[rbarooah]

Nice. If this rule forced real open devices to come into existence then it would be very interesting.

To me a genuinely open device would be one where we can reasonably fork Android and make a real open source variant. The idea of a much more flexible, user modifiable device (think dynabook) is very appealing to me.

This isn't possible now because most devices are locked, and even rooting isn't an end-user operation, so it's impractical for unofficial variants to propagate. (which for my purposes means that Android may as well not be 'open')

Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.

[jrockway]

Yes, I know there are 'mods', but they don't count because only enthusiasts can deal with them, and they don't work on all devices. From that point of view iOS is more 'open' because jailbreaks work on all iPhones.

I hate to break it to you, but non-enthusiasts won't be able to deal with anything that is not pre-installed. The good "mods" are typically full AOSP forks, which is as open as you can get.

And of course, you don't have to have root to download the source code of the built-in apps, edit it, and deploy to your phone.

[rbarooah]

You're not breaking anything to me. You're agreeing with me - the current situation isn't open in any meaningful way.

Given they can install apps, non enthusiasts could certainly deal with a one-click install of an alternative OS if it had compelling benefits.

I didn't think the source for the built-in apps was actually available. In any case even if it is, what possible good does it do me to fork Google's apps to make minor modifications to them? Why do you even bring that up?

[trotsky]

I think AOSP forks are open in a meaningful way. Yes, you can't one click install an alternate Android build. But you can choose to buy handsets that have no hardware lock, or others that have trivial (intentionally?) roadblocks to installing a new ROM. CyanogenMod doesn't run on many handsets, but it does run on many others.

Linux had similar difficulties much later in its life than Android is, and *BSD still has them in terms of driver support. None of the open solutions are anywhere close to a one click install. But I wouldn't say Linux/BSD aren't open in a meaningful way.

I think you're expecting a bit too much in terms of your standard for "meaningful" openness. Granted, open Android builds still are getting their legs and have a lot of work still to do.

[rbarooah]

You're right that I'm expecting a lot. If the 'openness' that is claimed for Android is only accessible to expert enthusiasts and tinkerers, that's fine, but then those people have what they want already so why are they complaining about the iPhone?

I think the answer is that like me, they see computers and software as a medium for sharing ideas and creativity. The more people who can participate, even if just as recipients, the better.

This leads some people to be angry about the closedness of the iPhone because it's so popular.

For me, the iPhone is what it is. It solves a lot of problems for a lot of people very nicely. It ends an era of software nightmares for everyday people, but it doesn't usher in an era of true software openness for those of us who believe in the potential of software to improve our world. Personally, I don't think the way forward is to try to undo what Apple have done. You don't change the world by being 'against' something - you change it by creating the thing you think is missing.

Given this, I am disappointed with Android because I don't see it leading us in the direction of a universal medium. Its direction is controlled by a combination of Google and the Carriers, and the fragmentation (don't flame me - I'm not talking about the exaggerated hardware differences) between the levels of openness of handset to having the ROM replaced severely limits the viability of a long lived fork coming from the community.

Linux and BSD are open, but more importantly the PC is open. Even the Mac is open - I can install BSD or Linux or Windows or some homebrew OS (for which there are plenty of kits), or an Ocaml App running in Mirage on to of Xen, or whatever else I want on these computers. That's the kind of openness I believe in.

Android isn't just a source tree. It's the complete system - you can't use the source tree without hardware and a network. If these spectrum rules have any bearing on this (which I doubt), then what would be interesting is if they forced all the Android devices to be open.

Obviously it's easy to demonize Apple, and make Google into the hero in these debates. Apple isn't even pretending to be open and they don't care if they're criticized for it. If we want an open world, and Google are claiming to be part of building that, then they are the ones who should bear scrutiny.

And if we want non-geeks to switch to this amazing open world - the answer is simple too - make it easy to switch and better than what Apple offers.