8 ms·

John Gruber’s hypocritical and off-base Google attack

70 points by apress 16y ago

rbarooah 16y ago
"We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open." How is Google not restricting or controlling* the innovations of other industry players? http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/
joebadmo 16y ago
I think the most annoying thing about Gruber is that he mixes fantastic insights with near-propaganda. He's also got a razor-honed voice. Generally I tend to pay close attention to him when he writes about Apple products, eco-system, and culture, and ignore him when he writes about anything else, especially Google or Android.
mellis 16y ago
Openness is indeed a continuum and different degrees of it make sense for different people and different situations. The problems arise when you claim to be more open than you are or become less open than you were. Apple is clear that it offers proprietary platforms; Google claims Android is open but isn't acting accordingly.
- nextparadigms 16y ago
  It's not so clear on Apple's side either. They can be even more closed if they want to, and they proved it recently with the subscription tax, which also wasn't in place since the the beginning when those developers made their apps for iOS.
DeusExMachina 16y ago
John Gruber is an Apple pundit and fan? Yes, we know. His attack is hypocritical? Maybe. Off base? I don't think so. Yes, as the article says, Android is still far more open and customizable than iOS (and it's not that hard, actually). Still there is another definition of open that matters to some people, and that definition applies less and less to Android, giving to all this a taste of bait and switch. I know a lot of Android developers that believe in open software not on merely his advantage from a market point of view, but also from a philosophical one. These developers are all disappointed. I am an iOS developer, I like Apple products, I agree with some of the arguments for a more closed system even if I disagree on a lot of Apple's decisions. I look at Android as a good competitor to iOS that keeps raising the bar and as a possible future market for what I do. I thought from the beginning that Android as a platform would have benefitted from a little more closed approach. Still, I'm disappointed too, looking at Google's behavior. It angers me a little, even if I'm not an Android fan. Because I think about all those Android developers that now feel somewhat betrayed. This has a bitter taste not because Android is becoming more closed, but because this was not done from the beginning, luring people to the platform with different promises. Am I an hypocrite too?
- refulgentis 16y ago
  How is he hypocritical? The problem here is Google employees have consistently and constantly pushed that Android is open and thus inherently more pure than iOS (see Vic's behavior last Google IO, Andy Rubin's infamous 'definition of open' tweet). Apple has never claimed to be open or anything, Google has, and they're not.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    How is he hypocritical? How about claiming he saw the bait-and-switch coming when he's a professional pundit and all he ever said while commenting on it was a) open is bad for consumers and b) Android isn't open. Note that even a) and b) don't even make sense together, so the fact that he's revised history yet again to claim that he always thought they were open, but only so they could later become closed is even more laughable.
    - refulgentis 16y ago
      He has never said open is bad for consumers as far as I understand it, I'd like to see where you think he has so we can discuss it though, I'm sure he must have said something that we both interpreted diffrently. As to your last paragraph: he's not claiming he always thought they were open. He's claiming that he knew all along they weren't - i.e. they were only allowing free run on the source code and everything as long as it benefited them. Which is what happened here.
    - roc 16y ago
      He's been pretty consistent in calling out the OEMs and carriers as incompetents who won't produce phones in Google's best interests. And jumping on how useless all their 'added value' has been. Simultaneously he's been suggesting Google needs to make its own devices to really push a compelling Android experience. And he's been saying that for ... christ, about as long as Android has even been publicly around. He's never really said "Google's going to give up on this 'Open Source' thing" that I recall, but he's been terribly consistent in saying things like this: Android, on the other hand, strikes me as needing a course correction. There’s a separation between the software and hardware, and to date the hardware vendors are letting the platform down. It’s unproven whether this model can even work in the long run (where by "work" I mean "produce a phone and software platform with a state-of-the-art user experience"). http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/android_opportunity_addenda http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/android_opportunity_addend...
tptacek 16y ago
Android is more open than iOS. It is less open than Ubuntu. We just saw a story today about Google playing favorites with access to early releases of operating system code; when you're shipping multi-billion-dollar SKUs based on that code, this isn't a minor detail. The fact is, Android is "open" to end-users, but not completely "open" to vendors. It's frustrating to watch people try to reconcile this, because not only is everyone using different definitions of the word "open", but they change definitions from day to day. Meanwhile: this is second-order punditry. It's a critique of a pundit. And it's a pundit who wears his bias on his sleeve. It's boring. People don't read Gruber for the unvarnished truth about the mobile market. If you want to right whatever wrong you feel is being committed because a gifted writer has overtly taken Apple's side (gasp!), write an excellent blog advocating for the Google ecosystem. But don't waste our time litigating against Gruber. Nobody cares!
- rbarooah 16y ago
  The whole 'more open' thing leads straight to Godwin's law.
- raganwald 16y ago
  this is second-order punditry. It's a critique of a pundit. And it's a pundit who wears his bias on his sleeve. It's boring. But... But... Someone is WRONG on the Internet! http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
  - tptacek 16y ago
    The annoying thing is, Gruber's not wrong. He's biased and he's going to adopt whatever findings of fact and findings of analysis are most favorable to Apple, but he's been doing this for 10+ years and he's not simply going to make things up. Which makes it especially dumb to get into a blogfight with him. Because it's never going to end. There is still a case to be made for Android over iOS based on openness. People should make that case. But what are they saying when they make a case for Android based on Gruber? Is that the best they've got? That an Apple advocate is advocating Apple?
    - 16y ago
ryandvm 16y ago
John Gruber has a very specific audience: people that adore Apple products. His narrative is extremely well tuned to please these people and to keep them coming back for more. I can't fault him for his success as a niche blogger, but his material is so predictable and formulaic that I stopped reading long ago.
guywithabike 16y ago
If you want a tl;dr of the article, take the last bit: Both approaches have their merits and their failings. How about we focus on that instead of which system is open or closed? What is he referring to when he says "both approaches"? He's talking about open versus closed.
wtn 16y ago
I think Gruber's point is spot-on. A lot of people prefer Android because they want it to be open and open-source, and Android companies market to the public on this specific point. So I don't think it's off-base to point out discrepancies between the ideology and the reality. Gruber would absolutely like Apple to be more open. However, in this case, it is Google that contradicted itself with words vs deeds.
- nextparadigms 16y ago
  That's not really spot-on. Most Android users would rather see Google put a stop to deep skins and doing gross things like the carriers are doing with the Android phones by not letting you uninstall their apps, or charging you for features already built-in, and so on.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    Are you saying most Android users don't want it to be open?
    - neutronicus 16y ago
      A more charitable interpretation is that most developers would like Google to protect the Android trademark a little better, perhaps by tightening up on what modifications of Android are still eligible to be called "Android", so that both users and developers could count on more consistency when hearing the name.
      - bergie 16y ago
        The way this was set up with MeeGo is that there is a formal compliance process backed up by the trademark (owned by Linux Foundation). If you make a product based on MeeGo you can add whatever you want. As long as it passes compliance, you can call it MeeGo. http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance
- alienreborn 16y ago
joeminkie 16y ago
It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less "open." From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad, just that that Google shouldn't use it as a marketing point if they're not 100% open. And Apple makes just as big a deal about the advantages of iOS being closed as Google does about the openness of Android. Right, but with Apple closed means closed. No one says that Apple is a "almost closed" and argues they should be totally closed. Google is half-assing their definition of open — which is fine, do what you want — but people are calling BS and rightfully so. The argument should be what is better: 100% closed or less than 100% open? This is where the shades of grey come in.
- roc 16y ago
  > "I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad" That's my view of things as well. The closest the arguments got to "open=bad" was: open has an increasingly-poor track record as projects trend away from tools for technical users and toward products for average consumers. And that's certainly not to say that all Open source projects are doomed or that Android couldn't succeed; it was just an observation of results. Something proponents of Open should be familiar with. (i.e. "closed source tends to be less secure")
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less "open." From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad, just that that Google shouldn't use it as a marketing point if they're not 100% open. Here's my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective: Apple took a "closed" approach which helped in quality control. Google took an "open" approach which allowed others to add or modify their OS in ways that did not benefit the consumer, or just plain sucked. This resulted in multiple products that either simply lack polish or just stink to use. Google found this out the hard way and is now trying to tighten their control, and Apple's approach is being entirely vindicated.
  - 16y ago
inffcs00 16y ago
The problem here is that Google used the word "open" as a feature of Android and marketing term against iOS/Apple. But don't forget that a lot of parts of iOS are open source and several parts of Android are closed (Google branded apps). Does the percentage of opennes matter? Gruber might be biased but that doesn't mean he is wrong or off-base.
roc 16y ago
A fair observer might allow that "Android" is still an Open source project, but only inasmuch as they explicitly identify Honeycomb as currently a closed-source fork of Android. Honeycomb may become open, but to discount the facts of today involves assumptions about future. If our hypothetical fair observer were to disregard the assumed future altogether, things lean more toward Gruber than Google. Google has gone out of their way to disavow pre-Honeycomb releases on tablets, and is withholding Honeycomb to only those tablet-makers who sign their agreements. They're currently doing exactly what Gruber asserts will become SOP and what they're currently doing with Honeycomb simply doesn't fit any fair definition of "Open Source" development. Not even their own.
cnkt 16y ago
Sorry guys but bad news here: when a open source project gets a back up from a big company, it's not open source anymore. actually, it is open "source" but thats it. only the source is open. the "fork" arguments is also useless. if i fork android source, nobody will use it. nobody. because it's not "google" anymore. remember the "window controls on the left site" debate with ubuntu? everybody was talking against it but it happened "shuttleworth's way".
jinushaun 16y ago
Honest question: Why do people listen to and retweet Gruber? Everything I've read from him is pure biased hypocritical garbage.
koko775 16y ago
>Any fair observer would have to conclude that Android is still "open." In my opinion, any fair observer would have to conclude that Android is still about as open as it always was. This isn't necessarily hypocritical; I have never viewed Android as "open". Now, personally, I think that it's more customizable and flexible because it isn't mature enough as a platform to be able to afford to lock down APIs. Not that I think that the end result of an API should be to lock it down, but orthogonality in a SDK can be very beautiful, as it is with Cocoa touch.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Google: "We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open." The fact that they're now restricting and controlling the innovations of other industry players by keeping the source code closed seems pretty much like the definition of hypocrisy.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    You are still free to fork any code that was previously released under a free license. All of the source code they release can be used.
    - rbarooah 16y ago
      How is that relevant when they are giving the latest source to people they approve?
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        It's their source. You are free to pick the last released version and improve it yourself. The source they didn't release may not be completely theirs (we can't know this because we don't have it) and before releasing it under an open source license they may be required to clean it up.
JCB_K 16y ago
"The biggest joke is that the Businessweek article ends with a quote from Nokia CEO and former Microsoftie Stephen Elop saying that Android is no longer open and that's why he chose the more open Windows Phone 7. YIKES! Not good company, Mr. Gruber." All good and well, but this is just guilt by association. Very bad way to end a fairly good article.
seanx 16y ago
Gruber is an Apple fundamentalist, preaching to the choir. There is only one true way and all facts will be interpreted or ignored in favour of that way. Dissension is not allowed in his church, if you disagree with what he says then do so elsewhere. If you need an analysis of what Apple is doing, or where they are going then he might be good at that (I don't know, I don't care) but you absolutely cannot rely on him for unbalanced coverage on anything else. Arguing about whether google marketing is deceptive is a waste of time. ALL marketing is deceptive. Go watch an Apple keynote for example. Arguing about whether android is "open" is also a waste of time. Open is not a bool, it's a float. If Linux is 100% and Windows is 0% then Android is maybe 60% and ios is somewhere in the single digits. In the past 14 months, I have used WM6.5, ios, Android and Win Phone 7. The only reason I could use Android is that it is open enough that it could be installed on my HD2, a WM6.5 phone.
- bonch 16y ago
  You can attack Gruber's position as an Apple advocate if you want, but that doesn't really address his points about Google. The thing I've taken away from this is that Android advocates are now defining openness in terms of degrees. It's no longer about being open; it's about being "more open," a vague idea that only gets to be defined by Google, the gatekeepers of Android. Requiring licensees to agree to "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google final approval over source changes is against the spirit of open source.
  - seanx 16y ago
    Personally, I'm not an android, or open source, advocate. I don't use it at the moment and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to someone else. All the phone oses I have have used are flawed to some extent and picking one is a matter of deciding which flaws you can tolerate or not notice. Gruber doesn't care about openness either, he uses an iPhone. His argument is is simply a way to bash android without addressing anything that is substantive to most people. Last month he was trolling that android wasn't open because motorola hadn't provided a froyo update to an older phone, completely ignoring the fact that the comunity had already provided multiple updates. Next month he will be complaining that android isn't open because google hasn't provided the source to something else. To most people, it doesn't matter if android is 65% or 70% open. What matters is how well it meets their needs. If openness helps meet those needs then it's important, if it doesn't then it's irrelevant. Finally, if Gruber was interested in openness, he would allow comments on his blog. Without that, he is just a troll with a pulpit.
nexneo 16y ago
Honeycomb isn't desert so named well by purpose -- Sweat honey is caged in honeycomb and protected.
bonch 16y ago
Google exploited the buzz of open source philosophy, so it's fascinating seeing the open source community's reaction to their stricter control over Android. Personally, I always saw the trumpeting of "openness" as an unrealistic marketing ploy.

70 points by apress 16y ago

"We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open." How is Google not restricting or controlling* the innovations of other industry players? http://source.android.com/ http://source.android.com/

joebadmo 16y ago

I think the most annoying thing about Gruber is that he mixes fantastic insights with near-propaganda. He's also got a razor-honed voice. Generally I tend to pay close attention to him when he writes about Apple products, eco-system, and culture, and ignore him when he writes about anything else, especially Google or Android.

mellis 16y ago

Openness is indeed a continuum and different degrees of it make sense for different people and different situations. The problems arise when you claim to be more open than you are or become less open than you were. Apple is clear that it offers proprietary platforms; Google claims Android is open but isn't acting accordingly.

nextparadigms 16y ago
It's not so clear on Apple's side either. They can be even more closed if they want to, and they proved it recently with the subscription tax, which also wasn't in place since the the beginning when those developers made their apps for iOS.

DeusExMachina 16y ago

John Gruber is an Apple pundit and fan? Yes, we know. His attack is hypocritical? Maybe. Off base? I don't think so. Yes, as the article says, Android is still far more open and customizable than iOS (and it's not that hard, actually). Still there is another definition of open that matters to some people, and that definition applies less and less to Android, giving to all this a taste of bait and switch. I know a lot of Android developers that believe in open software not on merely his advantage from a market point of view, but also from a philosophical one. These developers are all disappointed. I am an iOS developer, I like Apple products, I agree with some of the arguments for a more closed system even if I disagree on a lot of Apple's decisions. I look at Android as a good competitor to iOS that keeps raising the bar and as a possible future market for what I do. I thought from the beginning that Android as a platform would have benefitted from a little more closed approach. Still, I'm disappointed too, looking at Google's behavior. It angers me a little, even if I'm not an Android fan. Because I think about all those Android developers that now feel somewhat betrayed. This has a bitter taste not because Android is becoming more closed, but because this was not done from the beginning, luring people to the platform with different promises. Am I an hypocrite too?

refulgentis 16y ago
How is he hypocritical? The problem here is Google employees have consistently and constantly pushed that Android is open and thus inherently more pure than iOS (see Vic's behavior last Google IO, Andy Rubin's infamous 'definition of open' tweet). Apple has never claimed to be open or anything, Google has, and they're not.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  How is he hypocritical? How about claiming he saw the bait-and-switch coming when he's a professional pundit and all he ever said while commenting on it was a) open is bad for consumers and b) Android isn't open. Note that even a) and b) don't even make sense together, so the fact that he's revised history yet again to claim that he always thought they were open, but only so they could later become closed is even more laughable.
  - refulgentis 16y ago
    He has never said open is bad for consumers as far as I understand it, I'd like to see where you think he has so we can discuss it though, I'm sure he must have said something that we both interpreted diffrently. As to your last paragraph: he's not claiming he always thought they were open. He's claiming that he knew all along they weren't - i.e. they were only allowing free run on the source code and everything as long as it benefited them. Which is what happened here.
  - roc 16y ago
    He's been pretty consistent in calling out the OEMs and carriers as incompetents who won't produce phones in Google's best interests. And jumping on how useless all their 'added value' has been. Simultaneously he's been suggesting Google needs to make its own devices to really push a compelling Android experience. And he's been saying that for ... christ, about as long as Android has even been publicly around. He's never really said "Google's going to give up on this 'Open Source' thing" that I recall, but he's been terribly consistent in saying things like this: Android, on the other hand, strikes me as needing a course correction. There’s a separation between the software and hardware, and to date the hardware vendors are letting the platform down. It’s unproven whether this model can even work in the long run (where by "work" I mean "produce a phone and software platform with a state-of-the-art user experience"). http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/android_opportunity_addenda http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/android_opportunity_addend...

tptacek 16y ago

Android is more open than iOS. It is less open than Ubuntu. We just saw a story today about Google playing favorites with access to early releases of operating system code; when you're shipping multi-billion-dollar SKUs based on that code, this isn't a minor detail. The fact is, Android is "open" to end-users, but not completely "open" to vendors. It's frustrating to watch people try to reconcile this, because not only is everyone using different definitions of the word "open", but they change definitions from day to day. Meanwhile: this is second-order punditry. It's a critique of a pundit. And it's a pundit who wears his bias on his sleeve. It's boring. People don't read Gruber for the unvarnished truth about the mobile market. If you want to right whatever wrong you feel is being committed because a gifted writer has overtly taken Apple's side (gasp!), write an excellent blog advocating for the Google ecosystem. But don't waste our time litigating against Gruber. Nobody cares!

rbarooah 16y ago
The whole 'more open' thing leads straight to Godwin's law.
raganwald 16y ago
this is second-order punditry. It's a critique of a pundit. And it's a pundit who wears his bias on his sleeve. It's boring. But... But... Someone is WRONG on the Internet! http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
- tptacek 16y ago
  The annoying thing is, Gruber's not wrong. He's biased and he's going to adopt whatever findings of fact and findings of analysis are most favorable to Apple, but he's been doing this for 10+ years and he's not simply going to make things up. Which makes it especially dumb to get into a blogfight with him. Because it's never going to end. There is still a case to be made for Android over iOS based on openness. People should make that case. But what are they saying when they make a case for Android based on Gruber? Is that the best they've got? That an Apple advocate is advocating Apple?
  - 16y ago

ryandvm 16y ago

John Gruber has a very specific audience: people that adore Apple products. His narrative is extremely well tuned to please these people and to keep them coming back for more. I can't fault him for his success as a niche blogger, but his material is so predictable and formulaic that I stopped reading long ago.

guywithabike 16y ago

If you want a tl;dr of the article, take the last bit: Both approaches have their merits and their failings. How about we focus on that instead of which system is open or closed? What is he referring to when he says "both approaches"? He's talking about open versus closed.

wtn 16y ago

I think Gruber's point is spot-on. A lot of people prefer Android because they want it to be open and open-source, and Android companies market to the public on this specific point. So I don't think it's off-base to point out discrepancies between the ideology and the reality. Gruber would absolutely like Apple to be more open. However, in this case, it is Google that contradicted itself with words vs deeds.

nextparadigms 16y ago
That's not really spot-on. Most Android users would rather see Google put a stop to deep skins and doing gross things like the carriers are doing with the Android phones by not letting you uninstall their apps, or charging you for features already built-in, and so on.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Are you saying most Android users don't want it to be open?
  - neutronicus 16y ago
    A more charitable interpretation is that most developers would like Google to protect the Android trademark a little better, perhaps by tightening up on what modifications of Android are still eligible to be called "Android", so that both users and developers could count on more consistency when hearing the name.
    - bergie 16y ago
      The way this was set up with MeeGo is that there is a formal compliance process backed up by the trademark (owned by Linux Foundation). If you make a product based on MeeGo you can add whatever you want. As long as it passes compliance, you can call it MeeGo. http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance
alienreborn 16y ago

joeminkie 16y ago

It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less "open." From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad, just that that Google shouldn't use it as a marketing point if they're not 100% open. And Apple makes just as big a deal about the advantages of iOS being closed as Google does about the openness of Android. Right, but with Apple closed means closed. No one says that Apple is a "almost closed" and argues they should be totally closed. Google is half-assing their definition of open — which is fine, do what you want — but people are calling BS and rightfully so. The argument should be what is better: 100% closed or less than 100% open? This is where the shades of grey come in.

roc 16y ago
> "I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad" That's my view of things as well. The closest the arguments got to "open=bad" was: open has an increasingly-poor track record as projects trend away from tools for technical users and toward products for average consumers. And that's certainly not to say that all Open source projects are doomed or that Android couldn't succeed; it was just an observation of results. Something proponents of Open should be familiar with. (i.e. "closed source tends to be less secure")
isleyaardvark 16y ago
It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less "open." From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad, just that that Google shouldn't use it as a marketing point if they're not 100% open. Here's my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective: Apple took a "closed" approach which helped in quality control. Google took an "open" approach which allowed others to add or modify their OS in ways that did not benefit the consumer, or just plain sucked. This resulted in multiple products that either simply lack polish or just stink to use. Google found this out the hard way and is now trying to tighten their control, and Apple's approach is being entirely vindicated.
- 16y ago

inffcs00 16y ago

The problem here is that Google used the word "open" as a feature of Android and marketing term against iOS/Apple. But don't forget that a lot of parts of iOS are open source and several parts of Android are closed (Google branded apps). Does the percentage of opennes matter? Gruber might be biased but that doesn't mean he is wrong or off-base.

roc 16y ago

A fair observer might allow that "Android" is still an Open source project, but only inasmuch as they explicitly identify Honeycomb as currently a closed-source fork of Android. Honeycomb may become open, but to discount the facts of today involves assumptions about future. If our hypothetical fair observer were to disregard the assumed future altogether, things lean more toward Gruber than Google. Google has gone out of their way to disavow pre-Honeycomb releases on tablets, and is withholding Honeycomb to only those tablet-makers who sign their agreements. They're currently doing exactly what Gruber asserts will become SOP and what they're currently doing with Honeycomb simply doesn't fit any fair definition of "Open Source" development. Not even their own.

cnkt 16y ago

Sorry guys but bad news here: when a open source project gets a back up from a big company, it's not open source anymore. actually, it is open "source" but thats it. only the source is open. the "fork" arguments is also useless. if i fork android source, nobody will use it. nobody. because it's not "google" anymore. remember the "window controls on the left site" debate with ubuntu? everybody was talking against it but it happened "shuttleworth's way".

jinushaun 16y ago

Honest question: Why do people listen to and retweet Gruber? Everything I've read from him is pure biased hypocritical garbage.

koko775 16y ago

>Any fair observer would have to conclude that Android is still "open." In my opinion, any fair observer would have to conclude that Android is still about as open as it always was. This isn't necessarily hypocritical; I have never viewed Android as "open". Now, personally, I think that it's more customizable and flexible because it isn't mature enough as a platform to be able to afford to lock down APIs. Not that I think that the end result of an API should be to lock it down, but orthogonality in a SDK can be very beautiful, as it is with Cocoa touch.

rbarooah 16y ago
Google: "We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open." The fact that they're now restricting and controlling the innovations of other industry players by keeping the source code closed seems pretty much like the definition of hypocrisy.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  You are still free to fork any code that was previously released under a free license. All of the source code they release can be used.
  - rbarooah 16y ago
    How is that relevant when they are giving the latest source to people they approve?
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      It's their source. You are free to pick the last released version and improve it yourself. The source they didn't release may not be completely theirs (we can't know this because we don't have it) and before releasing it under an open source license they may be required to clean it up.

JCB_K 16y ago

"The biggest joke is that the Businessweek article ends with a quote from Nokia CEO and former Microsoftie Stephen Elop saying that Android is no longer open and that's why he chose the more open Windows Phone 7. YIKES! Not good company, Mr. Gruber." All good and well, but this is just guilt by association. Very bad way to end a fairly good article.

seanx 16y ago

Gruber is an Apple fundamentalist, preaching to the choir. There is only one true way and all facts will be interpreted or ignored in favour of that way. Dissension is not allowed in his church, if you disagree with what he says then do so elsewhere. If you need an analysis of what Apple is doing, or where they are going then he might be good at that (I don't know, I don't care) but you absolutely cannot rely on him for unbalanced coverage on anything else. Arguing about whether google marketing is deceptive is a waste of time. ALL marketing is deceptive. Go watch an Apple keynote for example. Arguing about whether android is "open" is also a waste of time. Open is not a bool, it's a float. If Linux is 100% and Windows is 0% then Android is maybe 60% and ios is somewhere in the single digits. In the past 14 months, I have used WM6.5, ios, Android and Win Phone 7. The only reason I could use Android is that it is open enough that it could be installed on my HD2, a WM6.5 phone.

bonch 16y ago
You can attack Gruber's position as an Apple advocate if you want, but that doesn't really address his points about Google. The thing I've taken away from this is that Android advocates are now defining openness in terms of degrees. It's no longer about being open; it's about being "more open," a vague idea that only gets to be defined by Google, the gatekeepers of Android. Requiring licensees to agree to "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google final approval over source changes is against the spirit of open source.
- seanx 16y ago
  Personally, I'm not an android, or open source, advocate. I don't use it at the moment and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to someone else. All the phone oses I have have used are flawed to some extent and picking one is a matter of deciding which flaws you can tolerate or not notice. Gruber doesn't care about openness either, he uses an iPhone. His argument is is simply a way to bash android without addressing anything that is substantive to most people. Last month he was trolling that android wasn't open because motorola hadn't provided a froyo update to an older phone, completely ignoring the fact that the comunity had already provided multiple updates. Next month he will be complaining that android isn't open because google hasn't provided the source to something else. To most people, it doesn't matter if android is 65% or 70% open. What matters is how well it meets their needs. If openness helps meet those needs then it's important, if it doesn't then it's irrelevant. Finally, if Gruber was interested in openness, he would allow comments on his blog. Without that, he is just a troll with a pulpit.

nexneo 16y ago

Honeycomb isn't desert so named well by purpose -- Sweat honey is caged in honeycomb and protected.

bonch 16y ago

Google exploited the buzz of open source philosophy, so it's fascinating seeing the open source community's reaction to their stricter control over Android. Personally, I always saw the trumpeting of "openness" as an unrealistic marketing ploy.