Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:05 UTC
Google TechCrunch held a little in-promptu poll a few days ago, asking its readers why they chose to go with Android instead of something else. Most people stated they choose Android because of "openness". The author of the article calls this "a load of crap", arguing that because carriers can do with Android as they so desire, the reality now is that Android isn't open. Clearly, the author doesn't get openness.
Thread beginning with comment 440172
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Definitions
by malxau on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:50 UTC
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

I think the author made a key point:

“Open” is great until you have to define it or defend it.


His point follows that currently many carriers have a lot of "openness", and immediately try to remove it from end users, then concludes this doesn't make it open. Thom's point is that everyone has the source, and could take advantage of that openness (although in the process would lose a lot of phone/carrier specific support.)

I can't help see parallels between this and GPL vs. BSD licensing wars of old. Is "open" letting anyone do what they want? Or is "open" preventing anyone from preventing anyone else from doing what they want?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Definitions
by Timmmm on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:15 in reply to "Definitions"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

You know there's a simple solution: buy your phone unlocked (e.g. from Expansys). It also works out cheaper in a lot of cases.

Reply Parent Score: 2