4 ms·

I don't understand these "Google Android is not open" arguments. Can you go to http://source.apple.com/ http://source.apple.com/ and download iOS 1.0? No. Can y

I don't understand these "Google Android is not open" arguments. Can you go to http://source.apple.com/ http://source.apple.com/ and download iOS 1.0? No. Can you go to http://source.blackberry.com/ http://source.blackberry.com/ and download their OS? No. Sure, Honeycomb isn't coming out right this very moment, but at least there's something there. By any definition Google is at least several orders of magnitude more "open" than Apple. Apple releases no source (other than what is required of them, and only after a few weeks or months). Google releases all source (sure, after a few weeks or months).

sudont 16y ago
http://www.opensource.apple.com/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/ Your link was wrong.
- stitchy 16y ago
  That doesn't make his statement any less true. The link you provided only covers open source software that Apple included in their OS, and doesn't come close to including all iOS source code.
  - headhuntermdk 16y ago
    Apple doesn't claim to be open.. Google does
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Agreed. The argument is a straw man. Even taking the (flawed) premise at face value, there is still a mile of difference between Apple's walled garden for apps and other content, versus the Android ecosystem.
- jad 16y ago
  It's my impression that Google itself made Android's openness part of their marketing pitch. Then of course there's Andy Rubin's famous tweet: https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 If they're going to make openness an issue, it seems like it's fair to criticize them if they fail to live up to their (implied?) promises.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    You're playing on two different meanings of the term "open". Because Android might not qualify as OSS, they create the implication that it's just as tightly controlled as Apple's walled garden. But that's not even close to true. The point of the OP's argument seems to be something like "Apple isn't open, and now this proves that Android isn't open either; hence, Apple and Android are the same in this respect". This argument is fallacious.
rimantas 16y ago
> I don't understand these "Google Android is not open" > arguments. Can you go to http://source.apple.com/ and > download iOS 1.0? What iOS has to do with it? Did Apple ever claim or market iOS as being open source? Can you go to source.google.com and download Honeycomb source?
kmfrk 16y ago
Translation: "Android is open*".
gamble 16y ago
Apple doesn't hammer its competitors over the head with moralistic claims about how 'open' they are. Google does. However, I will point out that some of Apple's open-source work (Webkit) is far more widely used than anything Google has done with Android.
- grammaton 16y ago
  You do realize that Android's browser is built on webkit, yes?
  - tvon 16y ago
    I'd think that would strengthen the point. That said, I'm sure you could argue over who gets to claim WebKit as their own these days since I've seen a few people refer to it as "Google's WebKit" since they surpassed Apple in checkins at some point (or had for a month at least, it's not something I care to follow that closely).
    - grammaton 16y ago
      The fact that Google does more work on it would tend to weaken the point. Also, the fact that Google is using Apple's software tends to undermine the Team A vs Team B regime that's the premise of most of these discussions.
  - gamble 16y ago
    That would be my point. Practically all post-2007 phones and tablets depend on Apple's open-source work. It's easily the most important application on mobile devices. Had Apple decided to roll their own proprietary browser instead of extending an open-source project, they would have a far bigger lead over the competition. And they did it without a lot of crowing about how moral it made them.

sudont 16y ago

http://www.opensource.apple.com/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/ Your link was wrong.

stitchy 16y ago
That doesn't make his statement any less true. The link you provided only covers open source software that Apple included in their OS, and doesn't come close to including all iOS source code.
- headhuntermdk 16y ago
  Apple doesn't claim to be open.. Google does

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Agreed. The argument is a straw man. Even taking the (flawed) premise at face value, there is still a mile of difference between Apple's walled garden for apps and other content, versus the Android ecosystem.

jad 16y ago
It's my impression that Google itself made Android's openness part of their marketing pitch. Then of course there's Andy Rubin's famous tweet: https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 If they're going to make openness an issue, it seems like it's fair to criticize them if they fail to live up to their (implied?) promises.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  You're playing on two different meanings of the term "open". Because Android might not qualify as OSS, they create the implication that it's just as tightly controlled as Apple's walled garden. But that's not even close to true. The point of the OP's argument seems to be something like "Apple isn't open, and now this proves that Android isn't open either; hence, Apple and Android are the same in this respect". This argument is fallacious.

rimantas 16y ago

> I don't understand these "Google Android is not open" > arguments. Can you go to http://source.apple.com/ and > download iOS 1.0? What iOS has to do with it? Did Apple ever claim or market iOS as being open source? Can you go to source.google.com and download Honeycomb source?

kmfrk 16y ago

Translation: "Android is open*".

gamble 16y ago

Apple doesn't hammer its competitors over the head with moralistic claims about how 'open' they are. Google does. However, I will point out that some of Apple's open-source work (Webkit) is far more widely used than anything Google has done with Android.

grammaton 16y ago
You do realize that Android's browser is built on webkit, yes?
- tvon 16y ago
  I'd think that would strengthen the point. That said, I'm sure you could argue over who gets to claim WebKit as their own these days since I've seen a few people refer to it as "Google's WebKit" since they surpassed Apple in checkins at some point (or had for a month at least, it's not something I care to follow that closely).
  - grammaton 16y ago
    The fact that Google does more work on it would tend to weaken the point. Also, the fact that Google is using Apple's software tends to undermine the Team A vs Team B regime that's the premise of most of these discussions.
- gamble 16y ago
  That would be my point. Practically all post-2007 phones and tablets depend on Apple's open-source work. It's easily the most important application on mobile devices. Had Apple decided to roll their own proprietary browser instead of extending an open-source project, they would have a far bigger lead over the competition. And they did it without a lot of crowing about how moral it made them.