[Tyrannosaurs]

The way in which Android is open differs from many other open projects.

The source to Android is made public at or around the time the final version ships but until that point only select partners have access to the software. It's this approach that Google are going to strengthen - essentially if you don't obey their rules you won't be a select partner and you won't get early access to the new releases.

What this means is that if you don't obey Google's rules you'll be getting the software two or three months later than your competitors (and without all the support they will be getting), likely receiving it around the time they're actually bringing products to market. That's a pretty big competitive disadvantage if you're aiming to compete at anything close to the top end of the market.

So basically while you can use Android as you wish, if you don't obey Google's rules then you won't be able to do so in a way that allows you to be competitive.

The cynic in me says that this is getting mighty close to being open in name only.

[jkincaid]

Okay, but Facebook isn't really going head-to-head with everyone else shipping the stock version of Android with a slightly different coat of paint, so I don't think it's a huge deal if they're a few months behind.

Also, while there have been some performance optimizations in the latest builds of Android, from a feature perspective there hasn't been that much (NFC is the biggest one in Gingerbread). So even working on the previous release doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.

[MatthewPhillips]

I don't think being behind matters that much. People online complain about version numbers; general consumers don't know. Amazon can release a phone running 2.3 loaded with Amazon Appstore, Cloud Player, tighter Facebook integration, and an overhauled UI (A good one) and consumers will eat it up.

[Tyrannosaurs]

If it's not that big a deal why are Android users so vocal about not getting updates?

Even if that is true if you're Facebook or Amazon and you're looking to differentiate yourself in that way it's one thing. If you're a handset manufacturer looking to make a kick-ass Android phone it's another entirely and there it would be a big deal.

[MatthewPhillips]

I disagree that Android users are vocal about updates, after all, people are buying phones with 2.2 in mass. I think Facebook or Amazon can get away with releasing on 2.3 without any backlash whatsoever until/unless the next version has a major killer feature.

[Tyrannosaurs]

And that's the big unless.

You may be right for small point releases but when they revise the interface or introduce significant new features or something else which people will notice and want, it's going to put you at a disadvantage.

And because you don't have access to the new version you don't know whether it's going to be a significant release or not. You may be competitive, you may not, you simply don't know.

I honestly don't see how that doesn't put a company at a disadvantage - it's certainly not a level playing field and it's certainly not a situation I'd happily put myself in.