> I'm not arguing that. Ultimately all this backlash towards Android and even
> iPhones is unwarranted and pointless. Do you think if they went away the
> smartphone segment would suddenly be free? Do you think any smartphone
> platform or hardware provider cares whether you tether your phone, or use
> voip? If you are worried about user freedom or people not having control
> over their own devices, your wasting your time complaining about the
> platform or even the phone providers. They are not the gate keepers.
In the case of the iPhone and the iPad, the gatekeeper is clearly Apple.
But you're right that it's not the only problem. Other smartphones are
just about as bad, for example, and phone companies have a long
tradition of being control freaks.
The point is that most people don't realize it, so we have to make noise
around those issues, and the iPhone is a good target since it's very
visible and it claims to be open.
>> > The firmware does not have anything to do with Android, only the phone
>> > makers. Google/Android doesn't control the phone makers, and a phone
>> > maker is free to make the device as hackable as they like.
>> At least Google makes no effort to keep the end products free,
> In what sense?
In the obvious sense. In which sense have they made efforts to keep the
end products free?
>> and even actively supports freedom-adverse features such as the
>> ability to remove apps remotely.
> Again this is specific to apps installed via the Android Market, not apps
> installed from any other source (which unlike the iPhone, is trivial to do).
Doesn't make much difference. The fact that the backdoor is present for
one probably means that it could (technically) be used for other things.
It's still the basic issue: *they* keep ultimate control over your device.
> I don't know if it has been used, but recently there was a phishing app put
> on the marketplace. Be that as it may, if you sit down for a moment and
> think about it, you'd realize that any company (specifically one with a lot
> of cash flow) offering such a service has to provide a kill switch. That is
> the sad reality.
I definitely don't buy that argument. Maybe they can use it to protect
their ass if/when they mess up, but then so what: they could do so in many
other ways as well. It's not a valid excuse.
>> So it's not really true that it's all the fault
>> of the phone makers rather than Google/Android's.
> I'm not sure what you expect of Google/Android. Can you give a concrete
> example?
They could have used a license that would make Android code only
distributable in such a way that the firmware can be replaced (no
tivo-ization). They could have not written the backdoor code to remove
apps remotely. ...
>> Of course, none of this is a big surprise: Google has always been very
>> supportive of Open Source but not of Free Software.
> I think this is redefining "Free Software".
No, it's just insisting on the difference between Open Source and
Free Software.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
mlug mailing list
[email protected]
https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
