3 ms·
"The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :)." Again, it's simply not
by DannyBee 8y ago
"The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :)."
Again, it's simply not. You are confusing having access to source with being open source. The partner were happy with closed source.
They did care somewhat that they had source. They definitely did not care if anyone else did, and didn't want anyone else to.
"If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution."
I literally was in the room, so i don't need the book :)
- close04 8y agoTake it up with Rubin. He seems to have had a different understanding. And he was the one negotiating with carriers for a long time. And while I wasn't "in the room", Rubin said it himself in multiple interviews: he wanted to make an open source OS, not with access to source in order to appeal to exactly what the carriers wanted. In fact every time Rubin talked about this he referred to Android as it was since its phone OS inception as open. It's always "his idea to create an open source OS for phones". I'll just assume that one of you is embellishing his story. And in all honesty it could be either way, founder stories tend to get beautified over time.
- tptacek 8y agoYou're not even rebutting him. He didn't say Rubin didn't want Android to be open source. He said Rubin's reasons for supporting open source were not the ones people attribute to him; that open sourcing Android had nothing to do with penetration among hardware vendors, who did not want Android to be open source.