Database Users

whats up with google's lack of widget development?

I'm not just ranting or trying to make a point, I'm legitimately interested in Google's strategy.
Obviously, google cant argue with the fact that htc has widgets that blow googles widgets out of the water. Google cant say theyve worked hard on their widgets and they cant honestly suggest that they are satisfied with them.
Are there any articles or official satements by google/android regarding their refusal to develop Widgets that are more attractive and elaborate? I'm google faithful and wont switch on principle but I can't imagine more than 10% of those people who've tried HTC's subsequently preferring Googles. Its a very strange angle that google has taken.....or maybe its not I'd like to know their view/opinion...does anyone know it? thanks
Incidentally, its not that Google's Widgets are horrible its just that they could be infinitely better at what I would assume to be relatively little effort... off the top of my head if the power widget was broken into single widgets and more options were included that would great and presumably pretty damn simple, and google emphasizes the customizable desktop which I'm all for yet they neglect wiidgets which could really be a draw for potential customers. thank you

Have to agree with you there. They need to add more stock/easy ways to change the look. It would go a long way in selling more phones. People simply think nicer looking things are "cooler" devices. Some of the metamorph's prove the changes aren't exactly difficult. I'm sure they could code a minimal program that had the ability to change the status bar to black, white, gray... A few nice widgets.. Small changes that the XDA community already offers the rooted phones.

If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."

i do agree with you, but those not wanting to void warranty are alittle more limited, i very much want to root but don't want to void warranty to find a month from now something is wrong and theres still no bootloader relock option. i think theres a lot more customization for rooted vs nonrooted and that's where people feel limited and have the "this should have been added" attitude

You have to keep in mind, Google is just providing a basic operating system. They leave it up the the developers to customize it. You can kinda compair it to what microsoft does, loosly. You can build your own computer, buy windows and customise it to your liking. Or you can buy one from Dell that comes pre-loaded with windows and various other applications. Google just really provides the base level OS.
@psylink you dont need root for most widgets. With exception to like the overclock widget and such, or if you are trying to run a widget that was part of a different rom.

JoshHart said:
If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.

There are a few home screen redesigns on the market that (AFAIK since I've never tried any of them) don't require rooting and significantly change the "look" of the standard phone. Most of them are heavily theme-able as well. On the Behold II forums a lot of people were touting these apps as ways to get rid of the Touchwiz interface that they didn't like (Samsung pouts).
Also, Google created this OS as a platform both for developers to fill with apps, but also for manufacturers to customize to differentiate themselves. If they didn't leave room for manufacturers to customize then the platform would be far less attractive to them and they'd have more adoption problems. If they create too strong of a core UI then they might either be in the position of competing against the manufacturers on that "differentiation" ground, or they might remove any need/desire to customize and the manufacturers would have to consider producing another "me too" phone which they may not like as much, or Google might spend a lot of time on work that will be discarded by the manufacturers during their differentiation. Most of these manufacturers are members of the "alliance" that collaborated on the platform so I'm sure these points were hashed out during that planning phase.
If they don't promote adoption then they lose the win for developers in having a widely adopted platform. Note that even though HTC heavily customizes with Sense and Motorola heavily customizes with Blur and Samsung with Touchwiz, a developer can still write an app that runs on all of those and so everyone is happy.

muncheese said:
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, they could do that, but I don't think they are putting the Nexus One out so much to enter the brand market heavily as they are to put out the canonical reference version of the phone, at least initially. In my mind, the N1 was never to compete with the manufacturers head to head, it was more to have a phone out there that was as open and pluggable as their vision has always been so that if all the manufacturers/carriers decide they are going to take the base OS, lock it down, make people buy ringtones through a carrier market and cripple the browsing so you can't download anything - customers would have an alternative open solution to turn to. In the past there have been classic examples of a given model/brand of phone available from some carriers where you could download any customization file to it that you wanted and then on other carriers it was crippled and locked you in. In those cases you had to buy the crippled versions because there was no independently available canonical "open" version. The N1 fights that tendency not by force or contract, but by simply being. It doesn't have to be the coolest, hippest incarnation, it just has to be pretty and usable and so open that everyone will start to get a distaste for anything closed.
What we are seeing so far with Android isn't so much of this "carrier locking" as it is "carriers customizing so heavily that they threaten the upgrade paths for their customers". I don't think they are doing it intentionally, they just aren't familiar with working on a platform that evolves so quickly. Without the N1 being a bare bones example of the platform they would only be competing with other manufacturers that are similarly locked in by their own lack of upgrade foresight and so the drive to release upgrades wouldn't be so compelling. But, if there are alternatives available that will be keeping up on a much more aggressive pace, like the N1, then they are more likely to fix their differentiating software so that it can move to newer OS versions in a more timely manner. Imagine in a year or two when we can all own Blur or Sense phones and get our OS updates within a month or two of a new OS release.
It's the "reference fully open Android example" and, as such, is less in need of customization as it is to simply stand as an option to keep the others honest. It's meant to be as "close to the raw OS source" as it can be.

muncheese said:
That's a fantastic stance to take when you're providing just an OS.
However, when you release a branded phone under your own name, you need to provide substantial content to that brand.
As it stands the only thing setting the nexus apart from other phones is hardware. In a few months when numerous phones have the same hardware whats putting the nexus ahead of the pact? They same way motorola has motoblur, htc has sense, etc., Google needs their own "style" for their own handsets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When have widgets been the only way to add content to the phone? I mean there are plenty of replacement widgets already on the market if you dont like the stock ones. Me I would rather they provide more features then pretty widgets. They have provided plenty of content for the phone. Live wallpapers, google goggles, factory bootloader unlock, sim unlocked, mutible exchange account management, updated gallery, multi touch maps, ect

MonkySlap said:
When have widgets been the only way to add content to the phone? I mean there are plenty of replacement widgets already on the market if you dont like the stock ones. Me I would rather they provide more features then pretty widgets. They have provided plenty of content for the phone. Live wallpapers, google goggles, factory bootloader unlock, sim unlocked, mutible exchange account management, updated gallery, multi touch maps, ect
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.

muncheese said:
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but its still content non the less, correct? Doesnt need to be exclusive to be considered content. Me personally I really didnt buy it for stock os or content. I bought mine to tweak, mod, and play with, and it is more then fulfiling that for me . Love the desire rom running so smooth so early in the port.

muncheese said:
Those are all implementations for the OS, something that would happen regardless of a "Google's phone", and things that get rolled out to other devices.
They have to walk a fine line because they are Google, and having exclusivity for one thing almost goes against their entire paradigm.
Maybe the "advantage" is getting stuff first? If so, that's kinda meh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or maybe their philosophy is that any and all "enhancements" should be optional add-ons available to all phones of the breed. As it stands you can only get Sense or Blur if you buy a phone from those manufacturers (or if you root and someone scavenges a semi-compatible ROM from one of them for you). I don't think they want to be in the game of "you have to get your phone from us to get XYZ" and so they provide a reasonably attractive basic package, they set it up so that others can come in and provide openly available enhancements (see the various replacement "home screens" on the market for example) and then the customer gets the benefit of both choice and of an open environment.
I think they view branding as more of an obstacle than as a sales/owner satisfaction tactic.

JoshHart said:
If you watch Googles initial press release for the Android launch youll get your answer, they made Android for developers. Instead of going Apples route where you have to use their stuff and if they have something similar no one else can, they went the other way. They said they would provide the function necessary for a smart phone and leave the rest to the developers and provided the open source operating system and api's necassary for that to happen. And honestly id say its worked. I dont use their messenger, I use Handcent. I dont use their browser, I use Dolphin Browser. I dont use their clock I use Weather Widget donate or Beautiful Widgets. I often see reviews on apps that say, "this should have been included" blah blah but thats not what Androids all about, its about the devs. I think Android blows everyone away in that category, we may not have the amount of apps that other phones have but we do have more options for the things we use everyday and thats something I can appreciate, its only going to get better as Android grows and its definitely getting there. I'd rather have open development any day than, "Here, this is what you need."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All good points. Now that I think about it I bought this phone for stock google stuff, which in hindsight may have been a mistake. With the g1 and mytouch 3g the google software was often the closest thing to stable available and I've grown to trust mainly them and reputable companies. Its kind of embarrassing to look thru the market and have to sift through countless apps that serve virtually no purpose, have terrible icons, and aren't even close to stable, but perhaps this is a product of androids relative immaturity, though I'm unfamiliar with winmo, palm, and apple. I just haven't been impressed with many third party apps or Widgets, save a select few very impressive ones. 90% of the apps look and feel very amateur. I stick to apps and Widgets produced by real companies because those have the best chance of being usuable. That was quite a gamble by google to go largely hands off and let all software be driven by development. Xda has spotlighted many excellent devs as far as rooting goes but for the average user the options are unimpressive. Maybe google will give in and start developing more usuable/stable/useful apps/widgets

I think that there are two schools of thought on this, yet we are all agreeing on the same concept.
While Google did create Android to be a stock type OS that they could distribute to multiple handset makers (in order to increase their ability to produce smartphones with only minor increases in developmental costs aside from those related to hardware - ultimately getting more people using the mobile web resulting in more ad revenue -whew! ), they also have in a sense slightly abandoned those of us who took the direct to consumers path. This is why they didn't put much into the release of the phone (look up the launch stats - or lack of accessories). While they don't have the responsibility to create widgets, programs, animations, etc. for us (the D2C crowd). I believe that they should have worked out a deal with HTC where we are allowed to unlock the bootloader and tinker/mod/play with/customize, etc as much as we want to without penalty or breaking the warranty. We don't have the funding to purchase a few hundred phones in case we brick them testing out various configs., nor do most of us have the expertise to repair the device if it gets bricked. The only other possibility is that a contract clause is created whereby we are allowed to download ROMs from Android manufacturers (or at least just HTC) and put them on our phones - doesn't that give us the MOST number of options to customize our phones? And isn't the ability to customize an Android phone the original intent of the OS?
By giving us either an allowance to unlock the bootloader or the allowance to download (and maybe play with other manufacturer customized ROMs) or preferably both I think that it would be a win-win situation.

The Future of Android

Hello Everyone!
Let me start off by reaching out to the XDA Administrative staff. I would like to thank you for keeping this awesome place in operation. Without you, and the XDA community, I'm not sure Android development would be as vibrant. Also, if this thread is in the wrong location, please shift it to where you would like it.
I am an Android user, not a developer, and I feel the future of the Android OS is not headed where I want it to. I'm writing this post to see if anyone has any further thoughts on the matter.
Google is marketing Android as an Open Source OS. You are able to download the source, modify it as you wish, and then build it. If you are running a vanilla build of Android (i.e. Nexus S) you are able to alter your experience as you see fit. The issue I foresee isn't the fragmentation of the Android versions (which is still debated as an issue), but rather the fragmentation of the user experience.
When an end-user purchases a handset from most major carriers, they receive an Android device. Between different handsets, and carriers, the features that are available to a single user can vary exponentially (i.e. the inability to install APK files, bypassing the market, on AT&T devices). This device is still based on Android, but is it still Android?
I have no problem with manufacturers adding their own code to the Android system, as long as the core functionality is kept the same. When you begin to alter the basic functionality of the system, at what point is it no longer Android? Linux Mint is derived from Ubuntu, but it is no longer Ubuntu. The system is a derivative of Ubuntu. If the base of the OS is going to be altered drastically (by manufacturer or by request of carrier) it needs to be known that the device is not Android.
As I am most familiar with HTC Android devices, I will use HTC SenseUI as an example (although, as I think about this more it may not be the best example). The core functionality of the HTC devices is similar, but not entirely the same. Most of the default applications (Browser, Contacts, Dialer) have been altered to what HTC feels is more atheistically pleasing. However, these features are additions. They are not removing functionality from the device.
With my HTC Evo (by default) there are core functionalities removed. Without rooting my device, I am unable to tether via WiFi. Even when rooting, if I want to keep the 4G experience, I need to install a third party application to tether instead of simply using the functionality that was supposed to be built in to Android. Why? Sprint has decided to bake their own hotspot functionality into the core of the OS. Yet to use it, I am required to pay an extra $30 fee on top of my [i/unlimited[/i] data plan. I am not knocking Sprint, here. As long as I have used their service, I’ve had nothing but stellar performance and the price point is perfect.
I feel with this core functionality removed, my Evo is no longer Android. It’s simply Android-based, an Android derived OS. The problem with these manufacturers, and their Android-derived operating system, is the lack-luster experience the consumers get with the product.
I started my Android experience on an HTC CDMA Hero. It took me eight months to get any major software upgrades (The device ran Android 1.5 from factory). Why? Because it was taking so long for manufacturers to bake their Features into the OS. If I was not a techie, I feel this experience would have pushed me away from the Android platform. I fear this fragmentation that is occurring could be the downfall of the Android platform.
I want to be able to buy a device. I want to be running the newest version of Android. If I do not like the ROM that came on the phone, I want to be able to change that. But I do not want to purchase a phone with all of this baked in garbage, or aesthetic features that require me to wait long periods of times for my device to be upgraded to the newest version of Android. And, I hope that I am not the only person to feel this way.
So here is my idea, pending input from the Android community of course: An open letter, with a petition, to all members of the OHA requesting for Android devices to be Android! Unadulterated Android OS from Google (With minor modifications to ensure specific hardware is working properly). Requesting that we are given access to the entire device, that we paid for, without having to exploit the operating system to obtain the ability to modify it as we see fit. If a manufacturer, or carrier, does not wish to comply with this, they will not be able to market the device as being Android. Rather, the device is based on Android.
Honestly, I’m not sure what I am looking to accomplish. Maybe, just so they know we are just as interested in Android as they are. And that we want nothing but for Android to succeed. Or maybe, that we support Android being open source, but not being heavily modified to the point where it’s a bastardized.
What do you think?

Tim, I support you in your belief that carriers, not manufacturers, are taking the wrong turn by messing with the full functionality that people pay a hefty price to OWN!
Do we truly OWN what we paid for, or are paying for? I don't believe so, for example, the SAMSUNG Vibrant t959, aka the Samsung Galaxy S i9000, same phone but the carriers decided to have certain features removed from the phone, not be MADE without these features, the FM radio HW and the FFC. Many people know these features were REMOVED, due to the leftover molding and other " skeletons"! Would anyone want to have a carrier when they know that they don't want there customers to have the FULLEST experience, like it was meant to be?
Sent from my HTC MyDesireHD 4G!

I would also like to share with you that MANUFACTURERS creating these "skins", I'm going to use HTC Sense for my example, is actually NOT a bad thing at all!
HTC Sense has opened a huge amount of rich content and functionality to there users immensely! HTC Hub, HTC Locations for example! All these add ons are very useful to users and does NOT restrict the full functionality but yet BOOSTS its functionality!
Unfortunately though, carriers decide to take these hearty and supreme names and totally rip it apart by taking away functionality, features, and the most...a good user experience! For example, my phone..the HTC MyTouch 4G aka the HTC Glacier. I received it with something called Sense on it, but any owner knows that is NOT Sense! That is not HTC Sense! After burying myself in the bowels of my new phone, I now have a HTC Desire HD Rom on it that will stay on it until I get the new HTC Sense 2.3 update! The full HTC Sense is a good thing and I strongly believe its worth waiting for!
Sent from my HTC Glacier

I agree, but believe Android is a growing mobile OS. If Google did not push their mobile OS (and let manufactures do what they want). Android probably would not have last against the competition. Its all a survival of the fittest situation. Some people are going to make use of their phones others aren't. Too bad bloatware has been the success for some Android phones. Glad someone else noticed this. Thank you for your thread.

The fact that Android is open source will inevitably have benefits and downfalls.
Benefits being that carriers and manufacturers can add cool stuff. Downfalls being that they can remove good or add awful stuff.
However Google can't have double standards. If it's open source, it's open source, for better or for worse.
An advantage of OEMs participating is that more parties are contributing to coding for android. More innovative ideas are potentially contributed.
For techies this is particularly awesome as we can port awesome features that perhaps weren't designed for our phone and disable lame restrictions. By this way we potentially can have all software benefits of more than one company brand etc.
Being an ordinary consumer in this context can suck.

Tim, while I understand your frustration (trust me, I've felt similar over the past few months), I don't fully agree.
The heart of Android is that it is Open. Open Source is a part of the openness that envelops Android, but what is meant by "Android is open" is so much more. OEM's skinning their devices is part of it; carriers stuffing devices full of their crapware is part of it; heck, even manufacturers/carriers limiting devices' use in one form or another is technically part of it. I think that Google's model with Android is that people can use in whatever way they see fit (except, you know, literally stealing it and claiming that they made and own it) and adapting it to be the OS that they want. Android gives people the freedom to do with it what they like.
I think that Google hopes that carriers, OEMs and everyone else will use it for the better and add to the functionality and maybe even contribute to the Open Source project and thus to the greater Android community and the vision thereof. Sadly, it is not always the case and then you get situations where a carrier or an OEM will limit a device in some way for a quick buck (your example of tethering on the EVO being a good one). I think that what AT&T did/does on their Android devices is as a final product a good example of what Android is not intended to be, but their actions are, technically, still in the spirit of Android.
The way I see Android, it is about the freedom to do whatever you like. Android is then also more for the thinking person as there are literally hundreds of devices to choose from and each one has strengths and weaknesses when compared to the rest. You as a user need to consider what it is that you want from your device and then select the device that is the most suited to your needs.
I want to be able to buy a device. I want to be running the newest version of Android. If I do not like the ROM that came on the phone, I want to be able to change that. But I do not want to purchase a phone with all of this baked in garbage, or aesthetic features that require me to wait long periods of times for my device to be upgraded to the newest version of Android. And, I hope that I am not the only person to feel this way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are not the only person that feels that way, I feel the same, which is why I've decided to get myself a Nexus S. It's tricky to get it to this country, but it'll be worth it. I realise that you're on Sprint which means that a Nexus device won't work, correct? A better petition IMO, would be to petition Google to release CDMA versions of their devices.

Sorry to say, but 4G is not derived from android. The phone itself will always support it, harware wise. So, what are you saying? /: Who are you complaining to? ROM chefs for not managing to make the 4G fully functional?

totally agree with you
he is complaining about gimped devices being marketed as android devices. to sum up what i think his messages is; a device should not be called an android device if it is not fully capable of all it's natively supported features, wireless tether, root access etc. but rather should be called android based device.

Good idea but never going to happen. This is driving me away from this platform...
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App

I'm curious as to what functionality we can get by simply rooting. I'm not seeing the huge deal I may be missing something so I'm asking
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App

To me, they should just change the launcher and add their own apps in (NOT replacing) and not touch other stuffs already. If totally not changing the OS makes them look alike. To me, thinking about Windows phone 7 in the future. Imagine seeing so many people holding a phone that has the totally same UI, its like seeing a Sony Ericsson X10 and a HTC Desire totally same except that the casing is different.

Technically, the fact that its open source is supposed to help the majority of OEMs, and in turnfilter down to end users as price cuts/ feature enhancements.
But premium features are premium features. You want some kind of 4g? You wont be getting it from end users at xda - it will come from manufacturers who build the radios and APIs into the device.
Android is a very modular os... if you want something all you have to do is a bit of research and buy the device that fits you best. If you go with one of the other systems you will simply have less choice. That is why android is cool.

aint gonna happen guys, doesnt make good business sense to make a device that does everything, why sell one model when you can sell two!
you can pick up any device out there and say, "wouldnt it be cool if it had VGA out or HD camera or x y z", they wont do it, and the same goes for the OS as well.
Open source has an inherant flaw, and that is its fragmentation, everyone believes it should be going in a direction they would like (including yourself). at the moment its not suffered as much as its desktop cousins probably because of its market place keeping one common aspect through all devices but give it time and you will be right, it will lose its "android" identification
If you want an alternative and a device that keeps its personality then get an Iphone or a new WP7 device at least until they crack that wide open too. Its a bit ironic really that WM may well suck but its very customizable and has been consistant throughout the ages

evo4gnw said:
he is complaining about gimped devices being marketed as android devices. to sum up what i think his messages is; a device should not be called an android device if it is not fully capable of all it's natively supported features, wireless tether, root access etc. but rather should be called android based device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that's just the thing isn't it? Android can probably support ANYTHING. But because of that, you aren't supposed to release hardware that isn't as flexible? That to me.. is just looney.

An Open Letter to Android via Google and Forwarded to Samsung

Hi XDA-Samsung Users,
I've been a member of XDA since Jan last year. I went from owning a Nexus One to a Samsung Galaxy S i9000. The reason for the change was for the better specs and superior hardware of the Samsung Galaxy.
The phone is an incredible piece of machinery, but is severely hampered by the modifications that Samsung makes to the Android OS. I admit that the codec support within TouchWiz is impressive, but too much of the core framework of the phone is inefficient and sluggish.
Even using the latest release of unofficial firmware Samsung, Android 2.2.1 (JPY), there is still the occasional hang and the missing RAM (which is there somewhere, but not for user applications).
Samsung is mostly to blame, but there is also a quality control element that Google should be responsible for.
I have prepared an open letter that I sent to Android via Google Press and then forwarded on to Samsung for their reference. This were all through publicly available channels so will have to filter through customer service centers and the like.
I'm not expecting much, Google appears to use Amazon's customer service approach, "No customer service is good customer service".
But would like to post it here to hopefully get it out into the wilderness.
I tweeted it here http://twitter.com/#!/ibproud/status/27528781828722688
and would appreciate if you agreed with the content to retweet it. Hopefully it should give it a bit more weight.
It would be interesting to get the communities feedback on how mature they believe Android is.
Do they need to keep trying to make everyone happy or can they start to use the weight of their OS to get manufacturers to align the user experience?
Dear Android Team,
I am writing this letter to air my frustrations and to hopefully get some peace of mind that your strategy for Android will resolve some of the main issues plaguing the platform.
I have now been with Android for over 12 months. I used to be an iPhone user, but couldn’t stand the walled garden that Apple put me in. I couldn’t download directly to the phone, replace the messaging app or sync wirelessly. I went to Android because I wanted the freedom to use my phone more as a desktop replacement than as a phone/mp3 player.
When I joined the Android family (January 2010), I started with the Google Nexus One. I was so keen to get into the Android community I didn’t even wait for it to be on sale in Australia to get it, thus I hit eBay and bought it outright.
I was very pleased with the platform but could still see a few rough edges around the Operating System. It had the usability I was looking for but was lacking the polish I had grown use to with Apple. There was good news on the horizon with an Éclair update that would give the already beautiful phone a nudge in the right direction. As I was in Australia and the phone wasn’t here yet, I had to push the update through myself, after seeing how easy this was and getting the feeling of being a little phone hacker, I was hooked, I started preaching Android to the masses. Australia is still building momentum for the platform and it’s taking some time. Most of the major carriers stock between 4-6 Android devices, most of which are low end or outdated in the overseas markets.
I follow all the key players in the industry through Twitter and have a majority of Google News trackers picking up articles with android related words. I have also now converted my Wife to Android (HTC Desire Z, also not available in Aus) and I picked up the Samsung Galaxy S and gave my sister the Nexus One. The problem I face now is that I’ve run out of money and can’t go out and buy a new Android phone just to be up to date with the latest Android OS (Gingerbread), this would also be the case for most consumers. The Nexus S is so similar to my current hardware that I must be able to leverage the extra performance from the update.
But alas, we reach the major problem with the platform. Fragmentation. I’m not referring to the Fragmentation of the various app stores and apps available based on different OS versions but more to the Fragmentation of the OS based on the custom skins and manufacturer update cycles. The open platform that is closed at 2 levels, Manufactures and Carriers. I will continue to buy my phones outright as it gives me the freedom and flexibility to upgrade my plans as better ones become available. This always guarantees that I’m free from the bloatware that is preloaded on most Carrier bought phones and free from 1 of the barriers to the true AOSP experience. The next barrier is one that is running rampant in the interwebs rumour mill at the moment and that’s manufacturer updates and in my case I refer to Samsung.
Samsung Galaxy S phones come loaded with Android 2.1, most of them internationally are running Android 2.2 and just recently as select group of the devices is getting Android 2.2.1. This is now a month after Android 2.3 was released. For Samsung I would consider this largely negligent, considering they had the opportunity to work with Google to build a Google Experience Phone (Nexus S). The specs of this phone are so similar to the Galaxy range that a port shouldn’t be too difficult. I understand that there are a lot of constraints and dependencies in the development cycle that could cause delays as well as manufacturers agendas (mostly in unit sales). It is great that Samsung have sold so many devices globally but at a cost of the user experience as well as potential damages to long term retention.
I understand the Open nature of Android and the push to encourage manufacturers to put there own spin on the platform, but Android is getting bigger and more mature, it doesn’t need to be High school girl bending to the whims and peer pressure from the carriers and manufacturers.
There are a team of Devs in Germany who are working to port CyanogenMod 7 (Gingerbread) to Galaxy S i9000, but these guys have now spent over four months just trying to get through Samsungs drivers. The team didn’t start just to customise the phone but to actually make the phone work properly, I of course refer to the RFS lag issue and Samsungs modification to the framework that slowed it down. The goal of the team is to maximise the potential of the hardware and operating system.
It would be great to see some muscle from Google thrown into the mix, there doesn’t need to be requirements dictated, but maybe ethics encouraged.
There seems to be a few options here:
- Encourage device manufacturers to share their drivers, if it is too sensitive to share at least work with the community to help them do it themselves.
- Start to break down the way the platform is customised so that way the manufactures (Samsung/HTC/Motorola) skin the platform can sit a layer above the core code, thus be a quick implementation/customisation to get their skins working.
- Get each manufacturer to offer the AOSP experience to advanced users. This can be done through an agreement between the user and manufacture that states this will void the warranty and have its own terms and conditions.
- This last one is a long stretch, but how about taking all the manufacturers drivers into a repository, the way Windows do updates. When a new Android version is developed the drivers can be updated or incorporated and be packaged out through the Android SDK.
I may be completely off the mark. I’m not a developer and couldn’t pretend to know what effort is involved at any stage of the process, from building Android to rolling it out into the latest and greatest phone. The one thing I am though is an End User, a person that wants my phone to do more, to get close to being a desktop replacement.
Maybe I’m also being a bit idealistic.
I hope the Android platform continues to flourish and for it to become the Windows of the mobile era.
Sincerely,
Irwin Proud
E: [email protected]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

It's really an excellent summary. Consider there're even more black sheeps out there. For example Sony Ericcson which ones recently made a statement like Android is their favourite Smartphone OS and left Symbian in Nokias hands.
But we found also the good ones like HTC, which every Manufacturer should have HTC as its Paragon concerning Android Software Development.

Great write-up; I agree 100%

I agree with your post fully, and concur that the Windows Phone 7 model for OS updates is more efficient, and strikes a happy medium between iOS and Android's approach to upgrades. However it is also more restrictive in terms of handset hardware limitations
I suppose the idea is that customers should vote with their wallets and buy from companies with good software and firmware support. The problem with that is a majority of phone users (android or otherwise) are technically savvy enough to take such support into consideration when looking at the latest and greatest fancy phone in a store. We could all buy the Nexus One or Nexus S only, but this too is restrictive to the customer as other phones offer more/different features

my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.

What Google should do?
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please allow me to politely disagree. Google can do a lot about this and they have done this also. When I say they have done this - I am talking about not having Market application on Android OSes which come on non-phone hardware.
Google should put similar restrictions for loosley coupled skins, upgradable drivers. I had been giving this a lot of thought lately. I will sum up my thoughts with above letter as above:-
i) Device manufacturer skinning - Google should mandate that it should be just another APK within AOSP and users should be given a choice to turn it off.
ii) Device Drivers - Google should mandate there should be a better way of installing device drivers - similar to what we have in MS Windows (MS Windows is an excellent model of how hardware device should be handled - this lead to the exponential growth Windows is enjoying now).
iii) Android OS Update - If Google can achieve the above two, then the choice to upgrade the OS should be at user discretion. Of course, Google should mandate that there is OTA availble as an option. And obviously this OTA would be served by Google, not by device manufacturers. This would also free up time, effort and cash spent by device manufacturers in upgrading the OS.
So this is in the best of interest of everybody.
These restrictions if put in place, would free us all from this phenomena of running outdated OS.

Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.

Thank you so far for the feedback.
poundesville said:
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember most members of XDA would be a cut above the average user. The reason this letter was written the way it was, was to demonstrate that I am a typical end user. Although I would consider myself leaning slightly to the more advanced side I wrote the letter based on a very general experience of the platform, an experience a lot of consumers would go through.
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What am I trying to achieve with this letter?
I really don’t know, but it helps to just get the thoughts out there.
With approximately 300,000 activations daily, I don’t think Android sees the true reflection of how their platform is received.
When the Galaxy range of phones was released in the US, they would have been seen as the closest thing to an iPhone that non-AT&T customers could get. So sales and activations shouldn’t be seen as the indicator of clever consumers or consumers wanting an open platform, but of consumers who wanted an iPhone but for the various reasons didn’t want to go with AT&T.
Remember: The international Samsung Galaxy is the only Android phone I know of that looks more like an iPhone than any other phone.
What I would really like to see is, that annually google will release a major version of Android. So V1, V2, V3, etc…. the mobile manufacturers commit to any minor or incremental updates per major version. So if Google says they are releasing Android 2.4 then they are saying to the manufacturer that this version will also work on any phone that currently supports v2.1 to v2.3.
As more and more people move to smartphones and tablets, more and more will we see hackers, spammers, botnets and so on attempt to access our devices. If we can’t have the latest updates that close any open holes then our phones become a huge liability.
Pierreken said:
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really sure if Samsung has failed as such, but have put too much focus on unit sales rather than quality control and great user experience. They started releasing different iterations and modifications to the same phone without considering that each minor tweak to the hardware would mean more resources to develop updates and maintain each device.
I also agree that without Samsung I would know very little about linux filesystems, kernel and custom roms, but shouldn't all of these be more to push the phone above it's limits and not to just get it working properly?
There's nothing wrong with knowing the advanced stuff, however it shouldn't be a necessity.

The problem ironically is that Android is open source. I agree wit the letter above, but I can;t see how you can stop manufacturers doing what they want.
Also the Drivers being proprietary isn't going to change and device manufacturers aren't going to suddenly start releasing their closed driver sources.
Agreed Google should stand up and restrict the Skins to a single APK that can be removed, this would stop all the associated problems with HTC and Samsung skinning too deep in to the OS that it becomes impossible to remove it. The problem with that is, then any manufacturers APK will be installable on any phone. Which is something we know they don't want.
We already know Androids biggest downfall and so does Google. Fragmentation.
I believe once Google has the strong position they want and users demand Android when they buy a new phone, they will start to put their foot down and try to enforce standardisation across Manufacturers, but until they get to what they feel is that point, we're stuck.
Anyway much luck with the letter, I hope someone who matters get's to see it.
Logicalstep

Petition to Microsoft to allow jailbreaking

Hi all.
Haven't seen this topic yet so I thought I'd introduce it. Has a petition ever been sent directly to Microsoft to allow jailbreaking and development of apps in a Cydia like store. I'm positive this would increase the popularity of wp8. There are are so many little things like decreasing the interval for updating live tile, and creating playlists on the phone itself. Widgets would also be nice. I just got a 920 and like it a lot. I was using launcher8 on my gn2 before and that launcher allowed widgets on tiles, more rectangular tile options etc.

Are you really think that Microsoft or somebody else care about these petitions?

Useless guy said:
Are you really think that Microsoft or somebody else care about these petitions?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if enough people sign, then yes I do. I'm convinced that many iOS and android users would try a windows phone. There would be far more developers making apps also.

Jailbreaking will never be allowed on windows phone becuase Microsoft wants to win over the business sector. One of the reason the secure boot was implemented was because of businesses complaining about security on WP7.
Besides, there aren't really BIG things to get from jailbreaking, other than useless things some individuals care about. the vast majority of WP8 users are happy with their phones, plus most of the things you are asking (like adding playlists on the phone), will be supported eventually.
Lowering the interval for live tiles is a really bad idea btw.
If microsoft ever allows access to the file system, there will be no need for anything else: developers will pick it up from there and do their thing.

Ain't ever going to happen. Ms is bent over backwards by OEMS and carriers
Sent from my Arc using xda app-developers app

we need to start a kickstarter or offer a bounty on xda
I am sure if we started a bounty or kickstarter and rightfully paid one of the hackers to jailbreak wp8 they could get the job done a lot sooner
so how shall we go about this?
I am ready to offer my contribution

noelito said:
I am sure if we started a bounty or kickstarter and rightfully paid one of the hackers to jailbreak wp8 they could get the job done a lot sooner
so how shall we go about this?
I am ready to offer my contribution
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still won't happen dude. I don't know but there seems to be some sort of aversion to WP by all the devs. The iPhone/iPad community has a number of devs piling over eachother to bring out the "next best way to JB". Android, I don't even need to get started. Other OSs too will fall in place soon. But what keeps the devs away from WP is a bit of a mystery to me.
BTW, I hope you know what happened to the kids that jailbroke the first Gen WP devices. They got hired by MS and were given a T shirt, if my memory is good.
So... that's that.

It's hilarious how you people believe that is easy to exploit WP8, Devices that use it have Secure Boot and Bitlocker so exploiting the boot process is practically impossible, exploiting on app-level is also hard as all apps run over a sandbox and the user has no administrator privileges so you can't use the sandbox exploitation available for Windows RT.
Plus there's overall no appeal for hacking it other than it runs over NT.

I think we should do it, there is nothing to loose, but it shouldn't be for jail breaking but for allowing file system access similar to Windows RT

Everybody can try to found a exploit.
If somebody will have luck, he will be the man....
But like people here say...
Its very very hard!
Sent from my GT-I8750 using Board Express

It's better for Microsoft (in the long run) that the OS will not be jailbroken: Jailbroken devices can install pirated applications, and pirated applications makes application developers angry.
Currently, app devs have no choice but to develop their applications to the 2 major OSs out there (iOS and Android), and know that in some point it is quite likely that people who jailbreak their devices can install pirated copies of their applications.
In the long run, as WP would start gaining major market share, application developers would be more keen to focus their development for WP as they'd know their property could not be pirated (if, supposedly, WP will remain unhacked).
This is of course only hypothetical - there's no protection which is made by men and cannot be hacked by men, and I'm more than sure that the more user-base and interest WP gains, the more likely is that someone would find a loophole in the OS and it'd be jailbroken...
And maybe not

Thread moved to General

I am as well very certain that Microsoft will not allow for Jailbreaking of the devices. They have some programs that will get you a free dev account to develop on top of the Plattform but they don't Support changes to the Plattform itself. If you want to make your Point about giving Devs certain APIs go to wpdev.uservoice.com and Support them with your votes.
As for jailbreaking WP: I'm sure it can be done because in the end: techniques exist to exploit basically everything but as was already said: Microsoft isn't making it easy.

StevieBallz said:
I am as well very certain that Microsoft will not allow for Jailbreaking of the devices. They have some programs that will get you a free dev account to develop on top of the Plattform but they don't Support changes to the Plattform itself. If you want to make your Point about giving Devs certain APIs go to wpdev.uservoice.com and Support them with your votes.
As for jailbreaking WP: I'm sure it can be done because in the end: techniques exist to exploit basically everything but as was already said: Microsoft isn't making it easy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It may be possible, but as for now they have closed damn near every hole we could think of. I'd say the only way we can hope for SOME progress is if we can exploit the root certificate and policies somehow. I know GoodDayToDie had a few good potential ideas. It's not that the device NEEDS to be jailbroken, we need to be given more trust. I feel as if Microsoft automatically feels like we will screw everything up so it's being our overprotective mother instead. We all know what happens when you are too overprotective to those you care about.....
With that said, if we can just be given a LITTLE more freedom.. That's all I ask for. I don't think we would have to worry about any type of malware since the App Hub process is smart enough to give me the red X if I'm trying to call MessageBox.Show() from a background task.
/endrant.

What if we paid you the bounty?
Sent from my SGH-T899M using XDA Windows Phone 7 App

iOS is certified afaik for government use, so the business security issue is specious. Not everybody will hack their device anyway.

There are different levels of security certifications, similarily to Mil-Spec Standards that exist for a lot of different criteria. Allowing people to do more with their devices isn't really at the core of Microsoft's concerns here. They don't try to push it though as they want applications in the Store and not on the web. Piracy is likely to play a role here too.
As for a bounty to make a JailBreak happen - it might be an incentive for certain developers to start looking into it. With WP7 the way most of the time was to hack the Bootloader and then flash a custom ROM to allow for additional access. With WP8 people might need to look into other ways in given that Secure Boot is likely to be a very hard nut to crack. Given that the original Jailbreak for WP7 relied on custom certificates it's likely that Microsoft invested there to close this off better but it's of course still worth investigating.
The more important part in the end would be to get Microsoft to make more available through the official APIs. They are extending those and this has made more functionality available every time they did a major update to the OS (Mango, Apollo).
Another point to note is that native interop is now part of the regular SDK. It's therefore likely that native APIs will be better protected against accesses from unauthorized Apps than they have been in WP7 (where the problem was getting native code to run at all).

RCranium666 said:
if enough people sign, then yes I do. I'm convinced that many iOS and android users would try a windows phone. There would be far more developers making apps also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not trying to be negative but I don't think the would care. On their won suggestion site (http://windowsphone.uservoice.com/forums/101801-feature-suggestions/suggestions/2281201-custom-sounds-for-sms-mms-email-notifications-e) the haven't even responded to the 40,000 + petitions that people have been voting for 2 years for custom MMS\SMS; something that is so easy to do.

Thanks for everyone's responses. I just went back to my gn2. I found too many compromises in wp8. The funny thing is, I use a wp8 launcher on android and it's much more versatile than wp8 itself. The l920 was also a disappointment. I'm no stranger to phone cameras and I was rarely able to take a good picture with it. I like the l920's design better than the gn2, but not much else.

Mercenary hackers claim full control over Windows Phone

Read here.... http://www.wpcentral.com/mercenary-hackers-hackingteam-claim-full-control-over-windows-phone. Not sure how to feel about this??? If true then there's definately hope for unlocking more WP8 handsets yet at the same time with all the NSA crap going on and concerns about privacy and security...WTF??? Reading around various forums and sites I am actually surprised how many people are NOT interested in unlocking their devices naming security as their number one reason for switching to the WP8 platform. In all the time I've spent here on the forums, with the exception of a few shady posts by no one of any consequence, I have never seen any maliciousness in the the search for exploits and attempts to unlock devices. If anything it almost seems like a game between devs and MS/OEMS and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of the devs here were offered opportunities by those same entities; if not then our gain, MS's loss. However this article got me thinking about the possibilities and implications of any exploits or unlocks found and just wondering what others thought... As for my mindset....I paid for my device with hard earned cash therefore it should be mine to F up as I see fit and I will deal with the consequences like a big boy.

Microsoft buying Apple is much more plausible that what is in there.
Part of having a secret surveillance plan is to actually keep the plan secret.
I doubt the group "responsible" for this would post their achievements on the internet, provided they are supported by the government.

tonbonz said:
Read here.... http://www.wpcentral.com/mercenary-hackers-hackingteam-claim-full-control-over-windows-phone. ... As for my mindset....I paid for my device with hard earned cash therefore it should be mine to F up as I see fit and I will deal with the consequences like a big boy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You and folk like you are in the insignificant minority of the population
There are far to many people that will quite happily blame MS / OEMs / Networks for any and all problems regardless of who actually broke it.
The other thing is said networks / OEMs don't want you arsing about with their phone, for example, ATT take great pride in being able to charge you for a service that is free, if the phone was unlocked that would stop and ATT would be out of pocket. They pull out of WP arena and rollocks your fathers uncle, MS loses market share.
it sucks, but such is life, now that MS has locked down the market place with from what I can tell is completely impervious to abuse, I doubt very much they could give a $h!t what you do to the platform and if you can unlock it, they do however care about market share which is where the networks come in...

Oh, that's pretty plausible, actually. Even if you assume it's for every device on every version of the OS, I'd still be willing to believe it. Microsoft has done well on security with WP8, hardening the OS (NT in general) over the last decade or so to remove vulns, and using pretty good sandboxing of WP8 apps to minimize attack surface. With that said, there are still items being found, and patched (at least on the PC), regularly in Windows. Some of those vulnerabilities will be present and reachable on WP8 as well, and given how slowly phone updates roll out, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a known but un-patched issue being exploited. For that matter, it could be a true zero-day - something Microsoft is completely unaware of, at least when the exploit was first used - although I think that's less likely.

dazza9075 said:
You and folk like you are in the insignificant minority of the population
There are far to many people that will quite happily blame MS / OEMs / Networks for any and all problems regardless of who actually broke it.
The other thing is said networks / OEMs don't want you arsing about with their phone, for example, ATT take great pride in being able to charge you for a service that is free, if the phone was unlocked that would stop and ATT would be out of pocket. They pull out of WP arena and rollocks your fathers uncle, MS loses market share.
it sucks, but such is life, now that MS has locked down the market place with from what I can tell is completely impervious to abuse, I doubt very much they could give a $h!t what you do to the platform and if you can unlock it, they do however care about market share which is where the networks come in...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm used to being the minority, in a world full of sheep I'd much rather be a wolf, but insignificant? Harsh... Of course the security of the platform is probably the biggest selling point MS had to offer the networks and with perfect timing. I'm sure it's helped increase market shares when everyone's worried about keeping their data secure. As for the marketplace, I am constantly amazed at the apps being created but use very few myself. My kid spends more time on my Lumia than I do; using the Kid's Room feature to play games. Another brilliant "security" feature and one of the first features I point out to any parent asking about the platform. Anyways, knowing the work done here and intentions behind it, seeing that some group possibly gained full access to the platform simply for the purpose of "spying" for anyone that can pay their fees kinda p***ed me off and wondered what others thoughts were...

"Mercenary hackers claim full control over Windows Phone"
and my grandpa told me he had sex with Lili Marleen... but who know... maybe has maybe not

tonbonz said:
I'm used to being the minority, in a world full of sheep I'd much rather be a wolf, but insignificant? Harsh... Of course the security of the platform is probably the biggest selling point MS had to offer the networks and with perfect timing. I'm sure it's helped increase market shares when everyone's worried about keeping their data secure. As for the marketplace, I am constantly amazed at the apps being created but use very few myself. My kid spends more time on my Lumia than I do; using the Kid's Room feature to play games. Another brilliant "security" feature and one of the first features I point out to any parent asking about the platform. Anyways, knowing the work done here and intentions behind it, seeing that some group possibly gained full access to the platform simply for the purpose of "spying" for anyone that can pay their fees kinda p***ed me off and wondered what others thoughts were...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
aye, we are significant in our world but there are a lot more numpties out there then there are of us

GoodDayToDie said:
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a known but un-patched issue being exploited..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree with you but until I see something concrete these are only words...or like I can say in Italian:
fatti, non pugnette!:laugh: (facts, no word please)

Oh, to be sure. Still, it actually gives me a little hope for finding a universal "jailbreak" hack... although I'd prefer one that isn't remotely exploitable.