Google is between a rock and a hard place. They release Honeycomb source, then a bunch of makers will rush out with phones (this move is clearly about phones and not tablets) running an OS they don't want on phones yet. And if they do, the headline would be "Steve Jobs vindicated: Google Android is fragmented as hell". Of course, ignoring that Apple did the same exact forking and then merging move with iOS.<p>Personally I would err on the side of openness and let the shitty manufacturers run wild, but at least this way the blowback is just a bunch of philosophical arguments on nerd sites and not actual customers buying bad Android products.
Bit of an inaccurate title there - honeycomb will not be open sourced until they decide it's ready. Android is still open.<p>Oh, and Steve Jobs has already been vindicated by selling billions of dollars of tech.
To me, 'Open' is not the same as just 'Open Source'. I'm not really that interested in whether Android is open source or not.<p>What I am interested in is whether the device lets me do what <i>I</i> want - that is, it allows me to download and install whatever software I choose to, in what manner I want. Android lets me do this. That is why Android is 'Open'.<p>Whilst I understand for most consumers this is not an issue, and I have no qualms with people who go along with that, for me personally as a programmer, I will not buy any other smartphone platform if it does not afford me that same liberty.
I don't understand these "Google Android is not open" arguments. Can you go to <a href="http://source.apple.com/" rel="nofollow">http://source.apple.com/</a> and download iOS 1.0? No. Can you go to <a href="http://source.blackberry.com/" rel="nofollow">http://source.blackberry.com/</a> and download their OS? No. Sure, Honeycomb isn't coming out right this very moment, but at least there's <i>something</i> there.<p>By any definition Google is at least several orders of magnitude more "open" than Apple. Apple releases <i>no</i> source (other than what is required of them, and only after a few weeks or months). Google releases <i>all</i> source (sure, after a few weeks or months).
There's a big difference between<p>"On Thursday, the company said that as its select partners release the first tablets based on Android "Honeycomb" – the latest version of its mobile operating system – <i>it will not open source the Honeycomb code.</i>"<p>And "But there was no indication that the code wouldn't be promptly open sourced as the first devices were released. What's more, Google did not make a public announcement that it will keep the source closed. "<p>I'd be surprised if Google has manged to rid every last piece of GPL'd software from the OS. Otherwise, they're going to have to release the source.<p>Check here for updates <a href="http://source.android.com/" rel="nofollow">http://source.android.com/</a>
<i>But the reality is surely that Google and its partners don't want smaller name manufacturers eating into their tablet sales. Or perhaps they don't want larger names nabbing pieces of code for their own tablet OSes.</i><p>Why would they be worried about this? Isn't the purpose of Android* to increase global pageviews and sell more (local) ads? Don't 2nd tier OEMs and competing platforms further these goals?<p>While I am not sure if you can take google at face value in terms of their reasons, the author's conclusions seem wildly unsourced. Unless someone would like to expand on his reasoning?
"While we’re excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones. Until then, we’ve decided not to release Honeycomb to open source."<p>The <i>until then</i> part strikes me as pretty important. It sounds like Google is just delaying the release of the source until they reach a certain milestone. This is a very reasonable position to take. I think the author of the piece is jumping to conclusions.
I was planning on purchasing an Android tablet, but no sale until the source code is out there. I own an Android phone and have been happy with it, but I'm not interested in giving up my freedom just to have my hands on the latest toy. I am extremely disappointed in this decision. I wasn't under any particular illusions about Google, but I actually believed they were comitted to Android as an open source project. If they get their act together and get their source code out the door soon and don't repeat this nonsense for subsequent Android releases, they will keep me as a customer of devices based on their operating system. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
It's a bit premature to say that Steve Jobs is vindicated in so far as Android is concerned from a journalistic standpoint and claims of "vindication" seem to be a bit more editorial than factual. However, timing is everything when it comes to linkbait.
Does this have anything to do with Rim's tab not being able to support Honeycomb-based apps, but previous Android version apps?<p>I would guess that if rim had the source, they would support Honeycomb apps on the playbook and it would be a selling point for them.
Open sourced means "source released with binaries".<p>It does not mean "All code available with all checkins at all times"<p>Because community projects pretty much have to function that way does not mean that's the only way to do open source.<p><pre><code> --An iOS developer and ex-embedded Linux/Linux kernel driver developer who's a little POed that everyone thinks only their way of doing open source is "True to Freedom" or whatever</code></pre>