3 ms·

"A really long time"? Seriously--I know it's been a busy year--but the nine months (from February 2011 to November 2011) during which Android was being used in

"A really long time"? Seriously--I know it's been a busy year--but the nine months (from February 2011 to November 2011) during which Android was being used in certain tablets without being open sourced hardly qualifies as "a really long time", especially in comparison to operating systems which have never been open.

potatolicious 15y ago
I'm not sure how your'e able to say nine months isn't a long time (especially in this industry!) with a straight face. Also, I subscribe to a pretty liberal interpretation of "open source", and "source will be downloadable at an undetermined date in the future, if we feel like it" really doesn't qualify. There is, of course, the colloquial expectation of open - the implication that Google has never shied away from is that openness means choice. Of course, even with the source code, the vast majority of Android headsets are locked down - the openness does nobody any good except people who build custom distros (that normal users can't even install themselves!). The "open" argument, while arguably, technically correct (the source is available... kind of), fails to meet the bar for what techies consider to be essential to the concept of openness, nor does it meet the bar for what laymen would consider to be openness.
- Joeri 15y ago
  For me an open platform is one that can be used, maintained and extended in ways the original platform owner actively disapproves of. Android fits that description, because you can in fact fork it and do what you want, even if its anti-google (like the kindle fire). I consider android similar to x.org when it was called xfree86, and oo.o before it became libreoffice. It's definitely open source, but it remains to be seen whether the project will develop an open culture. If not, a hostile fork will happen at some point.
- jemfinch 15y ago
  Six months passed between the announcement of the iPhone and its release. More than a year passes between each iPhone generation. 9 months, even in the mobile world, is just not "a really long time", and we're talking about a version of Android that only ran on tablets (which was, incidentally, why its source wasn't released on schedule). Calling Android "open" is not just "technically" correct. It's really true: you can download the source to Android and build your own versions. Cyanogen does this. Amazon does this. Multiple handset manufacturers do this. Anyone can do this, and many do.
  - nailer 15y ago
    You don't address the parents argument or mine at all. Motorola Xoom owners could not download the source code for their OS for most of its existence. Neither could Cyanogen. for example, get source for ICS beta releases, which means the many obvious UI and UX issues in the initial release could not be fixed by anyone but a small portion of people inside Google.

potatolicious 15y ago

I'm not sure how your'e able to say nine months isn't a long time (especially in this industry!) with a straight face. Also, I subscribe to a pretty liberal interpretation of "open source", and "source will be downloadable at an undetermined date in the future, if we feel like it" really doesn't qualify. There is, of course, the colloquial expectation of open - the implication that Google has never shied away from is that openness means choice. Of course, even with the source code, the vast majority of Android headsets are locked down - the openness does nobody any good except people who build custom distros (that normal users can't even install themselves!). The "open" argument, while arguably, technically correct (the source is available... kind of), fails to meet the bar for what techies consider to be essential to the concept of openness, nor does it meet the bar for what laymen would consider to be openness.

Joeri 15y ago
For me an open platform is one that can be used, maintained and extended in ways the original platform owner actively disapproves of. Android fits that description, because you can in fact fork it and do what you want, even if its anti-google (like the kindle fire). I consider android similar to x.org when it was called xfree86, and oo.o before it became libreoffice. It's definitely open source, but it remains to be seen whether the project will develop an open culture. If not, a hostile fork will happen at some point.
jemfinch 15y ago
Six months passed between the announcement of the iPhone and its release. More than a year passes between each iPhone generation. 9 months, even in the mobile world, is just not "a really long time", and we're talking about a version of Android that only ran on tablets (which was, incidentally, why its source wasn't released on schedule). Calling Android "open" is not just "technically" correct. It's really true: you can download the source to Android and build your own versions. Cyanogen does this. Amazon does this. Multiple handset manufacturers do this. Anyone can do this, and many do.
- nailer 15y ago
  You don't address the parents argument or mine at all. Motorola Xoom owners could not download the source code for their OS for most of its existence. Neither could Cyanogen. for example, get source for ICS beta releases, which means the many obvious UI and UX issues in the initial release could not be fixed by anyone but a small portion of people inside Google.