6 ms·

Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS : *Android is NOT open It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows

Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS : *Android is NOT open It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows is open not Android first, DF, MG and MA have been religiously snarking out on any chance to declare Android not open.) It is BS because all 3 of them do this only to promote what they subscribe to - i.e. they have no consequence from Android not being open (they use and promote iOS which is epitome of closed which in turn means they don't really care about open - they only care about pointing it out in an attempt to nullify the claimed Android advantage against iOS - hey it's not really open anyways, so get in on our team. Which to me is a obnoxious or even a little evil, cotradictory and self-promoting reason to complain about not being open.)

bad_user 15y ago
Their arguments are also inconsistent. Marco is saying on one hand that Android is closed, but on the other hand he says that Amazon's App Store will take over Android's distribution. By definition, if Android wasn't open, then Amazon couldn't fork Android's source-code, they couldn't distribute it on their own devices and they couldn't build a third-party app store. Another argument is that Android phones are locked by carriers and filled with crapware, but again by definition, if Google restricted the actions of carriers, then Android wouldn't be open.
KeithMajhor 15y ago
In all seriousness. What does "open" even mean? I've noticed that no one is saying "open source". Not that I know what that really means either. Android isn't developed in the open they just release the source code. That's the only real difference from Windows 7. So is this all just relative to the phone market? It's "open" as far as phones go? I get the feeling "open" is not something you can be. It's a continuum. Things can be more or less "open" but nothing can actually be "open".
- blinkingled 15y ago
  I think you make an excellent point. There is no utopian definition of open - it simply cannot exist meaningfully. So there has to be a compromising definition. I like to define it on a scale like Andy Rubin did on D8 interview. Left most is least open and rightmost is most open. I think in the current mobile space Apple sits on the far left, Microsoft a little to their right and Android farther to the right. Only Meego or OpenMoko might sit farther right to Android but they are not really relevant to the mobile market.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    Left most is turn-key software that never gets distributed. Far-left is proprietary software, such as iOS that comes with severe restrictions on how and when you can use it. You cannot install it on non-Apple devices and any app you install on it (i.e. any use case) has to be approved by Apple. Other software on the left, but closer to the center, is Windows, that does get distributed in binary form and that you can install on any PC you want, but comes with a very restrictive EULA. GPL v.3 software sits somewhere in the middle. BSD/MIT is far-right, while right most is public domain. I think it's extremely unfair to place Android anywhere on the left side of this scale.
    - blinkingled 15y ago
      I think it's extremely unfair to place Android anywhere on the left side of this scale. And I didn't place Android on the left - farther right in fact. That and I was limiting what can be on the scale to Mobile platforms - so licenses or Windows for instance do not belong there.
      - bad_user 15y ago
        Right, I was trying to paint a larger picture of the whole landscape.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  That's exactly it. It's a continuum. And Android is the most open OS from all the successful consumer OS's. If it would've been anymore open, like say Linux, it would've probably suffered from the very same fragmentation issue that Linux has, and it would've never gotten this successful as it is today. In fact I'd even like Android to be a little more "standardized" or more "closed".
- nl 15y ago
  Android is Open Source[1], which has a real definition[2] that means something. You can fork it, and create your own distribution (as Amazon has shown). It is open in other ways, too - Android phones can load applications from sources other than the Market (unless that feature has been disabled by your carrier - which goes back to the first point). Most Android phones have a sdcard slot, too, which allows you to get your photos (and other files) off the phone easily. For many people that's what they mean when they say it is more open. Others like the multiple form factors, or the different sizes. These aren't just theoretical things - I've heard people use them as examples of "openness". Of course "open" is a continuum, but there are ways that Android is "open" that really matter. [1] Android 3.x wasn't open source. As noted elsewhere, that is a legitimate complaint that applied between February and November 2011. It is worth noting that Android 3.x was a tablet only release, though - Android 2.3 (which is Open Source) remained the OS for phones until Android 4.0 was released, which unified the tablet & phone streams. [2] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
  - jballanc 15y ago
    Out of curiosity, would you call OS X "open"? You can find enough of the source for OS X to create a booting OS here: http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/ . Obviously, this isn't all of OS X, but then not all of the Android OS is "open" either. I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I think the people criticizing Adroid for not being "open" are primarily picking on precisely the vagueness that you have highlighted. There are ways that Android is "open" that really matter...to you. For other people, there are ways that Android is not "open" that really matter. Just ask Stallman, for example.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      You cannot build and sell / distribute your own devices with OS X on it. Apple has been very aggressive with companies that tried that, in particular with Psystar, the first company that sold "hackintosh" computers [1], which they sued into oblivion. So no, OS X is not open and there's nothing vague about it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation
hub_ 15y ago
The problem is that they use that phrase for virtually any argument against Android. Being about carriers being dick (the ask the phone vendor to cripple the software and the phone vendor obeys), about vendor not upgrading the OS on phones (because they want you to buy a new one), etc. All of this being unrelated to whether Android is open or not.
ubernostrum 15y ago
Android markets itself largely on "open". iOS... does not. Android has a history of being managed in ways which are anything but "open" -- ranging from the opaque "chuck a bunch of code over the wall" development process up to and including the "we'll provide this release to some of our special partners, but none of you plebes can be trusted with it". So criticizing Android on the ground that it contradicts its own marketing should be fair game; doing so does not carry with it an implication that any competing platform is more "open", simply the implication that Android does not practice what its hype preaches.

bad_user 15y ago

Their arguments are also inconsistent. Marco is saying on one hand that Android is closed, but on the other hand he says that Amazon's App Store will take over Android's distribution. By definition, if Android wasn't open, then Amazon couldn't fork Android's source-code, they couldn't distribute it on their own devices and they couldn't build a third-party app store. Another argument is that Android phones are locked by carriers and filled with crapware, but again by definition, if Google restricted the actions of carriers, then Android wouldn't be open.

KeithMajhor 15y ago

In all seriousness. What does "open" even mean? I've noticed that no one is saying "open source". Not that I know what that really means either. Android isn't developed in the open they just release the source code. That's the only real difference from Windows 7. So is this all just relative to the phone market? It's "open" as far as phones go? I get the feeling "open" is not something you can be. It's a continuum. Things can be more or less "open" but nothing can actually be "open".

blinkingled 15y ago
I think you make an excellent point. There is no utopian definition of open - it simply cannot exist meaningfully. So there has to be a compromising definition. I like to define it on a scale like Andy Rubin did on D8 interview. Left most is least open and rightmost is most open. I think in the current mobile space Apple sits on the far left, Microsoft a little to their right and Android farther to the right. Only Meego or OpenMoko might sit farther right to Android but they are not really relevant to the mobile market.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Left most is turn-key software that never gets distributed. Far-left is proprietary software, such as iOS that comes with severe restrictions on how and when you can use it. You cannot install it on non-Apple devices and any app you install on it (i.e. any use case) has to be approved by Apple. Other software on the left, but closer to the center, is Windows, that does get distributed in binary form and that you can install on any PC you want, but comes with a very restrictive EULA. GPL v.3 software sits somewhere in the middle. BSD/MIT is far-right, while right most is public domain. I think it's extremely unfair to place Android anywhere on the left side of this scale.
  - blinkingled 15y ago
    I think it's extremely unfair to place Android anywhere on the left side of this scale. And I didn't place Android on the left - farther right in fact. That and I was limiting what can be on the scale to Mobile platforms - so licenses or Windows for instance do not belong there.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      Right, I was trying to paint a larger picture of the whole landscape.
nextparadigms 15y ago
That's exactly it. It's a continuum. And Android is the most open OS from all the successful consumer OS's. If it would've been anymore open, like say Linux, it would've probably suffered from the very same fragmentation issue that Linux has, and it would've never gotten this successful as it is today. In fact I'd even like Android to be a little more "standardized" or more "closed".
nl 15y ago
Android is Open Source[1], which has a real definition[2] that means something. You can fork it, and create your own distribution (as Amazon has shown). It is open in other ways, too - Android phones can load applications from sources other than the Market (unless that feature has been disabled by your carrier - which goes back to the first point). Most Android phones have a sdcard slot, too, which allows you to get your photos (and other files) off the phone easily. For many people that's what they mean when they say it is more open. Others like the multiple form factors, or the different sizes. These aren't just theoretical things - I've heard people use them as examples of "openness". Of course "open" is a continuum, but there are ways that Android is "open" that really matter. [1] Android 3.x wasn't open source. As noted elsewhere, that is a legitimate complaint that applied between February and November 2011. It is worth noting that Android 3.x was a tablet only release, though - Android 2.3 (which is Open Source) remained the OS for phones until Android 4.0 was released, which unified the tablet & phone streams. [2] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
- jballanc 15y ago
  Out of curiosity, would you call OS X "open"? You can find enough of the source for OS X to create a booting OS here: http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/ . Obviously, this isn't all of OS X, but then not all of the Android OS is "open" either. I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I think the people criticizing Adroid for not being "open" are primarily picking on precisely the vagueness that you have highlighted. There are ways that Android is "open" that really matter...to you. For other people, there are ways that Android is not "open" that really matter. Just ask Stallman, for example.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    You cannot build and sell / distribute your own devices with OS X on it. Apple has been very aggressive with companies that tried that, in particular with Psystar, the first company that sold "hackintosh" computers [1], which they sued into oblivion. So no, OS X is not open and there's nothing vague about it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation

hub_ 15y ago

The problem is that they use that phrase for virtually any argument against Android. Being about carriers being dick (the ask the phone vendor to cripple the software and the phone vendor obeys), about vendor not upgrading the OS on phones (because they want you to buy a new one), etc. All of this being unrelated to whether Android is open or not.

ubernostrum 15y ago

Android markets itself largely on "open". iOS... does not. Android has a history of being managed in ways which are anything but "open" -- ranging from the opaque "chuck a bunch of code over the wall" development process up to and including the "we'll provide this release to some of our special partners, but none of you plebes can be trusted with it". So criticizing Android on the ground that it contradicts its own marketing should be fair game; doing so does not carry with it an implication that any competing platform is more "open", simply the implication that Android does not practice what its hype preaches.