The dirty little secret about Google Android

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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’...

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.

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.

“and (probably more importantly) breaking the carrier stranglehold on innovation and application distribution.”

It’s funny you should say this, because the exact opposite is true. On my first Windows Mobile phone (Samsung i760), which was several years ago, I was able to install whatever program I wanted. The carrier literally had no control over it. On the flip side, Apple only approves applications in their market that AT&T allows.

Take the earlier example of SlingPlayer. Sling demonstrated an iPhone version two years ago, which Apple only approved last year (and only for WiFi). Why? Because AT&T would not allow people to stream that much data. It wasn’t until earlier this year that AT&T actually allowed a 3G version of it on the market, whereas the 3G version for WinMo came out four years ago.

How did you get it on your WinMo phone? Simple, you downloaded it and installed it, just like you would on your computer. No carrier-controlled market ever came into play.

The iPhone actually introduced a new paradigm in which the carrier has total control (and final approval) of what apps run on your phone. See AT&T here saying they wouldn’t allow it on their network: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10239277-37.html

The carrier literally had no control over it.

What carrier? Sprint and Verizon before Android, the two I have experience with, had pretty tight control.

The carriers always had that. Even with Apple the carrier takes over when the data has to cross through its networks. No use approving an app if AT&T says they won't allow it to work on their network.

There's no technical reason why the smartphone market didn't explode until the iPhone. It's business and design. Likewise, there was no technical reason digital music players didn't take off until the iPod, tablets didn't take off until the iPad, and digital music stores didn't take off before iTunes. The general concepts were achievable using the technologies of the times before Apple, as in all cases the products existed before Apple's products.

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.

I do have a nice Android based tablet, which IS relevant to this article. And I am doing a current project for an iPad accessory, so I do have one of them here with me, right now (and have had one for the last 3 weeks).

BS. If you're going to lie and attack me, at least get creative.

Opera DOES NOT RENDER the HTML on the phone, does it? You can learn what a browser's function is and see that Opera for the iPhone really doesn't meet the classical definition. But since that completely validates my claim, and shows yours to be false, well, that simply cannot be tolerated!

Face it, Sword - Apple does NOT let you replace the browser. This would be akin to Microsoft "allowing" you to run alternate browsers, as long as they used the Trident engine built in to the OS.

Sorry, you don't get to define what is or is not a browser merely because it "works different" and doesn't use WebKit

Neither do you. What does define a browser? Most would consider an application that simply presents pre-fetched static images of a website NOT a browser. It's more of an image viewer with variable sources for the images.

So how about it? What other HTML rendering engine can you install on an iPhone?

For now

You see Android sales slowing, or iPhone sales increasing by a huge amount? Android already has a larger marketshare in the US...

One, coming up with the first usable touch-only metaphor,

Sorry, SPB Mobile Shell and HTC Touch UI both pre-date the iPhone UI. Apple was - at best - 3rd to market with a "touch only" metaphor.

breaking the carrier stranglehold on innovation and application distribution

A very US-centric view! Overseas - especially in Asia - it's been commonplace for a decade to buy your phone from a phone market and then WALK A BLOCK DOWN THE STREET to choose a carrier to use. The phones weren't from the carrier, they were from the manufacturer, and could be used on any carrier.

This is the TYPICAL model, but because US consumers love to "pay lower prices", the US carriers always subsidized your price to lock you in to the phone and get you to buy it for lower price.

Go check out a phone market in Tokyo, Seoul, or Shanghai sometime. You'll see hundreds of tiny stalls and stores each selling phones by dozens of manufacturer brands. And they'll all send you to another floor - or another building - to actually sign up and get a carrier account.

This line about "Apple breaking a carrier stranglehold" is simply wishful thinking. It never existed outside the US. Ever.

Android only works because it followed the Apple model.

Really? Good to know that I can get the iOS kernel software, that iOS can be deployed on dozens of platforms by different companies, that I can use different stores for apps and that I can freely create and distribute my own applications!

Sorry, that's not the way it is? Then I guess you're statement is a bit "zealous", isn't it?

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.

Again, look outside the US for a second. You DO realize that Nokia - a tiny share of the market in the US - sells more phones in 2 weeks than Apple has EVER sold? The rest of the world is a HUGE market, and simply doesn't function the way you think it does. THAT is also the big market that is swallowing up Android like crazy. Hundreds of new Android-based devices are available in China alone...

I now understand the source of your (and other Apple fan's) confusion - you think the cell phone/portable device market starts in the US and ends at our borders. There are nearly 7 billion people out there who say otherwise.

The largest cell phone carrier in the world boasts over 500 MILLION domestic customers, and it's China Mobile.

Sorry to break this to you, but the Android market is MUCH greater than just the US market. And it's not fragmenting like so many talk about - it's called freedom and innovation, trying new things to see what works. Not allowed in Apple's walled garden, but encouraged and welcomed in most everywhere else.

Think different, indeed!

Most is a LONG way from all, though, isn't it?

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.

I've developed more than my share of software, thank you very much. And I know about using pre-installed APIs. However, there are often good reasons to roll your own, including extending functionality beyond what is possible with the stock APIs, supporting new and upcoming standards, and sometimes doing it just because you have a different idea and think you can do it better and faster.

Microsoft has essentially the same thing with IE on Windows.

BS, and if you knew about that development and "API" leverage you talked about you'd know you're spouting BS. Microsoft's browser has a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT rendering engine than Chrome or Firefox (number 3 and number 2, respectively, in computer browser share). They share NONE of the same code, and the ONLY API calls used by those engines are what are used to paint on the screen. They each render the HTML with WebKit, as opposed to MSFT's Trident engine.

Can you install and use Trident on an iPhone? That's the point, and one that shows there's a big difference here.

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

Yes, it's called lock-in and cash-flow. Profit is not evil; pretending to be altruistic and caring and refusing to allow you to do with your system what you want is, IMHO.

What carrier? Sprint and Verizon before Android, the two I have experience with, had pretty tight control.

Ever used a WinMo phone? I've used one for 3 years now (Samsung i760, and now an HTC Touch Pro2) on Verizon. Verizon has ZERO ABILITY to stop me from loading any application I so choose. I download the install package and install. They have NEVER had the ability to block me from installing whatever I want.

Consider tethering, for example. I've been doing it for 3 years. PDAnet at first, and for the last year and a half, WMWiFiRouter. Verizon can do nothing about it, and neither can Samsung or HTC. Microsoft created WinMo to be a very open and extensible OS, and just like Echo wrote - it's like my PC. I can load and run any application I like.

There's no technical reason why the smartphone market didn't explode until the iPhone.

What? Did you know that there were over 80 MILLION smartphones sold in 2006? That's nearly double the total number of iPhones EVER sold. Nokia is the HUGE monster worldwide in terms of smartphones, and RIM has been the smartphone leader in the US for, well, ever. Apple's NEVER been a leader in smartphones. Ever. And never exploded the market.

Sorry, the facts of marketshare and growth simply do not back you up on this one. In fact, the iPhone shares more in common with an LG featurephone (where you can only install apps from the carrier) than with what traditionally was considered a smartphone (where you could customize and install applications as desired).

Smartphones have been around for nearly 20 years, from 1992 back with IBM's Simon. Nokia's been selling smartphones for nearly 15 years. Microsoft's WinMo and WinCE were the smartphone OS of choice in the US for nearly all the 2000s. Apple didn't explode anything...

By the way, an interesting graph to prove the point:

How a 4th place player becomes the one who "exploded the market" is a tale I'd be interested in hearing...

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.