>Android is open source. I can build it, run it, change it and ship it all by myself for whatever I want. So yes: I make a moral exception here. You mean the s

>Android is open source. I can build it, run it, change it and ship it all by myself for whatever I want. So yes: I make a moral exception here. You mean the same Android that all development happens behind closed doors without taking in any patches except for the kernel and one or a few OEMs get sweetheart early access deals from Google? When the device is sold into the market, Google throws a bunch of code over the wall, and everyone including other small OEMs with no sweetheart deals and Cyanogen mod are left to scramble in a mad rush to support their phones and tablets, drivers and software. Ever wonder why it takes such a long time for new Android OS updates? Of course, all this is explicitly designed to favor their Nexus devics over other Android OEMs. Look at how Motorola, HTC etc. are doing in their financial statements. Motorola is at a loss (and got taken over by Google), HTC's profits are plunging and LG is not going good either. Remember there was no source for Honeycomb at all which hurt Cyanogen mod for tablets and smaller tablet makers had to do with Gingerbread, a phone OS? Even iOS, Windows Phone and Windows release beta versions etc. for the ecosystem to get ready for new versions. >I shed no tears for RIM or Nokia, sorry. WebOS was open and good (but the market has spoken and prefers Android), so maybe HP gets a misty eye or two So when Google does essentially the same thing as others, the market has spoken about WebOS/Meego/Maemo, but when it's MS, the market hasn't spoken about Word Perfect, Lotus Notes, Open Office, Netscape etc. etc. and it was all because of them dumping loss leaders on the market or manipulation?