Dear Google,
I love your android operating system, but I have one, very serious, very important suggestion.
Not to assume I know any way to implement what I'm suggesting, or if it's even possible. Not at all. Nor would I suggest that Android is not the best mobile OS I've ever seen; I would never do such a thing.
In fact, Android is so good, that I'm already planning my next-new phone purchase, and limiting myself only to Androids. I've thoroughly enjoyed the system and will continue to do so.
Finally, before I get to my point, I'd like to say that I know you don't control the app community, you merely facilitate it, which is fine! We appreciate the centralized distribution of apps. It's great in fact, simply wonderful, that even someone programming Java out of their basement can put out something simple and entertaining.
My suggestion is: make application permissions variable. 90% of the time, 90% of permissions are not necessary. Prime example, why does an application like slice it (I've been picking on them) require GPS? If I put my phone into "airplane" mode, I'm sure the app will function just fine, without GPS or network access. Obviously some applications will simply fail if they don't, like Google Maps. This is why I would recommend to give the control back to the users. Rather than have it setup where you either accept whatever permissions they're requesting of you, or don't use the application, you can still install/use an application and deny it access to something like, your phone book, text messaging, phone ID, GPS and network location services, SD Card access, etc.
I don't believe it would be difficult to do, and you could even have it default to whatever permissions the application requests... maybe add a "change allowed permissions" type feature to the bottom of the market page when you go to install a new application.
I think all consumers understand that if you want to do geotagging on your facebook photos, you'll need to give the facebook for android application permission to read GPS, access the internet, and permission to use the camera. I think we get that.
As I'm sure you'll be ignoring our cries again, I'm sure this is all just wasted breath.
Some flexability would be nice though.
Try not to turn into Apple.
Thanks.
Bye.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Usage Based Billing
I had a few thoughts that I originally posted elsewhere and thought it would be a good addition here too.
I havn't updated in a while and this is relevant.
Canada has been undergoing some changes in the form of Usage Based Billing, aka, use more internet, pay more...
ON THE SURFACE, aka a consumer view, it's completely unfair to charge someone for a service they've been getting. eg, 200GB, or an Unlimited cap, etc.
but the reality of the situation, that most people don't know/understand, is that UBB has existed for a long time, not just on the client side. It's actually fairly standard practice in the business internet sector to always provide the fastest links possible and just charge for usage. This is mainly due to, when you need the data, you need it now, not 50 minutes from now, so transferring it as fast as possible increases productivity, but normally, you'll have to transfer that much data regardless.
In Hamilton, Burlington, and the west-side of the GTA, give Atria networks (formerly fibrewired) a call and ask them about their billing. Atria is the fiber provider that used to be part of the hydro-electric company, they're geared towards extreme high-speed (typically business) applications. I'm sure they'll have a flat fee for hookup and a set usage that they don't bill for, but after the usage "cap" you're paying by the GB.
Since Consumer based usage is on so much of a dramatic increase, with youtube, netflix, torrents and other peer-to-peer sharing becoming even more popular as we fill up the IPv4, it used to make sense to give out unlimited, since most customers would not use a lot of it, and they wouldn't really notice, and/or care that their super fast connection wasn't really being used.... while others would use it to an extreme level, everything used to balance out. Now, the usage has gone up so much that they're losing a lot of profit because of the bandwidth fees that the ISPs are incurring due to high usage from their customers and the smaller ISPs.
All this aside, I don't fully agree nor disagree with UBB (I disagree for obvious reasons, so I'll only discuss what I agree with). UBB would be written into the service agreement between (for example), bell and teksavvy. each would have to sign it saying that for service X from bell, that teksavvy will contribute X to bell (where the latter "X" here would usually be money). THAT agreement should either include or not include UBB. if it does not, and bell applies it to the agreement without first re-negotiating with Teksavvy, then bell should be taken to court for breach of contract. This goes double for Bell's capping of "GAS" customer's p2p traffic. If they want to do it to their own customers, fine, but if those customers switch to Teksavvy, then Teksavvy should have a contract stating that they shouldn't be capped like they would be on Bell.
The distribution network is OWNED by Bell here, and as their property, they can police it as they wish. To me, this is no different than hiring security guards to keep your property safe. You set the rules and policies that the guards have to abide, then send them out to protect the land. If anyone trespasses or breaks some arbitrary rule that you've set fourth, then the guards should spring into action, protecting your land from usage other than what you permit.
The dilemma I have with this is that the lines used for the DSL distribution network that Bell is policing, is public property, has been for quite some time. This is why we have choices when it comes to home phones... The switched network is public, bell just maintains it. They established it, they know everything about it, so that just makes sense.
With your Cable providers, whether it's Rogers, Cogeco, or otherwise, they own the cable lines into your house, so they can regulate what goes on there too. AFAIK, those are NOT public property, so we're all focused on bell, rather than rogers or cogeco.
In the end I'm torn, because all of this makes sense, but I hate UBB just like everyone else. But I can't deny the fact that I can see both sides of this argument. I really hope UBB is regulated, because the current laws allow for the consumer, who doesn't have many good options, to be completely ripped off by the companies that provide internet. I can understand UBB, but at a reasonable level. Teksavvy had some overly generous levels, but they were better than overly restrictive (as bell has).
I havn't updated in a while and this is relevant.
Canada has been undergoing some changes in the form of Usage Based Billing, aka, use more internet, pay more...
ON THE SURFACE, aka a consumer view, it's completely unfair to charge someone for a service they've been getting. eg, 200GB, or an Unlimited cap, etc.
but the reality of the situation, that most people don't know/understand, is that UBB has existed for a long time, not just on the client side. It's actually fairly standard practice in the business internet sector to always provide the fastest links possible and just charge for usage. This is mainly due to, when you need the data, you need it now, not 50 minutes from now, so transferring it as fast as possible increases productivity, but normally, you'll have to transfer that much data regardless.
In Hamilton, Burlington, and the west-side of the GTA, give Atria networks (formerly fibrewired) a call and ask them about their billing. Atria is the fiber provider that used to be part of the hydro-electric company, they're geared towards extreme high-speed (typically business) applications. I'm sure they'll have a flat fee for hookup and a set usage that they don't bill for, but after the usage "cap" you're paying by the GB.
Since Consumer based usage is on so much of a dramatic increase, with youtube, netflix, torrents and other peer-to-peer sharing becoming even more popular as we fill up the IPv4, it used to make sense to give out unlimited, since most customers would not use a lot of it, and they wouldn't really notice, and/or care that their super fast connection wasn't really being used.... while others would use it to an extreme level, everything used to balance out. Now, the usage has gone up so much that they're losing a lot of profit because of the bandwidth fees that the ISPs are incurring due to high usage from their customers and the smaller ISPs.
All this aside, I don't fully agree nor disagree with UBB (I disagree for obvious reasons, so I'll only discuss what I agree with). UBB would be written into the service agreement between (for example), bell and teksavvy. each would have to sign it saying that for service X from bell, that teksavvy will contribute X to bell (where the latter "X" here would usually be money). THAT agreement should either include or not include UBB. if it does not, and bell applies it to the agreement without first re-negotiating with Teksavvy, then bell should be taken to court for breach of contract. This goes double for Bell's capping of "GAS" customer's p2p traffic. If they want to do it to their own customers, fine, but if those customers switch to Teksavvy, then Teksavvy should have a contract stating that they shouldn't be capped like they would be on Bell.
The distribution network is OWNED by Bell here, and as their property, they can police it as they wish. To me, this is no different than hiring security guards to keep your property safe. You set the rules and policies that the guards have to abide, then send them out to protect the land. If anyone trespasses or breaks some arbitrary rule that you've set fourth, then the guards should spring into action, protecting your land from usage other than what you permit.
The dilemma I have with this is that the lines used for the DSL distribution network that Bell is policing, is public property, has been for quite some time. This is why we have choices when it comes to home phones... The switched network is public, bell just maintains it. They established it, they know everything about it, so that just makes sense.
With your Cable providers, whether it's Rogers, Cogeco, or otherwise, they own the cable lines into your house, so they can regulate what goes on there too. AFAIK, those are NOT public property, so we're all focused on bell, rather than rogers or cogeco.
In the end I'm torn, because all of this makes sense, but I hate UBB just like everyone else. But I can't deny the fact that I can see both sides of this argument. I really hope UBB is regulated, because the current laws allow for the consumer, who doesn't have many good options, to be completely ripped off by the companies that provide internet. I can understand UBB, but at a reasonable level. Teksavvy had some overly generous levels, but they were better than overly restrictive (as bell has).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)