Database Users

what other choice does google give us?

I bought a g1 last year. I rooted my phone. I fell in love with android and the great community behind it. I am an avid cyanogen mod user.
Google basically ripped out the great fun, learning experimence, and day to day usage i now have in android.
I know how this community feels about 'warez'. I know how this community feels about cyanogen and his contribution to not only us but an 'open source' environment to cell phones.
Well basically what i am getting to is that cyanogen may be legally wrong but what if a developer were to release roms behind closed doors? To torrents and newsgroups and not officially have a face behind said rom. If a developer were to do that, would xda support threads pretaining to that rom? Would all of us still download and love a rom like we do now? Or am i just wrong for getting to that?
If this thread is deleted i understand, but to me i will abandon android if it fails to prosper by the community like true open source software is intended.

Give it time, there are work arounds for ROM makers. Google distributes these applications freely, which means all ROM developers have to do is remove those apps from the ROMs, and give you an application which installs them.
The Android scene is not dead. This sucks, but we will get over it, even without Google's help.

*edit, gary beat me to it..this is in re: to the original post
your not reading before you type...
Google is pissed about him including certain components that were not official yet or closed source. We get over that, and we are back in business. Everyone is way over-reacting, just wait...they will get it figured out. He just cant legally be quite so cutting-edge anymore

I've hard talks of a script that will automatically DL the apps that aren't allowed, I hope that happens soon .

I understand work arounds and what not but do i not have the legal right to use googles closed source apps now that i bought my g1? It is like buying a new car from ford and then ford telling manufacturers of aftermarket products (like air filters or tires) they cant sell them because ford owns the patent to the left head light circuit and it in some legal sense interfers.
A new set of tires on my car is just as damn harmful as using a cyanogen made rom on my phone. I own the hardware, i should be able to do with it as i see fit. Cyanogen doesnt make his roms available to those who dont already own an android licensed product and doesnt do his work for profit that google doesnt see.
They have a legal right yes, but why excersize that legal right when only those who support you already (and if you download cm roms you will more then likely be a future supporter) will end up with the crap end of the stick.
All the crap recently with apple and google voice i have thought to myself that apple will be getting what they deserve by sure to come fines from the fcc. Now google punches us all in the stomache for supporting them and their alledged open source cause. None of us here, including cyanogen, did any actual wrong. If it plays out how it is apparent they want it, everyone loses.

~~Tito~~ said:
I've hard talks of a script that will automatically DL the apps that aren't allowed, I hope that happens soon .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
our could we just not back up and put theme proper place in the update zips?

rondey- said:
I understand work arounds and what not but do i not have the legal right to use googles closed source apps now that i bought my g1? It is like buying a new car from ford and then ford telling manufacturers of aftermarket products (like air filters or tires) they cant sell them because ford owns the patent to the left head light circuit and it in some legal sense interfers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your analogy is flawed because software cannot be treated the same as tangible items. Anyway, the issue at hand is not your license to use Google's closed-source apps, it is the unauthorized distribution of these apps by "ROM" cooks.

It's more than just a few apps that are closed source, though; many of the fundamental pieces that allow the phones to function are proprietary, such as sync, the LED control, the radio control... Take it all out and you have a phone that can't phone.

danguyf said:
It's more than just a few apps that are closed source, though; many of the fundamental pieces that allow the phones to function are proprietary, such as sync, the LED control, the radio control... Take it all out and you have a phone that can't phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You really need to listen to the previous post. Anything that is required for our phones to run is not at question. Mod and distribute away. Led control , radio control, is not at question.
"That’s why we developed Android apps for many of our services like YouTube, Gmail, Google Voice, and so on. These apps are Google’s way of benefiting from Android in the same way that any other developer can, but the apps are not part of the Android platform itself. We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals. Either way, these apps aren’t open source, and that’s why they aren’t included in the Android source code repository. Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it’s done with the best of intentions."
Its the apps that are in question, not the underlying drivers, api's, libraries. So please and anyone else let's not overreact. Lets try to each help find a way to make this a non issue.

Johnny Blaze said:
You really need to listen to the previous post. Anything that is required for our phones to run is not at question. Mod and distribute away. Led control , radio control, is not at question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, LED, radio, SPL... that's all HTC's property. Even the leaked NBH files that allowed this scene to flourish solely belong to HTC.
So although Google's decision does not affect them, they still fall under the same category of "oh crap...".

This is bad news. The phone is essentially useless without the Gmail app (for sign-in on initial boot as well as contact sync) and Android Market (for downloading any apps). Then take Google Maps out of the picture, and may as well throw the phone out and get an iPhone. At a minimum, this means the days of custom ROMs are over.

RueTheDay said:
This is bad news. The phone is essentially useless without the Gmail app (for sign-in on initial boot as well as contact sync) and Android Market (for downloading any apps). Then take Google Maps out of the picture, and may as well throw the phone out and get an iPhone. At a minimum, this means the days of custom ROMs are over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is actually not true at all. The Gmail app is something that is currently being worked on. Google maps isn't that great (but it's available in the market) Like it's been said, give it time. This is just a hiccup that we'll all get over. Soon.

RueTheDay said:
This is bad news. The phone is essentially useless without the Gmail app (for sign-in on initial boot as well as contact sync) and Android Market (for downloading any apps). Then take Google Maps out of the picture, and may as well throw the phone out and get an iPhone. At a minimum, this means the days of custom ROMs are over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your hyperbole not only singles you out as an ignorant fool, it also highlights the fact you have no idea where the true innovations in Android are. It is not having native GMail or Youtube clients (which are nice), it is in things like dalvik and the ipc framework. These are pieces of code that do not have anything to do with whether Google apps are present or not on the phone (or if it even is a phone).

whats up with google's lack of widget development?

I'm not just ranting or trying to make a point, I'm legitimately interested in Google's strategy.
Obviously, google cant argue with the fact that htc has widgets that blow googles widgets out of the water. Google cant say theyve worked hard on their widgets and they cant honestly suggest that they are satisfied with them.
Are there any articles or official satements by google/android regarding their refusal to develop Widgets that are more attractive and elaborate? I'm google faithful and wont switch on principle but I can't imagine more than 10% of those people who've tried HTC's subsequently preferring Googles. Its a very strange angle that google has taken.....or maybe its not I'd like to know their view/opinion...does anyone know it? thanks
Incidentally, its not that Google's Widgets are horrible its just that they could be infinitely better at what I would assume to be relatively little effort... off the top of my head if the power widget was broken into single widgets and more options were included that would great and presumably pretty damn simple, and google emphasizes the customizable desktop which I'm all for yet they neglect wiidgets which could really be a draw for potential customers. thank you

Have to agree with you there. They need to add more stock/easy ways to change the look. It would go a long way in selling more phones. People simply think nicer looking things are "cooler" devices. Some of the metamorph's prove the changes aren't exactly difficult. I'm sure they could code a minimal program that had the ability to change the status bar to black, white, gray... A few nice widgets.. Small changes that the XDA community already offers the rooted phones.

If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."

i do agree with you, but those not wanting to void warranty are alittle more limited, i very much want to root but don't want to void warranty to find a month from now something is wrong and theres still no bootloader relock option. i think theres a lot more customization for rooted vs nonrooted and that's where people feel limited and have the "this should have been added" attitude

You have to keep in mind, Google is just providing a basic operating system. They leave it up the the developers to customize it. You can kinda compair it to what microsoft does, loosly. You can build your own computer, buy windows and customise it to your liking. Or you can buy one from Dell that comes pre-loaded with windows and various other applications. Google just really provides the base level OS.
@psylink you dont need root for most widgets. With exception to like the overclock widget and such, or if you are trying to run a widget that was part of a different rom.

JoshHart said:
If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.

There are a few home screen redesigns on the market that (AFAIK since I've never tried any of them) don't require rooting and significantly change the "look" of the standard phone. Most of them are heavily theme-able as well. On the Behold II forums a lot of people were touting these apps as ways to get rid of the Touchwiz interface that they didn't like (Samsung pouts).
Also, Google created this OS as a platform both for developers to fill with apps, but also for manufacturers to customize to differentiate themselves. If they didn't leave room for manufacturers to customize then the platform would be far less attractive to them and they'd have more adoption problems. If they create too strong of a core UI then they might either be in the position of competing against the manufacturers on that "differentiation" ground, or they might remove any need/desire to customize and the manufacturers would have to consider producing another "me too" phone which they may not like as much, or Google might spend a lot of time on work that will be discarded by the manufacturers during their differentiation. Most of these manufacturers are members of the "alliance" that collaborated on the platform so I'm sure these points were hashed out during that planning phase.
If they don't promote adoption then they lose the win for developers in having a widely adopted platform. Note that even though HTC heavily customizes with Sense and Motorola heavily customizes with Blur and Samsung with Touchwiz, a developer can still write an app that runs on all of those and so everyone is happy.

muncheese said:
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, they could do that, but I don't think they are putting the Nexus One out so much to enter the brand market heavily as they are to put out the canonical reference version of the phone, at least initially. In my mind, the N1 was never to compete with the manufacturers head to head, it was more to have a phone out there that was as open and pluggable as their vision has always been so that if all the manufacturers/carriers decide they are going to take the base OS, lock it down, make people buy ringtones through a carrier market and cripple the browsing so you can't download anything - customers would have an alternative open solution to turn to. In the past there have been classic examples of a given model/brand of phone available from some carriers where you could download any customization file to it that you wanted and then on other carriers it was crippled and locked you in. In those cases you had to buy the crippled versions because there was no independently available canonical "open" version. The N1 fights that tendency not by force or contract, but by simply being. It doesn't have to be the coolest, hippest incarnation, it just has to be pretty and usable and so open that everyone will start to get a distaste for anything closed.
What we are seeing so far with Android isn't so much of this "carrier locking" as it is "carriers customizing so heavily that they threaten the upgrade paths for their customers". I don't think they are doing it intentionally, they just aren't familiar with working on a platform that evolves so quickly. Without the N1 being a bare bones example of the platform they would only be competing with other manufacturers that are similarly locked in by their own lack of upgrade foresight and so the drive to release upgrades wouldn't be so compelling. But, if there are alternatives available that will be keeping up on a much more aggressive pace, like the N1, then they are more likely to fix their differentiating software so that it can move to newer OS versions in a more timely manner. Imagine in a year or two when we can all own Blur or Sense phones and get our OS updates within a month or two of a new OS release.
It's the "reference fully open Android example" and, as such, is less in need of customization as it is to simply stand as an option to keep the others honest. It's meant to be as "close to the raw OS source" as it can be.

muncheese said:
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When have widgets been the only way to add content to the phone? I mean there are plenty of replacement widgets already on the market if you dont like the stock ones. Me I would rather they provide more features then pretty widgets. They have provided plenty of content for the phone. Live wallpapers, google goggles, factory bootloader unlock, sim unlocked, mutible exchange account management, updated gallery, multi touch maps, ect

MonkySlap said:
When have widgets been the only way to add content to the phone? I mean there are plenty of replacement widgets already on the market if you dont like the stock ones. Me I would rather they provide more features then pretty widgets. They have provided plenty of content for the phone. Live wallpapers, google goggles, factory bootloader unlock, sim unlocked, mutible exchange account management, updated gallery, multi touch maps, ect
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.

muncheese said:
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but its still content non the less, correct? Doesnt need to be exclusive to be considered content. Me personally I really didnt buy it for stock os or content. I bought mine to tweak, mod, and play with, and it is more then fulfiling that for me . Love the desire rom running so smooth so early in the port.

muncheese said:
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or maybe their philosophy is that any and all "enhancements" should be optional add-ons available to all phones of the breed. As it stands you can only get Sense or Blur if you buy a phone from those manufacturers (or if you root and someone scavenges a semi-compatible ROM from one of them for you). I don't think they want to be in the game of "you have to get your phone from us to get XYZ" and so they provide a reasonably attractive basic package, they set it up so that others can come in and provide openly available enhancements (see the various replacement "home screens" on the market for example) and then the customer gets the benefit of both choice and of an open environment.
I think they view branding as more of an obstacle than as a sales/owner satisfaction tactic.

JoshHart said:
If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All good points. Now that I think about it I bought this phone for stock google stuff, which in hindsight may have been a mistake. With the g1 and mytouch 3g the google software was often the closest thing to stable available and I've grown to trust mainly them and reputable companies. Its kind of embarrassing to look thru the market and have to sift through countless apps that serve virtually no purpose, have terrible icons, and aren't even close to stable, but perhaps this is a product of androids relative immaturity, though I'm unfamiliar with winmo, palm, and apple. I just haven't been impressed with many third party apps or Widgets, save a select few very impressive ones. 90% of the apps look and feel very amateur. I stick to apps and Widgets produced by real companies because those have the best chance of being usuable. That was quite a gamble by google to go largely hands off and let all software be driven by development. Xda has spotlighted many excellent devs as far as rooting goes but for the average user the options are unimpressive. Maybe google will give in and start developing more usuable/stable/useful apps/widgets

I think that there are two schools of thought on this, yet we are all agreeing on the same concept.
While Google did create Android to be a stock type OS that they could distribute to multiple handset makers (in order to increase their ability to produce smartphones with only minor increases in developmental costs aside from those related to hardware - ultimately getting more people using the mobile web resulting in more ad revenue -whew! ), they also have in a sense slightly abandoned those of us who took the direct to consumers path. This is why they didn't put much into the release of the phone (look up the launch stats - or lack of accessories). While they don't have the responsibility to create widgets, programs, animations, etc. for us (the D2C crowd). I believe that they should have worked out a deal with HTC where we are allowed to unlock the bootloader and tinker/mod/play with/customize, etc as much as we want to without penalty or breaking the warranty. We don't have the funding to purchase a few hundred phones in case we brick them testing out various configs., nor do most of us have the expertise to repair the device if it gets bricked. The only other possibility is that a contract clause is created whereby we are allowed to download ROMs from Android manufacturers (or at least just HTC) and put them on our phones - doesn't that give us the MOST number of options to customize our phones? And isn't the ability to customize an Android phone the original intent of the OS?
By giving us either an allowance to unlock the bootloader or the allowance to download (and maybe play with other manufacturer customized ROMs) or preferably both I think that it would be a win-win situation.

Paid Apps the main problem with Android

I am not a developer, but I was reading up on experiences that developers have with the Android Market.
Then I also came across a website that showed some statistics about paid apps and they were shocking. I can't remember the source right now, but it said that the Apple AppStore is a $200 million business per month, where the Android Market is only $5 millions per month. This is very discouraging for developers who are in it for money (usually companies who have the resources to create Games and more Complex Apps and have the ability to Partner with Services).
One developers said that he only got 23 downloads, in the first month. He mentioned then that over half of them used the 24 hour refund (could that be that those were leachers who downloaded the app and threw it on a P2P channel?), eventually he ended up with 11 sales. One guy sent him an email and said that $4.99 is too much to ask for, which I think is not unreasonable considering that there are many apps in the Apple AppStore that cost much more than that. Whether or not his app is useful or not to most users is sadly unknown by me. But looking at his perspective I think I would start developing apps for the iOS, who wouldn't that wants to make money?
The problem with these figures is that developers will eventually stop developing paid apps and the quality of the Android Market (from now on referred to Market) apps vs Apple AppStore (from now on referred to AppStore) apps will extremely decline. And there will be either many low rating apps in the Market or there will be an increase in the amount of Apps submitted the the Market.
We all want good Apps, Apple found out Apps are the number 1 reason a Plattform has success. Android has Google behind it which makes up for a good amount of Great apps and there are very good developers here that are not in it for the money, but eventually it all comes down to making money when it comes to professional businesses offering a product. Look at the games that are offered on the iOS platform vs Android, you can't tell me that an iPhone 3G or a 2nd Gen iPod has better graphics performance than some of the higher-end Android devices.
Also, are there too many free alternatives in the Android Market that the AppStore doesn't have? There are also many free apps in the AppStore.
What can be done about this? - Please post your ideas, since I am not a developer I am not the pro here when it comes to this issue I am asking for your opinion.
However, I am a business student so I have some insights of how companies will react to this as mentioned above.
The few ideas I have would be:
1. Google could increase the quality of design of the API and give different APIs to paid vs free Apps.
2. Sadly I have to mention it because of all the Leachers and then P2P distributors, remove the 24 hour refund policy.
3. Google to hire more developers in house who are paid and create free apps that can compete with the AppStore (which would cost Google a fortune). Maybe then charge a small amount for Google Voice to do some financial damage report.
4. Change the Markets way how people pay for apps? I noticed that in the past on my iPhone the decision to actually PAY for an app was much easier and faster for me, I didn't even bother to look for a free alternative.
5. Try to Market Android more towards people who are less geeks (who know where and how to find a free solution to the app they need), as in change the look of Android and make it much more simple for the average Joe day to day user (which I would hate because that means remove or hide many of the great features that make Android what I like so much about it and go back to a more primitive system like the iOS4). And tell hardware manufacturers to create more shiny phones.
--> Since most people who don't know how to get free alternatives, or who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to find free alternatives are people that are buying a product for the lifestyle and to show off (iPhone).
What are YOUR ideas to fix this issue? - Thank you for everyone posting solutions.

I don't think this is something we should worry about.
First, Android is open-source and many enthusiasts give their applications free of charge, which is not the case with Apple's closed OS. That is why about 65% of all apps in Market are free, and only 35% paid. In Appstore, about 70% are paid, only 30% free. Statistics: http://androidheadlines.com/2010/09/app-store-vs-android-market-how-much-is-paid-for.html.
Secondly, you'll find that Market currently supports purchases in only 13 markets while the App Store does so in 90. These numbers will change as time passes by and more markets will be included, but I'm sure that Android will always be a platform with much more free apps than iOS, and that's the beauty of Android.

As far as I'm aware the developers have a say regarding that 24 hour refund policy. An application can be made to be non-refundable if they choose to.

In comparing developers for iOS and Android, you have to also look at who they are individually. Sure, there are many apps developed across the board for all mobile devices, but I think the core of the Android Market are individuals who develop apps just for the sake of developing apps. They enjoy what they do and they would do it regardless of profit.
Of course you have a few that try to make money, but I believe they are the exception rather than the rule.
I mean no offense when I say this, but I believe that the iPhone attracts a very different type of user than Android does. Most people I personally know that use the iPhone do so more out of status and pretentiousness than its own usefulness. Many do not even know the majority of things they could do with the iPhone. Those I know who use Android use it because they root it and do their own modifications, overclocking, etc.
With this in mind, I believe that Android apps are generally created by a different kind of developer for a different kind of user.

shinji257 said:
As far as I'm aware the developers have a say regarding that 24 hour refund policy. An application can be made to be non-refundable if they choose to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have absolutely no say in whether or not out apps are refunded. If I showed you the numbers of instant refunds you'd puke. And the OP states $200 million to $5 million which is ridiculously off. I believe Google just reported that they passed $1 billion in sales (profit) from the Android Market. Either way, it's way more than $5 million a month.
All that said I personally am happy with what I have been able to do with the Market. I expected a little better on my most recent app but it takes time for people to get word of a new app. That's pretty much the problem I've found. It's hard to get noticed. But I still think it's pretty good. There is a lot I absolutely hate about the Market and a bunch of things I like about it. I'd still rather develop for Android and ironically, none of the apps I have created would even work on iPhone. Two are root apps and one requires a modification of the browser which is not allowed on iPhone (for no apparent good reason, I might add).

I am glad to hear that this isn't as big of an issue as I read online, it would be sad to see a great plattform to be hurten, as you can see with the WebOS.
As for not getting recognized, a few tips I have about that is not to rely too much on people finding your app in the market, but rather advertise it yourself, use your facebook and twitter and even this forum (if the forum policy allow that, I am not sure on that again since I am not a developer). I love the QR codes, I actually see many of them in bathroom stalls and other places, and I always check on them since it's in my curiosity to find out where they get me.

I'm making an extra living off paid apps on the Marketplace.
Oh, and an extra living off free apps with Admob.
So now I'm making 3 livings worth. It's wonderful. I have no complaints.
I mean no offense when I say this, but I believe that the iPhone attracts a very different type of user than Android does. Most people I personally know that use the iPhone do so more out of status and pretentiousness than its own usefulness. Many do not even know the majority of things they could do with the iPhone. Those I know who use Android use it because they root it and do their own modifications, overclocking, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're forgetting about Droid users. You'd be surprised how many people own an Android just for status and pretentiousness. It goes both ways. I even know a few people with Androids that don't even know that they have an Android.

1. Google could increase the quality of design of the API and give different APIs to paid vs free Apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't that mean closing the source? Or you think people will use opensource platform that only runs free apps over opensource platform that runs both?
I don't think I want closed source OS on my phone, if I did I'd probably use iPhone.
2. Sadly I have to mention it because of all the Leachers and then P2P distributors, remove the 24 hour refund policy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pirates do buy software sometimes, how do you think it gets to P2P networks in the first place? One of them buys it, his friend cracks it and everyone else gets it 4free.
So it wouldn't solve anything, removing the refund would only make legit customers angry if the app doesn't work.
3. Google to hire more developers in house who are paid and create free apps that can compete with the AppStore (which would cost Google a fortune). Maybe then charge a small amount for Google Voice to do some financial damage report.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought google did hire developers and they do create free apps. I don't think competing with appstore is their ultimate goal though, since appstore and iphoneos are completely closed.
Charging for services is something I agree with completely.
They should indeed make certain (not all) services cost money. But they should also keep the software free and open to ensure the quality.
4. Change the Markets way how people pay for apps? I noticed that in the past on my iPhone the decision to actually PAY for an app was much easier and faster for me, I didn't even bother to look for a free alternative.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was much easier and faster because apple paid someone to make it easier and faster.
I'm not so sure google is willing to invest money into closed source software, especially when you consider these 3 facts.
1. Closed source software has a limited amount of developers who are working to make it better, faster and more efficient.
2. More developers on a single project means more features, more bugfixes and faster development.
3. Opensource software in general is more secure because everyone can see the source code.
5. Try to Market Android more towards people who are less geeks (who know where and how to find a free solution to the app they need), as in change the look of Android and make it much more simple for the average Joe day to day user (which I would hate because that means remove or hide many of the great features that make Android what I like so much about it and go back to a more primitive system like the iOS4). And tell hardware manufacturers to create more shiny phones.
--> Since most people who don't know how to get free alternatives, or who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to find free alternatives are people that are buying a product for the lifestyle and to show off (iPhone).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I don't like being labeled, I think marketing should be focused on pushing Android for everyone, not just specific groups of people.
User knows what works best for him so let him decide what to buy. Wide selection of devices that share the base operating system is great, but user should decide what type of software he wants to use, not google nor apple.
User should also decide what type of service he wants to use and whether that service is free or paid.
Changing the look of Android to make it more simple is something I'd personally hate, but we should always have options.
It would be great to flash an extremely simple android OS for my grandmother's phone for example, while keeping my VNC and SSH on my own device.
Also, don't think there's much difference between android users and iphone users, they're just people anyway. And there's an equal amount of pirated iphone apps and android apps.
Only real difference is about the OS, where one offers you a choice and another forces you to pay and develops restrictions instead of new features.
What are YOUR ideas to fix this issue? - Thank you for everyone posting solutions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think there is an issue, devs get paid from pushing ads, users are happy with a wide selection of apps. Some services are free some services cost money. Just my 2c

Google's new "BOUNCER" will remove malware

We all know that Android is the largest mobile OS, and with it being Open Source comes the fact that it does receive more malware than any other OS. I personally have not EVER gotten any kind of malware because i'm actually careful about what I install. I don't install crap like "sexy girls wallpaper" etc. Which are obvious signs of a malware.
Google apparently has known about this too! They've been working on a "Bouncer" system which automatically from their servers will run a malware (virus,trojan, keylog, etc) scan through out their apps, new and old.
How do you think it'll work? is it a good idea? Some people say that this is how Android will go into the path of becoming like iOS appstore with the restrictions etc.
I think its a great idea, and it provides it in a easy comfort way that the user does not have to worry about anything at all.
Read these two articles:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/02/googles-bouncer-service-scans-the-android-market-for-malware/
and from the official Google Blog
http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2012/02/android-and-security.html

I think it's a great idea. I don't think Google will have as tight of a strangle hold as Apple does. As long as the intent remains to protect us and not control us, I'm all for it.
Sent from my Vibrant on roids.

Usually when something is open source like the android os you will see that Google is truly helping out the user in the end. Thats why all the lawsuits you see against google including google collecting anon. statistics is all bull****. There intent isn't to know everything about you, it's to help you ultimately. It's how their business works, and it's a model that has succeeded for them. Google Earth, maps, street, Nav, think about it... it's all free, and where the hell would we be without that kind of stuff!?! Paying for some crap from microsoft or Apple.
Apple has restrcitions because similiar to microsoft it's how they make their money. Google doesn't work the same.
I think Bouncer will be great as long as it does what it's supposed to... Get rid of malware. I'm sure it will do exactly that.

New to 6T. Is it confirmed that there's no way to "Ok, Google" with no history?

New to 6T. Is it confirmed that there's no way to "Ok, Google" with no history?
I don't care about Assistant functionality but being able to say "Ok, Google" and have answers is nice. As I understand, unfortunately, that is now "force linked" to activating browsing and voice history. Am I correct?
If that was the case, it's another nail in my personal coffin for Google. It's perfectly capable to recognize my voice flawlessly while using Google keyboard, as it's perfectly capable to do it when I activate manually the Google app (long press on home button). Feeling forced to have Google snooping on my web and voice history just to be able to activate it with "Ok, Google" irks me to no end.
Please, tell me I've got it wrong.

I'm not sure why you have an Android phone if you don't want Google knowing anything about you.
The assistant does store your queries, it does so to help it learn context about how you use it. It also allows you phone and Google Home devices to work together and work smarter for you. Yes, it's an invasion of privacy, but that is the trade off for using the Google Ecosystem.

yep, Android phone, gmail account, play store account, google has assigned a Russian operative to monitor every porn site you go to..
relax, just keep your tin foil helmet firmly in place and you'll be just fine..

There are several options to have privacy on smartphones. Both big os (Apple and Google) and even windows on computers are collecting many things about you. The only way to get rid of it is either no to use a smartphone, or on Google phones to run a modified Android ROM running without any Google framework and able to run microG project.
But there is none yet on our phone
All projects based on other types of Linux distro are dead or non usable except for a few phones.
So... Use your phone and don't bother, Android is free so you're the product, Apple too, windows too, Facebook too, Instagram too....

... sorry to see "tinfoil hat" accusations. I asked a simple question. Up to a certain point the "Ok Google" activation command did not require web history and voice history activation. Is it now mandatory or am I missing something?
If I wanted to discuss privacy implications I would have opened a discussion somewhere else. As I said, there is no technical reason for the change, if the change indeed happened. So the question is: did it happen? Yes or no? If I have Assistant deactivated (as I do), do I still need to activate those two options just to be able to activate the Google app with my voice?
Because you either think Google is lying about it (in which case I would not speak about tinfoil hats if I were you) or you accept that with web history and voice history deactivated Google knows far less about you. I do not want Assistant but I liked to be able to ask simple questions without typing. And I still can do that, by simply long pressing the home button. It's just the "Ok, Google" voice command that is deactivated. Something that would have been easily recognizable fifteen years ago by Dragon Dictate, with pretty much no error possible. If I manually activate the Google app, my speech is flawlessly recognized every single time, same for Google Maps when I dictate an address. But I need to touch the screen, whereas before I could say "Ok Google" and start speaking.

Striatum_bdr said:
Android is free so you're the product, Apple too, windows too, Facebook too, Instagram too....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perfectly said...

Striatum_bdr said:
Android is free so you're the product, Apple too, windows too, Facebook too, Instagram too....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A phone that costs 700 USD should not include an OS that follows every move of its user. It's already bad enough that Microsoft is going the same way with Windows. That being said, there simply is no alternative so I don't really agree with the fact that we have to take whatever they throw at us.
Still looking for a solution to block web & app access as well. "Google Now" worked without any of those. What's more, Google now even makes it impossible to enter an address in Android Auto while driving because I cannot use voice without giving these permissions and they simply block typing while driving.
Instead of improving car safety, they are making it worse because I'm back to typing on my tiny phone screen instead of using voice to navigate. Well done Google.

ljo13 said:
A phone that costs 700 USD should not include an OS that follows every move of its user. It's already bad enough that Microsoft is going the same way with Windows. That being said, there simply is no alternative so I don't really agree with the fact that we have to take whatever they throw at us.
Still looking for a solution to block web & app access as well. "Google Now" worked without any of those. What's more, Google now even makes it impossible to enter an address in Android Auto while driving because I cannot use voice without giving these permissions and they simply block typing while driving.
Instead of improving car safety, they are making it worse because I'm back to typing on my tiny phone screen instead of using voice to navigate. Well done Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What exactly are you doing that you don't want Google knowing anything about you? I think we all wish these companies were less intrusive, and a lot of us know the reasoning they give for some of the breaches of privacy are ridiculous, but you don't HAVE to use a smartphone, and this is part of the price for doing so at this point.
Get a flip phone and a standalone GPS and call it there.

xgerryx said:
What exactly are you doing that you don't want Google knowing anything about you? I think we all wish these companies were less intrusive, and a lot of us know the reasoning they give for some of the breaches of privacy are ridiculous, but you don't HAVE to use a smartphone, and this is part of the price for doing so at this point.
Get a flip phone and a standalone GPS and call it there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not OP, but this argument is so bad that I can't help but respond. Living life is what I'm doing that I don't want Google knowing about me. People don't need extraneous reasons to justify wanting privacy, the fact that they want privacy is reason enough.
These companies are not losing money on these phones, we are paying more than the cost to build these devices. They do not need to suck up all of our data to make money from these phones. Yet they still do so, and for whatever reason have people like you arguing against their own self interest. Its truly genius how these companies have worked this out for themselves.
Of course you don't HAVE to have a smartphone, but your life will be seriously inconvenienced without it. A flip phone is not a viable alternative to a smart phone, and I know you know that.

everything in life comes with trade offs; if you dont want a flip phone, and want all the other stuff that smart phones provide, then, unfortunately, there is a price to pay, even more than the cost of these phones..And, your remark about paying more than the phone costs to make is strange; do you expect companies with shareholders to NOT make as much of a profit as they can?
society, for the most part has decided to deal with the privacy intrusion that so many of these devices inflict on us, so, as someone else said, if you cant accept that or deal with it, the Moto Razr is going to be released again soon, so you may want to go that route..

adobrakic said:
Not OP, but this argument is so bad that I can't help but respond. Living life is what I'm doing that I don't want Google knowing about me. People don't need extraneous reasons to justify wanting privacy, the fact that they want privacy is reason enough.
These companies are not losing money on these phones, we are paying more than the cost to build these devices. They do not need to suck up all of our data to make money from these phones. Yet they still do so, and for whatever reason have people like you arguing against their own self interest. Its truly genius how these companies have worked this out for themselves.
Of course you don't HAVE to have a smartphone, but your life will be seriously inconvenienced without it. A flip phone is not a viable alternative to a smart phone, and I know you know that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point was that it's a battle you aren't going to win. So deal, or don't use it, thats about it.

Use MicroG, use search sites that don't keep data, don't use Gmail, Facebook, Insta, Snap, but use Protonmail, Telegram, sms and... no social media.
And you'll be ok. But you'll have to convince friends / buddies / family to use the same tools to communicate with you.
Your data are interesting, not you. No human will track and look into a specific individual. All those data are only interesting for the computers (or more precisely IA) that can help you, assist you, sell you things etc. You can refuse that, but you can't stop it. Far too late. And you'll be anyway in a data set anyway, by other means.
So at an individual level you can try to be as little exposed as possible, but it will require time, limitation of possibilities, and perhaps an adaptation of social life

xgerryx said:
What exactly are you doing that you don't want Google knowing anything about you? I think we all wish these companies were less intrusive, and a lot of us know the reasoning they give for some of the breaches of privacy are ridiculous, but you don't HAVE to use a smartphone, and this is part of the price for doing so at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not that I'm doing anything wrong. I'm probably one of the most boring people in the world to follow and I absolutely believe that there's nothing wrong with giving up SOME privacy but Google is taking it way too far. There simply is no alternative. There are literally zero smartphones I can buy that offer decent privacy coupled with decent functionality.
I really hate to explain this to people but privacy really IS something valuable. Or do we all want to end up with a social score like in China? Where ignoring a red light at a crosswalk lowers your score and thus your chances to get a bank loan, decent job, etc. ? It's not about what these organizations or by extension governments are doing with all that data today. It's about what they are going to do with it tomorrow.