Commercial / 電視廣告:
Introduction / 產品使用講解:
其實遠傳這一支 Z1 除了沒 Google 服務軟體以及 UI 有客製化佈景主題之外，骨子裡還是一支 Android 1.5 (Cupcake) 的手機。要跑 Android 程式還是可以的，如果不透過遠傳 S 市集的話，應該還是可以透過 USB 連線或是網頁上下載 APK 檔案到手機內的方式安裝軟體的。只是這樣的安裝方式對使用者來說不方便性比較高。
一般使用 Android Type 1 授權的手機目的就是要低價位，不過個人感覺遠傳似乎想透過提供自有的 S 市集來提供軟體以走中價位的策略。這其實無可厚非。手機上不提供 Android Market 只提供 S 市集對遠傳來說是有好處的，因為從軟體發佈到傳輸通信費都可以自己一把抓，也不用付 Google 權利金，對岸中國移動也是這樣搞的。唯一目前對遠傳比較不利的是 S 市集東西還不多，只是這個可以慢慢培養本地的開發社群和邀請國外軟體商開發中文軟體來著手，或許這是為何遠傳這麼積極和政府單位合辦程式競賽和在 S 市集網站上鼓勵程式開發者送交程式給他們的原因。目前也的確看到國內外都有廠商已經在 S 市集上提供軟體了 (雖然不多)。
Android 手機沒了 Google 服務軟體會影響到的是手機上聯絡人/郵件/行事曆的資訊。因為一般 Android 手機的相關資訊是存在 Google 帳號內的，沒了 Google 服務軟體就不能讓手機上的聯絡人/郵件/行事曆軟體跟 Google 帳號更新資訊，而只能像一般手機一樣只將資料存在手機上。或許這是遠傳在手機內提供第三方 RoadSync 軟體的原因，因為 RoadSync 是和 MS Exchange 帳號做綁定，除了更新聯絡人的資訊，也能用 Push Mail 的形式來接收使用者的 MS Exchange 郵件，還能跟 MS Exchange 上的行事曆做連動更新。只是，一般消費者比較少有 MS Exchange 帳號，有這種帳號的大多是商務型使用者，在使用上和 Google 帳號比起來比較沒那麼普遍。我想這應該是遠傳目前能找到還算可以的解決方案了。
整個看起來其實遠傳推的 Z1 還是有他的賣點，算是走和目前中華電信以及台灣大哥大不同的路。只是這個沒了 Google 服務但是有替代方案的手機是不是還能吸引大家去購買，其實是一個可以觀察而且有趣的題目，個人是還蠻拭目以待的。:)
2009年10月20日 星期二
2009年10月3日 星期六
My opinion on the Google Cease-and-Desist letter
Recently people are discussing about the Google CnD letter sent to Cyanogen to stop the distribution of Google closed-source apps. The reason most people who do not agree with Google is that Cyanogen only made Android ROMs for Google Experience Phone (GEP), which already have Google closed-source apps in it. However, I have a different view on this.
First, I think no matter Google closed-source apps (like Android Market or Gmail) or open-source projects (like Android), they are all originally developed (and owned) by Google. Google just choose to release Android in Apache License so people can use (and modify) them to have a better platform. However, Google did not choice to release Android Market / Gmail as open-source apps so they still have the rights for these apps to decide who can use (and redistribute) them.
Second, GEP does have Google closed-source apps in it. However, the manufacturer of GEP have got the license from Google to distribute the Google closed-source apps, but Cyanogen does not. And to say the Cyanogen ROMs are only made for GEP is non-sense because it only happen in good-will. Any hackers can get the Google closed-source apps from the ROM to redistribute them again. If that happens (and do happened), then it harms the rights that Google has. If Cyanogen has made some closed-source apps by himself and put them in his Android ROMs to redistribute, I would not say it's not right and will be happy to see this because he is the owner of the apps and his decision might benefit people who have the ROM. But if he puts some apps that are not made by himself into his ROM and does not have the agreement to authorize such things, then I cannot see why it's wrong for Google to send the CnD letter.
I still don't understand why people are still arguing on this. Is it not so simple?
First, I think no matter Google closed-source apps (like Android Market or Gmail) or open-source projects (like Android), they are all originally developed (and owned) by Google. Google just choose to release Android in Apache License so people can use (and modify) them to have a better platform. However, Google did not choice to release Android Market / Gmail as open-source apps so they still have the rights for these apps to decide who can use (and redistribute) them.
Second, GEP does have Google closed-source apps in it. However, the manufacturer of GEP have got the license from Google to distribute the Google closed-source apps, but Cyanogen does not. And to say the Cyanogen ROMs are only made for GEP is non-sense because it only happen in good-will. Any hackers can get the Google closed-source apps from the ROM to redistribute them again. If that happens (and do happened), then it harms the rights that Google has. If Cyanogen has made some closed-source apps by himself and put them in his Android ROMs to redistribute, I would not say it's not right and will be happy to see this because he is the owner of the apps and his decision might benefit people who have the ROM. But if he puts some apps that are not made by himself into his ROM and does not have the agreement to authorize such things, then I cannot see why it's wrong for Google to send the CnD letter.
I still don't understand why people are still arguing on this. Is it not so simple?
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)