Friam

parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Classic

List

Threaded

11 messages Options

Owen Densmore

parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Administrator

We have had several phone chats. I kept finding Android a bit difficult to deal with, mainly because of the new trinity: Phone Makers, Cellular Carriers, and Mobile OSs. I found the evil trios not providing what I wanted and kept thinking I was being painted into a corner.

This post discusses part of the problem. No, its not an iPhone vs Android rant, but interesting history on Android and its loss of control.

http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ropella

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Owen Densmore wrote circa 12-01-10 10:48 AM:
> We have had several phone chats. I kept finding Android a bit difficult
> to deal with, mainly because of the new trinity: Phone Makers, Cellular
> Carriers, and Mobile OSs. I found the evil trios not providing what I
> wanted and kept thinking I was being painted into a corner.
>
> This post discusses part of the problem. No, its not an iPhone vs
> Android rant, but interesting history on Android and its loss of control.
> http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

I suppose I'm just dense and should keep my mouth shut. But my very
density prevents me from keeping my mouth shut. ;-)

Precisely what control does an android user _not_ have? I seem to have
control over every aspect of my android device (Droid 2 Global),
including which carrier I use.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Administrator

The issues I bumped into were:

- The handset mfgrs and the carriers all wanted to piss all over Android, primarily the UI. The handset folks built UIs that were to distinguish them from others, but succeeded only in having their version of android have worse battery life.

- So I wanted vanilla android. That should be easy, right? Well, apparently the carriers didn't want that, so I was forced into their upgrade schedule. Also there were claims that the handset makers wanted more control over things like the camera .. the standard android wasn't good enough.

- A ray of hope appeared with CyanogenMod which gave ninja users the ability to upgrade their firmware, but looking deeper into them, they too had lots of problems keeping up with the latest drivers.

Now I realize I could become a phone sys admin and hacker ninja, but I got tired of that keeping my initial iPhone running on TMo via unlock hacks. Annoying and time consuming.

So it appeared weird to me. Why would the open phone platform, which showed so much initial promise, seem to be backing away from being free (both beer and speech).

So the control you don't have is the initial promise of

- Carrier independence .. they still own you and have absurd contracts.

- OS independence .. the handset folks have "improve" android and its hard to go back to vanilla and the firmware you'd prefer.

Maybe I was just expecting too much: a great hacker phone os that would work on lots of phones and release me fron contracts, absurd plans, limits on networking (tethering, limits, huge over-run costs). In short, I though the evil trinity would be broken and google would be a hero.

No.

I guess my next best hope is that the Moto buy, plus maybe something like buying Tmo, could let Google control the initial android dream. I feel a bit like the Obama "Yes You Can" ripoff.

-- Owen

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Owen Densmore wrote circa 12-01-10 10:48 AM:

> We have had several phone chats. I kept finding Android a bit difficult
> to deal with, mainly because of the new trinity: Phone Makers, Cellular
> Carriers, and Mobile OSs. I found the evil trios not providing what I
> wanted and kept thinking I was being painted into a corner.
>
> This post discusses part of the problem. No, its not an iPhone vs
> Android rant, but interesting history on Android and its loss of control.
> http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

I suppose I'm just dense and should keep my mouth shut. But my very
density prevents me from keeping my mouth shut. ;-)

Precisely what control does an android user _not_ have? I seem to have
control over every aspect of my android device (Droid 2 Global),
including which carrier I use.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Any smartphone OS for the foreseeable future will be free as in kittens. It would be nice if the battery were to last longer. I don't know what the the battery life is on 'standard' android, never seen one.

I use my Droid X2 pretty hard, and a days use is usually about 40% of the full charge, which is way better than other phones I've had, but I plug it in at night anyhow. If it became an issue I'd just buy a second battery.

Yes, the monthly fees are too high. What to do? The carriers will do what they feel they need to do to maintain their margins. Voting with your feet isn't necessarily a solution.

Carl

On 1/10/12 4:21 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

The issues I bumped into were:
- The handset mfgrs and the carriers all wanted to piss all over Android, primarily the UI. The handset folks built UIs that were to distinguish them from others, but succeeded only in having their version of android have worse battery life.

- So I wanted vanilla android. That should be easy, right? Well, apparently the carriers didn't want that, so I was forced into their upgrade schedule. Also there were claims that the handset makers wanted more control over things like the camera .. the standard android wasn't good enough.

- A ray of hope appeared with CyanogenMod which gave ninja users the ability to upgrade their firmware, but looking deeper into them, they too had lots of problems keeping up with the latest drivers.

Now I realize I could become a phone sys admin and hacker ninja, but I got tired of that keeping my initial iPhone running on TMo via unlock hacks. Annoying and time consuming.

So it appeared weird to me. Why would the open phone platform, which showed so much initial promise, seem to be backing away from being free (both beer and speech).

So the control you don't have is the initial promise of

- Carrier independence .. they still own you and have absurd contracts.

- OS independence .. the handset folks have "improve" android and its hard to go back to vanilla and the firmware you'd prefer.

Maybe I was just expecting too much: a great hacker phone os that would work on lots of phones and release me fron contracts, absurd plans, limits on networking (tethering, limits, huge over-run costs). In short, I though the evil trinity would be broken and google would be a hero.

No.

I guess my next best hope is that the Moto buy, plus maybe something like buying Tmo, could let Google control the initial android dream. I feel a bit like the Obama "Yes You Can" ripoff.

-- Owen

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Owen Densmore wrote circa 12-01-10 10:48 AM:

> We have had several phone chats. I kept finding Android a bit difficult
> to deal with, mainly because of the new trinity: Phone Makers, Cellular
> Carriers, and Mobile OSs. I found the evil trios not providing what I
> wanted and kept thinking I was being painted into a corner.
>
> This post discusses part of the problem. No, its not an iPhone vs
> Android rant, but interesting history on Android and its loss of control.
> http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

I suppose I'm just dense and should keep my mouth shut. But my very
density prevents me from keeping my mouth shut. ;-)

Precisely what control does an android user _not_ have? I seem to have
control over every aspect of my android device (Droid 2 Global),
including which carrier I use.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Arlo Barnes

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who want it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want it. But there are enough smart people out there that communities could build the phones they want. So the issue is coverage. nG should be like WiFi - as open or closed as the owner of the hotspot wants, controllable, et cetera. As has been pointed out, a little weak on security, but nothing that cannot be fixed. The problem is that mobile devices move around more than the average computer, even including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built to cover wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'. Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are unsightly and some people claim they cause health problems. So the answer might be mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is a lot closer to another device than the nearest tower, so signals do not have to have quite a strong amplitude. This means that people can provide each other with coverage, bypassing vendors.

-Arlo

Victoria Hughes

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

What a great solution- the mesh network. Communal, reasonable, relying on interpersonal responsibility. How feasible is this actually? This model - what without knowing the jargon I'd call distributed or partnership effort, each person doing a small part of the task, and numbers making the big tasks happen - seems like one of those things that can be pulled off in small like-minded communities, or those with pre-existing need that hasn't been filled yet. But not so likely in an area where those things don't exist. Sounds like something the Norwegians would do, or people in Portland, Oregon.

Say more about how it could be set up? So many applications besides phone service.

Tory

On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:

Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who want it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want it. But there are enough smart people out there that communities could build the phones they want. So the issue is coverage. nG should be like WiFi - as open or closed as the owner of the hotspot wants, controllable, et cetera. As has been pointed out, a little weak on security, but nothing that cannot be fixed. The problem is that mobile devices move around more than the average computer, even including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built to cover wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'. Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are unsightly and some people claim they cause health problems. So the answer might be mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is a lot closer to another device than the nearest tower, so signals do not have to have quite a strong amplitude. This means that people can provide each other with coverage, bypassing vendors.
-Arlo
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

I'd actually like to see some sort of software radio thing, but again, kittens.....

What is the victory condition? What is the problem we want to solve? It seems its not really battery life....

On 1/10/12 6:10 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:

What a great solution- the mesh network. Communal, reasonable, relying on interpersonal responsibility. How feasible is this actually? This model - what without knowing the jargon I'd call distributed or partnership effort, each person doing a small part of the task, and numbers making the big tasks happen - seems like one of those things that can be pulled off in small like-minded communities, or those with pre-existing need that hasn't been filled yet. But not so likely in an area where those things don't exist. Sounds like something the Norwegians would do, or people in Portland, Oregon.
Say more about how it could be set up? So many applications besides phone service.

Tory

On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:

Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who want it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want it. But there are enough smart people out there that communities could build the phones they want. So the issue is coverage. nG should be like WiFi - as open or closed as the owner of the hotspot wants, controllable, et cetera. As has been pointed out, a little weak on security, but nothing that cannot be fixed. The problem is that mobile devices move around more than the average computer, even including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built to cover wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'. Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are unsightly and some people claim they cause health problems. So the answer might be mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is a lot closer to another device than the nearest tower, so signals do not have to have quite a strong amplitude. This means that people can provide each other with coverage, bypassing vendors.
-Arlo

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Administrator

Here's an interesting solution for a unified network in France. All services (voice, sms, tv, data) plus some new ideas (ID, banking):

“In your pocket you have three things: your keys, your phone and your wallet,” he says. “I think of those three only one will remain: your phone.”

http://gigaom.com/2012/01/09/how-frances-free-will-reinvent-mobile/

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd actually like to see some sort of software radio thing, but again, kittens.....

What is the victory condition? What is the problem we want to solve? It seems its not really battery life....
On 1/10/12 6:10 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:
What a great solution- the mesh network. Communal, reasonable, relying on interpersonal responsibility. How feasible is this actually? This model - what without knowing the jargon I'd call distributed or partnership effort, each person doing a small part of the task, and numbers making the big tasks happen - seems like one of those things that can be pulled off in small like-minded communities, or those with pre-existing need that hasn't been filled yet. But not so likely in an area where those things don't exist. Sounds like something the Norwegians would do, or people in Portland, Oregon.
Say more about how it could be set up? So many applications besides phone service.

Tory

On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:

Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who want it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want it. But there are enough smart people out there that communities could build the phones they want. So the issue is coverage. nG should be like WiFi - as open or closed as the owner of the hotspot wants, controllable, et cetera. As has been pointed out, a little weak on security, but nothing that cannot be fixed. The problem is that mobile devices move around more than the average computer, even including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built to cover wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'. Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are unsightly and some people claim they cause health problems. So the answer might be mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is a lot closer to another device than the nearest tower, so signals do not have to have quite a strong amplitude. This means that people can provide each other with coverage, bypassing vendors.
-Arlo

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Well, it may come to pass that the only thing I have worth anythng will be my phone, so I'll put it in my wallet and lock it with my keys. For that matter, nothing will be ON my phone (hey, cloud), the phone's main (only) job is to negotiate protocols. So I don't need no steenking unified network. Just a loose bag of wires and spectrum. Let the phones (or whatever we will call them) figure out how to get packets from here to there. For some uses, maybe no phone at all; have your people talk to my people. The 'phone' is just a protocol droid (guess they can keep the name), a commodity, interchangable, just 'around'.

Do we REALLY believe that 20 years from now we're going to be worried about tv and sms on little devices we carry around on our person? That's fighting the last war.

Carl

On 1/10/12 9:31 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Here's an interesting solution for a unified network in France. All services (voice, sms, tv, data) plus some new ideas (ID, banking):

“In your pocket you have three things: your keys, your phone and your wallet,” he says. “I think of those three only one will remain: your phone.”
http://gigaom.com/2012/01/09/how-frances-free-will-reinvent-mobile/
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd actually like to see some sort of software radio thing, but again, kittens.....

What is the victory condition? What is the problem we want to solve? It seems its not really battery life....
On 1/10/12 6:10 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:
What a great solution- the mesh network. Communal, reasonable, relying on interpersonal responsibility. How feasible is this actually? This model - what without knowing the jargon I'd call distributed or partnership effort, each person doing a small part of the task, and numbers making the big tasks happen - seems like one of those things that can be pulled off in small like-minded communities, or those with pre-existing need that hasn't been filled yet. But not so likely in an area where those things don't exist. Sounds like something the Norwegians would do, or people in Portland, Oregon.
Say more about how it could be set up? So many applications besides phone service.

Tory

On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:

Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who want it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want it. But there are enough smart people out there that communities could build the phones they want. So the issue is coverage. nG should be like WiFi - as open or closed as the owner of the hotspot wants, controllable, et cetera. As has been pointed out, a little weak on security, but nothing that cannot be fixed. The problem is that mobile devices move around more than the average computer, even including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built to cover wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'. Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are unsightly and some people claim they cause health problems. So the answer might be mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is a lot closer to another device than the nearest tower, so signals do not have to have quite a strong amplitude. This means that people can provide each other with coverage, bypassing vendors.
-Arlo

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Arlo Barnes

Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

I assume you mean 'free kittens' as in free up front but thousands of dollars in food and veterinary checkups per year for ten plus years?

As to how one would go about constructing a meshnet, I think all that would be required is a program constantly running on devices, looking for signals from other devices, and acting as a translator for those signals; I suppose as a merger, also (device asks for a resource from connected devices, devices check for resource on accessible networks, out of the ones that can get it, one device is selected to perform the transfer).
But I had only heard of the concept recently, and have only heard of one strong effort to do such a thing (One LapTop Per Child [OLPC], according to my friend Max Bond) so my knowledge is fairly minimal, I am working off guesswork so far. I shall have to do more research...

-Arlo James Barnes

Parks, Raymond

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: parislemon • Why I Hate Android

Mesh networks, especially ad-hoc networks where the nodes move around, spend a large amount of bandwidth just figuring out how to route packets. For efficiency and redundancy, mesh networks normally connect to another means of communication at multiple points - just imagine trying to "mesh" across the wide-open spaces of New Mexico. The connecting nodes frequently have to pay for their connection so the mesh network needs to support those costs. One way is to charge for the connecting bandwidth which brings up the need to identify who is using that bandwidth and how to present them with a bill. I could go on and on - but I don't have time at the moment.

On Jan 11, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Arlo Barnes wrote:

I assume you mean 'free kittens' as in free up front but thousands of dollars in food and veterinary checkups per year for ten plus years?
As to how one would go about constructing a meshnet, I think all that would be required is a program constantly running on devices, looking for signals from other devices, and acting as a translator for those signals; I suppose as a merger, also (device asks for a resource from connected devices, devices check for resource on accessible networks, out of the ones that can get it, one device is selected to perform the transfer).
But I had only heard of the concept recently, and have only heard of one strong effort to do such a thing (One LapTop Per Child [OLPC], according to my friend Max Bond) so my knowledge is fairly minimal, I am working off guesswork so far. I shall have to do more research...

-Arlo James Barnes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]

SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)