Comments on: Is Android Evil?

By: rob

rob — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 06:22:22 +0000

I think this article misses a few points here:
1. There is no "exclusive" app store, in fact, you can download an app from anywhere and install it, and at least Amazon has set up another separate app store.
2. Most of the rules above apply only if you want them to. i.e. you can have the most support from google, access to pre-release code, etc. Or, if you aren't making such a high-end device, you can simply download Android and load it on your device however you want. Quite a lot of "non-premium" devices do this, including an Android Palm-top I saw last weekend.
3. Although you can't load google's apps (Gmail, etc.) without their approval, many, many companies have "dared" to release Android without GMS. Users can for the most part always download and install what they want anyway. (Of course Motorola and Sharp go the "official" route, but many generic devices are being released w/o those google specific apps).
4. For Android, Car navigation systems, LCD picture frames, tablets, etc., aren't really exotic uses at all. It's a light-weight GUI with reasonable feature-completeness and touch-screen support that is available for free. Of course people making devices that could benefit from it will decide to use it.

By: moncherion

moncherion — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:11:20 +0000

it would take a lot of efforts for another company to create a different branch and iterate faster than Google.

By: Gurpreet

Gurpreet — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:04:55 +0000

I would say, it's intelligent, not evil.

By: bradi

bradi — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:36:00 +0000

Regarding comments that keep citing Apple and (basically) using "closed" and "bad" as synonyms…. you are off base. Apple didn't set out to make an open phone, not for the user, and not for the network providers. They set out to make a product that works, that makes power features usable, and limits the control of service providers (this is my own US centric perspective). You see their desire to control their product as evil, I say it is responsible. I build this and I strive to make it work right, consistently. As users and interested parties have described useful features they want, Apple has made nearly every one available – as long as Apple was still able to fulfill their core goals: "work right, consistently"……

Regarding the principles of the article, Andreas makes an excellent case. Google is open (very much so) in one way, but not at all, in another.

My point balanced upon these two principles: So many wish to see this as white hat vs black hat – yet all we really have are shades…..

By: Chetan

Chetan — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:58:30 +0000

Andreas Constantinou as a "human being" readers (commentators) read what they "want" to read and now what you wrote. Same is the case with "Andreas Constantinou" himself he read what he wanted to read.

Andreas Constantinou read between the lines and most importantly help yourself.

By: Chetan

Chetan — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:48:00 +0000

WoW! Andreas Constantinou reply to people's comments is bigger than the article "Is Android Evil" …

This is enough proof that Andreas Constantinou (don't) know what he is writing about. Only challenge Andreas Constantinou facing is expressing his thoughts or the article is sponsored by Google's competitors take a look, The title of his article itself is "suggestive".

By: Chetan

Chetan — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:37:50 +0000

"…Apple. As strange as it might seem, Android owes much of its success to one of its arch-rivals."

Then Apple is stupidest company on planet earth.

Apple ups the ante against Android with iPhone OS version 4 — but first they have to answer to the 3.3.1 worm.
http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7760/1.html

By: Debashish Paul

Debashish Paul — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:00:24 +0000

Hmm, interesting. I guess, everyone is in business here and IMHO, no one is to blame. Software when shared can be a socially powerful tool, but we also have to think that we all love our IP and we have to find ways to monetize it. Open source is excellent, but not at the cost of closing potential revenue streams.

By: Jefro

Jefro — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:28:55 +0000

@Michael

> Google is a business, and as such Google is doing it to benefit Google.

This is definitely true, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

However, disrupting a market in such a way that a large number of people benefit is very different from disrupting solely for profit. The question on the table is relative evilness. I propose that narcissism alone is more evil than making choices that benefit others.

By: Simon Buckingham

Simon Buckingham — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:41:26 +0000

Andreas

This is a seminal article.

Google is vertically integrated to a degree that Apple, Microsoft and others have never been with Android (and Chrome) acting to propagate their apps, ads, advertisers, search engine, browser, commerce etc.

The Android control points are just one lever that Google has in its System to control advertising inventory across multiple platforms.