Tu orang ngomong apaan sih? Panjang bener... Curhatan orang sakit hati yak?
~~~~~ >From Incredible SMART Phone On Sep 10, 2010 8:44 PM, <fwas...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah ini yang ngomong apple fanboy. Dia udah sering kok bikin artikel2 yang nyerang android > Sent from my AXIS Worry Free BlackBerry® smartphone > > -----Original Message----- > From: Agus Hamonangan <id.andr...@gmail.com> > Sender: id-android@googlegroups.com > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 22:01:57 > To: <id-android@googlegroups.com> > Reply-To: id-android@googlegroups.com > Subject: [id-android] WTI: Android Is As Open As The Clenched > Fist I’d Like To Punch The Carriers With > > http://goo.gl/HSMH > > This past weekend, I wrote a post wondering if Android was surging in > the U.S. market because Apple was letting it? The main thought was > that by remaining exclusively tied to AT&T, Apple was driving some > users to choose Android, which is available on all the U.S. carriers. > In the post, I posed a question: if it’s not the iPhone/AT&T deal, why > do you choose Android? Nearly 1,000 people responded, and a large > percentage focused on the same idea: the idea of “openness.” > > You’ll forgive me, but I have to say it: what a load of crap. > > In theory, I’m right there with you. The thought of a truly open > mobile operating system is very appealing. The problem is that in > practice, that’s just simply not the reality of the situation. Maybe > if Google had their way, the system would be truly open. But they > don’t. Sadly, they have to deal with a very big roadblock: the > carriers. > > The result of this unfortunate situation is that the so-called open > system is quickly revealing itself to be anything but. Further, we’re > starting to see that in some cases the carriers may actually be able > to exploit this “openness” to create a closed system that may leave > you crying for Apple’s closed system — at least their’s looks good and > behaves as expected. > > Case in point: the last couple of Android phones I’ve gotten as demo > units from Google: the EVO 4G and the Droid 2, have been loaded up > with crapware installed by the carriers (Sprint and Verizon, > respectively). Apple would never let this fly on the iPhone, but the > openness of Android means Google has basically no say in the matter. > Consumers will get the crapware and they’ll like it. Not only that, > plenty of this junk can’t even be uninstalled. How’s that for “open”? > > And this is just the tip of the iceberg. > > Earlier this year, Verizon rolled out its own V Cast app store on some > BlackBerry devices. This occurred despite that fact that BlackBerry > devices have their own app store (App World). From what we’re hearing, > Verizon is also planning to launch this store on their Android phones > as well in the future. Obviously, this store would be pre-installed, > and it would likely be more prominently displayed than Android’s own > Market for apps. > > Does V Cast have some good content? Probably. But most of it is > undoubtedly crap that Verizon is trying to sell you for a high fee. > But who cares whether it’s great or it’s crap — isn’t the point of > “open” supposed to be that the consumer can choose what they want on > their own devices? Instead, open is proving to mean that the carriers > can choose what they want to do with Android. > > It’s too bad, but there is now a very real risk that the carriers are > going to exploit the open system Google set up in order to create a > new version of the bullshit proprietary ecosystems that they had > before the iPhone came along and turned the market on its side. > > And it’s not just Verizon, it’s all the carriers. One of the great > features of Android is that you can install apps without going through > an app store, right? Well, not if you have an a Motorola Backflip or a > HTC Aria running on AT&T — they’ve locked this feature down. How? > Thanks to the open Android OS. > > Oh, and how about tethering? It’s one of the truly great features of > Android 2.2, right? Well, not if you have a carrier that doesn’t want > to support it. Google has to defer to them to enable their own native > OS feature. It’s such an awesome feature — in the hands of Google. > Once the carriers get their hands on it — not so much. > > Speaking of Android 2.2, you know it’s out there right? You’ll be > forgiven if you don’t because a whopping 4.5 percent of you Android > users are currently running it, according to Google’s dashboard. And > again, that’s not Google’s fault, that’s all the carriers. Incredibly, > over 35 percent of you still aren’t even running any version of > Android 2.x. It’s pathetic. > > Apple gets crap for not supporting phones that are three years old > with OS updates — the open Android system can’t even upgrade phones > that are only a few months old in some cases — again, all thanks to > the carriers. > > The excuses for why this is run rampant. They need to tweak their > custom skins, they need to test the new software, etc. It’s all a > bunch of garbage. This is an open platform and yet you’re more > restricted than on Apple’s supposedly closed one. > > What happens when Verizon won’t update your phone to the latest > greatest Android software — not because they can’t, but because they > want you to upgrade to a new piece of hardware and sign the new > two-year agreement that comes along with it? The game remains the > same. > > My point is not to bash Google — what they’ve created is an excellent > mobile operating system. My point is that the same “openness” that > Android users are touting as a key selling point of the OS could very > well end up being its weak point. If you don’t think Verizon, AT&T, > T-Mobile, and Sprint are going to try to commandeer the OS in an > attempt to return to their glory days where we were all slaves to > their towers, you’re being naive. > > “Open” is great until you have to define it or defend it. I’m not sure > Google can continue to do either in this situation. > > And before all of you pros storm the comments with how great it is to > root your Android phones, consider the average consumers here. They > are the ones being screwed by this exploitation of “open.” Anyone with > the desire to do so can fairly easily hack an iPhone too. Open is not > a reason to choose Android + carrier vs. iPhone + AT&T. > > Update: Oh, and one more great example Michael Prassel reminded me of > in the comments — do you want Skype on your Android phone? Well, I > hope you have Verizon because otherwise you won’t be able to install > it. “Open.” We’re only going to see more of this, not less. > > [photo: AP] > > -- > Salam, > > > Agus Hamonangan > > http://groups.google.com/group/id-android > http://groups.google.com/group/id-gtug > Gtalk : id.android > Follow : @agushamonangan > E-mail : id.andr...@gmail.com > > -- > "Indonesian Android Community [id-android]" > > Join: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android/subscribe?hl=en-GB > Moderator: id.andr...@gmail.com > Peraturan Jual dan Kloteran ID-Android http://goo.gl/azW7 > ID Android Developer: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android-dev > ID Android Surabaya: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android-sby > ID Android on FB: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112207700729 > > -- > "Indonesian Android Community [id-android]" > > Join: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android/subscribe?hl=en-GB > Moderator: id.andr...@gmail.com > Peraturan Jual dan Kloteran ID-Android http://goo.gl/azW7 > ID Android Developer: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android-dev > ID Android Surabaya: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android-sby > ID Android on FB: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112207700729 -- "Indonesian Android Community [id-android]" Join: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android/subscribe?hl=en-GB Moderator: id.andr...@gmail.com Peraturan Jual dan Kloteran ID-Android http://goo.gl/azW7 ID Android Developer: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android-dev ID Android Surabaya: http://groups.google.com/group/id-android-sby ID Android on FB: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112207700729
