ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney
Home / News & Blogs / Linux and Open Source

Will Google defend Android and its good name?

By | September 24, 2010, 5:30am PDT

Summary: When people get what they think is a Google Android phone and find it filled with phone carrier crapware they can’t delete, they get mad at Google.

Google is a big time brand.

By that I mean it stands for something. It’s not just an advertising presence (it doesn’t buy ads), it’s a set of assumptions and beliefs with a positive emotional resonance for its market.

For those who believe the brand’s promise it’s the only choice.

“Don’t be evil” may drive cynics away, but it’s a powerful message many people believe nonetheless.

Google is risking nothing less than its brand through its passivity over Android. Carriers have hijacked the mobile Linux distro and turned it decidedly evil, sometimes even preventing buyers from accessing Google without jailbreaking their phones.

CEO Eric Schmidt’s response has been completely passive. Were we to restrict the use of the code, we’d be violating the principles of open source, he says.

Maybe, but Google is not completely powerless here.

  • It could do more to encourage jailbreaking, which is legal, to make it easier.
  • It could deliver a “clean” (Google-branded) version of the software directly to consumers.
  • It could empower its own channel of service people to represent its interests in the mobile market.
  • It could deliver a Google-branded phone.
  • It could impose conditions on the Android trademark restricting what carriers can do in its name.
  • It could talk to the carriers, or talk to the public, jawboning on behalf of Android consumers.

By doing none of these things, Google has allowed its brand to be hijacked, and abused by companies who do not have Google’s interests at heart, who are in fact opposed to its business interests.

When people get what they think is a Google Android phone and find it filled with phone carrier crapware they can’t delete, they don’t just get mad at the carrier. They get mad at Google. Yet Schmidt won’t even acknowledge this reality, let alone do anything about it.

Schmidt cites the example of Java, which Sun found itself losing control of before making it open source under the GPL. But the question is not binary. It’s not either you make it proprietary or you make it an orphan. Every open source business worth its market cap knows that.

Evil grows when good men do nothing. Google’s refusal to rein-in the carriers is hurting the Google brand. That hurt will grow until it acts.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Linux and Open Source”

Topics

Google Inc., Branding, Marketing, Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

109
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

Yes, but no matter why it happens. . .
nobby57 3rd Oct 2010
It's still annoying! Most people aren't going to try hacking their phones, either, whether we consider it easy or not.

One of the most common experiences most folks have with a new phone is when they get it home, start experimenting with it, and discover all the ways the carrier has crippled/replaced (unless you pay a subscription fee) the features the purchaser read about in the ads or heard about, and thought they'd be enjoying.

Unfortunately, once you sign on with a carrier, regardless of who it is, you're usually going to pay more than you expected for less than you bargained for.

Sure, let the buyer beware - folks should understand what they're doing or else not ***** about it - but I still think it's OK to wish for a better option. And it can very definitely tarnish the Android image - John Q Public will only get that the phone is marginally functional in some way, or annoying, or expensive, and react negatively. Many of them won't sort out Android vs. Carrier.

I think Dana's article makes a valid point.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
scifibabu 24th Sep 2010
It is really making me angry when someone spoils Google's name...
0 Votes
+ -
Especially when it Google doing it.
Bruizer 24th Sep 2010
@scifibabu

Google, starting with the Google Books project, removed any doubt that "Do no Evil" was there only for the gullible.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
relativityboy 24th Sep 2010
@Bruizer Would someone please explain this comment?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
thiel.terry@... 24th Sep 2010
@Bruizer Google makes money by collecting peoples personal information and monetizing it one way or the other and without your permission. Its their business model. Thats the definition of do evil.
0 Votes
+ -
@relativityboy
Bruizer 25th Sep 2010
By going to an opt out concept of books to put on their site, Google continues to draw traffic and make ad revenue on other peoples full work without permission.

Google does not believe in copyright and feels they can make money off of others people's work without going through the effort to track down the property owner . Very evil. This is what made me realize that "Do no Evil" was a marketing line to draw in the gullible.
0 Votes
+ -
No mystery here. To answer your question, RTFL! (license)
tevroc 24th Sep 2010
@Dana Blankenhorn

umm... what? Carriers and users being able to modify android how they see fit is the core idea behind android.

Being an author of the linux and open source section of this site, you should probably know how open source software works. If you want to find out why Google is powerless to stop carriers from adding stuff to the phones they are selling, you should probably read androids licencing because that is how they set up what users of the software can and cannot do with it is by the license. I'm sure (hope?) you know this and just had to write something even though its completely sensational garbage.

Section 4 of the apache license, which is what android is released under, reads: "You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form" and then it goes on to list some conditions which are basically saying that you have to state that you added something or modified the code so that people know they are getting something modified ie. HTC Sense UI or MOTOBlur. And that when you redistribute the modified software you include the licence and then it says this, "You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."

I'm not even a journalist and I found this stuff out in about 30 seconds by searching
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
prof.ebral 24th Sep 2010
@tevroc Is that the problem Oracle has, is that Android is under the Apache license? How can it be under the Apache license if it uses a Linux Kernel? I think the Dalvic VM does NOT create a far enough distance between code interaction to prevent Android from requiring the GPL.

Just what the hell is Android?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
DeusXMachina 24th Sep 2010
@tevroc
Why don't you try RTFA?!? Your response was addressed directly therein. In fact, over 50% of the article DIRECTLY addressed this issue. Dana acknowledged that under the open source licences, there was little Google could do directly to limit what carriers could do with the code, but they most certainly COULD do something to make this kind of code hijacking untenable.
There is nothing in the GPL that states that Google could not take out ads campaigning against specific models, for instance. Nor does the GPL restrict Google inserting code DEEP in to the release that makes such practices difficult. Sure it can be removed, but it is really quite easy to insert the code so intrinsically that its removal is problematic. Even easier would be for Google to revise the code such that jailbreaking any device and switching out the OS to the Google-certified release would be as trivial as downloading an app.
Your tirade, and all 30 seconds of your research on the GPL totally missed the point.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
tkejlboom 24th Sep 2010
@tevroc

He's not saying Google should sue the carriers! He's saying Google isn't doing anything to defend Android! Here's a more detailed version of his example. If you like Mint, great, but if you don't, you can get Ubuntu without Mint. Ubuntu still too "bloated" for you? You can get the Debian source. Debian still to rigid for you(crazy or bored?)? Then you can download the kernel and compile yourself.

Google is hurting Android because there is nothing between Mint and pretty much the Kernel. They haven't defined Android canon.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
mejohnsn 24th Sep 2010
@tevroc

But it sounds like you haven't really read the licensing agreement yourself, something we all know cannot be done in "about 30 seconds".

The truth is that although anyone can use and modify the open source, you cannot call the modified product whatever you want: you cannot call it 'Android' unless it meets certain requirements.

If Google wants to protect its name and reputation it has to enforce that judiciously, sometimes vigorously. In particular, allowing Crapware in their name is a very bad idea: it may be too late to undo the damage now.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
thiel.terry@... 24th Sep 2010
@tevroc It is always amusing to see someone like you post on a forum. First you brag about how knowledgeable you are then you proceed to prove that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Android, which Google bought from another company. is far from entirely open source. Everything that has to do with interacting with hardware is not open source. They have sued several companies that have tried to use hardware interface code for phones without licensing it from Google. Google does not accept contribution to the Android source. They may say they do but that don't. So if Android is open source it sure as hell is the most tightly controlled open source project in history. So you see thats actually how "open source software works".
I'm quite sure Google did not intend for Android to be bastardized by Google with Bing. Google bought the Android OS because they want mobile search. They don't really care about anything else. Like UI, Hardware quality, cutomer experience or service. The only way they make money from Android is through search and use of other Google services. So now they have given Verizon and Samsung an OS for free and they get nothing in return. In fact they lose money. They won't allow this to go on forever. Right about the time other carriers start punking them the way Verizon has you will see something change.
As far as your cut and paste of the Apache license that has no bearing on the subject at hand.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
relativityboy 24th Sep 2010
@scifibabu
And now you turn green......
0 Votes
+ -
Well said, sir
jljansen 24th Sep 2010
However, I think that Google is pandering to the carriers to keep them pushing out android phones. If there weren't a bunch of great developers coming up with solutions for people who don't like what the carriers do with their phones, I think Google would be more likely to take a stand. But as it is, there ARE solutions, and people who care enough about solving them will find them. I hope they try to do a Nexus 2, but at this point, it'll be hard to get the problem carriers to sign off, or hard to get customers to pay full price for a phone.
0 Votes
+ -
So Android is a geek OS?
Bruizer 24th Sep 2010
@jljansen

Android is turning into Win95 in all the bad ways.
0 Votes
+ -
I wouldn't say that
jljansen 24th Sep 2010
@Bruizer
I don't get the Win95 reference(I'm probably too young, I thought Win95 was the greatest thing in the world) But as far as having to be a geek to fix things you don't like about your phone, I don't agree. There are plenty of hand-holding guides out there for rooting, and often rooting isn't even necessary. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but at least they have a way if they care enough. I'm not saying this is the best for Google, some people will get ticked off and never buy another Android phone, but it's price Google pays for letting the keeper of the keys get their way.
0 Votes
+ -
Google will pay a price
dave95. 24th Sep 2010
@jljansen

Only a small percentage of users care or even know what rooting or jailbreaking is. The phone most consumers buy will the phone they use. So if carriers continue to taint the "Android experience" with bundled crapware that can't be uninstalled, and OEMs continue to offer ugly skins which is indifferent from core Android. Then the big loser long-term will be Google. As mentioned, carriers and OEMs only care about their own interests, not Eric Schmidt?s child-like "Open" philosophy. We're already seeing this with Verizon removing the default Google search and replacing it with Bing on the Facinate, and developing their own competing App Store.

As it stand right now, and unlike iOS, BlackBerry, WebOS and WP7, there's no one Android user experience. The inconsistency between phones are astonishing, and it may get worst. The average Joe buying their first Android Phone and expecting an "Android Experience" may be left with a bad taste in their mouth for the brand and go someplace else, for good.
0 Votes
+ -
It is what you use it as - that's a luxury not afforded by "other OS's"
geolemon 24th Sep 2010
@Bruizer Because it offers you the choice to root it and mod it - that only makes it a geek OK if you choose to go that route.

If you run it as your carriers provide it, it's as simple as you'd expect a modern smartphone to be - simpler than BlackBerry OS (my former), on par or almost as simple as iPhone OS (depending on your enjoying or being frustrated by the inflexibility of the UI), particularly with default UI settings. And if you wish to install a loader app, you can change the UI - again, only if you choose to. The default experience is the simplest and most enjoyable for non-geeks.

It's nice to have choices- It is flexible to you, where Win95 required you to be a contortionist to all it's quirks.
0 Votes
+ -
@jijansen: "There are plenty of hand-holding guides out there for rooting"
Bruizer Updated - 24th Sep 2010
@jljansen

Thanks for proving my point. That was simply classic. I am amazed at the number of my "geek" friends that are looking into WP7 (from Android) to simply get away from this. They really do not want to live through Win95 again.
0 Votes
+ -
@geolomon: "Win95 required you to be a contortionist to all it's quirks."
Bruizer Updated - 24th Sep 2010
@ geolemon

After using Android for 3 weeks, I would say the same is true for Android. It is far from seamless and easy to use when compared to iOS. The development environment is light years behind as well.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
Rinzai 24th Sep 2010
@Bruizer I've been using Android for about the same amount of time and having no trouble at all. I don't know what you're saying about not being "seamless." Looks pretty good from here.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree, but...
tn77 Updated - 24th Sep 2010
... you say: why doesn't google deliver a google-branded version of the software, or empower its own channel of service, or deliver a google-branded phone.... ever hear of the Nexus One? It delivers on all of those points (and it's one heck of a phone; I own it).

It is ridiculous that carriers determine who can own what phones, and also that they provide nasty UI overlays and install crapware or limit the default search options. Horrible.

The Nexus One is expensive, but it's also ahead of its time: buy a phone without carrier interference. What a concept. The "Mobile Phone Bill of Rights" site needs a larger following.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
dave95. 24th Sep 2010
@tn77

You mean the Nexux One that is no longer sold? Discontinued? It's a pity Google didn't fight harder to get Nexus One in the hands of the public.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
hiraghm@... 24th Sep 2010
@dave95.

Actually, you can still buy a Nexus One, it's available to developers.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
wackoae 24th Sep 2010
@hiraghm You can only buy one of the leftover (remaining inventory) NexusOne. The phone it self is no longer been manufactured.

Like it or not, the fact that Google hasn't sold the relatively small inventory they purchased almost half a year ago is a sign that the model was a failure.

And BTW, @tn77 how is that a Google phone can be "ahead of its time" for doing something that is done EVERY DAY around the world. Nx1 is not even the 1st US phone sold without a contract or carrier.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
Raju Das 24th Sep 2010
@tn77
"The Nexus One is expensive, but it's also ahead of its time: buy a phone without carrier interference. What a concept. "

Rest of the world buys phone this way only, independent from carrier. So it is not ahead of time, but doing what people outside US do.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
tn77 24th Sep 2010
@rdsm I know; good for the rest of the world! What a concept indeed.
and @dave95, yep... it was indeed a pity.

My question now is: when it's time to get a new phone after my Nexus One, how can I do it? There is no other American phone that has the pure Android experience without all the crapware!!
0 Votes
+ -
Google Branded Phone
simon.roberts.phd 24th Sep 2010
There was/is a Google Branded Phone. It's the Nexus One, and it came without any carrier restrictions (unless you consider having T-Mobile in and of itself a restriction). Consumers didn't realize at the time what a difference unrestricted software can make and I'm glad I got one when I did...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
dave95. 24th Sep 2010
@simon.roberts.phd

Good, but it's now discontinued so why even bring it up?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
Alexstrasza 24th Sep 2010
Like it's been said... it's not google's fault, it is the customers' fault.

Ever wondered why the Nexus One failed to make it in the consumer market? Yes, because of the customers, not Google.

Basically, customers are happy with their "restricted" handsets, otherwise they would've taken some action. But they didn't.
0 Votes
+ -
The question is, what is Android's purpose in being open
Bruizer 24th Sep 2010
@Alexstrasza

Google played the open source community like a fiddle with Android. The OHA is a consortium of manufactures an companies. It is not made up of end users. The OHA was always intended to be used for the advantage of carriers and handset makers and never to the benefit OC cell phone users.

Google is willing to loose the occasional Bing phone or Facebook phone knowing many Google services would still be tied in at the OS level. This will drive revenue for Google and that is what Android is about. Making Google money.

Not only does Google not care that carriers and handset makers are turning Android into the next Win95 (in all the bad ways), they were counting on it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
DanaBlankenhorn 24th Sep 2010
@Bruizer Counting on it? I'd like to hear more on that.
0 Votes
+ -
@Bruizer -- Exactly right.
x I'm tc Updated - 24th Sep 2010
Google makes money on only one thing: advertising. They just want to get their platform into as many people's hands as possible, so they can mine as much information from them as possible and, in turn, present them with the most compelling advertising. End users aren't Google's customers. Nothing they do is directed at enhancing the end user's experience per se, but rather at enhancing their relationships with their customers. Oftentimes, a great experience is what keeps end users around and thus serves both end users' and Google's customers' interests. Other times it doesn't. In the case of phones, Google's users are the phone companies, and so Google is giving them what they want to keep them around: a phone they can make money on. Google's customers are still its advertisers. It's up to the phone companies to give their customers (the end users) what they want.

In the US, what the end user wants is a subsidized phone. The more the crapware, the deeper the subsidy. End of story.
0 Votes
+ -
@Dana
Bruizer 24th Sep 2010
@Bruizer

Think about it. When Android was introduced it was introduced as an "open" platform for carriers and handset manufactures to build internet rich devices around:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gphone/googles-android-team-introduces-the-gphone-318878.php

Watching this from hind-sight, it is clear that when Google was taling about molding it, changing it they were not specifically talking about the end user. They actually specifically mention handset makers and carriers doing the molding on Android and creating unique experiences around each one.

This was in 2007. Google was not stupid and has long known what happened in the commoditization of PC hardware. To make any profit at all, manufactures had to cut deals with dozens of companies to install crap ware on their computers. This in turn led to cheaper prices, razor thin margins and really poor user experience. It also created mass adoption of the platform due to low costs.

Based on this little 2-3 minute short, you can hear Rubin expressing the same thoughts for phones. The big difference is phones are bloody expensive devices but the cost is neither in the commodity hardware nor the OS, it is the carrier networks. Even the cost of a Windows CE licences is basic chump change in the scheme of costs.

And again, Google knew this (my supposition). There is not lots of money to be made licensing a cell phone OS. Controlling access to the services, however, is huge. Simply look at the money Apple is making both themselves and their partners (read developers and hardware manufactures playing into the iTunes eco-system).

So you give away the OS to the handset manufactures. You get out of the way on Net Neutrality for the carriers. You allow the handset makers and the carriers to do what ever you want. You sell the open source community that Android is "Open" leading the Tech Bloggers to praise its greatness. You never tell the tech bloggers Android is really "open" to the carriers and handset makers for "innovation" and customization.

Google, not making the handsets, is not too overly concerned with the overall user experience so long as users have access to Google Services (and you can innovate as much as you want, just don't cut into real ad revenu. Ask Skyhook). If most manufactures use Android (and why not, it is free), then when a consumer goes to buy a new phone, they may hate the LG experience but maybe the Motorola experience will be better.

How is this any different than what happened with Win95?

Google's positioning is brilliant. It is very calculated and only depends ont he carriers not wanting a single OS to gain traction or control. I am guessing the carriers will try to keep control of any one OS to around 30-40% market share MAX.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
Pete "athynz" Athens Updated - 24th Sep 2010
@Alexstrasza It was not because of the customers - not in the sense you mean anyhow. It's not that people like restrictive devices - just look at those who create custom ROMs for their WM devices, those who run hybrid OSes on their BBs, people who jailbreak their iOS devices, and yes those who root their Android phones. So some customers have indeed taken action.

Nexus One failed not because of people liking restrictive devices but because there was no in-store device to get one's hands on and give it a spin... and even with the subsidized price through T-Mobile it was still too risky for a lot of people to spend that money on a device that one has not seen in person. And that goes the same - only more so - for the devices that were not even carrier subsidized.
0 Votes
+ -
Does Microsoft defend its good name
Michael Kelly 24th Sep 2010
when OEMs fill a Windows machine with crapware?

All you can do is allow the customer an avenue to cleanly uninstall whatever they consider crapware.
0 Votes
+ -
That is where Google should use its brand. No Google brand if you can NOT
DonnieBoy 24th Sep 2010
at least remove an application.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
Linville79 Updated - 24th Sep 2010
@Michael Kelly

But you can remove all the Dell and HP branded junk on your new PC. You can't do that for much of the carrier crapware that gets preinstalled on smartphones.

Google could develop a root-enabled tool that would remove each carrier's pre-installed apps and make it available on the Market.
0 Votes
+ -
YES you can
wackoae 24th Sep 2010
@Linville79 It is called a clean install.

The fact that this day an age you don't know WELL KNOWN FACT, doesn't give confidence on credibility.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
DanaBlankenhorn 24th Sep 2010
@Michael Kelly You can't do that with carrier crapware without jailbreaking the phone. Which voids the warranty.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
The Star King 24th Sep 2010
@Michael Kelly

Dell, HP etc add a few icons on Windows. That's completely different from changing the entire appearance and functionality of the OS to the point where Android becomes a series of libraries hidden from the user. Eg HTC's Sense UI. Microsoft would never allow their OS to be buried entirely under the crapware the way Android is.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
dave95. 24th Sep 2010
@The Star King

Exactly. Everyone hates crapware on Windows but getting rid of it did not require breaking warranty. And at the end of the day everyone were offered the same "Windows UI" experience. Branding consistency, no consumer confusion with skins etc.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
Robert Hahn 24th Sep 2010
@The Star King Microsoft would never allow that, but no device maker ever wants to be a commodity PC manufacturer again. And the wireless guys want there to be hassles if you switch away from them. So the good old days where Microsoft and Intel made all the money while IBM, Compaq, and Dell tried to survive on razor-thin margins will not be repeated with smartphones.

The carriers -will- install their crapware, the hardware makers -will- differentiate their products, and the days of "Windows everywhere" will end.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
dave@... 24th Sep 2010
@The Star King you are confused. HTC does the "Sensee UI" on Android specifically as a outgrowth of their doing the same UI on Windows CE/Mobile. MS was apparently happy to have anyone using a Windows phone, they did not prevent this stuff.

Sure, Google could do a bit more to help .. put the standard Android graphic shell up as a alternative to Sense or Motoblur (though there are already plenty of alternatives). As long as they don't balkanize the Android APIs, its only a matter of user choice, I personally like the standard Android shell on my Droid, particularly since 2.2. But I used an alternate on my old Palm Treo 700p. Its not that big a deal.

As for cleaning out useless junk.. sounds like a excellent 3rd party app. Yeah, its annoying if you can't delete it, but is it really worse than the waste of a few MB? And as always, the consumer bears responsibility here, spending on what they support, not buying something they knew to be bogus, then hoping to fix it by complainig.
0 Votes
+ -
Removing apps isn't the problem. Being able to change search is.
kevindarling Updated - 24th Sep 2010
People should not get distracted.

Not being able to remove apps is not a big problem at all. At least you can remove their shortcuts from your homescreen. The iPhone has it much worse since their built-in icons cannot be removed, only stuck on a separate page or folder.

The big problem is having search locked somewhere like Bing. That's just wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Will Google defend Android and its good name?
DanaBlankenhorn 24th Sep 2010
@kevindarling Well that is being done, too. Some carrier crapware locks search on Yahoo already.
0 Votes
+ -
Yahoo??? Do you mean Bing??
wackoae 24th Sep 2010
Yahoo is no longer a branded search engine. It is just a service on top of MS Bing.
0 Votes
+ -
Google is more evil than the carriers.
iPad-awan 24th Sep 2010
Google is still getting a free pass from its lies and 'Do No Evil' motto that only fools fall for. Google's lack of response is just another example of Google saying one thing and doing another. In this case, Google is happy to let the carriers take the blame for being evil.
0 Votes
+ -
Google, evil?
jljansen 24th Sep 2010
@iPad-awan
I can take Google blind criticism from most people, I just write them off as ignorant, but not from an Apple fanboy. Apple is by far the most self-interested company in the world and will do ANYTHING to get ahead. Google has a better conscience that any company on the big stage and you mock their motto which they've had since inception(long before the public knew about it). It's wasn't a PR campaign, it was a mantra. And if they are pretending to be good just to fool us, they are doing a really good job. They bought On2 for $105 Million, then opensourced one of their high quality video codecs just to further internet standards so everyone could use it, ending a struggle between open source and proprietary browsers over which codec to use.(except Apple who still wants to use only their own and not include the free one) And that's just the commercial side. Just check out www.Google.org, Google's philanthropic organization. They have ME fooled!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google, evil?
x I'm tc 24th Sep 2010
@jljansen

Then you ARE a fool.
0 Votes
+ -
H.264 is not Apple's CODEC
CowLauncher 24th Sep 2010
@jljansen nor is it proprietary. It is a ISO/IEC standard just like MPEG1, MPEG2 and JPEG, just to name a few and the industry gets the benefit that comes with such. One of which is a level playing field in which to compete. You think Google open sourced VP8 out of the goodness of it's heart? They still own it and manage it. Google is like the creepy guy in the playground with the kitten and a bag of candy.

People are starting to see that free and open can really suck when it is not controlled. I hope the irony of that statement is not lost. The hippies found out in the end that free is not very healthy and really only benefited the drug pushers and they guy selling the love beads.

You guys say Apple is controlling but don't consider what that stewardship brings to it's customers. It brings a confidence that the level of user experience and quality is going to be consistent, yet it never prevents it's customers from going to the internet in anyway they want. More of a gated community than a walled garden.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, but no matter why it happens. . .
nobby57 3rd Oct 2010
It's still annoying! Most people aren't going to try hacking their phones, either, whether we consider it easy or not.

One of the most common experiences most folks have with a new phone is when they get it home, start experimenting with it, and discover all the ways the carrier has crippled/replaced (unless you pay a subscription fee) the features the purchaser read about in the ads or heard about, and thought they'd be enjoying.

Unfortunately, once you sign on with a carrier, regardless of who it is, you're usually going to pay more than you expected for less than you bargained for.

Sure, let the buyer beware - folks should understand what they're doing or else not ***** about it - but I still think it's OK to wish for a better option. And it can very definitely tarnish the Android image - John Q Public will only get that the phone is marginally functional in some way, or annoying, or expensive, and react negatively. Many of them won't sort out Android vs. Carrier.

I think Dana's article makes a valid point.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix