On the PCs, you could at least uninstall the "value added" software bundles. Or if that didn't go well (we all know how these uninstallers work), you could at least buy another copy of Windows and install that after wiping the installation clean.
On the smartphones, you have to go the dubious route of using security flaws in the firmware to install a custom ROM, on the way invalidating your warranty.
That's why I was so happy about the Nexus One as that came (mostlly cough Amazon MP3 cough) "pristine" out of the box and you can even officially install a custom ROM image (still invalidating the warranty though, but at least the procedure is officially sanctioned and thus probably continues to work even as the firmware gets updated).
This, I think, will be the major downfall of Android. Similar to the destruction of the Windows brand by letting OEMs install trialware, shovelware, etc, the carriers will do anything to make an extra buck. This is why Apple put their foot down and refused to let the carrier touch the software on the phone. And rightly so... In the carrier world we'd all have trial versions of Norton Antivirus that ask for your credit card number when you're trying to make a call...
Watch, it will happen with Android. The carriers have just figured out how to write Android apps, and Google is doing nothing to force them to keep their phones clean.
Who will the two characters be in the Apple commercials? With PC vs. Mac we had the Bill-Gatesy looking guy straight out of accounting, and the cool laid back Mac guy. Who will it be for the Android vs. iPhone commercials?
It doesn't always take security flaws to flash a phone. I have a Samsung Moment, and you can put any ROM you want on it via hijacking their official updater (the only security flaw being that they don't checksum what they allow you to upload to the firmware).
From wikipedia:
If certain sub-systems fail, or are taking too long to respond, or are consuming too much power, the chip can instantly change its behavior by 'blowing' an eFUSE.
Compare with mydroidworld:
If the eFuse failes to verify this information then the eFuse receives a command to "blow the fuse" or "trip the fuse". This results in the booting process becoming corrupted and resulting in a permanent bricking of the Phone. This FailSafe is activated anytime the bootloader is tampered with or any of the above three parts of the phone has been tampered with.
The second quote makes it sound like efuse was meant to be a security measure against tampering. I say, "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". No, it did not come with "hardware that bricks the phone if you try to root it". I think if they wanted that, they could have came up with a much cheaper solution that this sophisticated technology.
Source: I worked with efuses on a major electronic component that's statistically about 20% likely to be sitting on your desk.
An efuse is basically just a low-power fuse. Think of it like a one-way switch. You can switch it to the other position exactly once, but you can't switch it back. Lots of OEMs use it for permanent storage, some of them DRM-related. Market segmentation is a common usage.
Your comment is akin to a homeowner installing an alarm system. "What do these wires have to do with keeping burglars out?" and "damn wires and their electric fields, there are much less sophisticated ways of keeping burglars out".
This is misinformed in two ways: 1) efuses are regularly used to prevent tampering with hardware although they can be used for other things. I say this as someone who worked on a product where they were used in just that manner. saying you can do other things with them is like saying you can peel grapes with a machete.
2) efuses are not terribly sophisticated. There's a good chance you have some on your desk right now. There are cheaper ways of doing storage, but the cheaper ways do not preserve the property that they form part of a good security system. So actually the statement is "because the system is this complicated, we know it is a security measure against tampering".
Well, your first wish has some small fulfilment. I had been thinking of getting a Droid, but after reading about this, I no longer trust Motorola. Any idea if HTC is better?
I've never had any trouble rooting my HTC phones. Rooting the Sapphire involved installing an old OTA update that had a local root hole (keep writin' those OSes in C!), exploiting that hole, and overwriting the bootloader with one that doesn't care about signatures. I don’t know the technical details about the Evo 4g, but I just flashed a firmware via the official mechanism, overwrote the bootloader, and then installed the firmware I wanted.
I bet HTC's deal with Google has something to do with the ease of rooting their devices.
The Nexus One has a bootloader that can be unlocked by just sending a debug command; it's very friendly to modding. Sending that command does trip a hardware flag that voids your warranty, but actually getting custom firmware onto the device is dead easy.
Correct. Unlocking the bootloader trips a hardware flag that says "This bootloader has been unlocked", which voids the warranty. To date, nobody has been able to figure out how to un-trip that flag, though there was a brief window in which you could hack a custom ROM onto the device without unlocking it, but that was patched out with FRF91.
Personally, I think that's pretty reasonable, since third-party firmwares could potentially do things to the hardware that'd cause damage, and it's silly for hardware makers to promise to fix things caused by user negligence.
I think the thing is that the hardware is _not_ meant to brick the phone, but there's still a dubious bootloader that kills itself when it sees a custom ROM. The good side to that is that if you can figure out how to fix the bootloader, things should work OK. I don't know, that's just what I get from that article, it's kind of hard to follow the whole thing here.
Motorola's official response is that the eFuse device exists to disable the phone (aka switch to recovery mode) when unauthorized software is run, and _re-enable_ it when the original Motorola-approved software is installed. They claim that the phone is disabled only temporarily and not bricked.
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/motorola-responds-to-droi...
(Sorry, I couldn't find the original Motorola post)
I don't know what specific chip is used on Droid, but I remember that on Qualcomm chipsets you cannot change primary program loader at all (it is in the chip ROM) and after the fuse is blown in handset factory, the primary program loader checks, whether the secondary program loader is signed and refuses to load it, when the check fails.
So it really depends on SPL, what it allows to load and run. If it is strict in what it does, case is closed, buy something else.
We are a few years away from anything important being GPL3, but when that does happen, phone companies will have the choice between 1) starting out millions of man hours behind the competition or 2) letting highly-tech-savvy users install their own version of Emacs on the phone.
Google should do what the Mozilla project does with Firefox and use their Android trademark to enforce user-experience standards before this becomes an epidemic. If the carriers take their Android code and use it to punch their customers in the face like this, don't let them call it Android anymore.
The 'Android' trademark is fairly worthless to the carriers and manufacturers, and they mostly avoid it anyway. They could fork the OS anyway, since it's open source!
What Google could do is be a lot more aggressive with the certification process for their 'Google Experience' apps -- the carriers would at least pay attention if Google threatened to not allow them to distribute their closed-source apps: Marketplace, Maps, Gmail, etc.
Why? No-one's interested in the Android mark as-is.
That's the real criticism of that suggestion.
If Google threatened to take away their rights to use the Android name or logo they wouldn't bat an eye. The manufacturers and carriers are after the modern OS and saving the development time involved in "catching up" from their horrible old systems.
They prefer that their customers don't build up brand loyalty to something they don't control. Why do you think Verizon is selling Droid phones?
I guess I wasn't clear. If Google says "ship vanilla Android or nothing" (basically the same policy as Apple), carriers will choose some other OS that lets them load crapware. If Google says "you can choose to ship vanilla Android™ or DroidWeasel", I agree with you that the carriers will simply rebrand it.
The original Nexus One from Google is still the only Android device I would buy. I worry what comes next, since Google doesn't seem to plan doing that kind of thing anymore :-(
Likewise. I was considering getting an Android phone when my contract with AT&T was up, but nobody seems interested in building a good one. No wonder Apple was able to walk in and slap these guys around so effortlessly.
Sprint did a lot of this too. On the EVO I got at Google I/O I remember a Sprint NexTel Cup Nascar App that was completely uninstallable. I've since gotten rid of the phone. I much prefer my N1 with stock Android.
I just got an EVO about a week ago. I don't understand why a company would be so confident that every single user wants a nascar app that they would remove the option to uninstall. Put the app in the marketplace, make it free, let people uninstall it and then put it back on their phone if they decide they're interested in it again. How is it that people so opinionated are permitted to select the software for a phone that thousands of people will use?
What users want has nothing to do with it. Verizon is probably getting paid X cents for every copy of that app, and since they've already accounted for the revenue GAAP won't allow them to remove it.
Sprint and Nascar are partners- see NASCAR Sprint Cup[1]. Because of this, it is in their best interest that people watch/become aware of NASCAR. It's like product placement, but on your phone.
We know the reasoning, but we think it is poor reasoning. If a user doesn't want the app and can't get rid of it, then now they have something against the Nascar brand. That isn't good advertising.
I heard about a similar situation for AT&T's first Android phone, the BackFlip, which besides coming with uninstallable crapware, forced Yahoo search as the default on all applications that used it.
I wonder if Google had to give the carriers this flexibility in order to get them to use the OS?
They did. Google basically says: "Use our OS for free and you don't have to pay for a Windows license; plus it's open source so you can modify it in any way you want."
So we end up with a carrier free for all. Marketroids gone wild, infesting your phone with a million "punch the monkey" and Banzai Buddy adware, spyware, and pop-ups. This is the future of Android.
I have a feeling it will become easier for hackers to root their phones and install a clean OS, so it will be just like buying a cheap Dell computer - wipe it clean, put Ubuntu on it, and you're golden.
I'm definitely beginning to think the Droid will be my last Motorola phone. Even the fact that you can't uninstall Amazon and the core Google apps is a little grating.
I paid $550 for my Nexus One, on which is an Amazon MP3 app that I have no ability to remove. It inexplicably starts up in the background quite frequently as well, for no particular reason.
One day I finally gave in and tried to buy some music, to discover that the app is completely useless to me given that I'm in Canada and Amazon doesn't provide even free MP3s here.
Very, very shitty of Google. They likely got some chump-change amount from Amazon for doing this (the price of the phone certainly doesn't seem to be subsidized by this junk), but it threatens user trust.
Orange UK does this as well. I bought my HTC Desire from Orange, with no intention of doing anything to it, but I ended up having to reflash it with a debranded ROM because the bundled software (much of which was demoware) could not be removed and was cluttering up my phone.
Now I'm stuck eyeing every software update warily in case it screws up some critical piece of phone functionality - like the last system update, which caused wifi to stop working and required a full reflash and an £8 network unlock code to fix. Thanks Orange...
I honestly don't mind too much if some extra software is installed when I get a phone - as long as I can remove it!
Microsoft seems to have learnt its lesson well here for WP7. They apparently will not allow the carriers to place more than a couple of apps which will be removable by the user.
That was a hack piece of journalism based on no facts and not even a finished product. As a reader I felt it was very harsh and didn't provide any examples. If he writes the same thing when Windows 7 is released and provides examples then I might listen to him. But releasing an article like that right now just lowers his street cred and makes him sound like he's jumping on the anti-MS bandwagon with everyone else...
This story and the Droid X self-destruct debacle are both reaffirming my decision to buy an iPhone 4. Apple would sooner run Windows Mobile 7 on their phones than they would install third party demos, etc on the phone.
they AREN'T open. That's the problem. The underlying OS might be mostly open. But the hardware you buy is as closed as it gets.
You as the paying customer are at the mercy of your carriers ideas about how they can increase their revenue.
That's what we get from that crazy model of handsets being subsidized by carriers. If people didn't expect a (mostly) free phone every year or two, with some likelihood, this would stop as people would want to demand to get what they pay for.
That's what we get from that crazy model of handsets being subsidized by carriers.
Exactly, and unfortunately that's what "we" want. Google tried to break that dysfunctional model with the Nexus One, but most people can't get past the initial $529 price. I wish they at least tried to explain how you can end up saving a lot by using T-Mobile's contract-free plans.
> but most people can't get past the initial $529 price.
Sadly, this is very true. I bought an unlocked Nexus One, and people ooh and ahh over it, but when they ask me how much I paid for it, they blanch. At that point, they stop listening, even though I go on to explain that it ends up costing me less over time than if I'd bought a cheaper-up-front subsidized phone.
It's really a reflection of our credit card culture. Many people consider $600 over 12 months (Only $50/month!) to be cheaper than $500 all at once (OMG, my bank account!).
Stop saying How much you paid for it, instead say X over 3 years of owning it, compared to Y for an iPhone over 3 years. After that, if they ask, say how much the phone itself costs.
That's why I put "open" in quotation marks. I'd like open platforms to succeed, but I think there are some inherent problems - namely at the hardware level any platform will likely tend to get closed off.
The carriers are to blame this time, but we saw a similar thing happen with computer manufacturers putting all sorts of crap on the desktop.
Buying a phone shouldn't be a minefield. People get iPhones because they know that they're solid, simple and stress free (putting aside the signal issue for now). These things are as important as the shininess and cool factor.
Google should have enough clout to tell the carriers and manufacturers where to stick their crapware and dodgy interfaces if they want a Google branded phone. I really hope someone's paying attention.
People could know _any_ phone was solid and stress-free, you just have to teach them. Do you think there is something inherent in the iPhone that makes it intuitively obvious that they are "solid and stress-free"? People think that about one model of phone because they were taught to think that. People could be taught to think the same about the Droid or the G1 or whatever else; just tell your friends "Get an EVO" instead of "Get an iPhone", and the problem is solved, right?
Look, I'm as big an Android fan as anyone, but I've seen several people really regret their decisions. For example, some of my friends have the HTC Hero. It's slow, runs Sense on top of Android 1.5 (still!) and the battery life is awful.
I don't really know anyone who's regretted getting an iPhone, even though they know there might be a handful of better Android phones out there.
The overall impression is that Android is a mixed bag, and that you have to watch your step. Not everyone wants to spend days reading Engadget reviews and trawling through forums, and the iPhone is rightly seen as the safe choice.
I know people who complain that their iPhone is slow. Some people with old models can't get new versions of iOS. The battery life on my G1 is fine, I think; it lasts just about as long as my old dumb phone, but I don't know about the Hero, though I'd imagine it's similar.
What do you want? Seriously. People don't go buy "iOS devices" and they wouldn't if there were more in existence than just the iPhone. They buy the iPhone because that's what all the hype/buzz/recommendations they take in says to buy. The exact same mechanisms would work with a great Android phone, but the thing is there just isn't as much hype/buzz/recommendation around a specific Android model, like there is around a specific iOS model. We can argue all day about why the iPhone gets so much special attention, but the point is iPhones are not some magic device that is guaranteed to work well any more than any other high-quality phone, and that's not why they're so ubiquitous.
So what's the problem? I don't get it. A recommendation for a solid Android device is just as valid and non-confusing and accessible as a recommendation for a solid iOS device (iPhone). Why are you pretending like there is something special about the iPhone?
My G1 no longer receives incoming calls. They just go straight to voicemail. And the text message ring tone changed without me doing anything. The maps application opens and dies to the main screen. Something tells me this crap doesn't happen with the iPhone.
Really? You don't think iPhones can do weird things like that too? What happened to your G1 is abnormal behavior and is probably due to defective hardware. Have you never heard of specific iPhone units being defective?
This argument is incredibly weak and I'm surprised it's gotten so many upvotes. Your G1 is an anomaly; normal G1s do not just crap out like that regularly. Your anecdote is unfortunate, but not representative. If you stick with the standard G1 install, everything should run along just honky-dory the whole time, and that's happened for the majority of G1 users, just as it has happened for the majority of iPhone users.
Here is one instance of an iPhone not receiving calls: http://forums.wireless.att.com/t5/Apple/Not-receiving-calls-.... That was found in about 45 seconds with Google, I'm sure there are others. Every piece of hardware, even the iPhone, has issues and can become defective or dysfunctional.
True. But you don't get anything close to MOTOBLUR-scale nonsense on there. Or user-hostile carrier decisions, like AT&T removing the alternate-markets switch.
And to shake my tiny fist at Cupertino, with iOS4, I put all those useless non-removable apps into a folder called "Recycle Bin" on the last page.
Since folders feel like they open much slower than I can swipe to the next screen, I actually only use one folder (I only have three screens of apps), the one I labelled Useless. I'm not sure that folders are really that slow, it might be psychological: tap and long wait, versus lots of fun swiping action!
On the smartphones, you have to go the dubious route of using security flaws in the firmware to install a custom ROM, on the way invalidating your warranty.
That's why I was so happy about the Nexus One as that came (mostlly cough Amazon MP3 cough) "pristine" out of the box and you can even officially install a custom ROM image (still invalidating the warranty though, but at least the procedure is officially sanctioned and thus probably continues to work even as the firmware gets updated).
Too bad Google won't do a Nexus two.