Android is still much more open than Apple. A developer can actually view the Android source code, you can deploy an application to a device without Google's permission, you can access much more of the OS features from Android than with the iPhone.
The only people this limits "openness" for is device manufactures, which most developers would probably consider a good thing.
Instead of being an open platform, we're apparently devolving into specifying particular degrees of openness. If you want to play that game, the Darwin operating system that provides the foundation of iOS is also open source, and it doesn't require a license to use or approval from Apple over modifications.
> A developer can actually view the Android source code
No, Google is withholding Honeycomb's source code for the indefinite future--unless you're lucky enough to be one of Google's privileged partners.
Your post is another example of the justifications we often see from Android supporters for behaviors that Apple has been criticized for in the past, such as withholding source code and holding final approval over third-party development. Google declared pretty loudly that Android exists to prevent a "draconian future" of strict control. However, Google is now exerting aspects of that control.
The problem is that I want my OS to be open to me, so that I can do with it as I choose. If you give that openness to the person above me who sells me my phone, they're just going to use it to take away my freedoms with the OS, like we've seen Verizon doing for years now. I want it, and if I have to take it from Verizon, then fine, I don't care about conforming to some FOSS ideal.
Which is great, right up until Google decide that the latest version which was on the new phone you just bought isn't going to be made available for the foreseeable future.
The issue is surely that something is open or it isn't? The minute that Google start closing off or controlling bits of it, don't you have to ask yourself whether the thing you care about is next and therefore whether it's actually open or just probably open?
And for me probably open isn't really open enough.
I can only hope you are serious - it's still way more Open than Apple, however you can't have it all - no fragmentation, no carrier "crapware" and full openness. So they seem to be doing the next best - if you are Google partner you will get to ship Google Apps, but you would have to agree to reasonable terms that help control fragmentation or UI variances etc. If you are not - then take the open code (it might be released later than you like but still) and do whatever you want with it, just don't say "Google" anywhere.
And as a user - you can still buy handsets that allow you to use Amazon appstore or side load apps. So yeah in the spirit of everything being relative - it is still far more open - just enough to be not a detriment.
I beg to differ. We could have it all if it was really an open source project.
The community would be able to make it into something great - not just by making apps. If it was great, it would be desireable. Carriers probably wouldn't like it, but Google could commission open hardware just as they have done already, and demand would cause other hardware makers to follow suit.
Google's intent behind Android is to put them in control, and they aren't afraid to say so.
No, you can't have it all, but that's the point. Google rode the "openness" train to gain philosophical support for Android from the open source community, even though critics pointed out that Apple's strict control has a reason. Now that Google has established a beachhead, they're exerting a kind of control over the platform that goes against the principles they originally espoused and ultimately justifies the very reasoning from Apple that Google and its supporters publicly antagonized for being a "draconian future."
Furthermore, Honeycomb's source is being withheld, allegedly for quality control reasons. However, Google's privileged partners are allowed access, which means they can start work on Honeycomb products earlier than those without access. That's not an open platform. That's an insular platform of privileged access.
The article also states that Google is requiring licensees to agree to clauses that give Google final approval over changes to the operating system. The implication is that if you make changes Google doesn't like, your Android license is at risk. This is supposed to be an open platform with which you are free to do what you want, not some Google platform.
Most troubling is the claim that Google is obstructing phones which use Bing. Bing is a Google rival. With Google having the power of final approval, holding up a Bing-using phone reveals the motives behind the Android platform. An Android phone modified to interface with Bing directly affects Google's bottom line. If Android is an open platform, it shouldn't matter if a device manufacturer chooses to go with Bing over Google. But apparently, it does matter to Google.
Google has exploited the positive feelings of the phrase "open source" for years. The point behind their free services has always been to support the closed source, proprietary search and advertising platform that makes them their money. Now, cracks are beginning to show as their genuine motives begin to influence their public behavior, revealing that Google is just another capitalist. I don't have a problem with that, but the open source community that Google has wooed and relied on for buzz over the years might.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Even after the control that Google is "allegedly" trying to exert over Android, it still remains a more open platform than iOS.
Are you advocating 100% Open as in Utopia OR Totally Closed like Apple? I don't see how that makes sense. More open is better even if it is not 100%.
