The dirty little secret about Google Android

TechRepublic ^ | August 23rd, 2010 | Jason Hiner

[Swordmaker]

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

[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.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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).

[Echo4C]

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.

[Swordmaker]

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.

[Swordmaker]

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[Echo4C]

“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

[antiRepublicrat]

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 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:

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.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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).

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.

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?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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

Like Apple, Google's always been able to revoke the apps you purchase from their store. Like Amazon and Barnes and Noble can pull back books you've bought from their stores.

However, with Android there are other markets out there, which Google does NOT control. Using those markets doesn't require you to root/crack your Android device, either.

[Echo4C]

Which WinMo phones have you had on Verizon and which apps did they prevent you from installing?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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.

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.

[dfwgator]

Can you install and use Trident on an iPhone?

4 out of 5 dentists can.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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...

[PugetSoundSoldier]

LOL! That right there is funny! :)