Galaxy Nexus OS Variant Not Controlled By Google(techieinsider.com)
techieinsider.com
Galaxy Nexus OS Variant Not Controlled By Google
http://www.techieinsider.com/news/13274
12 comments
Damn it Google. I thought I could count on you not to mess this up. I want to be able to tell my mom that she should get a galaxy nexus and not have to worry. Now I have to track down a GSM edition from abroad that has a particular software build on it? You're not making this very easy.
It's not meant to be. Google has sold their users down the river, including letting Verizon disable Wallet, in exchange for a piece of the action in mobile. So they can keep having a relevant platform for their ads.
It's been a mostly sharp move, but it wasn't done for reasons of user experience. And it shows with stuff like this. I wish they would take a harder line – enforce higher standards, fight the good fight on NFC. But that's not what they're after. Every phone that ships without Android, or a Google-free flavor of Android, is one more point where they can be left out in the cold when something like Siri comes along.
So as long as they can get most of what they want from these manufacturing partners, they'll take it.
It's been a mostly sharp move, but it wasn't done for reasons of user experience. And it shows with stuff like this. I wish they would take a harder line – enforce higher standards, fight the good fight on NFC. But that's not what they're after. Every phone that ships without Android, or a Google-free flavor of Android, is one more point where they can be left out in the cold when something like Siri comes along.
So as long as they can get most of what they want from these manufacturing partners, they'll take it.
Not sure how to interpret this comment.
I don't understand why Wallet is a big deal. For users, it wouldn't be much of a difference from Isis. How is this selling users down t he river? What exactly is the good fight on NFC?
Every phone that ships without Android, or a Google-free flavor of Android, is one more point where they can be left out in the cold when something like Siri comes along.
What does this even mean? Google-free? Show me an Android phone on the market that's Google-free. And, at least as far as I can tell, Siri seems to have been a dud. I certainly don't know anyone that uses it regularly, and I don't know anyone who uses it at all for anything other than simple voice commands, which are not really Sir's value prop.
So as long as they can get most of what they want from these manufacturing partners, they'll take it.
Manufacturing partners? This is about Verizon, isn't it?
I also wish that Google would take a harder stance on stuff like the Nexus experience, and UI consistency, and update frequency. But I don't really see what Google is bargaining with here. What can they withhold from Verizon at this point?
EDIT: I know one person who uses Siri regularly. His name is Nicholas. He seems like a pretty nice guy. A bit snarky.
I don't understand why Wallet is a big deal. For users, it wouldn't be much of a difference from Isis. How is this selling users down t he river? What exactly is the good fight on NFC?
Every phone that ships without Android, or a Google-free flavor of Android, is one more point where they can be left out in the cold when something like Siri comes along.
What does this even mean? Google-free? Show me an Android phone on the market that's Google-free. And, at least as far as I can tell, Siri seems to have been a dud. I certainly don't know anyone that uses it regularly, and I don't know anyone who uses it at all for anything other than simple voice commands, which are not really Sir's value prop.
So as long as they can get most of what they want from these manufacturing partners, they'll take it.
Manufacturing partners? This is about Verizon, isn't it?
I also wish that Google would take a harder stance on stuff like the Nexus experience, and UI consistency, and update frequency. But I don't really see what Google is bargaining with here. What can they withhold from Verizon at this point?
EDIT: I know one person who uses Siri regularly. His name is Nicholas. He seems like a pretty nice guy. A bit snarky.
> Google-free? Show me an Android phone on the market that's Google-free.
Nook & Kindle Fire are examples of Google-Free android devices, though you specified 'Phones' so I guess that excludes them.
Nook & Kindle Fire are examples of Google-Free android devices, though you specified 'Phones' so I guess that excludes them.
> Siri seems to have been a dud. I certainly don't know anyone that uses it regularly
Hi, my name's Nicholas, I use Siri regularly. Nice to meet you, Joe.
Hi, my name's Nicholas, I use Siri regularly. Nice to meet you, Joe.
This. User experience is not a real driver for Android, and never has been. It only has to be "good enough". It's open, which I applaud. But you are overly optimistic if you thought publicly traded billion+ dollar carriers and manufacturers weren't eventually going to subvert this.
If I understand correctly, the premiere Google handset is not going to ship with a premiere Google product. In fact, with Google's acquiescence it is going to be actively blocked. Google will bow down to carriers in an effort to maximize their ad dollars.
If I understand correctly, the premiere Google handset is not going to ship with a premiere Google product. In fact, with Google's acquiescence it is going to be actively blocked. Google will bow down to carriers in an effort to maximize their ad dollars.
The problem isn't that Google is letting carriers (and hardware manufacturers) mess with Android -- they were always free to make Android phones with bloatware and restrictions. What Google (supposedly?) did here that was destructive was let them them mess with a Nexus branded Android phone.
No matter how you slice it, marketing value will be lost if this story is true because this will cause the Nexus tag to mean nothing to those who it was originally created to court.
No matter how you slice it, marketing value will be lost if this story is true because this will cause the Nexus tag to mean nothing to those who it was originally created to court.
I think it really depends on what "this story" is. If the story is that there are local variations on the Galaxy Nexus, well, duh, of course there are! At the very least there will localization differences, regulatory differences (e.g. WiFi channels allowed) and the like, even for a Nexus.
To me, the real question is whether or not anything has changed about the defining attributes of a Nexus phone:
(a) prompt updates (b) "fastboot oem unlock"
Note: I'd add "no bloatware" but given the controversy over the Verizon apps and having come across a developer who considered Gmail bloat (on an Android phone!), I've given up on having a meaningful discussion about it.
To me, the real question is whether or not anything has changed about the defining attributes of a Nexus phone:
(a) prompt updates (b) "fastboot oem unlock"
Note: I'd add "no bloatware" but given the controversy over the Verizon apps and having come across a developer who considered Gmail bloat (on an Android phone!), I've given up on having a meaningful discussion about it.
It's apparently messier than that --- the imported GSM phones are showing up with several different builds, only one of which is the official Google version. (And some of the variant builds are not getting official Google updates, most notably for the "volume bug" that was reported on early shipped units.)
It seems to be possible to reflash the official Google build onto units that shipped with some of the variants (some xda-forum posters have reported success), but it might pay to wait a few days for this to settle out before ordering if you're really worried about this.
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/is-the-galaxy-nexus-st...
It seems to be possible to reflash the official Google build onto units that shipped with some of the variants (some xda-forum posters have reported success), but it might pay to wait a few days for this to settle out before ordering if you're really worried about this.
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/is-the-galaxy-nexus-st...
I have an imported GSM Galaxy Nexus. It updated itself to ITL41F which, to my understanding, is the build that fixes the volume bug. Out of curiosity, is there a straightforward (i.e. without unlocking the bootloader) way to check whether I have a "Google build" or a "Samsung build"?
Look at the build fingerprint -- it contains the name of the software configuration. Yakju is Google's (ref: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/android-building/Ld5FoFinN7k...)
To get the build fignerprint, use adb to cat /system/build.prop, or getprop ro.build.fingerprint
To get the build fignerprint, use adb to cat /system/build.prop, or getprop ro.build.fingerprint
[deleted](2)
So basically Google just ruined the nexus brand? It was the one constant in Android they'd created that you could supposedly rely on and they just killed it in only the third generation.
i was pretty disappointed with the nexus s as the successor to the nexus one. cheaper-feeling hardware, all plastic instead of rubber and metal, no sd-card expansion (i think that was on purpose to push google's cloud synching), no notification light, and a bigger footprint with no bigger screen resolution.
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc:
http://bit.ly/5xgJcA
We need this to happen to:
We need this to happen to:
* All wireless carriers and their practice of locking phones
* Apple/Amazon with their "stores" tied to their devicesI am not sure I see the connection with that case.
I think that was before laws could be bought with money, like in a supermarket, which is what we have today.
Companies in a given market sharing many of the same practices does not automatically violate the Sherman Act, nor does vertical integration by a non-monopoly or non-coercive monopoly.
Doesn't it bother you that there is only 1 retailer in the world who sells software for the iPhone? It is very possible that 3-5 years from now literally every byte of information flowing to our portable devices will be 100% controlled (or approved) by the big 3: Google, Apple and Amazon. Wintel domination pales in comparison.
P.S. In my comment above I used wireless carriers but forgot Google. In reality they all try to do the same thing: google/apple/amazon are using the platform, while carriers are using the pipe, but in the end they all want to own the whole enchilada.
P.S. In my comment above I used wireless carriers but forgot Google. In reality they all try to do the same thing: google/apple/amazon are using the platform, while carriers are using the pipe, but in the end they all want to own the whole enchilada.
Lots of things bother me, that doesn't necessarily mean I think they should be illegal. Laws affect society as a whole, that means they should be made carefully and with restraint, and applied in the same way, because there's a lot of variation within society as to what is viewed as right or wrong.
I don't like that iOS is as closed as it is, but I do have other choices. Apple is not a monopoly, they don't control the market, they didn't make it more closed, or less consumer-friendly. On the contrary, they're directly responsible for the smartphone market's rapid advance, and a renewed focus on the needs and wants of end-users.
In other words, your call for an antitrust case against Apple, besides being a serious perversion of antitrust law, is proposing to harm Apple for the good they've done for consumers. What kind of sense does that make?
Certain markets have long been dominated by a handful of large companies. That's always been the case with telecommunications and consumer electronics, and to some extent, it will probably always be the case.
On the other hand, technological advancements, some of which came out of these very companies you're vilifying, have made it more practical for smaller players to enter markets that have had prohibitive costs of entry. It is increasing competition -- the very goal of antitrust law.
Everybody sees the danger of a few large companies controlling a market, that's why the FCC and Department of Justice have been, shall we say, less than receptive to the idea of an AT&T/T-Mobile merger. That doesn't automatically mean that those companies should be torn to shreds because some of us don't like their business model.
I don't like that iOS is as closed as it is, but I do have other choices. Apple is not a monopoly, they don't control the market, they didn't make it more closed, or less consumer-friendly. On the contrary, they're directly responsible for the smartphone market's rapid advance, and a renewed focus on the needs and wants of end-users.
In other words, your call for an antitrust case against Apple, besides being a serious perversion of antitrust law, is proposing to harm Apple for the good they've done for consumers. What kind of sense does that make?
Certain markets have long been dominated by a handful of large companies. That's always been the case with telecommunications and consumer electronics, and to some extent, it will probably always be the case.
On the other hand, technological advancements, some of which came out of these very companies you're vilifying, have made it more practical for smaller players to enter markets that have had prohibitive costs of entry. It is increasing competition -- the very goal of antitrust law.
Everybody sees the danger of a few large companies controlling a market, that's why the FCC and Department of Justice have been, shall we say, less than receptive to the idea of an AT&T/T-Mobile merger. That doesn't automatically mean that those companies should be torn to shreds because some of us don't like their business model.
You are arguing against the points I did not make: I am not "vilifying" these companies, and I am not proposing they to "be torn to shreds". Paramount Pictures with other movie studios aren't evil either.
Users should be able to freely exchange software/information (which they paid for) between their devices (which they paid for).
This is all about consumer protection, not about how evil/awesome/innovative these companies are. Nobody is going to be "torn to shreds" if the practice of companies locking and controlling access to devices that don't belong to them becomes illegal.
Look, Apple selling you the phone which only runs software they approve is no different from, say, Toshiba selling you a TV which only shows FOX News, but refuses to show you the video which you bought here: https://buy.louisck.net
Users should be able to freely exchange software/information (which they paid for) between their devices (which they paid for).
This is all about consumer protection, not about how evil/awesome/innovative these companies are. Nobody is going to be "torn to shreds" if the practice of companies locking and controlling access to devices that don't belong to them becomes illegal.
Look, Apple selling you the phone which only runs software they approve is no different from, say, Toshiba selling you a TV which only shows FOX News, but refuses to show you the video which you bought here: https://buy.louisck.net
I disagree with none of your principles except the one that apparently says legal intervention is necessary. The walled gardens are not a secret, people are making the decision to buy these devices knowing they won't be able to do certain things. They do have other reasonable options.
This isn't fraud, and it's not a hidden problem hard for people to grasp. There's no apparent collusion to block new competitors. If the masses conclude it is intolerable, the companies will stop making money and that's the end of it. If not, it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
If you're upset about it, well, this is a site targeted at people into startups...
This isn't fraud, and it's not a hidden problem hard for people to grasp. There's no apparent collusion to block new competitors. If the masses conclude it is intolerable, the companies will stop making money and that's the end of it. If not, it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
If you're upset about it, well, this is a site targeted at people into startups...
Disagreement downvotes... such a shame. I disagree with you, but find your position to be valid and reasonable.
whereas i don't trust the masses to arrive at coherent conclusions, much less effectively collude in their own interest.
> If the masses conclude it is intolerable, the companies will stop making money and that's the end of it.
so companies choose between not making money immediately, or waiting for "the masses" to get an act together and vote with their wallets? ha.
> If the masses conclude it is intolerable, the companies will stop making money and that's the end of it.
so companies choose between not making money immediately, or waiting for "the masses" to get an act together and vote with their wallets? ha.
In other words, can the Verizon Galaxy Nexus even be considered a "Nexus" anymore? The article implies "no."
According to the twitter conversation linked in a message here (http://twitter.theinfo.org/146020135109533696,) mysid, which is the Verizon GN is built by Google, like yakju (the Google GSM build,) and unlike yakju.+ (which are built by Samsung)
Here's a conversation on twitter with Jean Baptiste Queru, who works on AOSP for Google. It's not completely illuminating, but there are interesting details:
http://twitter.theinfo.org/146020135109533696
http://twitter.theinfo.org/146020135109533696
Why can't Google or Samsung push out the updates? Is it just that Verizon won't let them?
I guess it takes the selling power of the iPhone to ink a deal like that with Verizon.
I guess it takes the selling power of the iPhone to ink a deal like that with Verizon.
So in these builds are they going to disable the ICS feature to disable programs, like the crap-ware Verizon shoves on the phones.
So again, what is the problem when you can "flash" the phone with the OS variant you want? I noticed there already are floating various user builds for Galaxy Nexus. I'm much more worried about the frequent hardware build quality issues that German users are reporting about so much. I hope I won't have to send mine back. Let's stay optimistic!
Somehow, I can't help but think "LOL, Verizon."
It sure does seem like Verizon likes to add their 2 cents to everything rather than leave it as intended. To have a clean phone without all the bloatware that Verizon adds on would be great.
What would stop people from removing crapware that VZ enjoy crippling their phones with? I know it's not as easy to remove apps on Android than it is on iOS but still...
Not a Nexus.