5 ms·

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 sti

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...
- Pewpewarrows 16y ago
  Did you even read the article? In last year's statement he says that there are different shades of "open", and this year he all-of-a-sudden decides that there's only one exact kind of open. Which conveniently happened only days after Google decided not to be as open just yet with their latest version of the Android OS. Gruber changes definitions of terms to suit his pro-Apple and anti-Google agenda whenever he sees fit. It's dead obvious to anyone that isn't a blatant fanboy for either side (which is hard for many of the traditionally pro-Apple HN reader-base).
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    > [Gruber] says that there are different shades of "open" And Google stated their definition of open (http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429 http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429) only to turn their backs on it (if only for the moment).
    - Pewpewarrows 16y ago
      They've always delayed the Open-Sourcing of their Android versions until a bit after the commercial release of a phone with that version on it. With Honeycomb, it'll be a slightly longer wait. Can you magically not do those commands in that tweet now? No, you still can. Does it suck that you can't checkout the latest files just yet? Yes. Is this delay being completely blown out of proportion? You betcha. But that won't stop pundits like Gruber from pouncing on every silly opportunity to discredit the competitor of their fanboy company.
      - cube13 16y ago
        >Can you magically not do those commands in that tweet now? No, you still can. Does it suck that you can't checkout the latest files just yet? Yes. Is this delay being completely blown out of proportion? You betcha. Uh, actually, you can't do those commands in the tweet if you own a Xoom, and want the source for it. You can own a device that is running an Linux-based open source OS, but can't get the code that's running on it. As far as I can tell, most of the delays for Android versions were on the order of a week or two after the SDK was released. That's a pretty acceptable delay because someone needs to go through Google's private branch, do a little cleanup, and commit the files to the public git repository. This isn't a "slightly longer wait". This is Google not upholding their commitment to the project. I'm actually surprised that the FSF isn't going after them for this, since the Linux core is GPL, and that means that the code needs to be released...

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...
Pewpewarrows 16y ago
Did you even read the article? In last year's statement he says that there are different shades of "open", and this year he all-of-a-sudden decides that there's only one exact kind of open. Which conveniently happened only days after Google decided not to be as open just yet with their latest version of the Android OS. Gruber changes definitions of terms to suit his pro-Apple and anti-Google agenda whenever he sees fit. It's dead obvious to anyone that isn't a blatant fanboy for either side (which is hard for many of the traditionally pro-Apple HN reader-base).
- Anechoic 16y ago
  > [Gruber] says that there are different shades of "open" And Google stated their definition of open (http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429 http://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/27808662429) only to turn their backs on it (if only for the moment).
  - Pewpewarrows 16y ago
    They've always delayed the Open-Sourcing of their Android versions until a bit after the commercial release of a phone with that version on it. With Honeycomb, it'll be a slightly longer wait. Can you magically not do those commands in that tweet now? No, you still can. Does it suck that you can't checkout the latest files just yet? Yes. Is this delay being completely blown out of proportion? You betcha. But that won't stop pundits like Gruber from pouncing on every silly opportunity to discredit the competitor of their fanboy company.
    - cube13 16y ago
      >Can you magically not do those commands in that tweet now? No, you still can. Does it suck that you can't checkout the latest files just yet? Yes. Is this delay being completely blown out of proportion? You betcha. Uh, actually, you can't do those commands in the tweet if you own a Xoom, and want the source for it. You can own a device that is running an Linux-based open source OS, but can't get the code that's running on it. As far as I can tell, most of the delays for Android versions were on the order of a week or two after the SDK was released. That's a pretty acceptable delay because someone needs to go through Google's private branch, do a little cleanup, and commit the files to the public git repository. This isn't a "slightly longer wait". This is Google not upholding their commitment to the project. I'm actually surprised that the FSF isn't going after them for this, since the Linux core is GPL, and that means that the code needs to be released...