I don't have any figures to back this up, but frankly I would be astonished if it turned out that most people didn't expect 'open' to mean 'not locked down'. T

I don't have any figures to back this up, but frankly I would be astonished if it turned out that most people didn't expect 'open' to mean 'not locked down'. The trick is that Android isn't actually open for all parties concerned, only for the integrator. The integrator may then decide to make the resulting device open, but that is not a foregone conclusion, as proven by some of the devices beginning to appear on the market. But that message isn't what is being marketed - people are being told that Android is 'open', by which they naturally understand that they can do what they want with their device. But in reality, not so much. Anyway, way too many words to say that this is a very ironic result if you don't take care to explicitly define the parties concerned when talking about openness/locked downedness of a device...