iOS is locked down? Android gives you freedom? Carrier crapware on Android

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by aneftp, Sep 7, 2010.

  1. aneftp macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    #1
    As much as people bash Apple's iOS platform and much of a "closed system" it is.

    And people rave about how "open" Android is. But the end game is the carriers are truly locking down Android with their crapware.

    I think Verizon takes the lead in the crapware they just loaded on their version of the Samsung Galaxy S (Fascinate). Read the reviews over at
    Gizmodo

    http://gizmodo.com/5632186/samsung-...eview-when-greedy-carriers-ruin-decent-phones

    Engadget
    http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/07/samsung-fascinate-review/

    Google/Android's got a huge problem if carriers continue "locking down" Android. Can you imagine getting a Google Phone and Bing.com is the default search engine and it's near impossible (without rooting or some serious customization that the average joe). I own Tmobile's Version of the Samsung Galaxy S (Vibrant). While it's not as locked down as Verizon's, it's also impossible to delete their junk software without rooting.

    Disclaimer: I love all cell phones. I own Symbian (E71), Android (G1 and Samsung Vibrant), iOS (iphone) , and Blackberry devices (9700) so I am writing from a pretty objective view point.

    iOS is probably still the easiest mobile platform out there. Symbian S60 is dead (I know they have meego). RIM is RIM. Boring but it works for most business people like me. And Android has a lot going for it unless the carriers like Verizon, Tmobile and ATT (ATT locks down their Captivate also with some blocking). I personally prefer stock Android but as Google found out, not many people are willing to pay a full $530 for the phone without carrier subsidy. And carriers aren't willing to carry Android unless they load their crap on it.
     
  2. intervenient macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    #2
    Don't ever mention this to a FanDroid. Their common response (after a bit of sputtering and attempted rhetoric) is "Well, you can get rid of it after taking it to your PC, plugging in a USB cable, downloading the root file, and the installation program, and waiting for the dev community of amateur hackers who do this for fun to make a Vanilla ROM of Android! Now that's freedom!"

    The point of the matter is Android is made for hardware manufacturers and cellular carriers. It enables Google to get out a way to use their search engine to generate add revenue, and allows the other parties mentioned to not have to develop their own OS. iOS is created for the customers.

    To be quite honest, in the stint that I had with my Android phone, I don't see the NEED for "customization" and "freedom" that Android offers. Meaning, I don't see the need to have a home screen with inconsistent and low res icons changed solely for the purpose of "customization".


    Live wallpapers and widgets. That's the only advantage that Android has over Apple in terms of the average consumer.
     
  3. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #3
    Most diehard Android fans end up rooting the phone. Its the exact same thing when iPhone users jailbreak their phone.

    In the end they all end with with the same thing. An open device with limitless customization possibilities.

    With those two in mind, its a no brainer to go for the jailbroken iOS4 over a rooted 2.2.
     
  4. jellybean macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    #4
    Couldn't agree more.
    If you buy a HTC Desire from Orange in the UK, you'll see a good example of this, how they've completely raped the experience of the device by preloading it with their own proprietary arseware which cannot be removed, and re-skinned the home screen UI with their own which is incredibly ugly. (There is an option to switch to the regular HTC Sense, but I can't help but wonder if they'll remove that option in future updates.)

    Vodafone recently got a lot of complaints for pushing out an automatic update to their HTC Desire which added nothing but their own bloatware.

    With Android updates, I think it's great that they're delivered over the air with no syncing to a computer required, but it sucks that depending on which device you own, whenever Google release an update you have to first wait for the manufacturer to prepare their variation of the update, and then wait for the network to do whatever they wish to it. Some handsets might not even get the update if the manufacturer or carrier decides it's not worth the effort.

    This is part of the reason I returned to using an iPhone, because as much as people complain about being in a walled garden, the alternative can mean fragmentation and inconsistency. At least when iOS 5.0 is released for the iPhone, I can be confident it's going to be available for my device, on the same day everybody else gets it, and not messed around with by my network operator who wish to force their services on me.
     
  5. anonymous guy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #5
    Carrier bloatware and lockdown is subjective based on the carrier.

    Some don't touch it and leave it fairly stock, others try to lock it down with a steel curtain.

    AT&T is notoriously bad for locking down Android features.
     
  6. Daveoc64 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #6
    While iOS doesn't have bloatware (if you ignore the pre-installed Apps that you can't remove), so much of the design is influenced by just one carrier (AT&T).

    Apple is screwing over their customers worldwide by pandering to the needs and whims of just one carrier in one of their markets.
     
  7. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #7
    How so?
     
  8. Daveoc64 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #8
    Why can't we download things that are bigger than 20MB over the data network?
     
  9. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #9
    So you think Rogers/Vodafone etc. would prefer one higher?

    Apple is already notorious for slowing mobile networks because of iPhone data usage. It is unfortunately partly their responsibility to limit bandwidth to ensure a better user experience.

    You can jailbreak and look for 3g unrestrictor if it really bothers you.
     
  10. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Cabin by a lake
    #10
    I own multiple versions of iOS devices with varying degrees of updates, and bought an iPad that couldn't get the latest OS for months. Talk about OS and feature fragmentation. And they're all from a company that has full hard/sofware control.

    Apple's excuse for this is that they keep moving their too few developers from project to project as if they were a startup. And/or old devices can't do things smooth enough, so they're left behind.

    Other companies have to do development with whatever resources they have as well. Not all will do an update at the same time.

    To an end user, there's little difference between any of these situations.

    Both Apple and AT&T have admitted that AT&T has requested limitations on 3G usage, and Apple has held back or crippled apps to meet that particular carrier's needs.

    All that said, I agree that removing choice is a bad thing. However, Apple often does this, and many people seem to like it. For me, it reinforces the good of having lots of device manufacturer choices, so I can find the one that fits my needs.

    I hope that people do shun the Fascinate in favor of the Incredible or other Droid without limitations. Might wake up some company execs. Might not.
     
  11. tablo13 macrumors 65816

    tablo13

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    #11
    Bing as default search engine? That's gotta suck ;)
     
  12. dontworry macrumors 6502

    dontworry

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #12
    It's not just the default, it's the only option, according to the article. You can't even use google search in the browser on an android phone.:confused:
     
  13. JediZenMaster macrumors 68000

    JediZenMaster

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Portland,Oregon
    #13
    I've been using bing alot more lately than google. I find it to be better in some ways than google.
     
  14. Nigandahu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    #14
    Yeah Bing is good, but so are choices. I understand making it the default, but the only choice?
     
  15. ChazUK macrumors 603

    ChazUK

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Location:
    Essex (UK)
    #15
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-gb; Nexus One Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

    This kind of handset screwing idiocy is why I will always get my habdsets direct from the manufacturer so the networks don't have a chance to cock up the phones.

    I really hope people teach VZ a lesson by not buying the thing. Samsung had high expectation for their Galaxy-S line of phones but they have let Verizon totally screw up the flagship device.

    I do loathe any carrier modifications.
     
  16. terraphantm macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #16
    Wow, Verizon really ruined what would've otherwise been a pretty decent phone. Now I remember why I switched to AT&T from Verizon in the first place (wayy before the iPhone existed). I thought Verizon was getting its act together after releasing the original droid, which afaik wasn't really crippled at all. Too good to be true... I was considering switching back to VZW, but definitely not anymore.

    If Apple ever releases the iPhone on Verizon's network, they better not do any of this crap
     
  17. iEverything4me macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    #17
    LOL, so much for open huh ?
    Google trying to get their ads revenue into those android and the search engine is Bing LOL.
     
  18. shandyman Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    #18
    how do you know this is just AT&T? it could be a general consensus from all the networks they dealt with? got a source for that?
     
  19. iEverything4me macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    #19
    Samsung = a company trying to copy everything from Apple and make it worst
    Look at the Huyndai and how they make their car look like an Accord :D
     
  20. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #20
    Not being contrary - and I know not the same - but Apple puts apps on their devices which cannot be removed which many people don't want or need too.
     
  21. ChazUK macrumors 603

    ChazUK

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Location:
    Essex (UK)
    #21
    I think there is a difference between Apple supplied apps and carrier "optimisations".

    Orange UK have ruined the HTC Desire from what I've seen with Orange coloured icons that detract from HTC's SenseUI and have installed a completely different (non touchwiz) launcher on my wife's Orange branded Galaxy-S (touchwiz can be used if you hate the Orange branded sh**.

    This is the kind of stuff that needs to die IMHO. Apple are right on this one.
     
  22. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #22
    I think this illustrates a real problem trying to get the iPhone on Verizon; Verizon would want to put their own crapware on the iPhone and Apple wouldn't allow it. This was probably a big factor in the iPhone going to ATT rather than Verizon; Verizon wanted control of the apps and Apple didn't want to allow that. Verizon specializes in taking decent phones and screwing them up with their own junk apps and restrictions. I had Verizon phone and the only way you could get photos off the phone was to pay for Verizon's get it now service. You couldn't simply use the built in sd slot. The carriers do everything they can to try to keep themselves from simply becoming dumb pipes.
     
  23. shandyman Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    #23
    +1, plus we can easily hide the apple stock apps in a folder off the main screen anyway without too much effort
     
  24. gixxerfool macrumors 6502a

    gixxerfool

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    #24
    I agree with this. Honestly, I think everyone, android and iOs alike. Nobody wants their device crippled, period. Its bad enough the rates you pay then they cornhole you into this. Very frustrating. Reminds me of the contractors whom you pay a lot of money to then put a sign on your lawn advertising. Or car dealers who rake you over the coals and put their plate frames and stickers on the back.
     
  25. DarwinOSX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #25
    That statement makes no sense at all. Nothing about the iPhones design is a result of what AT&T wants. Things AT&T imposes like data limits, tethering etc are not imposed by other carriers worldwide so AT&T isn't causing Apple to "screw over their customers worldwide".

    Android barely qualifies as open source and hardly any Androids phones know or understand this. Just like few know that Google did not develop Android they bought it and enhanced it. But first it looked like Windows Mobile because thats who they thought the competition was. Then they made it look like the iPhone interface. Sort of.
    1. Try contributing to the source. Google isn't interested. Not a trait of open source.
    2. Not all Android code is open source. Anything to do with hardware interface for example. Which is a pretty major omission on a mobile device. Several times companies tried to make phones using all of the Google source and Google sued them. You have to license the code from google which automatically makes it not open source.
    3. Few Android fans can explain why open source is good for them or why Apple's "closed" system is bad or how it would affect them in day to day use.
    4. If you think Apple fans are fanatical try reading some of the Android forums. Sheesh. These people are obsessed with the iPhone.
     

Share This Page