Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
Summary: Android has become a Frankenstein monster says the New America Foundation, whose board chairman is Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
Free "the people" and you free people. Free a monopolist and you unleash a monster.
It is now obvious that it's the latter step Google took with Android and folks in Washington are starting to take notice.
The New America Foundation, a liberal think tank founded in 1999 whose board chairman is (ironically) Google CEO Eric Schmidt (right), is out with a series of reports by four key members of its technology team, sounding the call.
Android has become a Frankenstein monster, they write, and the good doctor needs to face the consequences.
The most captivating charge is that T-Mobile is willfully violating the spirit if not the letter of Librarian of Congress James Billington's July order stating that consumers have a right to control the software on their phones.
At issue is an HTC-installed chip on T-Mobile's new G2 Android phone that prevents users from modifying the software on the phone.
"One of the microchips embedded into the G2 prevents device owners from making permanent changes that allow custom modifications to the the Android operating system," the team writes, and T-Mobile confirmed this in a press statement.
This has political implications, the team writes in a follow-up:
The fundamental question the FCC now needs to answer is not if developers will find a way around the latest blocks, but if companies should be allowed to continue actively blocking users from truly owning and having full control over the mobile devices they buy in the first place.
What this means is that Schmidt is now in a political bind, as well as a business one. A group he chairs accuses him of allowing monopolists to run roughshod over consumers. Rhetoric about "open source freedom" is not going to answer these charges.
The choice is either to take control of Android, both in the name of users and the Google brand, or to resign from the New America Foundation board.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
Open source is supposed to be open to everyone, not just open to the carriers to lock down for their customers.
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
I guess it was inevitable that the open source nutjobs...
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
Sounds like "open source freedom"
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
T-Mobile (i.e. the carriers) will win
The carriers can and will always say they need to protect the integrity of their network(s) to ensure reliable service to the majority, not just the minority (i.e. hackers, power users).
Do I agree? No, I'd much rather have the freedom to do what I want with my phone. However, as an Information Technology professional I understand where the carriers are coming from. Much like we don't allow clients or employees to bring in their own laptops and connect into our network to protect the integrity of OUR network, since we cannot validate that their equipment meets our security best practices and standards.
I do believe that putting a chip in the phone to prevent modding was a bit ridiculous. Like anything, the real motivation behind these implementations has everything to do with money. We don't want you having root/hacking your phone because you might be able to bypass certain code allowing you to (for example) wirelessly tether for free without paying another $30 (Verizon) for tether capability.
We (the carriers) want to control what you have access to for revenue generating purposes. If we replace Google with Bing (Verizon) on our Samsung Captivate, we get to earn revenue from Microsoft.
The other issue here is that Google's Android OS has been a blessing and a curse to carriers. Think about it. On one hand Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc have competition for AT&T and the iPhone. They can finally have iPhone-esque like devices without Apple.
The downside is they're forced to be "open", so open that it allows consumers the ability to make choices! Why would someone pay Verizon for VZ Navigator when you can get free turn-by-turn directions using Google's Navigation on your Android phone. Why use VCast when you can use a ton of other FREE apps in the Android Market. Carriers are losing that little extra revenue they were taking in. Of course they could be gaining subscribers and of course everyone's still charging that mandatory data fee for smart phones but let's face it, carriers are greedy! They want it all.
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
verizon's need for full control is probably why apple passed them up on the iphone.
Mainly a US issue I guess
Phones that come on contracts are really leased from and supported by the network, so really you should expect the network to do what it can to minimise its support costs. Judging by some of the stupid things I've seen posted on Droid/Milestone forums, it is probably essential to lock the phone to the way it is provided or the contract monthly charge would need to be doubled...
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
I have the sprint evo and I can't remove the amazon mp3 app which just decides to run on it own.
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability
RE: Google passivity over Android becoming a political liability