[joeminkie]

It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less "open."

From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad, just that that Google shouldn't use it as a marketing point if they're not 100% open.

And Apple makes just as big a deal about the advantages of iOS being closed as Google does about the openness of Android.

Right, but with Apple closed means closed. No one says that Apple is a "almost closed" and argues they should be totally closed. Google is half-assing their definition of open — which is fine, do what you want — but people are calling BS and rightfully so. The argument should be what is better: 100% closed or less than 100% open? This is where the shades of grey come in.

[isleyaardvark]

It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less "open."

From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad, just that that Google shouldn't use it as a marketing point if they're not 100% open.

Here's my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective: Apple took a "closed" approach which helped in quality control. Google took an "open" approach which allowed others to add or modify their OS in ways that did not benefit the consumer, or just plain sucked. This resulted in multiple products that either simply lack polish or just stink to use. Google found this out the hard way and is now trying to tighten their control, and Apple's approach is being entirely vindicated.

[jokermatt999]

I agree partly, but not entirely. Some lock down is good, such as preventing the modifications from carriers that usually users don't like (from what I've seen, at least) and delay updates. However, allowing the user choice to apply their own modifications like custom homescreens and skins is a good thing, and has actually improved the default product for me. Some control is good, but I think Apple takes it too far.

[roc]

> "I always thought the argument wasn't that open = bad"

That's my view of things as well. The closest the arguments got to "open=bad" was: open has an increasingly-poor track record as projects trend away from tools for technical users and toward products for average consumers.

And that's certainly not to say that all Open source projects are doomed or that Android couldn't succeed; it was just an observation of results. Something proponents of Open should be familiar with. (i.e. "closed source tends to be less secure")