Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:23 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Catfight! Get out your mobile phones and start filming, because two important personalities in the mobile world just got into a catfight. After the presentation of Apple's (once again) stellar quarterly results (what's with the low iPad sales, though?), Apple's CEO Steve Jobs went on a bit of a tangent regarding Android (among other things). Google's Andy Rubin, the father of Android, responded in a pretty fun way via Twitter.
Thread beginning with comment 445759
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Open
by vivainio on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:40 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Someone may disagree about Rubin's defition of "open". Dumping the source code somewhere periodically doesn't cut it, by itself (even if it technically is open source).

Reply Score: 6

RE: Open
by fatjoe on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:49 in reply to "Open"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Rubin's point was that all information is out there, and you can use it however you like.

If the current line of phones are not to your liking, you can create your own and no one will send C&D letters to you.

[... or you could get a Nexus 1 and hack it to death]

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Open
by VZsolt on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:05 in reply to "RE: Open"
VZsolt Member since:
2008-10-31

You might want to watch out for patent lawsuits flying low.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Open
by Timmmm on Tue 19th Oct 2010 20:21 in reply to "RE: Open"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

If the current line of phones are not to your liking, you can create your own and no one will send C&D letters to you.


Make your own phone? Are you mad? The whole point of android being "open" is that people can buy a phone, and then download the Android source, compile and install it. In reality they *can't* do that, because

A) Most phones have locked boot-loaders. and
B) There's no source for many of the drivers or the radio firmware. You have to (illegally) copy the binaries that came with the phone, and even then you can't add features, fix bug and so on.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Open
by tomcat on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:08 in reply to "Open"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Someone may disagree about Rubin's defition of "open". Dumping the source code somewhere periodically doesn't cut it, by itself (even if it technically is open source).


Agreed. Google has agreements with carriers that prevent those carriers from modifying aspects of the Android mobile experience without Google's approval. We saw this recently when one of the carriers wanted to replace Android mapping functionality from a 3rd party software provider other than Google. Google doesn't mind if you modify Android, as long as you don't have any way of competing with Google. That isn't opennness.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Open
by Radio on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:14 in reply to "RE: Open"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Wrong. They can't modify some elements of Android if they want the google apps and the "with Google" branding. Those additional, proprietary elements are not part of Android, the smartphone OS.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Open
by l3v1 on Tue 19th Oct 2010 18:18 in reply to "Open"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Someone may disagree about Rubin's defition of "open". Dumping the source code somewhere periodically doesn't cut it, by itself (even if it technically is open source).


Geez, people, it seems that sometimes nothing is good enough for you.

Open source does mean you get access to the source code, even if there would be certain requirements on the other end (i.e. when putting it on devices and distributing). Access to sources is a major plus against all others from a dev point of view, and whatever Jobs or MS says, Google is my favourite of the bunch from this point of view. I couldn't care less about GUI consistency between devices, consistency in the background makes me more happy.

Of course I realize most people (i.e. buyers) are totally uninterested in such issues - but then what's all the fuss about? What's the still ongoing lack of anger management against anything that contains open source in its designation?

About A. Rubin's tweet, it's funny, and to the point. He doesn't say bad word about anyone and doesn't point any fingers, still manages to make his point. And well so. Gotta buy him a beer ;)

And by the way, The first thing we think of when we hear open is Windows: W. T. F. ?! Knowing that Jobs is far from stupid, and looking at the context seeing it's not a joke, I can't really make anything of this.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Open
by Morgan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 00:50 in reply to "RE: Open"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

And by the way, The first thing we think of when we hear open is Windows: W. T. F. ?! Knowing that Jobs is far from stupid, and looking at the context seeing it's not a joke, I can't really make anything of this.


I think, as Apple continues to move further and further from the open standards that helped make them what they are today, Jobs has started trying to redefine the word "open" to keep Apple looking positive.

By equating open software with Windows, he pushes the idea that open no longer means Free access to the source code and Freedom to modify and redistribute; rather, in his eyes "open software" should refer to how widespread and available it is -- and therefore how consistent the UI is. As anyone with half a clue knows, Windows is the dominant PC operating system therefore by Jobs' definition it is the most "open". Since the Mac OS is the second most popular PC OS, it must also fall under this "open" umbrella. Linux, with its ~1% market share -- again, on desktop PCs -- and its virtually unlimited potential for customization both at the low level and the UI, must therefore be "closed".

All that so he can imply that Linux on a phone must also be closed, because even though it has the highest market share among smartphones* it has the ability to host various manufacturer-branded UIs on top of the standard Android experience. Notice I said "ability", not "liability" as he would imply. I personally see the customization options as a feature, not a bug. Of course, his "open" iOS is obviously superior because it offers virtually no customization and a completely vertical app store.

As I've been saying a lot lately, I've decided I really don't like the direction Jobs and Apple are going. I still respect him for his genius and his past accomplishments, and OS X remains one of my all time favorite OSes to work in, but these days I'd almost rather use Windows.

(Cue Southern drawl) I just plain don't like Apple no more.



* I'm not including Symbian as I don't think Jobs has it on his radar, even though it is quite the popular smartphone OS.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Open
by JAlexoid on Thu 21st Oct 2010 21:49 in reply to "RE: Open"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And by the way, The first thing we think of when we hear open is Windows: W. T. F. ?! Knowing that Jobs is far from stupid, and looking at the context seeing it's not a joke, I can't really make anything of this.


Jobs is technically irrelevant person, for at least 10 years now.
He is a business person, a strategist and a marketing guru... And he's good at it.

Reply Parent Score: 3