4 ms·
>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
by 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 agoGoogle: "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 agoYou 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 agoHow is that relevant when they are giving the latest source to people they approve?
- rbanffy 16y agoIt'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.
- rbarooah 16y agoIf it's not theirs, how can they give it to some of their approved partners?
- rbanffy 16y agoAndroid is Google's. They don't have to release anything except the kernel (which is a lot already). They can give it to whoever they think will improve it and make it more popular. The kernel is GPL, but the rest is Apache. Google can keep it to themselves and their preferred partners forever. It's their software and they own it.
- rbarooah 16y agoExactly - they own it, and they are free to give it to whoever they like and withhold it from whoever they like. What part of that isn't about controlling other players?
- rbanffy 16y agoAre you under the impression Google can take 2.3 away from anyone? They own it and they can't. What they are doing is saying they won't release 3.x for now source and not really disclosing the reasons. Anything can be behind that decision, including the inclusion of non-Google code in the specific products. I prefer to think along those lines.
- rbarooah 16y agoI'm not under that impression. I am under the impression that they have given the 3.x source to some people and not to others, thus choosing who gets to use it. Normally we refer to that as 'control'. They didn't say Android 2.3 is open. They said that Android was open and the purpose was so that no one entity could control the innovation of other players, and yet that is exactly what they are doing. You seem to be defending Google on the basis of their freedoms. If you read what I've written, you'll see that I haven't argued they don't have the right to do what they are doing. I haven't even argued that it's bad. I am merely pointing out that they have gone back on what they said. You haven't said anything that refutes this.