"Swap out" doesn't mean "uninstall carrier-provided services".
Lets look at their examples, under rc30 g1: - homescreen. Yep. thats a standard app, with a standard interface. Feel free to write a different one and install it, when the user hits 'home' they will see the "which app to use?" prompt. - dialer. OK so this one is a little magic (emergency calls) but can still be done. Same as above. - "any applications" .. ok, lets see. How about sms. I installed k9sms and when I went to send a text message, it asks whether to use "Messaging" or "K9SMS". Looks swapped out to me. browser? I installed steel, and when I type a search into the google widget I get asked about 'browser', 'steel' and a couple of search apps. Neat. Looks -very- swapped out. I haven't replaced any others (at least that come to mind off the top of my head), but I can't imagine they are any different. It does sound like you are using a phone outside it's supported network and then bitching that its not behaving as expected. Funny, that. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:34 AM, gjs <[email protected]> wrote: > > ...With devices built on the Android Platform, > users are able to fully tailor the phone to their interests. They can > swap out the phone's homescreen, the style of the dialer, or any of > the > applications.. > > Not with the G1 ( and rc30 ) there's no official root access, eg: we > cannot uninstall t-mobile's MyFaves application ( and it zillions of > 453 sms messages ) etc etc. > > I guess t-mobile is the G1 'user' not us G1 consumers... > > I find it interesting to keep seeing google saying 'speak to the > carrier/vendor' about software for the devices and the carrier (t- > mobile) says 'google writes the software'... > > I now see, with hindsight, that I should have waited for the Dev Phone > 1 and not jumped in and bought a G1. > > regards > > On Jan 8, 2:21 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks. > > > > I haven't clean fetched "Master".. may be that's the issue. > > > > take care, > > Muthu Ramadoss. > > > > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914http://mobeegal.in- mobile > search. redefined. > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > FYI Master builds right now, even for actual hardware. (It doesn't run > so > > > well due to a bunch of closed-source libraries they can't release.. but > > > thats just more of the "we'll worry about licensing later" mess.) > > > > > At a minimum, whats out there now is: > > > Master - cutting edge, community tree (although so far only googs can > > > commit) - currently (as of a couple days ago) builds fine for g1/adp1 > using > > > the directions on android.com > > > Master w/ tag "release-1.0" - the tree as it was kinda sorta when > rc29/rc30 > > > were peeled off, but not really. Doesn't build. > > > Cupcake - laggy internal cutting edge, synced from perforce. still > broken > > > build, and behind master. > > > Perforce - cutting edge private tree, occasionally synced to cupcake > > > Product - adp1/g1 tree, stable, tested, running, never to see the light > of > > > day other than as blob updates ('open source' or not..) > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Muthu Ramadoss < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > >> Google has their own internal repo which they haven't synced it up > with > > >> the public repo. Its all a bit confusing now since both master and the > > >> cupcake branch seems to be broken now. > > > > >> take care, > > >> Muthu Ramadoss. > > > > >>http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 > > >>http://androidrocks.googlecode.com > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Disconnect <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > >>> Its apache-licensed. Just pretend that the upstream is 'equal' and > they > > >>> created a closed-source fork of it. (Since, realistically, thats what > > >>> happened with the dream product tree. Compounded when they merged it > to > > >>> their p4/cupcake instead of the old master, basically making it > forever > > >>> unreachable.) > > > > >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>> But a group of OHA members made the first deployment where a number > of > > >>>> apps aren't equal (e.g. Market using locked down APIs, 3rd party > > >>>> diallers being unable to call emergency services, etc.). > > > > >>>> So if the OHAs own members aren't sticking to that idea, why are the > OHA > > >>>> claiming it's one of features of an Android system? > > > > >>>> Al. > > > > >>>> Muthu Ramadoss wrote: > > >>>> > "All Applications are created Equal" > > > > >>>> > holds true for all applications created on top of Application > > >>>> Framework. > > > > >>>> > It does not mean that the applications created will be open or > free! > > > > >>>> > take care, > > >>>> > Muthu Ramadoss. > > > > >>>> >http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 > > >>>> >http://mobeegal.in- mobile search. redefined. > > > > >>>> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, aayush < > [email protected] > > >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > The adage that all applications are created equal cannot hold > true > > >>>> in > > >>>> > a real commercial rollout by a carrier. > > > > >>>> > Carriers would want to achieve service differentiation and a > > >>>> > competitive edge over their peers. So they would always want > to > > >>>> lock > > >>>> > down some apps to provide them to only their customers. > > >>>> > If all applications would be equal, what value proposition > will > > >>>> they > > >>>> > show to their customers ? > > > > >>>> > So i think, that this statement of application equality does > not > > >>>> hold > > >>>> > good....no matter how good the intentions may be..the carriers > > >>>> wont > > >>>> > tolerate it ! > > > > >>>> > Aayush > > > > >>>> > Muthu Ramadoss wrote: > > >>>> > > I guess "All applications are created equal" will hold true > when > > >>>> > you roll > > >>>> > > out your own custom Android implementation. If we consider > the > > >>>> G1 > > >>>> > > implementation of Android, of course the Carrier is going to > > >>>> > lock down a lot > > >>>> > > of Apps which the Carrier believes is important enough to be > > >>>> > locked down for > > >>>> > > various reasons. > > > > >>>> > > take care, > > >>>> > > Muthu Ramadoss. > > > > >>>> > >http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 > > >>>> > >http://androidrocks.googlecode.com- Android Tutorial. > > > > >>>> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Al Sutton < > [email protected] > > >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > Debate on the policy is another (probably lengthy) > discussion, > > >>>> > the fact > > >>>> > > > is that the policy exists and because of that all apps are > not > > >>>> > equal as > > >>>> > > > the OHA site claim that "All applications are created > equal" > > >>>> > doesn't > > >>>> > > > hold up. > > > > >>>> > > > Al. > > > > >>>> > > > Shane Isbell wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Al Sutton > > >>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > >>>> > > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>>> > > >>>> > wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > They would need stretch that somewhat and define the > > >>>> dialler > > >>>> > > > > application > > >>>> > > > > as non-core for that to work in relation to the > block on > > >>>> > third party > > >>>> > > > > diallers calling emergency services. > > > > >>>> > > > > This is one area I agree with Google on. If there is a > > >>>> > hostile app, > > >>>> > > > > dialing out false emergency requests, clogging the > system, > > >>>> > people > > >>>> > > > > could die. Of course, Google deserves all the other crap > you > > >>>> > give > > >>>> > > > > them, so keep swinging. Maybe some candy will fall out. > > > > >>>> > > > > Shane > > > > >>>> > > > -- > > >>>> > > > ====== > > >>>> > > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales > with > > >>>> the > > >>>> > > > company number 6741909. The registered head office is > Kemp > > >>>> House, > > >>>> > > > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > > > >>>> > > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author > and > > >>>> not > > >>>> > > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's > associates, > > >>>> > or it's > > >>>> > > > subsidiaries. > > > > >>>> -- > > >>>> ====== > > >>>> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > > >>>> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > > >>>> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > > > >>>> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > > >>>> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > > >>>> subsidiaries. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
