Does google need to be held accountable?

[MrWomble]

ive been selling mobile phones for 7 years now and the bottom line is the vast majority of people with android are only interested in one thing. Can it do facebook!

So that means you're partly responsible for all these issues

LMAO - Yes i know i cut that down for humour purposes - you UK or USA ?

No offence intended BTW

 

[skimminstones]

So that means you're partly responsible for all these issues

LMAO - Yes i know i cut that down for humour purposes - you UK or USA ?

No offence intended BTW

lol im in uk.

But my point stands. The reason symbian is the worlds biggest selling operating system is not because all its users want symbian, its because nokia sticks it on a lot of its cheap phones and people come into the shop wanting a nokia that calls and texts. For example, no one buys the nokia c5 because its symbian. They buy it because its a new nokia with a keypad.

Like it or not its the same with the vast majority of phones, only a tiny percentage get the phone based around the technology on it.

 

[MrWomble]

Trust me, i know the business - been in and around Mobi And Telco for 10 years nearly, which is why i can't stand people taking the soapbox stance

like watching Neil Kinnock on the pickett lines with Arthur Scargill

what do we want - 2.1
when do we want it - now
why do we want it - erm, well, ahem! cos he said it was better than what we have ??

 

[Koyanishi]

In case we have forgotten, the original posters point.

need to be held accountable?? i think maybe,,

I think google needs to tread carefully when issuing license to companies,

as this issue with SE has really soured my mouth with the way android may be used and abused by such companies

slow releases of existing operating system will unfortunately be its demise

just my 2cents

It is possible I believe, for google to have licensed android such that neither the phone manufacturers nor the telecos could muck around too much with the os.

Say what you will about the Iphone, but it did a great service as the Iphone refused to let the telcos dictate what to put on the phone. This for a while allowed more freedom to users as, for example, Verison started to not cripple there phones as much. But now, it seems that the telcos are tailoring the os more to their own preferences and not for the benefit of the owners of the phones.

Google could do a great service by not letting either the telecos or phone manufacturers muck too much with the os.

 

[MrWomble]

In case we have forgotten, the original posters point.




It is possible I believe, for google to have licensed android such that neither the phone manufacturers nor the telecos could muck around too much with the os.

Say what you will about the Iphone, but it did a great service as the Iphone refused to let the telcos dictate what to put on the phone. This for a while allowed more freedom to users as, for example, Verison started to not cripple there phones as much. But now, it seems that the telcos are tailoring the os more to their own preferences and not for the benefit of the owners of the phones.

Google could do a great service by not letting either the telecos or phone manufacturers muck too much with the os.

And in case you missed it we did actually draw a conclusion earlier on tonight - that no matter what anyone thinks - as an open source OS telco's will put their own stuff on there - if we want google to start controlling it then we'll get no better than what the iphone offered, no customization, no choice

 

[Koyanishi]

And in case you missed it we did actually draw a conclusion earlier on tonight - that no matter what anyone thinks - as an open source OS telco's will put their own stuff on there - if we want google to start controlling it then we'll get no better than what the iphone offered, no customization, no choice

You consider yourself royalty?

I just see one post with such a conclusion and that's yours.

Whereas another poster in posts 38 and 44 seems to agree with me - that it is possible for google to force the companies to adhere to guidelines.

 

[Koyanishi]

In my opinion, Google should be able to let any manufacturer do what they want with the OS, then the consumer can decide whether they want to purchase it or not. If someone buys the phone knowing what the OS is like, then they're obviously happy with what they get. But too many people assume, then blame SE, or even Google for that matter, when in fact it is only themselves who are to blame.

Its also possible that it is your opinion that cars should be made any way the manufacturers want to and if you want seat belts, then buy from a manufacturer that supplies it.

If you let the telcos have complete control of what goes in the phone than they will put stuff in the phone that will squeeze every dime they can from you and lessen your user experience as well. And once one company does that they will all do it, so you won't have a choice to go to a better phone.

 

[MrWomble]

POST #38

But to be fair the original quote

"If you bought a car from a local dealer you wouldn't go straight to head office to get a service done would you"

Is as bad as my analogy as if you brought a car from a ford dealer you would go to ford's head office if you got a bad service from the dealer but the car is all ford.

The phone is SE and the OS is Android so two company's, so we're both using crap analogy's but I just thought I would try and stick with the car one

EDIT:

And to go back to the OP!

Android are pissed that phone makers are stamping their own UI on to Android and from what I have read they are clamping down for Ver3.0 and wont allow any skins to be added so Android is generic across the board. Much like Vista is Vista on any PC.

POST #44

I thought it was about the Android OS getting a bad rep from the X10...

To be fair there are other phones that give Android a bad rep too, and as I said for Ver3.0 Android are really going to limit what the phone company's can do to edit it so there is a more universal no matter what phone it is on.

I understand what Northernale is saying and Android should have certain criteria the phone makers should meet to run the Android OS.

You consider yourself royalty?

I just see one post with such a conclusion and that's yours.

Whereas another poster in posts 38 and 44 seems to agree with me - that it is possible for google to force the companies to adhere to guidelines.

OK SO WHAT ABOUT THIS POST

To be honest, I don't think the complaints will stop at 2.1. People will start complaining about 2.2, then when/if 2.2 gets released, they will start moaning about v3, it's a never ending story for all those complainers out there, they will never be happy. I don't think alot of people will be happy, unless they get the latest version of Android as soon as, or not long after, it is released by Google.

Anyway, this debate will never end either, everyone has there own opinion and I understand that. So let's just leave it at that

NOT TO MENTION THIS

In my opinion, Google should be able to let any manufacturer do what they want with the OS, then the consumer can decide whether they want to purchase it or not. If someone buys the phone knowing what the OS is like, then they're obviously happy with what they get. But too many people assume, then blame SE, or even Google for that matter, when in fact it is only themselves who are to blame.

Again i will re-iterate Google's policy - that ANDROID remain an open source OS - as soon as you start dishing out rules and regulations and minimum specifications you take away from everything the philosophy of open source

Besides which, please, tell me where the X10 is a failing of Android in general - the answer - nowhere - it runs on 1.6 which may be outdated - but does not mean it is inferior in any way - nor does that qualify it as not fit for purpose to run the Android OS

I think my friend you have missed the whole point of the original poster

That he felt google should get involved with this handset simply because sony were not delivering what they had promised - which again in earlier posts had been proven to have not been actually promised but had been suggested on other sites and blogs and therefore believed to be promised - in particular i draw you to posts #9 #14 #19 #21 #29 (for source links) #51 #52 #54 #55 (hearsay mentioned again) #56 (original poster saying google has no control)

Please also remember the original poster did state that the only reason he bought this phone was because he wanted and needed to use skype on the phone but knew he wouldn't be able to until the 2.1 update came out - hence why he is so passionatly arguing for something to be done

 

[MrWomble]

Its also possible that it is your opinion that cars should be made any way the manufacturers want to and if you want seat belts, then buy from a manufacturer that supplies it.

If you let the telcos have complete control of what goes in the phone than they will put stuff in the phone that will squeeze every dime they can from you and lessen your user experience as well. And once one company does that they will all do it, so you won't have a choice to go to a better phone.

Oh yes - what a great example - when the car manufacturers are regulated by CIVIL LAW to provide suitable safety devices within the construction of an automobile

lets look at it another way

Microsoft Xbox 360 is a platform - games developers are allowed to create and publish any game as they see fit - arcade, shooter, racer etc etc as long as it works on the console (similarly PS3, Wii & PC games)

UHF/VHF is a transmission standard for TV channels through aerials - manufacturers can design TV's anyway they want, use their own menu systems as long as TV channels can be received

Google provide the Android operating system for smartphones, so needs to send receive calls, sms, email, mms and internet services - these are minimum requirements - hence why any handset goes through FCC approval - in other words if it doesn't do the job and isn't fit for purpose it doesn't get licensed

The X10 has passed all of these requirements therefore is available at retail, which also means that Sony has met Google's minimum requirements for licensing the Android OS Platform

As for not letting telco's put their own touch on the handsets - in that case we may as well stick with 1 handset manufacturer cos going down that route would mean all samsungs/sonys would be identical except exterior design.

But hang on, isn't that why we have competition in the marketplace - isn't that why we have monopoly commissions - to ensure not 1 company has complete control - besides which, we as customers DEMAND choice

Choice of handset, choice of features, choice of OS

which is what Sony, Apple, HTC, Samsung etc etc etc etc offer

Choice of handset, choice of features, choice of OS

Samsung Galaxy S/Sony X10
OLED SCREEN/SuperLCD
Android 2.x/Android 1.6

Without choice and variety we'd all be using the same phone, built by the same company, paying the same cost to use the same network

Give me tin cups and string anyday over communistic control of what we as consumers DEMAND from our everyday lives -

THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE FOR OURSELVES

 

[Koyanishi]

OK SO WHAT ABOUT THIS POST
Originally Posted by CuBz



NOT TO MENTION THIS
Originally Posted by CuBz

Neither of those two quoted posts state that google cannot set guidelines for its os.

As for not letting telco's put their own touch on the handsets - in that case we may as well stick with 1 handset manufacturer cos going down that route would mean all samsungs/sonys would be identical except exterior design.

Ridicules argument.

 

[CuBz]

Koyanishi, this was no more than a debate, it is only you that is trying to turn it into an arguement

 

[MrWomble]

#38 & #44

Neither of those two quoted posts state that google cannot set guidelines for its os.

Ridicules argument.

I'm sorry - i was just quoting your reference to the posts and displaying them as point of fact

Moreso you state rediculous argument - when actually it is a truthful statement - yet have no counteracting debate on it

If as you suggest google approached the manufacturers of its Android handsets and stated _ as you put it "force the companies to adhere to guidelines"

Then what is the point of multiple handset manufacturers

i mean, where do you put it -
must have minimum 3.5" screen, or 4" (HTC Wildfire, X10 Mini - all ruled out
must have a 1ghz processor - again, X10 Mini, some samsung models, all ruled out
must run minimum 2.2 - rules all X10's out, and again most phones that have only updated would have been ruled out

By setting restrictions on what they can and can't do, you remove the competition from the marketplace, by removing the competition in the end their will only be one winner, so as i suggest earlier - you'd be happy with no choice of phone - that if you want to run a particular OS you can only have that phone

Now by definition the iPhone 4 is this phone, but look at the complaints of this - you have to do what apple tells you to do, you can't customize it etc etc - oh and not to mention that they have just brought in multi-tasking and folders - something we on the android platform have been doing for some considerable time - and how did we get there - by having choic and competition, but most importantly - no strict rules to adhere to or no overpowering company telling us what we can and can't do

Ridiculous argument.

and if it is rediculous - please - show me exactly where my debate goes wrong

 

[CuBz]

Once again MrWomble makes a valid point.

If Android didn't have an open source, then there wouldn't be much competition. Most manufacturers like to customize the OS to compete with others, and I think that's how it should be.

 

[northernale1]

well 3.0 will not allow third party UI , so maybe google does see it as a problem with getting updates released,,,

 

[Koyanishi]

I'm sorry - i was just quoting your reference to the posts and displaying them as point of fact

The two posts refers to the CuBz posts you quote as supporting your contention that a consensus was reached that google couldn't place restrictions on its os. Neither of them do and I have edited my post #85 to make it clearer that the reference to the two posts where your quotes of CuBz and not my posts.

Moreso you state rediculous argument - when actually it is a truthful statement - yet have no counteracting debate on it



and if it is rediculous - please - show me exactly where my debate goes wrong

Guidelines does not mean that all phones have to be carbon copies of each other. Its just the os that needs to be close to being vanilla.

PCs for instance all come with vanilla windows 7 (0r whatever os), and they are quite a bit of differences among them. Same can apply to android phones.

This argument is so self evident to me that I hardly think worth mentioning and makes your argument look like Reductio ad absurdum

 

[northernale1]

i think both parties make valid points,,
but the issue to me is SE taking almost a year since 2.1 was released to get it to there "flagship" phone,,,
and I still believe google finds issues with this also,,

 

[CuBz]

well 3.0 will not allow third party UI , so maybe google does see it as a problem with getting updates released,,,

You got a source for this? I would like to read about it myself

 

[MrWomble]

Actually posts #38 and #44 (both by powerkiter) were posts that you referenced in favour of your point of view - nice to see you remember them so vividly and how you referenced them in your statement - here's a reminder

You consider yourself royalty?

I just see one post with such a conclusion and that's yours.

Whereas another poster in posts 38 and 44 seems to agree with me - that it is possible for google to force the companies to adhere to guidelines.

ANYHOW - Now the main event

Guidelines does not mean that all phones have to be carbon copies of each other. Its just the os that needs to be close to being vanilla.

PCs for instance all come with vanilla windows 7 (0r whatever os), and they are quite a bit of differences among them. Same can apply to android phones.

This argument is so self evident to me that I hardly think worth mentioning and makes your argument look like Reductio ad absurdum

You seriously want to go down this road ? This IS in my industry and therefore on my doorstep

Yes it is true that all PC's out there, run pretty much the same OS - Windows 7 - a vanilla version i believe you said - if that appeases you better.

Yet you say up above there that there is quite a bit of difference between them - in looks yes this is true, however - you have to remember that in terms of performance, company's like HP, Sony and Packard Bell do ACTUALLY put their own software on top of the windows OS and BIOS (quickwebs being prime example)

And similar to Android, with Windows 7 we can add our own "apps" - desktop widgets, office, photoshop etc etc - so yes, very similar in that respect

Going beyond that though, the main reason 1 pc is different to another is because the particular manufacturer decides to put its own flair on it - whether that be a larger hard-drive, graphics card, RAM, software (as in HP's "quickweb" - SONY's "magicgate" etc etc

Or for another way of looking at it - they create a Unique User Experience from 1 machine to another - something which by definition makes it different to another

Which is exactly what phone manufacturers do, by adding their own UNIQUE USER EXPERIENCE

Sony - Timescape, Mediascape
HTC - HTC Sense
Motorola - MOTOBLUR

The only reason there is difference between PC's is the way each company decides to build and load the hardware and software - yet you don't see Microsoft being urged to look into the failings of Laptop/PC manufacturers when their issue causes a problem that can directly affect the marketing of Windows 7

As for guidelines, then they clearly are not in effect in this market either otherwise you wouldn't have Toshiba releasing laptops with 1.5ghz processors and only 1gb RAM

So now that you have contradicted yourself by using the PC market as an example, falsely stating that PC's run vanilla software when they don't, then i'm sorry, but trying to quote a latin phrase to put me down just makes your remarks look more implausible than the first part of the debate itself - so i'll finish of with

Qui audet adipiscitur

 

[MrWomble]

You got a source for this? I would like to read about it myself

HEY CuBz

Thought this link might interest you

Google denies Android 3.0 Gingerbread rumours | Fonehome.co.uk

""Following yesterday’s revelations about Android 3.0 Gingerbread’s planned minimum hardware restrictions, Google has spoken out saying that they’re a load of nonsense — an internet fabrication.""

Just looking for source on UI restrictions now - seen a few "rumour" sites best below

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/06/16/androids.gingerbread.may.hurt.htc.motorola/
http://www.mobiclue.com/android-3-0-gingerbread-features-supported-phones.html

Best quote off the bottom link is this - "Note: These are unofficial features. We will soon update this page more details."

 

[CuBz]

Thanks MrWomble.

Seem like he is right, in some ways, but according to rumours they are only trying to dissuade manufacturers from customising the UI, which could maybe be worked around by one manufacturer or another. Maybe I could be wrong, or could be misunderstanding, but that's how it sounds to me

 

[MrWomble]

Thanks MrWomble.

Seem like he is right, in some ways, but according to rumours they are only trying to dissuade manufacturers from customising the UI, which could maybe be worked around by one manufacturer or another. Maybe I could be wrong, or could be misunderstanding, but that's how it sounds to me

Doubt it will make much of a difference to most as none of us use anything that was stock on the phones anyway - so Custom UI is just something to switch off for us

As for work-arounds - just the same as loading an app - it will be done

 

[powerkiter]

You got a source for this? I would like to read about it myself

Geez I said that twice in this thread and you pull him up on it

I cant be bothered to go looking for it but it was not from a rumour site but I did read it on the offical Android site as when they announced the "suggested specs" the whole web went mad about it so I found a link and read it all and they did say on the site that they wanted to stop so much skinning.

@MrWomble you did kind of ruin your own argument...

You said about the fact that every manufactour puts there own crap on a pc yes this is true and I would be happy for that to be done but I think you are taking it to far.

The point I think the OP (northernale) was making was that, now read slowly as I'm crap at explaining myself with the written word.

Yes Google should allow "apps" to be applied by "maker" and it will be for them killer apps that one person will buy X phone over Y phone.

Yet with the SE "skin" "UXP" "Rachel" theme then yes they are doing a missjustice to Android as it has taken them 1 year to skin 2.1 and make timecrap and mediacrap work on it.

Now if the same was true for a PC would you really accept that you could not install windows 7 on it untill HP had reskined Windows 7 to how they want it and then allowed you to have it?

I think the PC world would be up in arms!

You and Cubz seem to think the grip is "We want 2.1 NOW!"

But it's not it is the fact that SE has held this phone back as they feel "XYZ is how we should have a phone and screw you if you dont its our phone"

Now read that back and it sounds like something Apple would do with the iphone.

No offence but I think you can't see the woods for the trees

 

[Koyanishi]

Actually posts #38 and #44 (both by powerkiter) were posts that you referenced in favour of your point of view - nice to see you remember them so vividly and how you referenced them in your statement - here's a reminder

Please to look at your own post #83 for reference.

OK SO WHAT ABOUT THIS POST

Originally Posted by CuBz
To be honest, I don't think the complaints will stop at 2.1. People will start complaining about 2.2, then when/if 2.2 gets released, they will start moaning about v3, it's a never ending story for all those complainers out there, they will never be happy. I don't think alot of people will be happy, unless they get the latest version of Android as soon as, or not long after, it is released by Google.

Anyway, this debate will never end either, everyone has there own opinion and I understand that. So let's just leave it at that

and

NOT TO MENTION THIS

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuBz
In my opinion, Google should be able to let any manufacturer do what they want with the OS, then the consumer can decide whether they want to purchase it or not. If someone buys the phone knowing what the OS is like, then they're obviously happy with what they get. But too many people assume, then blame SE, or even Google for that matter, when in fact it is only themselves who are to blame.

those are the post that you quoted in support of your argument, but actually do not support it.

Its surprising that you could not figure out these were your quotes I was referencing.

You seriously want to go down this road ? This IS in my industry and therefore on my doorstep

You must have tripped on that doorstep if its your contention that phones running on a vanilla-like os of android all need to me carbon copies of each other.

Yes it is true that all PC's out there, run pretty much the same OS - Windows 7 - a vanilla version i believe you said - if that appeases you better.

Yet you say up above there that there is quite a bit of difference between them - in looks yes this is true, however - you have to remember that in terms of performance, company's like HP, Sony and Packard Bell do ACTUALLY put their own software on top of the windows OS and BIOS (quickwebs being prime example)

And similar to Android, with Windows 7 we can add our own "apps" - desktop widgets, office, photoshop etc etc - so yes, very similar in that respect

Going beyond that though, the main reason 1 pc is different to another is because the particular manufacturer decides to put its own flair on it - whether that be a larger hard-drive, graphics card, RAM, software (as in HP's "quickweb" - SONY's "magicgate" etc etc

Or for another way of looking at it - they create a Unique User Experience from 1 machine to another - something which by definition makes it different to another

Which is exactly what phone manufacturers do, by adding their own UNIQUE USER EXPERIENCE

Sony - Timescape, Mediascape
HTC - HTC Sense
Motorola - MOTOBLUR

The only reason there is difference between PC's is the way each company decides to build and load the hardware and software - yet you don't see Microsoft being urged to look into the failings of Laptop/PC manufacturers when their issue causes a problem that can directly affect the marketing of Windows 7

Why do I need to state the obvious.



Again I have to say "You must have tripped on that doorstep if its your contention that phones running on a vanilla-like os of android all need to me carbon copies of each other."


The pc's as your examples HP's "quickweb" - SONY's "magicgate" etc are not that integral to the os. When windows updates, they don't have to wait for sony or hp to fix there things before you can update.


Also, as far as I know they don't put crapware that you can't remove like Moxier. Yes they put a lot of crappola on those macines, but again as far as I know they can all be removed.

As for guidelines, then they clearly are not in effect in this market either otherwise you wouldn't have Toshiba releasing laptops with 1.5ghz processors and only 1gb RAM

You are misinterpreting the word guidelines. Guidelines does not mean straitjacket. I think you are not that dense and are arguing for arguments sake, therefore this is my last word with you.

 

[MrWomble]

Now read that back and it sounds like something Apple would do with the iphone.

No offence but I think you can't see the woods for the trees

Already made the comparison to Apple earlier on, as for seeing the wood, i go far deeper mate, i'm watching out for spelks

In the point you make of time, i am 100% agreeable, it doesn't or at least shouldn't take this long to skin 2.1 - in terms of putting Time and Media crap on the phone, i could well do without it

But the OP said that they wanted google to - well for want of a simpler phrase "interfere" (i think they said accountable) - ie MAKE Sony do something that they don't want to do

It doesn't detriment the Android OS how long it takes a manufacturer to release updates, it detriments the manufacturer - as you well know from

the release - 1 update - binned Satio

As for the PC thing i was just explaining to the poster of that comment what happens in PC market as he stated PC's run VANILLA win 7 when they don't

As with the whole debate over the 2.1 update it is pretty much in whole "we want it now"

thats all my basic point is - but i can't understand a post earlier in this thread that said they need Skype on the phone, so bought the X10 - on the understanding 2.1 was "going to be released"

How many times have you read through forums and posts that say

"why can't they just release it now"
"2.1 offers 16m colours so why can't we have it"

yada yada yada

yet you never see anyone sitting there saying

"i NEED 2.1 update as it will offer me z, y or z performance increase"

 

[MrWomble]

Please to look at your own post #83 for reference.

Excuse me, you're the one that tried stating that there was no difference in PC's from 1 to the other - i merely just stated that the same practice that we are discussing for Android happens with Windows 7 - but i still know of Epson, HP and other companys that still have products out there that are not compatible with windows 7 because they have not released the update to the driver software

Simples as far as posts #38 and #44 go m8 - they were referenced in SUPPORT of your statement in post #81 so by no way in reference to myself as you have just suggested in post #98 you really should get your wires straightened out as you seem to be confused as to what i was posting - though i have noticed that you have now edited post #85 to make it look like i am misquoting myself - very clever

Posts by CuBz were referenced by me, not in support of my point but in offering a bit of substance to it -

1 - that even when 2.1 is released people will still complain - its in everyones nature to do so

2 - that there is a call for google not to get companys to adhere to guidelines as its the CONSUMER that actually demands the choice

Now as for you referencing post #83 - what i actually asked and stated is below - please feel free to answer

Again i will re-iterate Google's policy - that ANDROID remain an open source OS - as soon as you start dishing out rules and regulations and minimum specifications you take away from everything the philosophy of open source

Besides which, please, tell me where the X10 is a failing of Android in general - the answer - nowhere - it runs on 1.6 which may be outdated - but does not mean it is inferior in any way - nor does that qualify it as not fit for purpose to run the Android OS

I think my friend you have missed the whole point of the original poster

That he felt google should get involved with this handset simply because sony were not delivering what they had promised - which again in earlier posts had been proven to have not been actually promised but had been suggested on other sites and blogs and therefore believed to be promised

What exactly in there is incorrect ???