It seems to me that, even though smartphones these days (like the iPhone) are basically computers connected to a high speed data network, just like desktop computers are, there is a huge difference in how much freedom app developers and users have in creating, disseminating, purchasing, and installing the apps on the two platforms.
(Of course you can jailbreak your iPhone, but I’m talking about developers and users who want to go through the ‘proper’ channels)
I understand that the two platforms have developed from different pasts, and that past history influences where we are today, but as we go into the future will this distinction change?
It seems weird to me that Apple allows people who buy their Macs the freedom to install any program they want, and buy it from any website they want, but on the iPhone they restrict which programs you can install and restrict where you can buy it from. As the iPhone and similar handheld computers advance, this dual approach will become even more strange.
My questions are
**1) **Are there fundamental differences between handheld computers accessing the web through a high-speed wireless network (e.g. 3G), versus desktop/laptop computers accessing the web though a high-speed wired network (e.g. DSL), so that the two platforms will forever be treated differently?
2) If the wireless operators exercise so much control over the devices on their networks, why don’t wired operators exercise the same amount of control?
That is, if AT&T Wireless can say “The iPhone can only work on my wireless network”, why can’t AT&T DSL say “The Dell Latitude can only work on my DSL network”?
Personally, I prefer the wireline model: You buy a computer, and then you can use it on any high-speed wireline network. Why can’t the wireline carriers exert as much control? Conversely, why can the wireless carriers exert so much control?
Is it because the wireless carriers subsidize the cost of the phone? Why don’t wireline carriers subsidize the cost of the desktop/laptop?
**3) **Will these two platforms eventually converge on one model (i.e. “walled garden” vs “free range”), and if so which one will it be?
It seems to me the history of desktop internet access went from walled garden (e.g. AOL) to today, which is more “free range”, so maybe this points to the fact that wireless handheld internet access may go that route. I also think this is what Android is trying to accomplish, so this may be encouraging (although some restrictions it imposes, from what I’ve read, are more in line with the walled garden approach)
What restrictions are imposed on Android? I suspect VOIP apps are forbidden, since that would hurt the carriers’ revenue streams, is there anything else?
A couple generic points first. Apple’s iPhone is pretty well locked-down as is Blackberry devices and (I think) Palm’s Pre.
However, Windows Mobile devices are not locked-down. You can develop, sell, and deploy your own apps on these devices. Wireless carriers can restrict how you use Windows Mobile devices, but it is not widespread. I do not think the wireless carriers put as much effort into detecting and controlling Windows Mobile devices as Apple does.
Google launched their Android initiative to directly address the exact points you have made. They want a market of open, mobile computers in the same way that they have a market of open, desktop computers. That said, they also have to cave into pressure from the wireless carriers and allow for things to be locked-down.
There are differences between wireless carriers and wireline carriers. When you get wireless service, you currently get all of your service from one company. They provide the towers (last mile), the network infrastructure, and many of the services. Most notably, they provide the voice and SMS services.
Wireline is different. You can get last-mile service from your telco or cable company, but choose any ISP as your service provider. This was more obvious with dial-up: AT&T might provide your line and AOL provided your dial-up access to the internet. But it still exists today. Comcast may provide your cable access to the internet, but you use Google for your email account.
As you also said, in America wireless carriers subsidize the cost of the devices. This creates a huge incentive for them to maintain control over what you do with these devices.
Yes, the wireless carriers think there is a difference. One carrier that I am familiar with was very concerned about deploying Windows Mobile devices because they did not know what kind of impact this could have on their wireless data network. They were concerned with, for example, a misbehaving application that floods the network with traffic. Now considering that this misbehavior could somehow affect the voice and SMS networks (their bread-and-butter), you could see why they might be cautious. Wireline providers don’t really have this particular concern. They service is their bread-and-butter operation; there is no internal conflict.
I think mostly public perception and a lack of value. The market didn’t start this way (for many reasons) and so it is hard for them to then go back and ‘renegotiate’ with the public. Also, what is the value for them? They would, at best, lose customers while only helping the particular computer manufacturers that they require. I guess they could get a kick-back, but really they want as many customers as possible. There may also be regulations prohibiting this; I don’t know.
The wireless carrier model of subsidizing and controlling what is on their network is the newer model. It may very well be the model used for these types of enterprises going forward. And if wired carriers were just invented today, perhaps they would have adopted this model to start with. But I don’t see an advantage for them to adopt this model now.
This was tried in the 90’s. Do you remember Best Buy and Computer City offering computers at a discount if you signed up for 2 years of AOL? It didn’t really take off, probably for many reasons. 1) Customers were already used to shopping for a computer and then getting a service provider independently. As a result, when they needed a computer, they might already have a service provider that they liked. On the flip-side, many people already had computers before the decided to shop for a service provider. 2) Computer prices were in a free fall. With prices dropping so quickly, I think there was a perception that computers were a really good value. If you can buy something for $500 that until recently you thought of as a $1000 purchase, you are less likely to blanch over the cost. 3) I think there is (or was) a gap in the perception between a computer and a mobile device. Both are computers and as such are both going to cost a lot of money. However, I think many people perceive mobile devices to be inferior. As a result, I think they are much more price sensitive about mobile devices than they are about computers. This is IMHO of course and I also think it is changing quickly. 4) There was a lot more competition among service providers. Unless you used one of the big guys, you wouldn’t be able to buy a subsidized PC at Best Buy.
Personally, I think it is a matter of time before wireless carriers become mostly wireless network providers. They will still provide services in the same way that wireline carriers provide services (through partnering with Yahoo! for example).
However, I am not sure the general market will become as unlocked and free as the desktop market. Computers have become very complex and as a result, finicky and unreliable. I think there may be a lot of value in companies, like Apple, guaranteeing a predictable, consistent level of service on their mobile devices even at the expense of some freedom.
So while the wireless carriers might open up their networks and Android-based devices may become available, it is still possible that the general public might opt for locked-down devices like the iPhone.
Edit: Another thought, municipal WIFI or WiMax could really change the course as well depending on if those services appear and who controls them.
Not quite, Truphone and Skype mobile work, and are available on the android market. Where as a couple of tethering apps, which t-mobile forbids even the company president said it was okay, were banned on the Anderoid Market. Skype mobile, and truphone aren’t true VOIP however.The phone has to dial a relay number. Luckily you can just add skyp or truphone to your myfavs, and get calls to Canada for a penny a minute.
All this means is if you want to use a tethering app you have to download it from a third party source and check “allow 3rd party sources” to install it.
The biggest restriction is carrier OS version doesn’t have root access by default. So if you need root access you have to jailbreak. On the G1 this means installing an older t-mobile signed firmware (RC29) that has a root exploit in it. Then getting root access through the exploit, and flashing a boot loader that will let you install unsigned firmware.
The open source nature of android means there’s a thriving community of 3rd party android firmwares. Also it’s Linux guts open up some cool possibilities. For example it’s possible to compile command line Linux programs to run on android. GUI programs aren’t so easy. Android doesn’t have an X-server which most Linux GUI software is written for.
I’m currently working on trying to get SAMBA, and ctorrent working. It’d be really cool to be able to access the phone’s SD card as a wifi network share, and mount network shares in the G1’s file system so native phone apps can access files on the LAN.
I’ve heard this argument from them before, but I’m not buying it. Why isn’t AT&T DSL or Comcast worried that some misbehaving application on the desktop will flood their network with traffic?
Also, it is very easy for them to address this. If an errant phone starts flooding the network, the base station can easily drop the call (or data connection)
There is nothing to buy. I’m telling you first-hand one of the concerns of a tier 2 carrier, or more specifically the staff that plans their new technology.
Your solution is naive as well. Some (or maybe all) of these wireless carriers do not currently have systems in place to monitor the bandwidth usage of individual phones and then automatically kill their connection. Technologically, it is possible, but it is not in-place.
As to why AT&T and Comcast do not have these same issues, I addressed that in my first post. These are data service providers that built networks from scratch to do complete data routing. They started in the slow dial-up world and moved (slowly) to broadband. As they did so, they grew the network as needed and put the appropriate systems in-place.
Contrast that with wireless providers that built their networks to route voice calls. They squeezed in SMS because it was small and easy. Lately they have been busy building data networks just like AT&T and Comcast did 15 years ago. However, they have the additional challenge that the data network simply cannot interfere with the voice calls. It is a big deal. So while they have the advantage of building their network with the lessons learned from the past, they have a big dis advantage too.
As I said, I think they will eventually migrate to 4G – pure IP on the phone, but it will take a while and it is naive to think they will do it quickly.
Anyway, this isn’t core to your OP. Wireless carriers want to control what apps you run on your device because they can make a lot more money selling them to you.
I believe that that’s what they told you, but I don’t believe it is the real reason why they want to control the apps on your phone.
I’m going to need a cite that wireless carriers “do not currently have systems in place to monitor the bandwidth usage of individual phones and then automatically kill their connection”, and that wireline carriers “currently do have systems in place to monitor the bandwidth usage of individual desktops and then automatically kill their connection”.
If either the former or the latter is not true, then there is not much difference between the two types of networks fearing a user running amok.
I don’t know what AT&T has at the higher layers, but at the physical layer (air interface) they are using UMTS+HSDPA, which means that data gets its own HDSPA code (or codes) while voice calls get their regular circuit-switched UMTS CDMA code.
So, at the physical layer, some user downloading tons and tons of data will simply use up HSDPA codes and will not affect the voice users. And I assume the scheduler at the base station, if it’s worth its salt, will not let one user hog all the HSDPA codes for long.
Basically, I’m not sure how the wireless carriers used to work, but now they should not “fear” errant users.
Yes, but the core of the question remains: Wireline carriers would also like to control what apps you run on your device because they can make a lot more money selling them to you. Why don’t they?
It seems to be more of a perception issue and historical artifact than a real business or technical reason
Today most of the hype and excitement at least in the US is about iPhone applications but smartphone applications existed long before the iPhone and as mentioned earlier platforms like Windows Mobile have been open for years and new platforms like Android are open-source. Even non-smartphones have had access to thousands of Java applications to which AFAIK there are no restrictions. So while in general it is true that wireless systems are more closed than desktop online services the differences are not as stark as you would imagine if you are looking solely at the iPhone.
In the long run I suspect that the open-source model of Android and the upcoming new Symbian OS will be the way to go and attract the most amount of developer interest especially if the iPhone continues without proper multitasking. And unlike the desktop world I think you will see multiple OS's competing with each other; most smartphone applications will remain relatively simple and it won't be difficult to write applications for multiple platforms.
No, that was the reason for this particular carrier. In the end, they investigated and rolled out a few Windows Mobile devices, but it was this fear that slowed down the process.
Polerius, it is your point above that I was refuting. You claimed this was easy for wireless carriers to do. If you want to provide a cite for that, go ahead.
I answered why I don’t think they would subsidize and restrict your desktop. But the idea that wireline carriers want to control and sell you the software that you run on your subsidized computer is not realistic. Mobile software is fairly small and simple and for devices like the iPhone, it is a brand new market. Desktop software is extremely complex and their are a ton of applications out there. No carrier could hope to front-end all of these applications and sell them through their store.
T-mobile I know claims this ability. If you exceed 10 GBs a month they roll you back to EDGE speeds. All I get out here is EDGE anyway so this threat has no teeth for me.
Also you can rack up roaming charges if you use data outside your network. How would they know how much to charge you if they can’t monitor your usage?
What about when mobile Internet was new and they charged per KB? How would they do that if they couldn’t monitor use levels?
Finally if this is such a big threat what’s with the mobile data cards carriers offer? They use the cellular network but plug in into free range laptops. If this is such a big threat why do they offer these cards?