I'm not an extreme Free Software kind of guy, but I have to agree with one thing they say. If you can't actually install it on your hardware, then it ain't free. The whole point is freedom for the end user, not for the programmer or the hardware manufacturer. I realize you said 'open', not 'free', so you're right, but I think it kind of misses the point.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Tightening Control Over Android as Fragmentation Increases
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why should the programmer make sure his code installs on other people's hardware ? Why should a hardware vendor make sure as a end user you can install anything on their hardware ? Both are unrelated.
This has nothing to do with the source being open or not nor is Free Software or even Open Source software about end user freedom. It's about freedom of the code itself.
Heck, Free and Open source software doesn't even mean that it needs to be developed in the open or as a community driven project. You can keep your code closed until you're ready to release it and you don't have to accept any contributions back into your code tree, and you can still have open source code or even free software type licensing be valid.
The implied answer being: they have no reason to do so, unless you want to call it 'free'.
True, but your code isn't 'open' until it's actually released. The whole point is that Google enjoys the support of the FLOSS people, and also to keep control. If Honeycomb isn't released until the next version of the OS is out, then they're gaming the system; playing on the ambiguities and misunderstandings between free and open and blaming other companies they have to deal with.
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that most of all the recents post on this thread show that the so called advantages of Android are pure gimmicks. 
How about READING what I WROTE on where I CLEARLY stated the following:
What part of 'To me' don't you understand? In other words, MY OWN OPINION on the matter, not 'THE DEFINITIVE' but 'MY OWN OPINION' or 'HOW I DEFINE IT'. How about actually READING what people write instead of quickly browsing over it assuming you know what they've said.
Andy Rubin responds
Not that it'll make as big a news item, but Rubin has responded in an Android blog titled:
I think I'm having a Gene Amdahl moment
(Gene Amdahl was the computer pioneer who popularized the word FUD, referring to the "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" that competitors spread.)
Basically, Rubin said it was all misinformation, and that customization and open source was still the order of the day.
It's interesting that this whole thing barely raised a blip on Android forums, but was seen as a big deal on iPhone sites. There seems to be a huge lack of understanding of what "open" means, and there's blame to spread on all sides for that.
For example, I was just reading this morning on an Android site that the reason third party app launchers were available, was because it was "open". Not at all. They're available because the APIs are public, not because the OS source is.
Not that it'll make as big a news item, but Rubin has responded in an Android blog titled:
I think I'm having a Gene Amdahl moment
(Gene Amdahl was the computer pioneer who popularized the word FUD, referring to the "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" that competitors spread.)
Basically, Rubin said it was all misinformation, and that customization and open source was still the order of the day.
It's interesting that this whole thing barely raised a blip on Android forums, but was seen as a big deal on iPhone sites. There seems to be a huge lack of understanding of what "open" means, and there's blame to spread on all sides for that.
For example, I was just reading this morning on an Android site that the reason third party app launchers were available, was because it was "open". Not at all. They're available because the APIs are public, not because the OS source is.
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that most of all the recents post on this thread show that the so called advantages of Android are pure gimmicks.
I think there is a valid debate about 'open', since it is something that gets Google loads of geek cred and mileage, yet us at best an 'on paper' sort of thing.
Google is doing reasonably OK at making an attempt at the open thing, but the carriers and handset makers (as usual) are totally screwing things up. Fragmentation is real, and it is a problem that will get worse with time ... and unchecked it could make Android the next WiMo.
That said, as of right now the reality of Android is pretty awesome. I have an iPad, 4th gen touch, Macbook Pro ... and a Droid Pro as my phone. No desire for an iPhone for me.
Didn't seem to really respond to the core issues (early access only to oem's that clear their products with him), but instead responded to some of the loopier claims.
Perhaps because it's an obvious mountain from a molehill.
I think there's nothing wrong with Google saying, "Okay, 2.4 isn't complete, so we can't release the source yet... but you can use a prelim version right now to make a tablet, as long as you coordinate and/or delay any customizations that might be affected by later internal changes."
Once it's finalized, the source is out as usual, and in come the Chinese makers as always. No big deal.
In some ways it's similar to how Apple developers get early iOS versions to play with. You have to abide by the rules to get early access, and realize that things can change.
The alternative would've been to simply not release Honeycomb at all to anyone, and dumbly let Apple get all the publicity and sales. I don't think any Android based company wanted that.
Really?
The issue was raised on most of the android forums on blogs like Engadget, Crunchgear, BGR, etc, fortunes, other tech news websites - none of them claiming to be 'iPhone sites'.
That's not what's happening. The report said that in order to get early access their plans have to be explicitly approved by Andy Rubin. Sure, they can wait and get even further behind on their updates, which is dependent on Google releasing the source first (hello Honeycomb). That is not even close to open, which is what Google was preaching.
It always impresses me that you're willing to give any company besides Apple the benefit of the doubt, regardless of the evidence!
The fact that he compares himself to a genius, rather than just saying FUD, pretty much says it all.
We're talking about actual forums, not blog comment sections.
In the dedicated forums on XDA, AndroidForums, Phandroid, HoFo, there were just a handful of responses to the news, most ending with approval.
Nothing anywhere like the hundreds of posts in this thread.
Well, of course. That's what I said:
Since the code isn't done yet, then early access obviously depends on communication and agreement on what can and cannot be done.
If you're making a plain Honeycomb tablet, no problem. If you're adding your own standard widgets, also no problem. If you have plans to modify the OS code itself before it's done, then you have to coordinate with Google.
It's just common sense.
Again, as some of us have been trying to point out: "open" does not mean that Google has to release any code before it's done.
Too many people think at a very superficial depth. Early access deals are meaningless.
The real news was not the deals, it was the fact that Google felt they had to allow early access in order to fight the iPad2.
Yes, but MacRumors is pretty large. I noticed Android Central had a front page post on it.
No, you are completely ignoring the fact that Google is not asking for coordination. They're asking to review the plans of a manufacturer and then give them access or to say no. You know, just the way the Apple App Store works!
I never said Google had to release any code before it's finished. I said that making manufacturers who don't want to agree to Google's onerous terms wait until source code is released is "painful" for the manufacturer. Especially when an issue arises (ala Honeycomb) where the manufacturer may not get access for months.
So, in conclusion, Android is open to manufacturers as long as they agree to do what Google tells them. Sounds like a perfectly normal version of open to me.