Why I Hate Android!

Looney

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
5,602
Reaction score
1,317
Location
Johannesburg
This is actually an article I just read, its very interesting and I rather enjoyed the read :)

http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

Why do I hate Android? It’s definitely one of the questions I get asked most often these days. And most of those that don’t ask probably assume it’s because I’m an iPhone guy. People see negative take after negative take about the operating system and label me as “unreasonable” or “biased” or worse.

I should probably explain.

Believe it or not, I actually don’t hate Android. That is to say, I don’t hate the concept of Android — in fact, at one point, I loved it. What I hate is what Android has become. And more specifically, what Google has done with Android.
Let’s turn back the clock. In 2006, the mobile landscape in the United States was almost unfathomably ****ty. Motorola’s RAZR had been the top-selling device for something ridiculous like five straight years — and the only thing that didn’t suck about it was its physical size. The carriers completely controlled the industry. This cannot be overstated.

Then on January 9, 2007 — exactly 5 years ago today — Steve Jobs took the stage at Macworld to unveil the iPhone. Six months later it was released. While some laughed it off at the time, the mobile landscape completely changed.

Apple and Google were great allies at the time. They united over a common enemy: Microsoft. Then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt was even on Apple’s board of directors. Google was a huge part of original iPhone OS (before it was called iOS): Google Maps, YouTube, Google Search, etc. Apple could have launched the iPhone without Google, but it wouldn’t have been as good. And if they had to do something like build their own maps from scratch, it would have taken longer.

A few months later, on November 5, 2007, Google teamed up with many of the big players in the mobile/telecom space to announce the Open Handset Alliance. At the time it sounded promising, but perhaps it should have been the first warning sign. The first product of this partnership: Android. A beta was released, but it would take almost another year before the software was actually ready to go.

The initial Android prototypes looked a lot like BlackBerry devices (both in hardware and software). But the first device (the G1) and OS actually released was more of a cross between a T-Mobile Sidekick (which Android head Andy Rubin helped create while still a co-founder at Danger) and the iPhone OS.

In hindsight, Steve Jobs was clearly not happy about this and the subsequent iPhone-ification of Android. But great artists steal, etc, etc. The only thing I didn’t like about Android at the time was that it was a ****ty copy of the iPhone. It was something you couldn’t pay me to use. And most people seemed to feel the same way.

Jobs probably didn’t say much at the time because he didn’t have to. The market was saying it.

Time went on and it was pretty clear that despite the major players involved in the OHA, Android wasn’t getting a lot of traction. Meanwhile, the iPhone, after a price-cut and addition of 3G technology, was soaring. So Google did the logical thing, they went to see Verizon, the largest U.S. carrier, and struck a deal.

Remember, Apple still had an agreement with AT&T for exclusive iPhone rights in the U.S. at the time. Verizon and Google needed each other. But Google clearly needed Verizon more. This was the first real problem. A deal with the devil was struck.

Let’s back up for a second.

Even before Android’s launch, Google clearly had big dreams for the mobile space. “Your mobile phone should be free,” Eric Schmidt told Reuters in late 2006. He envisioned a world in which consumers didn’t have to pay for their mobile phones — advertising (served by Google, naturally) would subsidize the cost. And we’re not talking “free” with a two-year carrier contract. We’re talking free free.

In the pre-iPhone world this may have sounded like crazy-talk. But remember, as an Apple board member and having purchased Android for Google in 2005, Schmidt knew what was coming down the pipe. He absolutely intended to disrupt the mobile market.

But again, the initial releases of Android simply didn’t have the traction needed to come close to fulfilling Schmidt’s (and Google’s) dream. So deals with the carriers had to be made.

Still, Google hung on to the hope of a free phone. That phone was called the Nexus One.

At an event in January of 2010, Google unveiled their plan for Nexus One — the first real “Google Phone” as it were. While they were cautious and cagey with some details, the goal seemed clear: Google intended to blow up the carrier market (in the U.S. first) by moving phone distribution online, flattening it in the process. The idea was that you’d go to a website and pick the phone you wanted, then pick the carrier you wanted, pay, and you’d be done.

Think about this for a second. Instead of going to the store of a single carrier and having a dozen ****ty phones shoved in your face by salespeople that made commission, you’d be in total control of the process. The end result of consumers getting to choose their carriers (and phones and plans) was clear: major competition and subsequently a rush of better deals from said carriers to ensure customer activation and retention.

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.

This was to be the dawn of the golden age of mobile in this country. As I wrote at the time: Apple And Google Just Tag Teamed The U.S. Carriers. I loved it.

But it was never meant to be.

What should have been obvious at the time but for whatever reason wasn’t (maybe because carrier representatives were at the event), the carriers hated this plan. And for good reason — it was going to turn them into dumb pipes that competed on price. There was no way they were going to let this fly, and they didn’t. Within a few months, citing weak sales of the Nexus One, Google scrapped their ambitious website and instead got fully in bed with the carriers.

But there was more.

What no one knew at the time, and I only heard months later, was Google’s original vision for the Nexus One. Google intended to sell it for $99 without a contract and unlocked. Yes, a $99 unlocked phone, subsidized by Google ads.

But the plan had one little problem: Google didn’t operate their own cellular network. They needed Verizon or AT&T or Sprint or T-Mobile to help them out. Google probably thought their open spectrum deal “win” in early 2008 gave them the leverage they needed here. Sadly, it did not.

All of the carriers laughed in Google’s face when presented with the ambitious Nexus One plan. And given that Google had just signed the all-important deal with Verizon, it was never going to happen.

So instead, at the Nexus One launch we got a website where you could indeed buy an unlocked Android phone — for $529. Nonstarter.

Better yet, while they said they were committed at the time, Verizon and Sprint never even got around to supporting the Nexus One at all. That’s how much they were behind the project.
 
Continued:

To complicate matters further, behind the scenes, Verizon and Google were arguing over Net Neutrality rules. Verizon was opposed, Google was in favor. Then a funny thing happened. Google started supporting Verizon’s viewpoint on the matter! If you’re looking for the first post where I’m really, truly, pissed off at Google, look no further.

It. Was. Total. ****ing. Bull****.

A few months later, guess what happened? Thanks to the Google/Verizon alliance on the matter, the FCC decided the compromised vision of Net Neutrality was just fine also. 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.

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.

We got all of this thanks to Google’s desire for Android to take over the world. I commented earlier that they signed a deal with the devil — I wasn’t being facetious. They actually did! And they got away with it!

I think about these things everyday that I see positive news about Android. It’s so wonderful that the platform which helped cripple Net Neutrality and is keeping the evil carriers in control is taking off. Make no mistake: Android is now the carriers’ best friend.

Because Google sloppily decided to do the Motorola deal (driven by the full-on patent war, for which Apple and Microsoft, and not Google, are largely to blame), and because the model isn’t great for all but the biggest player, now the OEMs may be our best hope against the carrier/Android alliance.

Eventually, many of them will try to do their own thing (perhaps even using Android as a base) because they’re not idiots, they see where the real money is: controlling the entire experience. Like Apple.

All of this backstory knowledge fuels my rage. When I see Google talk about how “open” the platform is, setting it up as the foil to the “closed” (and framed as “evil”) iPhone, I want to scream and rip someone’s head off. It’s not only the most extreme example of being disingenuous that I can ever recall seeing — it’s nuclear bull****.

Apple, for all the **** 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 this “open” bull****, we thanked them for it. We’re still thanking them for it!

When you think about it in the context of this election season we’re entering, it’s a brilliant political maneuver that Google has pulled off with Android. They’ve taken something they’ve done that’s actually bad for us and spun it in such a way that most people actually buy into it being good for us.

And for the carriers, Android is the best thing ever because it’s the new “opiate for the masses”. Everything ****ty they’re doing is great because they’re doing it with Android — at least it’s not iOS. What a load of horse****.

I realize that the Android team at Google has a lot of good people doing great work. I know some of them. I respect them. But I cannot respect their decision to continue to work on this platform that perpetuates our imprisonment. I have to believe most simply chose not to think about these things. But they should. They really should.

There’s no denying that there are upsides to open — a lot of them. But their main purpose here is to mask the shady side of what’s really been going on.

So that, ladies and gentleman, is why I hate Android. It has nothing to do with the actual product (which continues to improve every year and is quite good now). It has to do with a promise that was broken and swept under the rug.

As crazy as it may sound to some of you, beyond a full OEM revolt (which could ultimately benefit the carriers as well), our hope now lies with Apple and Microsoft.

Apple, because they put the consumer first and have proven time and time again that they will not bend to carrier bull**** and will often work against them behind the scenes. And they control the all-important Apple stores for distribution (and, of course, the App Store).

Microsoft, because they have a model (many handsets on all carriers) that can potentially scale better than Apple’s can while still giving control (mostly) to the users. And they have Nokia on board with their plan. And they have intersections with products like Xbox.

Perhaps more people will relate to this: I hate Android for the same reason that Severus Snape hates Harry Potter — the very sight reminds me of something so beautiful, that was taken. Except it’s worse. It’s as if Harry Potter has grown up to become Voldemort.



This youtube vid is also good :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXq9NTjEdTo&feature=player_embedded
 
Good read, but I must admit its very USA only.

Lucky for us in SA, our SP's is not as bad as in the US and you can get your SGS2, HTC.... on CellC Vodacom or MTN if you want and dont have to select a SP just because you want a certain phone.
 
Google helped Apple. Google makes Android, sort of like IOS. Samsung uses Android for their handsets. Samsung also supplies components to Apple. Samsung messes around with Bada. Apple used Microsoft Azure server for iCloud. Microsoft supplies Windows OS to Nokia. HTC pays Microsoft royalties for every android handset they sell. It just goes on and on.

Really, I don't trust any of them with regards to their business plans and other strange decisions. I'm just happy if I buy something, it must work.
 
You have to understand the context of the whole mobile phone and internet neutrality story to get where he's coming from with this. It has nothing to do with the Android versus iOS experience. And he contends that in order to gain market traction, which in the US is inexorably linked with carrier adoption, Google had to do an about-face on their net neutrality stance, and cave into Verizon's position so that Verizon would feature Android handsets. In turn that meant that while Android is open in the sense of being open source, consumer interests are severely compromised because the handsets can only be delivered on the same onerous anti-competitive terms as the rest of the cellular market, whereas it was originally meant to disrupt the models of distribution. And in order to placate the carriers Google is forced to take the same political stance that they do, throwing their weight behind borderline unconstitutional laws.
 
Great, so to summarize:
If you live in SA, you really have no reason to hate android.

No, more like: The whole "open" vs. "closed" argument around mobile OS's is badly misinformed. If that's what you care about, you should care about the thread. If not, carry on using your Android phone just like I intend to.
 
Apple, because they put the consumer first and have proven time and time again that they will not bend to carrier bull**** and will often work against them behind the scenes. And they control the all-important Apple stores for distribution (and, of course, the App Store).

So is that why they have a file size download limit on the iPad then?

It's hardly the carriers or googles fault the way things turned out. It's just consumerism and market forces.
 
I remember a while back when the carriers were bidding for 3G. Cost billions. Someone has to cover that expense.
 
Great, so to summarize:
If you live in SA, you really have no reason to hate android.

So is that why they have a file size download limit on the iPad then?

It's hardly the carriers or googles fault the way things turned out. It's just consumerism and market forces.

Eish, the denialism is strong in these ones... I'm guessing that if an iFan had said anything like that about Apple or Steve Jobs, even in an Apple Mac & iPhone thread, you fandroids would be grabbing your torches and pitch forks, ready to chase them out of town and straight to Hell where they surely belong.
I can't remember how many times I've read how "evil" Apple are on this forum and that "evil" bears a venom usually reserved for baby rapists, Republicans/Democrats, Bulls/Sharks or ManU/'Pool fans... It's pointed out daily, by the second or third post in every new Mac or iPhone thread.
As a comedy fan I really do appreciate separating Android there to Android in South Africa and that, although Larry and Sergey started Google off with "Do No Evil", in the real world they've made a couple of decisions that aren't their fault, it's just business.
I'm going to be grinning every time I check this thread for the rest of the day to see what other excuses pop up.

PS. The article was a good read 'tho.
 
1st off let me start by saying I agree that what Google did when they signed with Verizon it was a bit of a stuffed up move and the US users have nobody but themselves to blame. Its a great article yes but do have a couple of falshoods in it.

1. The Nexus one was available direct from Google for a couple of months and no one wanted to buy the phone, and I mean no one. So Google was forced to look for other means to bring the phone to the market. Also if you look at the original Idea I am glad it did not pan out that way. I much rather prefer buying my new phone than being bombarded with ads. Remember the vision they had was to give the phone away for free and the user had to see adds every time they look at the phone, be that while answering or opening an app. I think that would have been more evul than what we ended up with ie: bloatware that you can remove with a custom flash.

2 Its sad to see people time and again saying that Android looked like a BB and changed their mind after the iPhone release. In fact Android had both formats. The BB that most people use to prove android tried to copy iPhone and the touch screen version that had a app draw like the ones we have today. The BB version died out as most manufacturers wanted to copy iPhone and not because Google decided it. If you go download the old code you will see both the BB and the app draw look in there.

Oh and like mentioned by rorz0r, Apple also made some daft decisions based on the contract with AT&T ie: limiting file size via 3G as the same limitation can be seen in the PlayStation Vita (Again Sony+AT&T contract) so Google is not the only one that sold out.

Yes, I give that Android is not totally open in the States as you have to pick your phone based on what ones your Carrier sells also the bootloaders are locked upon carrier request just so they can protect their bloatware but it is a hell of a lot more open than iOS that dont allow for other markets or for applications to share data within the device. Also with the code available you can change and install your own version of Android with HW support that iOS users can only dream about.
 
It's amazing how anti-competitive the US mobile phone market is.
 
Yes, I give that Android is not totally open in the States as you have to pick your phone based on what ones your Carrier sells also the bootloaders are locked upon carrier request just so they can protect their bloatware but it is a hell of a lot more open than iOS that dont allow for other markets or for applications to share data within the device. Also with the code available you can change and install your own version of Android with HW support that iOS users can only dream about.

The ownership of Android is resident with the manufacturer of hardware, who is in thrall to the network provider which is their first actual customer. The fact that the manufacturer can produce a device with a locked bootloader - as with the Transformer Prime - indicates that Google's position has shifted from potential disruptor of anticompetitive business models, to purely revenue-generating franchise platform provider. The manufacturer alone dictates exactly how open they want their phone to be, as well as the form that the software will actually take to the end user. On my Galaxy Gio, on stock firmware, I am unable to change the most basic settings that I want to. And in order to change anything, I'm forced to flash custom ROMs which immediately puts me in the same territory as jailbreaking. I can hardly see a difference.
 
The ownership of Android is resident with the manufacturer of hardware, who is in thrall to the network provider which is their first actual customer. The fact that the manufacturer can produce a device with a locked bootloader - as with the Transformer Prime - indicates that Google's position has shifted from potential disruptor of anticompetitive business models, to purely revenue-generating franchise platform provider. The manufacturer alone dictates exactly how open they want their phone to be, as well as the form that the software will actually take to the end user. On my Galaxy Gio, on stock firmware, I am unable to change the most basic settings that I want to. And in order to change anything, I'm forced to flash custom ROMs which immediately puts me in the same territory as jailbreaking. I can hardly see a difference.

Maybe that's just because you totally misunderstand the meaning of Open Source under LGPL. Android is open in the sense that anyone can go to http://source.android.com/source/index.html and do with it as they please OEM included. Just as long as they push changes to the actual code back up stream and share the code that fall under LGPL+GPL on request. There is nothing in Open Source that blocks you from including your own closed off code within it.

And as far as Jailbreak vs Root argument goes Jailbreak can go just that far as you still can not change the actual kernel files or modify included binaries and its this part where the power of Android comes to play.

For Example on Android you can include support for hardware like PS3 controllers or add PPPOE functionality, not to even mention having direct access to the netstack so you can code applications like wifikill or Anti.
 
I understand the distinction, but from a user perspective it hardly makes a difference. In fact to the end user the result is devices that are often MORE carrier-restrictive than the iPhone. And unlocking those phones means going through the same amount of trouble as iPhones (except in my case where they still haven't jailbroken the iPad2 lol).

For instance I have a friend with an Optimus One. Now the basic firmware is 2.1 or something stupid. Obviously he would prefer to upgrade to 2.3.5+ but there is practically nil support in the XDA forums and elsewhere. Custom roms are buggy and sometimes wipe all his data. In the end he just rolled back to stock and left it there. LG is uninterested in upgrading the firmware because there's absolutely no incentivisation to do so. And Google simply take the opt-out that the manufacturer has the 'open' freedom to do what they want with the software.
 
I understand the distinction, but from a user perspective it hardly makes a difference. In fact to the end user the result is devices that are often MORE carrier-restrictive than the iPhone. And unlocking those phones means going through the same amount of trouble as iPhones (except in my case where they still haven't jailbroken the iPad2 lol).

For instance I have a friend with an Optimus One. Now the basic firmware is 2.1 or something stupid. Obviously he would prefer to upgrade to 2.3.5+ but there is practically nil support in the XDA forums and elsewhere. Custom roms are buggy and sometimes wipe all his data. In the end he just rolled back to stock and left it there. LG is uninterested in upgrading the firmware because there's absolutely no incentivisation to do so. And Google simply take the opt-out that the manufacturer has the 'open' freedom to do what they want with the software.

In cases like that users should vote with their wallets, plain and simple, its not Androids fault its the OEM. So stop supporting OEM's or SP's that block you.

Also you give Google far to much power when it comes to the phones. The worse or only playing card they have is to refuse Market access and that is it. They can not actually "force" OEM or SP's to do anything seeing that the code + license is Open far all.
 
In cases like that users should vote with their wallets, plain and simple, its not Androids fault its the OEM. So stop supporting OEM's or SP's that block you.

In the end you just get the best specified phone that you can afford which still has smartphone features - often meaning a mid to low range Android handset. I also have a fairly low end Galaxy Gio and although I also have issues it's better than anything else at that price point.

Also you give Google far to much power when it comes to the phones. The worse or only playing card they have is to refuse Market access and that is it. They can not actually "force" OEM or SP's to do anything seeing that the code + license is Open far all.

Yes but this is exactly the problem. Google should have far more power to dictate the actual - not hypothetical - openness that is available to the END USER. The openness actually in this case belongs to the carrier, which is a boon to them because it means they can screw it up however they want with no comeback from the software creator. Google has plenty of muscle to strongarm licensees if necessary, but in their appetite to secure market traction they actually used that muscle in the wrong direction.
 
Last edited:
That was a very good article.

I managed to play with the new iphone 4s in stored yesterday and it is an amazing phone. I find iOS to be much smoother and friendlier than android! Even with the new android phones the gui is no where near as smooth as iOS or even the new windows 7 phones OS. Even something as simple as siri has made me lean towards the iPhone (even though it is overpriced compare to android phones.

All these new phones have more features than you need now days and even my ****ty blackberry gets the job done.

When it comes time for a new upgrade when I have money I see myself getting an iPhone 5 (or whatever new model comes out by that time).

My 2 cents
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X