4 ms·

To me, 'Open' is not the same as just 'Open Source'. I'm not really that interested in whether Android is open source or not. What I am interested in is whethe

To me, 'Open' is not the same as just 'Open Source'. I'm not really that interested in whether Android is open source or not. What I am interested in is whether the device lets me do what I want - that is, it allows me to download and install whatever software I choose to, in what manner I want. Android lets me do this. That is why Android is 'Open'. Whilst I understand for most consumers this is not an issue, and I have no qualms with people who go along with that, for me personally as a programmer, I will not buy any other smartphone platform if it does not afford me that same liberty.

billybob 16y ago
To a large extent, the two go hand-in-hand. A closed-source platform may give you a lot of freedom to customize things, but what it doesn't give you, you can't have. On an open platform, you can do anything. It's the difference between "most of the doors are unlocked here" vs "if you want a new door, here's a blueprint and a chainsaw."
ZoFreX 16y ago
How is Android open under your definition? My phone has a locked-down bootloader that will only load an OS that has been signed by Motorola, I can't get root, I can't flash it, and I can't upgrade to the latest version of Android. Right now I'm feeling pretty closed.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- orangecat 16y ago
  If you care about that, you shouldn't have bought from Motorola. Linux isn't non-open because of the existence of Tivos.
- joebadmo 16y ago
  Google's position on this has always been that they're open to the carriers/manufacturers doing whatever they want with the software, and when they do something bad, well, people do bad things sometimes. I find it amusing that when Google is open to carriers/manufacturers doing whatever they want, people (usually non-android users, though you're an exception here) complain about how they're not open, and when Google tries to take more control of the development process to protect the user experience, people (again, usually same non-android users) complain about the same thing. That said, I think Google could definitely do things better. I, for one, wish Google would exercise their "Google Experience" branding to enforce unlocked boot loaders and root access. On the issue of open sourcing Honeycomb, I could really care less. On the spectrum of closed to open, they're way farther on the open side than anyone else in the industry so I don't find it hypocritical at all for them to claim to be open. (NB: I also own a Motorola device with a locked boot loader. I was very surprised and delighted by how much the devs were still able to do, but I definitely wish I could get some custom kernels installed.)
- NickPollard 16y ago
  But that is your phone that is closed, not the OS. I don't like what the carriers and manufacturers tend to do with Android and I wish it would change. In the meantime I'll stick with my Nexus One.
jimfl 16y ago
You can't do whatever you want with a device that is connected to a cellular network of any sort.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

billybob 16y ago

To a large extent, the two go hand-in-hand. A closed-source platform may give you a lot of freedom to customize things, but what it doesn't give you, you can't have. On an open platform, you can do anything. It's the difference between "most of the doors are unlocked here" vs "if you want a new door, here's a blueprint and a chainsaw."

ZoFreX 16y ago

How is Android open under your definition? My phone has a locked-down bootloader that will only load an OS that has been signed by Motorola, I can't get root, I can't flash it, and I can't upgrade to the latest version of Android. Right now I'm feeling pretty closed.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
orangecat 16y ago
If you care about that, you shouldn't have bought from Motorola. Linux isn't non-open because of the existence of Tivos.
joebadmo 16y ago
Google's position on this has always been that they're open to the carriers/manufacturers doing whatever they want with the software, and when they do something bad, well, people do bad things sometimes. I find it amusing that when Google is open to carriers/manufacturers doing whatever they want, people (usually non-android users, though you're an exception here) complain about how they're not open, and when Google tries to take more control of the development process to protect the user experience, people (again, usually same non-android users) complain about the same thing. That said, I think Google could definitely do things better. I, for one, wish Google would exercise their "Google Experience" branding to enforce unlocked boot loaders and root access. On the issue of open sourcing Honeycomb, I could really care less. On the spectrum of closed to open, they're way farther on the open side than anyone else in the industry so I don't find it hypocritical at all for them to claim to be open. (NB: I also own a Motorola device with a locked boot loader. I was very surprised and delighted by how much the devs were still able to do, but I definitely wish I could get some custom kernels installed.)
NickPollard 16y ago
But that is your phone that is closed, not the OS. I don't like what the carriers and manufacturers tend to do with Android and I wish it would change. In the meantime I'll stick with my Nexus One.

jimfl 16y ago

You can't do whatever you want with a device that is connected to a cellular network of any sort.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]