I am in the process of collecting ideas from the community on one
"simple" question:

What are the *business reasons* why a device manufacturer should allow
replacement firmware and/or root access by default on devices?

The full post, along with some existing feedback, can be found here:

http://www.androidguys.com/2010/03/03/reasons-root

If you would like to provide input and would prefer to reply to this
message rather than comment on the AndroidGuys post itself, cool! Here
is what I am looking for (again, more details on that post):

-- I want business and economic arguments, not moral or ethical ones,
since we're long on the moral/ethical reasons and short on the business ones

-- Act like professionals

-- That being said, both carrots and sticks are valid suggestions

-- Do not overestimate the size of the current modding community

I will be rolling up the ideas into a follow-up post, and I hope to put
these ideas to good use in the weeks and months to come.

Thanks!

--
Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
http://commonsware.com | http://twitter.com/commonsguy

Android Online Training: 26-30 April 2010: http://onlc.com

I'll try to read your full post later.

I'm an Electrical and Software Engineer, my quick thoughts for *my* choice
on phones (and operating systems and computers and game consoles and
anything I can find choices on) runs like this:
- I want something that works well
- I want something that is upgradeable
- I want something that is open source
- I want something I can play with and change and learn from and make better
- I would prefer something with a decent, friendly, good sized development
community
- I want something at a reasonable price

So, since we are talking about phones, this means *I* thought like this:
- Windows phone: don't like the OS, don't like the way it "feels" to use it,
its closed source, etc.
- Apple phone: like the OS, its expensive, "feels" ok, its closed source,
hard to modify, pretty locked down, etc.
- RIM phone: don't like the OS, don't like the way it "feels", its closed
source, pretty locked down, etc.
- Nokia phone: OS is so-so, "feel" is so-so, until recently was closed
source
- Android phone: OS is pretty nice, "feel" is ok, mostly open source, good
development community, hardware is pretty open, etc.

I *almost* bought an iphone a few years ago when my Treo 650 was failing,
but luckily I waited for android and I like my Nexus and everything I can do
with it without any more hoop jumping than for any other device I currently
know about.

So, if companies want to sell me things and earn my business they sell me
phones, computers and consoles at a reasonable price compared to other
offerings, running Linux or similar OS, easily modifiable hardware (cards,
batteries, accessories, etc) and not "locked".

Do I represent a large percent of consumers?  I don't know.
Is this percentage of consumers that want choice and control growing?  I
think so.

One great business reason is to stand out from the crowd, there are
lots of Android phones to choose from and lots of power users who
enjoy flashing their own roms and what not, so it could be a good
selling point to those users.

Perhaps a phone company wanting to take a risk and be different could
offer a variety of approved roms to choose from and allow users to
install them.  Guess that doesn't specifically mean they have to have
root though.

I guess I would have to ask the question, why not sell the phone with
root permissions.  I see why Archos doesn't want you to have root,
because they want you to cough up the extra 40 bucks to install HD
audio playback.  But I guess all it really boils down to is does the
company want to allow power users more freedom.  It shouldn't make a
difference to the average joe consumer, and having root heightens the
risk for malware/viruses.  It is a slipperly slope Mark.

On Mar 3, 1:02 pm, Mike Kedl <mike.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

I think that the main reason why a device maker should allow an easy
replacement of the ROM is the generic and classical  "meet the users'
expectations" .

One of the selling point of the Android platform is the idea of having an
"open" operating system of mobile phones/devices . This means that many
users expect to be able to easily do upgrades, tweak the device, etc.  This
expectation is even greater for early adopters. And this expectation implies
having a "rooted" device.

So, given this kind of user expectations,  it is smarter for a manufacturer
to have an open attitude (allow non-standard rom updates,  involve the
community into developing the Android shipped with their device, etc... ) so
that the users can easily install various OS versions and applications that
require root permission.
If the user experience regarding upgrading the OS is nice,  at some point
the customer will reach the hardware limits and will be tempted to buy a new
more powerful phone so that he can enjoy the latest Android version.

In contrast, if the manufacturer wants full control over the OS installed on
their device and fail to provide the upgrades ON  TIME  they will only get
frustrated customers. Especially when the manufacturer is not capable to
provide the proper OS upgrades....

In my short experience the process of upgrading was a total mess :
Vodafone-branded HTC Magic, shipped with 1.5.  I wanted to try some
applications (AndNav2) that require 1.6.  HTC does not provide upgrades for
the carrier-branded phones.  And in my country Vodafone has absolutely no
intentions of providing those on-the-air upgrades:  there are people who
actually called the customer support and the vodafone staff had no idea
about the topic. So I was forced to read countless forum posts in order to
learn how to install a modified recovery that allows the installation if a
newer ROM.  First i tried a Cyanogen ROM that didn't work well (applications
crashing all the time). Now I'm running an AmonRa ROM that is ok.

This kind of upgrade problems are inacceptable. And the root of the problem
is that the manufacturers/carriers don't seem to understand the importance
of letting the users be able to use the full potential of the (expensive)
devices that they've purchased.

Seriously,  would anyone buy a PC if the manufacturer said  "this computer
works only with a Windows NT customized  by us especially for this PC. You
will not have administrator rights. The computer is locked and you, the
customer, cannot install any other OS.  In future we might provide free
upgrades. Or not.  But we'll probably produce exciting new models that will
include the coolest Windows version available at that moment."  ?

For a simple phone noone thinks about firmware upgrades or installing fancy
applications. The manufacturers are probably too used to this context. But
the smartphones are a different kind of beasts : these devices are in fact
computers with small touch screens. And it's not feasible to expect that the
users will be happy with rotting with whichever ancient OS version the
manufacturer cares to ship the device.

--
Adrian M.

I would actually argue that allowing power users to have root
ultimately makes for a more secure application platform.  Its pretty
much inevitable that it will happen eventually by one means or
another, but making it available up front ensures that anyone who
*really* needs security takes the fact that the device cannot be
trusted to enforce anything into account from the start of their
application design.  This is much better than believing it will
prevent access to certain directories and finding out once nieve
developer's mission critical client server app is deployed that it
doesnt.

Incidentally, in this age of early termination fees, I cant see the
point in sim locking.