[18pfsmt]

The concept of openness is not black or white. There are many shades of grey, and certainly wrt mobile OSs, Android is more open than WP7, iOS, RIM, or WebOS. Just like there are differences between FOSS licenses (e.g. BSD vs GPL). They have to contend with the wishes of the carriers and hardware mfgs, not just developers, which can be quite difficult to balance.

[gamble]

Yes, Android's conception of openness is the kind where you get to advertise how moral you are and how dastardly the competition is, not the kind where you have to compromise on difficult business decisions.

[joebadmo]

So you disagree that Google/Android is more open than any of the other platforms?

I've never understood Google's 'openness' argument as a moral one. I always took it to mean that I can do whatever I want with my hardware, including side-loading software at various levels of the stack. This has held mostly true.

I'm seeing two kinds of attacks on Google/Android's openness when this kind of thing happens. The first is from F/OSS advocates that feel betrayed and manipulated by Google's use/misuse of F/OSS terms, which is pretty understandable to me as Google's handling of its software seems to be very different from traditional F/OSS.

The other is from Apple advocates trying to score cheap gotcha/schadenfreude points. Your comment is the second kind.

[gamble]

Google has been pushing the 'open' line heavily since Android launched. They've benefitted from endlessly positive PR; they deserve to be called on it when they choose profits over principle. That seems to be a lot these days.

> I can do whatever I want with my hardware

All handset manufacturers lock down the firmware. You can download the source, but you can't do anything without hacking the phone. If that's 'open', then by unlocking my iPhone I can render it just as 'open'. Now you can't even download the source. As for side-loading, the second-largest mobile provider in the US doesn't let you do it at all. How is Android open if Google never calls out the gatekeepers as they strip away the openness?

The only substantial way Android can even claim to be 'open' is the lack of editorial control over the software installed on Android phones. Of course, Skyhook probably has something to say about that too.

As for Apple, they do plenty of things I don't like. But fundamentally they're just a consumer electronics company turning out gadgets with few political implications.

Apple isn't the world's largest advertising company, running the world's largest private information gathering system. Apple isn't the go-to company when Obama wants advice on tech issues. Apple hasn't enabled censorship in China. Apple hasn't supported net neutrality when it suited their needs, then yanked the rug away when it didn't.

Google is all of those things - and their reputation as the universal love child, reflexively defended by legions of fans based on their commitment to principles like 'not being evil' and 'openness', enables them to act without regard to those principles.

[joebadmo]

I disagree that the PR has been "endlessly positive;" I do think they should be called out when they deserve it, and I think some of the points that you point out qualify. I don't think delaying the release of Honeycomb really qualifies, but that's debatable.

The handset manufacturers/carriers do lock down the software. But that's not Google, that's the manufacturers/carriers. When Google is involved (with their flagship devices like the G1 and Nexus devices) the hardware is not locked down at all.

I think one of the problems with what you're saying is the conflation of specific hardware, Android, and Google Experience Android. Anyone can take open source Android and put it on any hardware they manufacture. That's open. Some manufacturers can negotiate with Google to put Google Experience Android on their hardware. That's less open, but more open than most/all other platforms. Skyhook can make a deal with anyone making non-Google Experience Android devices they want to. Google Experience Devices still enjoy almost complete freedom in the Android Market, as well as openly distributed APKs (excepting ATT devices).

RE Apple and political implications: I disagree with you. Their editorial oversight and the heavy-handed and arbitrary way that they exercise it is political control.

RE Apple and censorship: Apple doesn't enable censorship in China. They actively engage in censorship everywhere (through the App Store). I'm sure if Apple had occasion to enable censorship in China, they'd (prudently) do so. (As an aside, Apple has other issues in China.)

I'll admit I do like Google and have a warm and fuzzy feeling about them. But I think it's deserved. Google has done some amazing things, some (like the release of Android source) unequivocally open.

That said, I do think Google makes some pragmatic decisions sometimes that are compromises of their professed principles. And that does make me angry. I don't reflexively defend those decisions. I do hope that they are pragmatic decisions taken with a long-term view (e.g. working with carriers/manufacturers until Android and specifically Google Experience Android is a sufficient industry power that they can force the industry to open up and allow software freedom).

Again, delaying the release of source code to me does not qualify as a breach of principle, and the criticisms thereof strike me as reflexive, and mostly in the two ways I described above.