Why I Hate Android

I just don't know what MG wanted to Google to do. We all have our own ideas about how the world should be. The options for Google seem to be a hardline tactic to get exactly what they envisioned and subsequently have a dead on arrival Android OS, or work within the system. Apple had a similar grand ambition when the iPhone first launched with no carrier subsidy. They backed off when it didn't work, so why doesn't MG hate the iPhone?

I agree with MG that the iPhone wrestled power from the carriers. I just disagree that gave it to us (other than indirectly). The article relies on a viewing of carriers as absolute evil and Apple/2007 Google as beams of pure good and light. I don't. There are shades of grey everywhere. iPhone brought a great OS with no crapware, a decent update schedule, and a handy app/media store where Apple gets a say in and a cut of everything, with one hardware option. Android brought you an OS that runs on multiple devices with a relatively open ecosystem, with the drawbacks of a less smooth experience and allowing carriers/OEMs monkey around with Android. Carriers have their own set of priorities that also have a bunch of pros and cons.

Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal while a device that requires the manufacturer to approve all software that runs on it is A-OK.

And when it comes to that, android is winning.

I can take my Android phone on any carrier and use tethering. I take my iPhone, and it randomly disables tethering depending on the carrier. Apple have also disabled downloads of apps and podcasts over 20 MB on the behest of a single carrier with a poor network (AT&T), applying the restriction to all phones, worldwide. My carrier doesn't care if I happen to download a 100 MB file, why would Apple ever want to restrict that?

Google only lets carriers screw with the phones the carriers themselves sell. Which IMHO is the prerogative of the carrier. If people don't want crapware, they don't buy phones from your carrier! Apple lets carriers screw with the feature set of all iPhones, regardless of where you bought it.

Who has the absolute control in the Android ecosystem? My cell carrier has certainly not. Google cannot even stop me from installing the Amazon market app. The device manufactuers may seem very powerful: They make and service both the hardware and the (Android-based) operating system. But even the manufactuer does not control the system more than any of the other parties. They need Google's services, they need the carriers, and they need us.

The user. We can decide if we want to buy our devices from Verizon or from Samsung or from Google. But most important, we can choose what software we install on the device.

Never before had so many users that much power over their mobile experience. The user rules the desktop PC, and now, thanks to Android, he get's to rule the mobile PC as well. We're not there, but we're getting there.

M.G. Siegler wants to replace the control of many software providers with the control of a single one. This is short sighted.

Android gave us a democracy instead: It's sometimes slow to get something done, because every decision has to be fought over with the different partie's interest. But we, the users, can vote. And we have rights.

>Or, you could buy whatever phone you wanted unlocked. Eventually, pay-as-you-go SIM cards would pop up in the U.S. as a result.

Well, I hate to break it to the author, but in Europe (at least, here in Central Europe), that is pretty much the standard and possible with both Android and iPhones (and Window 7 phones). You can buy the locked subsidised phones here, and actually, more people are doing it now than in the past, but the most are still unlocked.

The fact that it doesn't work in US has more in common that customers don't want that, not the carriers. With the pricey smartphones, actually, more people here in Europe are buying subsidised phones than with the cheap dumbphones of the past.

I just thought it's worth mentioning.

Really? Apple has put control back into the hands of consumers? Ahhh, yes - the fog is lifting now. Apple locked themselves into the worst carrier in the US which, in turn, locked their customers into bad service for a good phone. Oh, oh and wait - there's more. Apple has done the industry a fantastic favor by fueling the tipping point of the intellectual property patent war that's been oh so rightly just for the good of all humans.

Yes, yes - I see the point of this article now. Because I was told to.

But in all reality - Google took the shot, Apple never wanted to share the ball in the first place. Chew on that hate MG.

Right... Nobody in their right mind should be able to believe that Google planned to sell hardware at a loss of hundreds of dollars, in order to gain a user worth a couple of dollars a year, for a couple of years. But not only does Siegler appear to believe this, but he considers the non-appearance of that phone as a betrayal.

It seems like MG expected a lot of Google, and Google let him down. But what did he expect of Apple, and did they deliver? Because last time I looked Apple were championing all the wrong things.

Maybe that talk is in relation to Android being open code whereas iOS is closed and encumbered with horrible shit (iTunes, App Store)? The iPhone is an incredibly "closed" device unless you jailbreak it. That's not nuclear bullshit, that's the fucking truth.

>"Apple, for all the shit they get for being “closed” and “evil”, has actually done far more to wrestle control back from the carriers and put it into the hands of consumers. Google set off to help in this goal, then stabbed us all in the back and went the complete other way, to the side of the carriers. And because they smiled the entire time they were doing it and fed us “open” bullshit, we thanked them for it. We’re still thanking them for it!"

Thinking the majority of consumers care about Net Neutrality or carrier issues is hilarious. The only time they care about the carrier is when they have issues with said carrier. And as mentioned above, what has Apple really done to "wrestle control" from carriers?

This article reads like it was written by a butthurt 15 year old.

One can prefer Apple products for a number of reasons, but taking the angle of "net neutrality" to justify one's position is hardly understandable in this case.

Don't think i agree here. Apple wrestled control from the carriers to put it in their own hands, not consumers. Just as any other profit oriented company would like to do... but it was no altruistic move. In fact you went from several carriers having to compete to one company calling the shots for the majority of the mobile market for awhile. Android has realistically been one of the few things that has kept the mobile market from being a monopoly (which would have been far worse than it was ).

Also, what does Android being open source have anything to do with his argument? He sneers at Android calling itself open. Why? Sure, Google made a bad decision by supporting Verizon's take on Net Neutrality, but how does that make their source code less open for modification? It may mean that we can't treat carriers as dumb data pipes, but that fact makes Android less open?

Also I hope he knows Android is being used for many more things than just elitist phones.

You see the "evil" behind Android because you WANT to. I see the evil behind iOS because I WANT to. The truth is, they're equally evil - which is to say, they are the yangless yings.

What Apple did was to gain control for themselves; not the user. You need look no farther than Apple's opposition to the DMCA exception for smart phone jailbreaking to see what they think of user control.

I don't deny he doesn't have some genuine insight. I just find that the amount of work I have to do to sift past his bias is so draining that I prefer to outsource it to people who _can_ tolerate his... foibles (read: bullshit).

Apple tried to control everything. That's the truth. Google interfered and shit hit the fan.

This guy just likes apple and hates android. Like a true apple fanboy.

http://shawndrape.tumblr.com/post/15606937775/why-i-hate-and...

I understand that the carriers are only doing their job, but I feel like a new system needs to take place - maybe sign a 3 year contract, but allow updates each year with discounts.

I don't exactly know what other ramifications such a system may cause, but I for one would love it. I don't see myself changing carriers unless something major happens, so I would be happy to sign for a longer "enslavement" for the tradeoff of being able to update my phone more regularly.

This sentence about Android coming from an iPhone enthusiast is priceless.

"To be clear: Net Neutrality was thrown out in the wireless space because Google sided with Verizon’s ridiculous and horribly conflicted stance on the matter."

There is a strong and viable position that net neutrality is bad policy. In NN government declares winners and sandboxes areas where innovation is allowed.

You might not agree, but that's besides the point I'm seeking to make.

What's important is this: opposition to net neutrality is often falsely characterised, as here, as a pure corporate marketdroid position. It's not - it's a position with a firm idealogical basis that you may happen to disagree with.

The writer here borders on conspiracy mode here, "The open spectrum enemy, turned Net Neutrality enemy, became Google’s bedmate thanks to a business deal. Straight up. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." The available evidence doesn't support that conclusion. It might be true, but the writer should hold his emotions back for things where the facts support a conclusion.

    > But I cannot respect their decision to continue
    > to work on this platform that perpetuates our
    > imprisonment. 

haha... that's a good one.

I hate when people bitch that Android isn't open. I guess it depends on your definition of "open" but whatever way you look at it, Android is the most open in my opinion because it's the only smartphone platform I know of where you can build your own modified ROM or kernel and replace the one on your phone with it. So maybe it's not perfectly open but it's the most open and I like that about it.

Edit: as someone else here has mentioned, we have Android on hundreds of different phones, as well as Nook and GoogleTV devices. That's not something you see with BlackberryOS or iOS.

Also wondering what Apple's stance on net neutrality is - I suppose they support it, as long as all content passes through the iCloud with a fee attached first.

I'm in Europe, where Google made no deals with carriers that I know of, but I'm genuinely interested: should I care? Should I hate Android for the same reason, whatever that may be? I mean, right now the closedness of Apple products is the only thing keeps me away from Apple. Am I being an ignorant hypocrite?

People who speak a lot on the phone would have to pay a big premium for this, but if you don't talk much on the phone, PAYG data plans in the UK have really cheap, sufficient broadband. I reckon here in the UK people do unlock their phones a lot and this keep the market very competitive.

It's not just carriers that dislike competition. Makers also want to artificially "differentiate" their phones. (Translate: try their best to lock you up). This is all fair and part of the game. It's users who can make the market more competitive by favouring less crapified phones and doing it clearly, or doing their best to strip their phones of crap.

The article even goes to great lengths to point out the responsible party for the situation with the mobile market in the US, and then fails to make the obvious leap and blame them instead choosing to blame google. The average american consumer is who to blame for the shitty situation the US market is in, and frankly that's a kind of poetic justice.

"Why I Hate Android"

2nd paragraph in, "Believe it or not, I actually don’t hate Android."

/s/consumers/Apple/

MG, enjoy your slide into irrelevancy. The torrent of negative rhetoric will only get you so far in journalism.

Eh, who am I kidding? It's made Rupert Murdoch rich!

I for one recognise that they're all the 'devil'. It's about time we stopped pretending that these companies are trying to do us a favour. They don't report favours and hugs in their quarterly earnings results.

He objects for seemingly, what, "moral" reasons? Yet he merely argues that Apple is "more open" via a closed ecosystem because of the power the carriers currently wield? His post chronicles the truths of this situation. Google tried to sell their phones directly, that failed miserably because Americans refuse to understand how contracts work and buy unsubsidized phones. So, they tried something else. I'm happily running a custom rom on an `oem unlock`ed phone as I speak. It doesn't bother me that my friend bought a locked Android phone, he's perfectly happy too.

I don't understand this post. Did he expect Google to give up or fail for ideological reasons? The way he hyped this on Twitter and his last post at TC, I wonder if he is just a troll anymore.

And an implication that Google is going to... do what exactly, in the patent war? Somehow they're siding with the carriers and they're worse than Apple or Microsoft in the use of their patents. I honestly don't understand what is being alleged or suggested by that paragraph.

So, Google compromises with Verizon = "[Android being open] nuclear bullshit.", that's what this boils down to, right?