The Truth About CityID

[lemcoe9]

Believe it or not, but sometimes you cant have your cake and eat it too.

You do have rights:

a) dont buy the phone in the first place if you disagree with terms of the sale.

b) return the phone and purchase from a vendor who agrees with your beliefs.

c) dont marry a fat girl and then complain she's fat afterwards.

Show me one vendor that let's you 100% completely "own" and absolutely control what goes on the device.

For that matter, show me any device, in general, with a similar offer.

 

[alphanu22]

Show me one vendor that let's you 100% completely "own" and absolutely control what goes on the device.

For that matter, show me any device, in general, with a similar offer.

iPhones

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Show me one vendor that let's you 100% completely "own" and absolutely control what goes on the device.

For that matter, show me any device, in general, with a similar offer.

Buy a unlocked Nokia... I had a N82, N95, E72 that I could do whatever I wanted (at least to my knowledge) ... but I paid over $500 for each phone.

I do believe that if one purchases an unsubsidized phone from the manufacturer, then they should be able to do with it whatever they want ... and thats exactly what I did with ATT and Nokia.

However when I bought a subsidized phone at Verizon I knew exactly what I was in for .... 1) no phone freedom like I had with ATT and Nokia 2) I was signing up with one of the most restrictive cellphone companies on the planet.

BTW.... nobody was holding a gun to my head when I signed my contract.

 

[ottscay]

Believe it or not, but sometimes you cant have your cake and eat it too.

You do have rights/options:

a) dont buy the phone in the first place if you disagree with terms of the sale.

b) return the phone and purchase from a vendor who agrees with your beliefs.

c) dont marry a fat girl and then complain she's fat afterwards.

Um, is that aimed at my post? I know what the ToU says on the contract, and I'm not taking a hardline stance on their ability to install bloatware for marketing purposes. But CityID crosses a line with industry practice. It's not just a shortcut to install their software, and the app doesn't just sit there harmlessly if you choose not to use it. It loads itself into memory and uses compute cycles and drains your battery.

This is a line that shouldn't have been crossed, and consumers should complain.

It doesn't even benefit motorola, as it's not like leaving the program running when it isn't wanted will sell more subscriptions to CityID, and it's neither showing off the X in the best light nor endearing the company to customers.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[moosc]

You don't like bloat crap buy Dev phone. There's apps that start up on MY X all the time. The simple solution Root it its as simple as clicking a button. I bet there are more peeps happy with city Id then those that complain

 

[ottscay]

Well, I've seen a lot more posts complaining about bloatware than happy for it, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal...

The point isn't that CityID is horrible, or that people shouldn't use it if they want to, or even that Verizon shouldn't put it on by default. But if the program is going to be configures to run automatically on your system resources they need to provide a way to uninstall it, or at least turn it off if you choose not to use it.

It would be like Verizon suddenly deciding that they are going to throttle the CPU by 10% so the battery lasts longer with an OTA update...of course the contract gives them the legal right to do it, but customers would rightly raise a ruckus and probably prevent such a situation if they decided one day to try it.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Well, I've seen a lot more posts complaining about bloatware than happy for it, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal...

The point isn't that CityID is horrible, or that people shouldn't use it if they want to, or even that Verizon shouldn't put it on by default. But if the program is going to be configures to run automatically on your system resources they need to provide a way to uninstall it, or at least turn it off if you choose not to use it.

It would be like Verizon suddenly deciding that they are going to throttle the CPU by 10% so the battery lasts longer with an OTA update...of course the contract gives them the legal right to do it, but customers would rightly raise a ruckus and probably prevent such a situation if they decided one day to try it.

Are you 100% that it even matters by the very nature of how the Android OS allocates memory? Android allocates what it needs... I have never used a task killer, my X ran great before I rooted and removed CityID. I removed CityID because I am anal about my apps....

Since I deleted CityID, I have seen no discernable difference in battery life or performance. I am normal user, I am not constantly fiddling with my phone (I have other interests to occupy my time).

I think the CPU/Memory argument is a strawman's argument.... having an icon you dont want to see... that I get. If Android allowed people to hide icons of unused apps (see Blackberry) without rooting the phone, this whole memory/cpu cycle thing would be rendered moot.

 

[ottscay]

Heh, my CityID IS hidden...Launcher Plus FTW!

I realize that the way Android handles memory means that it shouldn't slow the phone down...and what lag there is will probably be alleviated by JiT when 2.2 goes OTA (next Friday???...jk), but it's still sitting there and has to be managed when other stuff could be in there, and holding stuff in RAM still takes energy, even if it's not all that much. If it's really that important to Moto to have the icon in your app drawer even if you don't want the service (and it's a piss-poor understanding of marketing if they think it help them in any way) they should at least let you turn if off so it doesn't go into memory during calls, etc.

At this point I'd be tempted to pay them $2.99 a month to let me take their bloatware off....

 

[Alan B]

... dont marry a fat girl and then complain she's fat afterwards.

If you will permit me to further stretch the metaphor: I can, indeed, marry someone then later decide that their "cute" traits have become annoying after a few months. Complaining about the traits with my buddies doesn't mean I want to divorce her! Jeez.

 

[dmcman73]

It's just like buying a new car that has XM or Sirius installed even if you don't plan on subscribing. Nothing new here. Also, there are many apps preinstalled that I don't use. Hide them.

No where near like that. It would be similar as to you buying a car that came with Sirius or XM and everytime you changed the station on your standard FM/AM radio, a comercial would pop up for Sirius/XM before you can listen to the radio.

I hate the CityID only because I can't remove it. PC manufactures load PC's up with Bloatware all the time BUT you can uninstall all that bloat in a matter of minutes. I don't liek the fact that I purchased my phone outright and still have no real control of it.

 

[dmcman73]

Heh, my CityID IS hidden...Launcher Plus FTW!

I realize that the way Android handles memory means that it shouldn't slow the phone down...and what lag there is will probably be alleviated by JiT when 2.2 goes OTA (next Friday???...jk), but it's still sitting there and has to be managed when other stuff could be in there, and holding stuff in RAM still takes energy, even if it's not all that much. If it's really that important to Moto to have the icon in your app drawer even if you don't want the service (and it's a piss-poor understanding of marketing if they think it help them in any way) they should at least let you turn if off so it doesn't go into memory during calls, etc.

At this point I'd be tempted to pay them $2.99 a month to let me take their bloatware off....

Not only is it taking up resources but it is collecting information from you on each call that comes in.

 

[jamesc]

It's a problem we're all going to be stuck with. As the VZW contract states (and I believe someone pulled the actual quote earlier) VZW reserves the right to change software and updates OTA without your notification. You're options are to then
A) deal with it
B) Root your phone to deal with it
C) Don't buy the phone
D) return the phone since you are in the 30 day window as a droid X user.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

It's a problem we're all going to be stuck with. As the VZW contract states (and I believe someone pulled the actual quote earlier) VZW reserves the right to change software and updates OTA without your notification. You're options are to then
A) deal with it
B) Root your phone to deal with it
C) Don't buy the phone
D) return the phone since you are in the 30 day window as a droid X user.

+1 .........

 

[Alan B]

It's a problem we're all going to be stuck with. As the VZW contract states (and I believe someone pulled the actual quote earlier) VZW reserves the right to change software and updates OTA without your notification. You're options are to then
A) deal with it
B) Root your phone to deal with it
C) Don't buy the phone
D) return the phone since you are in the 30 day window as a droid X user.

Everything isn't black-and-white. It's as if I were to complain about an U.S. policy and be told "If you don't love it, leave it." That is a disingenuous response because it ignores the original argument and places the blame on the person who brought it up.

Your premise seems to be that if we don't like something and can't do anything about it, we should just shut up and take it. Well, I don't want to give up my X because of this, but I do think it is worth discussing anyway.

And, just because VZW claims a right in a contract, doesn't mean I have to approve of the way they exercised that right.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Everything isn't black-and-white. It's as if I were to complain about an U.S. policy and be told "If you don't love it, leave it." That is a disingenuous response because it ignores the original argument and places the blame on the person who brought it up.

Your premise seems to be that if we don't like something and can't do anything about it, we should just shut up and take it. Well, I don't want to give up my X because of this, but I do think it is worth discussing anyway.

And, just because VZW claims a right in a contract, doesn't mean I have to approve of the way they exercised that right.

OK... so you dont approve of it....... now what?

 

[ottscay]

OK... so you dont approve of it....... now what?

Really? Do you really not realize that when enough customers complain companies frequently do something about it? That's the entire point of expressing an opinion as a customer. And while large companies can and do ignore customers, if they do so too frequently or too flagrantly they run the very real risk of losing them.***

Motorola has run this course before already, when their Razr line of phones ceased serving consumer needs and they had nothing else left to offer. They nearly became irrelevant in the cell phone business, and only got to do the phoenix-from-the-ashes routine because they released a very consumer friendly Android phone (the OG Droid) that sold like hotcakes and helped redefine what a smartphone could be.

History can easily repeat itself if they decide they are once again so successful that they can ignore consumer opinion. In fact it's almost a certainty that it will if that attitude becomes further entrenched as time goes on.

Letters to relevant people at Moto and VZ, coverage on the internet, even well-read blogs are all appropriate forms of consumer leverage that have nothing what so ever to do with the ToU or the actual legality of what they are doing. I realize that there were some posts earlier of the "it's mine so I should be able to do what I want" variety that didn't seem to understand that these companies purposely gave themselves legal coverage to do so, but the main thrust of this thread is a discussion of the problem, and it's a perfectly reasonable and legitimate topic. The very act of discussing it in a thread on popular forums furthers the cause by making others aware of the issue, which helps increase the number of consumers relaying their distaste for the action.

Your responses are starting to feel like there is something else driving them. You continue to shoehorn a conversation on customers' disliking of an action from Motorola into a very limited view of tort law. This makes it seem like you either don't understand how consumers and corporations usually solve these conflicts (hint: not in courts!) or else you're intentionally trying to derail the conversation.

***Edit: As a recent and very public example, Blizzard-Activision had made the decision that they were going to force people to use their social-media ID system when individuals left feedback on their forums. The positives were clear...forums like that often are melodramatic and have more trolls than you can shake a ban-stick at, and they thought it would clear up unproductive posts overnight. Yet within a week they reversed their decision due to customer outcry. The company had every legal right to continue with their decision, but reversed it 100% due to consumer pressure. This happens all the time, just not usually in such a public manner.

 

[kilofoxtrot]

Are you really so clueless in how customer opinion works to not realize that when enough customers complain companies frequently do something about it? That's the entire point of expressing an opinion as a customer. And while large companies can and do ignore customers, if they do so too frequently or too flagrantly they run the very real risk of losing them.

Motorola has run this course before already, when their Razr line of phones ceased serving consumer needs and they had nothing else left to offer. They nearly became irrelevant in the cell phone business, and only got to do the phoenix-from-the-ashes routine because they released a very consumer friendly Android phone (the OG Droid) that sold like hotcakes and helped redefine what a smartphone could be.

History can easily repeat itself if they decide they are once again so successful that they can ignore consumer opinion. In fact it's almost a certainty that it will if that attitude becomes further entrenched as time goes on.

Letters to relevant people at Moto and VZ, coverage on the internet, even well-read blogs are all appropriate forms of consumer leverage that have nothing what so ever to do with the ToU or the actual legality of what they are doing. I realize that there were some posts earlier of the "it's mine so I should be able to do what I want" variety that didn't seem to understand that these companies purposely gave themselves legal coverage to do so, but the main thrust of this thread is a discussion of the problem, and it's a perfectly reasonable and legitimate topic. The very act of discussing it in a thread on popular forums furthers the cause by making others aware of the issue, which helps increase the number of consumers relaying their distaste for the action.

Do you have some sort of conflicting interest you'd like to disclose? Because your continued shoe-horning of a conversation on customers' disliking an action from a company into a very limited view of tort law makes it seem like you either don't understand how consumers and corporations usually solve these conflicts (hint: not in courts!) or else you're intentionally trying to derail the conversation.

Listen PAL... there is an inherent difference between entitlement and being displeased about a company's policy or practices. This is what I was trying to convey... but this obviously escapes you.

Most of the rancor in this thread comes from a sense of entitlement, and a complete ignorance of the customer agreement they signed.

As a business owner, if someone comes to me with a complaint based on entitlement, when they are clearly ignorant of their responsibilities and commitments... I take issue with it.

Its a customer I dont need or want.

I must have missed the part in this thread that did not allow dissenting opinions. EXCUSE ME.

 

[Vone]

I think a healthy way to deal with this would be to contact Verizon and voice your concern with their business in a constructive manner (such as one member here did) and see where that goes rather than arguing on a message board that they probably aren't reading anyway.

Or at least that's what I did.

 

[Alan B]

Here is what I'd like to write:

Dear Mr. McAdam,

You may have noticed that I sent you a dictionary you didn't ask for. If you would like to continue using it after your 15 day trial, please just send me your credit card info so I can charge you $2.99/month.

Your options are:
[] Continue your free trial
[] Order now

Whichever you choose, I will continue to email you. After 15 days, I will leave a poster on your office wall to remind you that you can still sign up.

 

[ottscay]

Listen PAL... there is an inherent difference between entitlement and being displeased about a company's policy or practices. This is what I was trying to convey... but this obviously escapes you.

Most of the rancor in this thread comes from a sense of entitlement, and a complete ignorance of the customer agreement they signed.

As a business owner, if someone comes to me with a complaint based on entitlement, when they are clearly ignorant of their responsibilities and commitments... I take issue with it.

Its a customer I dont need or want.

I must have missed the part in this thread that did not allow dissenting opinions. EXCUSE ME.

Not only is disagreement ok, but I've already more than once agreed with you that the feeling that Motorola is somehow violating our rights is not legally correct. But just because you run into that with some of your customers (and having run a business before I know where that comes from) doesn't mean that attempting to exert public pressure on a company is the same thing. Motorola has made a very poor choice, and it deserves to be brought to the attention of them, and other consumers.

Let me back up and say that ot's not just legal but completely understandable why they would want to install bloatware (or better yet app stubs) as a way to either promote their own revenu-generating streams, or as part of an agreement for another company (i.e. Blockbuster or the Amazon Kindle) which also generates revenue. This is further understandable in that switching from another phone to a droid actually can lose them revenue streams, for example people who previously subscribed to VX Navigator for $12.00 a month now can use the vastly superior Google Maps for free.

I have no problem with them conducting good business, but as soon as they make the apps permanent they start to cross an ethical line, even if not a legal one. Consumers almost never decide to switch to an app months later just because it's on their phone, if they don't subscribe in the first couple days they probably aren't going to. Also, it annoys customers and creates a lower regard for the company and/or the advertised product when it can't be removed, which actually makes it counter productive to good business.

Now with CityID (and the backup service) they have gone one step further and not just installed permanent bloatware, but they have installed permanent bloatware that starts itself up automatically, consumes system resources against the users will, and collects information on the users, even if they don't want the service. That's several steps beyond what has so far been industry practice, and is downright unethical in my eyes, and clearly those of a lot of other people.

Now, if you really think that signing a contract (as if there's another distribution channel for most of these phones) means that consumers need to bend over and take any practice, no matter how distasteful, then that's fine and you're welcome to express it. But if you are going to continue to derail the thread by simply repeating that people have no legal recourse (which is true enough) and therefore we should all just drop it, then you probably should prepare yourself to defend such an anti-consumer viewpoint.