Cynics? I'd have thought a cynic would accuse Google of having an ulterior motive other than wanting Internet freedom.
The way I read the rules, it seems like Verizon can't lock down or discriminate against devices that won't harm its network. The device manufacturer (Apple in the iPhone's case) can offer whatever functionality they want on their device.
If the interpretation from the article is used, then no specialized devices like a Skype phone or a wireless medical device could be allowed on the 4G network either, since they are not open to any sort of apps. Obviously, that makes little sense.
It won't be hard for Verizon to find an android device to meet the rules. But iPhone is definitively a challenge if I understand how the rule is interpreted.
To me a genuinely open device would be one where we can reasonably fork Android and make a real open source variant. The idea of a much more flexible, user modifiable device (think dynabook) is very appealing to me.
This isn't possible now because most devices are locked, and even rooting isn't an end-user operation, so it's impractical for unofficial variants to propagate. (which for my purposes means that Android may as well not be 'open')
Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.
I hate to break it to you, but non-enthusiasts won't be able to deal with anything that is not pre-installed. The good "mods" are typically full AOSP forks, which is as open as you can get.
And of course, you don't have to have root to download the source code of the built-in apps, edit it, and deploy to your phone.
"The problem is that the 'open access' rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network."
Put simply, Verizon must allow customers to use "unlocked" phones on their network.
How in the world do we go from that to "Verizon must only offer unlocked phones"? Then the author claims that the motivating actor is Google, who only sells one unlocked phone, and it only sells it in a GSM variant. Jump ahead to a quote from Markham Erickson, who just happens to be the executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. I'm sure his view is impartial and objective, right?
The biggest "tell" that this is link bait is the fact that they chose the iPhone as the headliner. News flash: every Android phone sold on Verizon is also in violation of this rule interpretation.
Apple has no qualms about selling unlocked iPhones. They do it abroad. Apple recognizes the value of a channel partner, and consumers have voted with their wallets. When given the choice between a $600 unsubsidized iPhone (which is still available, by the way) and a $200 phone with a two-year contract, customers go for the cheaper phone. Thus Apple sells phones though the channel that moves units. If Verizon is forced to open their phones, expect prices for Verizon phones to skyrocket, resulting in a significant advantage for their competitors. I find it very difficult to believe that the government would give such an unfair advantage to Verizon's competitors.
The overview on Ars Technica is much better (as usual) and doesn't attempt to sensationalize the impact of the ruling. Note that it's from 2007. There isn't much new here other than the fact that someone is attempting to troll Verizon with an old ruling.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/fcc-sets-700mhz-a...
So if the carrier CAN prove that it won't damage the network, it can block it? That can't be right.
I would think if we looked at the specific ruling it would be:
can't prove it won't damage -> allowed
can prove it will damage -> can block
can prove it won't damage -> allowed
can't prove it will damage -> allowed
So it would have been clearer if they said if they can prove it will damage the network.
That the iPhone 4G is hampered by this is just a pill apple has to swallow. As if there weren't more bands that could be used to serve non-free phones.
If you've ever had to help a non-tech-savvy user who has messed up their computer by installing bad software that was recommended to them by a well meaning friend, you'll know that there are real benefits to the app store model.
Viola, the user has a "choice" of open/crippled or locked/functional modes; they're meeting the letter of the law even if the "open" mode is practically useless.
"Why Wired Uses Titles Referencing iPhone and Verizon and ending in a Question Mark?"
As for this case, this appears entirely analogous to the Carterfone decision.
Other folks can connect FCC-approved and unlocked gear onto 700 MHz without encountering a carrier prohibition (akin to what we have with wired telephone connections) while paying the 700 MHz carrier(s) for their services.
I seriously doubt that Verizon would be denied the ability to sell locked phones out of this. There's no way Verizon lawyers would sign that one.
Given they can install apps, non enthusiasts could certainly deal with a one-click install of an alternative OS if it had compelling benefits.
I didn't think the source for the built-in apps was actually available. In any case even if it is, what possible good does it do me to fork Google's apps to make minor modifications to them? Why do you even bring that up?
Linux had similar difficulties much later in its life than Android is, and *BSD still has them in terms of driver support. None of the open solutions are anywhere close to a one click install. But I wouldn't say Linux/BSD aren't open in a meaningful way.
I think you're expecting a bit too much in terms of your standard for "meaningful" openness. Granted, open Android builds still are getting their legs and have a lot of work still to do.
I think the answer is that like me, they see computers and software as a medium for sharing ideas and creativity. The more people who can participate, even if just as recipients, the better.
This leads some people to be angry about the closedness of the iPhone because it's so popular.
For me, the iPhone is what it is. It solves a lot of problems for a lot of people very nicely. It ends an era of software nightmares for everyday people, but it doesn't usher in an era of true software openness for those of us who believe in the potential of software to improve our world. Personally, I don't think the way forward is to try to undo what Apple have done. You don't change the world by being 'against' something - you change it by creating the thing you think is missing.
Given this, I am disappointed with Android because I don't see it leading us in the direction of a universal medium. Its direction is controlled by a combination of Google and the Carriers, and the fragmentation (don't flame me - I'm not talking about the exaggerated hardware differences) between the levels of openness of handset to having the ROM replaced severely limits the viability of a long lived fork coming from the community.
Linux and BSD are open, but more importantly the PC is open. Even the Mac is open - I can install BSD or Linux or Windows or some homebrew OS (for which there are plenty of kits), or an Ocaml App running in Mirage on to of Xen, or whatever else I want on these computers. That's the kind of openness I believe in.
Android isn't just a source tree. It's the complete system - you can't use the source tree without hardware and a network. If these spectrum rules have any bearing on this (which I doubt), then what would be interesting is if they forced all the Android devices to be open.
Obviously it's easy to demonize Apple, and make Google into the hero in these debates. Apple isn't even pretending to be open and they don't care if they're criticized for it. If we want an open world, and Google are claiming to be part of building that, then they are the ones who should bear scrutiny.
And if we want non-geeks to switch to this amazing open world - the answer is simple too - make it easy to switch and better than what Apple offers.
Why not let the market decide? If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win?
It seems to me that using laws to force Apple to change their designs to be more like their competitors is an admission that the competition just isn't that good.
If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win?
This is actually the greatest example of capitalism I've ever seen or heard.
In corner A we've got companies that benefit from closed gardens. In corner B that want to keep the Internet free, because they recognize that it's an essential ingredient to their bottom line.
That's how capitalism should work, that's how consumers benefit; and YES, the market will decide. We are used to companies lobbying for their own selfish interest, but in this case we've got companies on both sides, which will make the consumers voices heard.
The only question is, what do you gain from a the closed iPhone environment? If you're an iPhone developer, why do you fear an "open model"? Wouldn't you be happier in that environment?
Myself, both as a consumer and as a developer, I know I would be happier.
I don't fear an open model, but it has not been proven to be better for users - windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. Seems like a pretty diseased ecosystem to me.
As a developer I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software. Maybe Google can create that too, but maybe not. I think it would be a disaster if we don't get to see both models tested. History hasn't shown that open is better - quite the contrary. I'd like to see the curated model get a chance to play out.
I have a feeling that in a decade's time we'll be looking at which curation model worked best - not whether open or closed was better.
windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'.
The problem with Windows was that Microsoft, by means of this monopoly, could force its entry into other markets. The problem with Windows is that Microsoft could force the hands of computer manufacturers to bundle it, forcing competition out of the market. The problem with Microsoft products in general were the closed protocols that only worked right with other Microsoft software.
... pretty diseased ecosystem to me
Secondly, for all its flaws, its openness allowed for the birth of Corel, Adobe, Autocad, SAP, Yahoo, Mozilla, Hewlett Packard, AMD and countless of others.
I want an environment where everyday users
are not afraid of software
Everyday users wouldn't even know how a computer looks like if the only company from which you could buy one would be Apple or IBM. And everyday users are only afraid of software complexity (i.e. things for which they cannot form a mental model / not working the way they expect to). If you want to save the world for everyday users, build less shittier apps and set a standard in your domain.
This is actually interesting: you obviously are a software developer that built his skills and even reputation by relying on open systems; and yet you obviously preach against doing whatever users want with the hardware they've bought, even if you did so yourself while growing up. Will that "save the children" in the process?
That's a double standard.
Also several of those companies were actually born on the Mac (Adobe), or NeXT (Mosaic->Mozilla), or FreeBSD (Yahoo). And the fact that you think Windows enabled Hewlett Packard to be born suggests you have little grasp of history. I was AT HP when the decision was made to standardize on Windows - it seemed like a multi-billion dollar corporation at the time - not something that was just being born.
I don't have a wild imagination - I've encountered lots of everyday users who've messed up their systems by installing software that caused them problems. One of the reasons the App store is so successful is that users don't have to worry that installing software from it will mess them up.
Sorry, there's no double standard.
Firstly the Apple ecosystem includes the Mac, which is open, and would have enabled me growing up to write software for my iPhone or the web or whatever I wanted, much as I do now. I'm talking about the world as it exists now - not some imaginary world where only iDevices exist.
And more importantly, my point is that there IS a very real benefit to the App store for end users. We might not like it, but deceiving ourselves that there is no value to it doesn't help anyone.
I'm not arguing for a world where all devices are closed. I'm arguing that open devices need to actually be better and really open - not just in principle. Competition from the iPhone is why Android devices aren't just slightly better Blackberry's today.
If you don't like Apple's way of delivering that benefit then as you point out the solution is to build better apps and set a standard in your domain. That's why I'm critical of Android. I want Android to be better.
The solution isn't to legislate against Apple or make false-in-practice claims about the openness of Android. It's to make Android genuinely better and more open.
It's also worth pointing out that if it were really open, the community might be more involved in making it better.