Android/Droid Phones

[RationalBiker]

Basically he thinks users should demand more control over software they install on their computers. We should only buy programs where the source-code can be examined and then altered to our satisfaction. By letting proprietary licences lock us out of the contents of our own computers, we're handing over part of our liberty to corporations (apparently).

Which is nice if people understand coding, or even care to understand coding. The funny thing is, almost everyone turns over their liberty to some corporation or another when they don't understand something about a product they buy. I'd venture to say that not everyone who vehemently supports open source software is a mechanic who can work on their car if something goes wrong or they want to modify it in some way.

Edited October 22, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Tyco]

Which is nice if people understand coding, or even care to understand coding. The funny thing is, almost everyone turns over their liberty to some corporation or another when they don't understand something about a product they buy. I'd venture to say that not everyone who vehemently supports open source software is a mechanic who can work on their car if something goes wrong or they want to modify it in some way.

Yes but they probably know a mechanic who could work on their car if required. Whereas if a program doesn't work to your satisfaction, unless it's open-source then there's no local or 3rd party coder who can fix it for you - you're dependant on the original publishers. I don't agree with Stallman but he does have a point (which I didn't grasp initially). IMO it's based on a misunderstanding of power and economics, but it's somewhat akin to saying we shouldn't accept any government systems/institutions which are not transparent. It's about keeping power in the hands of the consumers / general public.

[RationalBiker]

Yes but they probably know a mechanic who could work on their car if required. Whereas if a program doesn't work to your satisfaction, unless it's open-source then there's no local or 3rd party coder who can fix it for you - you're dependant on the original publishers.

Jailbreaking, etc. etc. goes on, and there is no need for that to be "local". Anyone with a 'net connection can download hacks and jailbreaks for a variety of OSs and devices. It seems to me there is a very vibrant community out there doing much the same thing as a mechanic would do on a car.

That said, the market as a whole doesn't seem to see this as much of problem, at least not to the point where they are refusing to buy proprietary goods. As I said, many, many people don't care to be bother with the guts of how a program does something, they just want it to do it.

I think my problem in general with some folks who "crusade" like this about open source is that while they are technically very savvy, they are frequently out of touch with the average user and what they want or expect out of a computer or phone, what they find important in the products they seek. The iPad is the perfect example of a product that many, many ubergeeks said would never be successful because of all its limitations. Not only were they wrong, they were REALLY wrong when one looks at how the iPad is now considered the best selling gadget of all time. Ubergeeks need to understand that not everyone views technology the same way the do, and others don't need the same flexibility (and consequent complication) that the ubergeek seeks.

Regarding who has the "power", I'm not sure how you determine who should have it. I see the market as being a balance between the consumer and the producer, not that one or the other should have "power" over the other. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point here.

Edited October 23, 2010 by RationalBiker
Added last part.

[Tyco]

The thing about Stallman is he respects copyright enough to refrain from piracy or unauthorised use - he simply refuses to buy any software that is not open/free in it's licensing, and therefore doesn't use it at all.

The hacker community who support things like Jailbreaking can only go so far. Most software runs from machine code that is inpenetrable to human understanding - sometimes it can be reverse engineered but only to a very limited degree. To truly control and manipulate a program you need access to it's source code, which may be kept secret from users or even lost completely.

What Stallman fears essentially is a guild where technocrats can lock everyone else out and control the distribution and development of software, and then ultimately control of peoples' information. But I agree with you that market forces and political freedom prevent that sort of situation from getting out of hand.

However I respect his decision to avoid proprietary software and promote Free Software. There's a hint of independent thinking or libertarianism to it.

[RussK]

I've had an HTC Evo for a month and love the capabilities (I'm poking/typing on it now) and the giant screen. Previously, I owned a Palm Pre.

The Evo is just like owning a PC in that it will do everything, you just have to figure it out for yourself. The Pre knew what you wanted before you did, but there were so very few apps available with no signs of improving, and it came with internet-related shortcomings.

All said, I'm now on the smartphone boat with my eye on the tablet ship.

I saw your post when this thread was resurrected. It's of interest because you left webOS and went to android. In July, a month after I posted to this thread about my frugality and basic phone functions, I went out and bought a smart phone with contract. I made this decision after seeing so many people do so much on their device, and I finally created a facebook and twitter account, throwing myself into the modern internet--it wouldn't have been a complete surrender if I couldn't update my status while away from my computer.

Originally I was going to buy an iPhone, because I had 'played' with a few before and their users like them a lot; however, I was somewhat apprehensive because I had become tired of the Apple ecosystem, especially in regards to music/video. I wasn't very open to Android phones because there were many more of those that I'd played with--everyone has them--and I knew exactly how they worked; it would have taken a good sell from the sales person to land me with an android phone and contract. Blackbarry was not of interest to me either, as I had been around PDA's for some time and when I see RIM, I think business. That's not a bad thing or even totally accurate, these days, but I didn't think my needs would be fulfilled by such a device.

To further my knowledge in preparation for a selection, I did some online research by looking at smart phone reviews and information. At this point I learned that Palm was still in the game--slightly--and their operating system, webOS, was highly regarded. Primarily, what I found was that the hardware was fairly uncompetitive with the new devices, if not poorly made in the original Pre's case. Given the praise thrown on webOS, I decided to narrow my selection to either the iPhone or a Palm product, considering the later only if I could get a good deal.

Long story short, I went to AT&T (iPhone), Verizon and Sprint (Palm) to test the phones and get contract pricing. I eventually settled on a Palm Pixi; the Pre felt cheap and breakable in my hand, and my thumb hit the 'roof' when typing the upper keys. The Pixi was selected over the Pixi Plus (Verizon) because Sprint offered better pricing. I purchased the phone itself online, from HP, for a very cheap price.

My impressions of the phone are very good. The negatives of the phone are its slower hardware, somewhat poor battery life, and the lack of thousands of apps to choose from. However, the later is the least negative quality, because I use a lot of apps, and only learn of a need when I read a review of an app and say to my self, "I want that." The positives, however, are abundant: form factor, quick multi-tasking and functionality, touchstone charger, etc... Additionally, the Homebrew Community is great, although I don't use much of their stuff because its mostly for the Pre at this moment--there's no such thing as jailbreaking your webOS phone. I've unintentionally sold countless people on the product just by using the phone around them, talking about it, or letting them use it, and they are all android users--usually of the smaller form factors. Of course, I am sure to tell them that the hardware will be slower.

I am very glad that I'm now on the smartphone boat. Additionally, like you I'm also going to be getting a tablet--next year for me. Since I'm on the webOS bandwagon, however, it will be an HP running webOS 2.0. I'm guessing, or hoping, that with the increasing popularity of tablets/pads/slates, the trend of large phones will decrease.

[JASKN]

My impressions of the [Pixi] are very good.

So were mine. I actually loved my Pre (You more or less get used to the keyboard). I loved having a physical keyboard, the hardware was attractive, and webOS was great. It was my first smartphone, and I was apprehensive getting it anyway because I wasn't sure how much/how I would wind up using it. I wound up using it a lot for everything, and I now use it (now the Evo) more than my computer! I didn't do iPhone because Sprint doesn't have it, and I did Pre instead of Pixi because of the screen size and the speed. My boyfriend, however, got the Pixi as his first smarthphone, too, and he loves it.

I went to Android's Evo after six months on the Pre for these reasons:

• I wanted a very big screen. I was reading much more on the phone (via the internet) than anticipated, and I wanted more surface area.
• Since I was reading so much, I decided to ditch my reader/not upgrade my reader to the new Kindle (they're so slow anyway), and just use the Evo instead. Amazon, B&N, and Borders all have apps for Android, but not for webOS.
• Rhapsody, which is my sole music source, has no plans on making an app for webOS (straight from the developers' mouths). Their new download-to-phone feature, and not just streaming, made Android even more attractive.
• Android has thousands more apps than webOS, and it turns out I wanted to use them (this was a point of contention before I bought the Pre)

Since leaving webOS, here is what I miss:

• webOS is much easier/"fluid" to use. It guesses what you want to do before you know yourself, and you wind up thinking, "Gee, that was pretty nice of it!" Android, on the other hand, is just like a PC: often a pain in the ass, you have to customize everything for yourself, and still it isn't as good as webOS.
• I want my physical keyboard back.

All in all, I'll switch to whatever the best phone is that I can get as soon as I have reason to. If webOS gains the key features I want and has a giant screen to boot, I will go back. Since HP has plans now, that may happen.

Currently, my phone acts as: a reader, the internet, a navigator/directions/GPS, a phone, an RSS reader, on-the-spot price lookup, random app fun (like a green monster mouth you put up to your face that moves when you talk), and more, and it's with me everywhere I go. No more wasted time, ever. I love smartphones!

[mynameisyang]

I think my problem in general with some folks who "crusade" like this about open source is that while they are technically very savvy, they are frequently out of touch with the average user and what they want or expect out of a computer or phone, what they find important in the products they seek. The iPad is the perfect example of a product that many, many ubergeeks said would never be successful because of all its limitations. Not only were they wrong, they were REALLY wrong when one looks at how the iPad is now considered the best selling gadget of all time. Ubergeeks need to understand that not everyone views technology the same way the do, and others don't need the same flexibility (and consequent complication) that the ubergeek seeks.

Be it open source or not, I think many of these gadgets are not useful at all.

[Greebo]

There is a misconception about what Open Source is, I think.

Open Source is not "design by committee".

Open Source allows anyone with the skills to modify the code and submit their changes to the community. The best changes are accepted not by force but by choice.

Capitalism allows anyone with the skills to provide a product or service and sell it to the community. The best providers are purchased not by force, but by choice.

The market for Android phones is so successful IMO because the specific devices, while licensed, are still open to outside add-ons made by the free (open source) market. Those apps compete for attention on the android marketplace - the android version of the real world free market.

And for the record - I'm a brand new owner of a Droid 2 and it is without doubt the best smart phone I've owned yet.

[RationalBiker]

Be it open source or not, I think many of these gadgets are not useful at all.

I'm not sure which particular gadgets you are talking about, but I think many other people find "these gadgets" to be quite useful. I'll take it that you mean not useful to you for your purposes, needs or desires..