ago.

So, I still stand by my statement. There aren’t really alternate browsers available on the iPhone. Sure, you can fake one via Opera, but as far as an actual browser? It’s skins or extensions to Safari, only.

Do you know of an actual browser that renders HTML on the iPhone that does NOT use the built-in WebKit and Safari engine? If so, I’ll gladly acknowledge it and recant my claim. Otherwise, my claim stands as is, your statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

Oh, and about owning the products? I suppose you own an Android device as well?


43 posted on 08/24/2010 2:37:09 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Oh, and I’ve played around with some of the other non-webkit alternative iPhone/iPad browsers.

What browsers would those be? Do they actually render the HTML on the phone, not on remote servers like Opera?

I would like to see a FireFox or Chrome iOS browser. . . But they are WebKit based.

Per the articles I linked, that's by Apple's design. They currently restrict HTML rendering to using their engine only, based on what I linked (and one of those links is from just last month).

44 posted on 08/24/2010 2:40:00 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

The argument is that this article’s main premise - that Android is negating the gains in carrier-device separation that the iPhone had gotten - is demonstrably incorrect. I already gave two examples of the carrier (AT&T) limiting the device: tethering and SlingPlayer. Would you like another one? How about the iPhone’s newest feature touted on all their commercials: FaceTime. Does AT&T allow FaceTime to be used on their network?

The article gives three examples of how Android enables the carriers to nickle-and-dime customers: tethering, GPS navigation, and mobile video. I already pointed out how the tethering argument is nonsense, since AT&T does the same thing with the iPhone. But GPS nav and mobile video? Which Android phone charges users to use the Google Maps/Navigation application? Which Android phone charges users to use the YouTube application? Has the author ever actually used an Android phone?

The writer of this article learned a thing or two from Alinsky. Funny how so-called “conservatives” are so easily duped by these tactics when it comes to their favorite device.


45 posted on 08/24/2010 3:16:39 AM PDT by Echo4C (We have it in our power to begin the world over again. --Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; RachelFaith; antiRepublicrat
Oh, and about owning the products? I suppose you own an Android device as well?

No, I don't own an Android phone, nor, as you've said before, do you, being a WinMob user. But I DO own the devices you continually criticize, the iPhone and the iPad.

Opera isn’t a ‘browser’...

Now, you've decided that the Opera browser reallly ISN'T a browser, evidently because it spoils your claim that Apple doesn't allow non-Webkit browsers on the iOS devices and since it obviously IS on there, it must NOT be a browser. Impeccable logic! Typical.

Sorry, you don't get to define what is or is not a browser merely because it "works different" and doesn't use WebKit. By that leap of illogic you can define away ANY non-Webkit browser on the iPhone you care to. It waddles, it has feathers, it quacks: it's a duck. You may want to claim it's an aardvark, but it's still a duck. How it accomplishes its duckness is irrelevant to the fact that it's a duck.

46 posted on 08/24/2010 3:45:19 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; RachelFaith; antiRepublicrat
Oh, and about owning the products? I suppose you own an Android device as well?

No, I don't own an Android phone, nor, as you've said before, do you, being a WinMob user. But I DO own the devices you continually criticize, the iPhone and the iPad.

Opera isn’t a ‘browser’...

Now, you've decided that the Opera browser reallly ISN'T a browser, evidently because it spoils your claim that Apple doesn't allow non-Webkit browsers on the iOS devices and since it obviously IS on there, it must NOT be a browser. Impeccable logic! Typical.

Sorry, you don't get to define what is or is not a browser merely because it "works different" and doesn't use WebKit. By that leap of illogic you can define away ANY non-Webkit browser on the iPhone you care to. It waddles, it has feathers, it quacks: it's a duck. You may want to claim it's an aardvark, but it's still a duck. How it accomplishes its duckness is irrelevant to the fact that it's a duck.

47 posted on 08/24/2010 3:45:19 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Likewise Apple. However, Google only does that for apps in the Android Market; the other marketplaces, Google cannot touch.

I didn't think they could touch your Market apps. Turns out they could.

48 posted on 08/24/2010 5:53:17 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Given that Android shipments are outstripping the iPhone, I think the majority of buyers are fine with Android.

For now. The iPhone is revolutionary for two reasons: One, coming up with the first usable touch-only metaphor, and (probably more importantly) breaking the carrier stranglehold on innovation and application distribution. Android only works because it followed the Apple model. If the slide towards carrier control continues, it will ruin Android. It would be quite easy for the carriers to remove the Market from their Android devices, forcing customers back to the old model.

This isn't a problem with the technical merits of Android at all. It's a problem with Android's openness, what would normally be an advantage, being used against it.

Openness even introduces another problem. Carriers like to brand phones, introducing their own UIs and standard apps. This fragments the Android experience. You don't get an "Android phone," you get an HTC or Samsung phone based on Android. You know some branding is bound to be inferior, leading to an undeserved negative opinion of Android.

49 posted on 08/24/2010 6:21:38 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
How many of those 'alternate' browsers are nothing more than reskins or extended versions of Safari?

How many alternate Android browsers are nothing more than reskins or extended versions of the Android browser which, BTW, is based on the same WebKit rendering engine as Safari? I'll tell you -- most of them.

You need to know the structure of what can be called Safari. On Macs there are APIs for core web technologies. If you want web rendering in your app, you just leverage these APIs. To create a browser you do exactly what Safari does, design a UI and other functionality, leveraging WebKit for rendering. You are not extending Safari, you are creating the equivalent of Safari. Microsoft has essentially the same thing with IE on Windows.

Apple has solid technical reasons for not allowing a browser free-for-all. It's not about some evil plan.

50 posted on 08/24/2010 6:59:56 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson