Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcantelon | Hacker News Reader

FUD. Unlike Apple, which mandates only One True App Store, Google does nothing to prevent anyone from creating their own "app store" (or just selling their app from their site, without relying on an "app store" at all).

As far as the Google Location Service claim I have a hard time believing Google bars the use of other location services on the phone. They may require the use of it with their Google branded apps, to maintain quality and prevent the apps from being used to harvest location info (and having fallout from that associated with their brand), but Google's apps are licensed separately from the Android OS itself.

View on HN

From a practical standpoint not being allowed into the Android Market is a death sentence. The only way alternative App Stores would catch on is: a) carrier or handset maker replacements b) piracy stores c) increased restrictions on Google's Market that create a demand for a free App Store. None of these options are good for developers so maybe the FUD is somewhat justified if the only solution is making it more difficult for a user to obtain your app.

That being said it hasn't happened yet so making an issue out of it does seem FUD-ish. It comes with the territory though. If you want to dominate a market you have to expect scrutiny. People are endlessly entertained by (perceived) hypocrisy. Google pimped Android as being the open alternative so anything they do, however minor, to distance themselves from that is going to be big news. Android has clearly hit that critical mass where negative stories are becoming more interesting than positive ones.

You can install apps that aren't in an app store. You can just download the app from a website like any other piece of software. You have to check a checkbox in system settings to allow it, but you are prompted to do so upon downloading the app.

You can, and probably just about everyone on HN could do so, but the vast majority of the phone-using public can't/won't. Defaults like this become self-reinforcing and apps that prosper outside of the built-in distribution channels will be very, very rare.

It's really easy to change the default though. You don't have to go deep into a menu to find the setting, it prompts you when you download the app. It's no worse than any other scary warning that users have become inured to on every other platform.

I would be willing to wager the vast majority of users never become "used to" dealing with every other platform. My general understanding is most of them are are completely terrified of computers.

Modern smartphone OSes (iOS and Android at least) have a chance to take all the scary away. So far, iOS is doing well, and Android looks to be too. But really only because they have non-scary user interfaces with stellar defaults. And as far as most users are concerned, defaults are just how the OS works.

Yep. My mom did it, without any instructions. I sent her an apk in an email, thinking I would tell her how to install it later. Then she called and already had it installed.

People have downloaded shareware and freeware for their desktops off websites for years. While people definitely veer towards convenience, I don't think acquiring mobile apps from websites is beyond the capabilities of the layman.

I feel a little silly replying to this comment in every story about Android, but hopefully I won't always have to (as it will become a non-issue);

but you can't download non-market store apps from numerous Android devices (all of the ones sold by ATT for example), as the carrier has disabled the ability to install a non-market application.

Hopefully this trend doesn't spread to other carriers (although if Verizon is launching its own app store, they may very well implement this in the future).

You make your own practicality here.

Somewhere in backroads of the computer world, there's this thing called the Internet where I've heard you can find just about anything if search hard enough. Someone might be searching for what you have to offer even as we speak...

http://www.quickoffice.com/quickoffice_connect_suite_android...

They just started with this. I'll be curious to see how it works out.

What does this have to do with Apple and the App Store?

re: "having a hard time believing"... read the complaint. Apparently Skyhook has a source from "Company X" (educated guesses on that time period place it as Samsung) that complained that Google was leaning on them into dropping Skyhook from its phone launch, despite Skyhook being "superior".

I imagine if any developer wanted to release a custom rom, they can do whatever they want.. that is the openness. My biggest issue is that people will complain about Google being too open .. for example how Verizon locks down their phone with Bing as search, and how they will start their own app store. Then in this case John is pointing out how google is not being open enough. Either way consumers do have a choice in the end by installing a rom they want that fits their needs, and again this to me seems like the best alternative.. which is one not give with other devises/platforms. [edit: remove trolling remark]

The only time I recall them giving anyone a hard time was in the case of the Cyanogen project, because it distributed Google's branded apps with it. But they backed down even with that.

There are two successful alternate App Stores for iPhone, and none for Android.

Using alternate App Stores with your iPhone requires jailbreaking your iPhone, complicating updates, etc. Not the case with Android. If you want to use an app store like m.slideme.org, no problem.

Which ones do you mean? There are several app stores for Android already. In fact I am concerned that every vendor will try to push their own App store.

Why would you be concerned? Multiple retailers competing for customers is usually a good thing.

Because the vendors try to tie the phones to their app stores. If you buy a Sony Ericcson Android phone, you will only be able to use the SE app store. And so on.

So I will have to publish my app to a lot of app stores. If it can be done automatically, maybe it is acceptable. But I think it won't be like that. The vendors have different philosophies, too. For example I think Sony Ericcson wants their app store to be more like the Apple app store with harder admission criteria.

I think the point is that if Google is as Open as they say they are then you shouldn't need to create your own app store.

Then the definition of open is pretty open-ended. It means Google has to cater to you? They gave you the platform to do with it what you want. That's a right to do what you want with the OS but not an entitlement to their services.

Or maybe I'm missing the point here?

Why?

Say I own a shopping mall. I decide that I don't want a porn store operating there, so I refuse to rent to them. They go open up shop somewhere else. Everyone is satisfied (although the porn store owners might wish they had a slightly more visible location).

That's the Android world now. In the iOS world now, if Steve doesn't want porn in his mall, they get cut off at the knees because no third-party distribution is allowed. Period.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Google allows third-party app distributors. Google allows third parties to freely use their OS under generous licensing terms, and allows them to use the Android branding and Google app store if they play by Google's rules.

Apple does not allow third-party application distribution or hardware. Period.

Google does a lot of things with Android that upset me (giving their preferred partners early access to new revisions, for starters) but I'm completely cool with what they're doing here.

Sorry for the rant. :-)

It's not even a mall -- it's a single retailer.

You don't need to create an app store. You can put your app on your own website and give it away or sell it. I can't even put my own app on my iPhone without jailbreaking it or paying Apple $99/year for a dev license.

> Google does nothing to prevent anyone from creating their own "app store"

Neither does RIM.

But Google is marketing Android based on it being "open", when the truth is Android is no more open than BlackBerry or Windows Mobile.

If you're purchasing an Android device on the idea of openness, like I know a lot of people are doing, you're being swindled.

Meanwhile, in the war between carriers and users, Apple is turning out to be a much stronger advocate for their consumers than any other cell phone manufacturer or software provider, whereas with Android it's turning out to be the same old rotten business as usual.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

"Android is no more open the BlackBerry or Windows Mobile"

Huh??? There are hundreds of thousands of phones out in the wild running Android builds not blessed by Google. If you design a new phone you can install Android on it and sell it. You can download the source. If you try to do any of that with BB or Windows Mobile you'll be sued and/or imprisoned.

And the carriers are gladly taking advantage of that "openness". But to the end user it means nothing, because virtually everyone purchases their Android devices through their carrier, locked to whatever software that carrier has approved. What you end up with is a device that's no more open than a BlackBerry, except that at least RIM can exercise a modicum of control over what the carriers can and cannot do to their devices.

Meanwhile, nobody has to Jailbreak their iPhone to prevent their carrier from pushing garbage onto their device.

Greetings from my corner of the world! We don't normally purchase phones through carriers here, although recently Apple and Blackberry have initiated such programs. That means we can get cheap Chinese Android devices (with predictable quality).

I didn't have to jailbreak my Nexus One either.

Just buy the right phone.

virtually everyone purchases their Android devices through their carrier, locked to whatever software that carrier has approved.

Virtually everyone _in the US_.

Cell phone manufacturers must go through the exact same software approval process with their European carriers as with their North American carriers.

Except for Apple, of course. Their customers can download and install an update directly from Apple as soon as it's released. Apple's the only one who's allowed to do that. Android, on the other hand, is no different than BlackBerry.

Wrong.

I installed all the updates on my Milestone after downloading them from the Motorola website. Mostly because OTA didn't work for me.

And on my Nexus One I built Froyo myself from source and use it ever since.

How do I do that with a Blackberry?

So is it open or isn't it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com