Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Android is more open than iOS. It is less open than Ubuntu. We just saw a story today about Google playing favorites with access to early releases of operating system code; when you're shipping multi-billion-dollar SKUs based on that code, this isn't a minor detail. The fact is, Android is "open" to end-users, but not completely "open" to vendors.

It's frustrating to watch people try to reconcile this, because not only is everyone using different definitions of the word "open", but they change definitions from day to day.

Meanwhile: this is second-order punditry. It's a critique of a pundit. And it's a pundit who wears his bias on his sleeve. It's boring. People don't read Gruber for the unvarnished truth about the mobile market. If you want to right whatever wrong you feel is being committed because a gifted writer has overtly taken Apple's side (gasp!), write an excellent blog advocating for the Google ecosystem. But don't waste our time litigating against Gruber. Nobody cares!

View on HN

    Android is "open" to end-users, but not completely "open" to vendors

I think you have this backwards. With the exception of Honeycomb, vendors have a lot of flexibility to do what they want with Android, including skinning it and running it on custom hardware. And if they decide to forego the Google apps, they don't have to get approval to ship a device with Android on it. Conversely, users of Android-based products don't have the ability to update or modify the OS (beyond what the vendor allows) without 'rooting' the device, a process that most non-technical people are unable to perform.

If they can't get the next revision of the OS on the same terms as their competitors, it's not open for them. I think you're glossing over the practical realities of shipping products that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to launch.

If you want to assert that it's not open for end-users either, I won't argue, but I'm not sold on that.

I'll agree that Google is taking steps to make Android less open for vendors, but it's still more open for vendors than it is for end users (largely because of vendors putting restrictions on the devices they sell).

And yet, there are devices sold that don't have to be rooted, which you can't say about iOS.

True, but iOS isn't involved here. What's involved is that Google has repeatedly promoted Android as an 'open' platform, but now has decided that actually being open is no longer in their interest.

I don't think there's any platform that can be used as a distribution medium and that doesn't come with strings attached. Even stuff licensed under GPL comes with strings attached.

And there are inherent disadvantages to being open, which Google is trying to mitigate here, and they have been doing this ever since Android launched (people have short memories or simply bad attitudes -- Android's source code wasn't released from the start).

If anything Google's behavior is actually consistent.

Google's behavior is consistent with their past behavior, but not consistent with what their words. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

Bullshit -- define "open".

Also, when referring to "their words" some references are required ;)

Here:

"We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open."

(from: http://source.android.com/)

Are you seriously going to pretend that Google is not now restricting or controlling the innovations of any other industry players?

>Are you seriously going to pretend that Google is not now restricting or controlling the innovations of any other industry players?

Huh? How is delaying the source code release of an incremental update such a big deal? Innovate all you want on top of 2.3(which is barely a few months old), make it tablet friendly or whatever and port it to whatever hardware you build.

Haven't you heard of the concept of forking?

Do you really think that people who have to fork a months old version are at no disadvantage to those who have access to the current source?

"fairness" is a human-invented concept.

Capitalism is open, but unfair; mother-nature is open, but unfair.

I agree. I never said anything about fairness. I simply showed that Google is being hypocritical.

Hypocrisy is a perfectly valid strategy under capitalism.

I am so sorry for those (Dell, Acer) who didn't get what Google built for free when other partners got involved early on. Having to develop your own software and not getting it for free certainly sucks.

If they are so disappointed, they can always launch Windows Phone 7 devices.

Well yes, I'm going to pretend just that :)

If Google never releases Honeycomb, then I'll agree; until then ...

Any other industry player can take Gingerbread and create its own Honeycomb, while keeping compatibility and totally being able to take the market by storm.

That's the very definition of open-source -- when unhappy with a project's governance, you can fork ; and you can fork Gingerbread, or Honeycomb when it will get released. You don't have to trust the company, just the source-code / license of the last release.

So what stops you or any industry players from just doing that? Lunch not free anymore?

Well you said it: Lunch isn't free anymore.

The point is that Google is using Android to do precisely what they claimed they stood against - which is to control other players in the industry. That's what makes it hypocrisy.

I assume you'd agree that someone who forked a months old version would be at an extraordinary disadvantage against a competitor who had access to the current source and ongoing contributions from Google.

    the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u
    git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

-Andy Rubin, Google VP of Engineering

http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

Since when did it stop building?

Can you build Honeycomb?

No. I can build whatever is on version control. They didn't release Honeycomb as open-source yet, just like they don't release beta software - mind you, there is no such thing as an Android daily build. The only thing new is that you can buy a device with pre-release Honeycomb software.

I am not overly enthusiastic about that.

"With the exception of Honeycomb..."

Which fallacy is that, again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelming_exception

"With notably rare exceptions..."

http://crookedtimber.org/2011/03/30/with-notably-rare-except...

The post begins:

'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."'

But Gruber didn't say "open" was bad, did he? He (and others) argue that "open" is used as a synonym for "good", a virtue of itself, but that in the end you don't get something that's either "open" or "good" for pretty much any definition of "open" or "good".

Open would mean I can do anything I like to the OS (update it, customize it, replace it). In most cases I can't.

Good would mean I can have the latest OS on my phone if I want it. In most cases I can't.

Open would mean I can easily get access to the complete source code for my phone if I want it. In most cases I can't.

Seriously -- for what values of open or good do we get a big fat green tick?

It's not like Gruber is biased and other people aren't. Everyone is biased. Argue the evidence.

>Seriously -- for what values of open or good do we get a big fat green tick?

Open and good in the sense developers don't have to go through a App Store with capricious restrictions and a forced 30% cut. You can either publish on your own or go to alternate stores like Amazon App Store which will try to attract you with better terms.

Open and good in the sense that subscription providers don't have to pay a toll of 30% to Apple for nothing. Even WP7 is 'Open' in this sense.

Open and good in the sense of the variety of hardware. Eg. If you like hardware keyboards on phones you have no choice in Apple land. Even WP7 is 'Open' in this sense.

Open and good in the sense you can install whatever normal apps you want without jailbreaking. (AT&T phones are locked to the Android Market, but Android apps don't have to go through an Approval process).

I think the word "open" is now just too overloaded. What does open mean ? Does it mean that I can read the source? Does it mean I can read the source in a timely fashion as soon as the product is available? Does it mean that I have the right to modify and execute the source? Does it mean that there are reasonably good chances that if I make a valid and valued change to the code it will be integrated upstream? While Gruber has a biased take on things, there is some truth to the fact that there are definitions of open by which Android is not an open system.

I find it hard to come up with a definition by which Android is an open system. It seems to pretty much boil down to:

Some of the time, some people can see some of the source, but some of those people may be restricted in what they can do by licenses'.

If that's what passes as 'open' we need a new word.

By the same metric, we need new definitions for what Apple is doing. For example, the forced 30% cut of all subscription content. That isn't 'closed' anymore, like we say 'Windows is closed'. Maybe 'Locked down' is more like it?

This isn't about Apple, as has been pointed out repeatedly. There are a lot of criticisms about iOS which are valid, however I don't recall them ever claiming their platform was even remotely open.

If "Open" is now a convoluted word, we have Google to thank for that, because that's what happens when you launch an entire marketing campaign around a single term.

>..you launch an entire marketing campaign around a single term.

They did? Maybe I was the only one who missed it. Links?

Android is definitely way more "Open" than iOS, by almost any metric, even with the latest changes. Care to dispute that?

And it's not helping that Apple is going to even more closed via forced cut of subscriptions.

Claiming it's 'more' open just begs a Godwin conclusion.

Why? Aren't there discernible differences in the openness of Android and iOS regarding the hardware, app stores and subscriptions?

I'm guessing you don't understand the Godwin reference.

You can watch this video for starters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89xc_1Vv69k (Google IO 2010 Android Keynote)

One selected quote:

1.) "So if you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone†, then welcome to Android."

† Everyone, depending on where the innovation is, being Google employees, and select partners who are given access to the Android source before public release.

That seems pretty true compared to the alternate platform which results in things like this http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/659211315/almost-on-the-app-st... and this http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207641/Apple_rejects...

And it seems like nothing has changed with the latest changes to Android. Care to elaborate?

Edit: And how is a IO keynote 'an entire marketing campaign' ?

Apple has been upfront from the get-go that their platform isn't open (they say that people who want to do things openly on iOS are free to make web apps; which I guess is nice, but sort of a brush-off).

I don't like the position Apple has taken. I agree that it's their prerogative to do so, and they argue that their position leads to a better product.

I've used several Android phones, and now an iPhone 4, and I think that they're right...and I hate that. I don't want them to be right, I want them to be proven wrong.

I think Android has absolutely worked to position themselves as a friend to "open" (with bullshit nebulously defined definitions of what "open" means). The entire content of that keynote is a gushing plea to friends of the open source movement (that you have an alternative to iOS).

And I think that Google's position of "open" since the launch of Android has been shitty (so yeah, I guess nothing has changed with the latest changes to Android), except that this yet another bullet point on the side against open.

Development on Android has always occurred in the dark, without feedback or input from the community at large. When a release is "ready", it's open-sourced, and then people are free to take the parts of Android which are included in that open release and do what they want with them. This is of course, long after Google's partners have had access to the source, so that they can prepare their phones for release.

I'd like for "open" to mean an open playground, where everyone is equal (and technology can compete on merits). Not where "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". But like Apple, Google is free to do this (I don't think they're in violation of any licenses with the way they release their code).

But I think it sucks, and I think it's crazy that I have to long for an actual "open" alternative to the supposedly "open" alternative to iOS.

>Edit: And how is a IO keynote 'an entire marketing campaign' ?

How is the text on http://source.android.com/ not?

A web page on the internet is an entire marketing campaign?

What percentage of Android users even visited that page in their lifetime, forget about being swayed by that statement on it? 0.005%?

I think the word "open" is now just too overloaded.

I agree with this. Some time ago, the word "free" became overloaded, so today we talk about "Freedom zero," "Free as in beer," "Free as in speech," and so on. I think there's a general understanding that the word "free" is not specific enough.

It seems we're at that place with "open" as well. Good call.

It is sad that many use it in open as in license terms, while true openness of a platform is a lot more:

http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/open_source-free_software-what_we_...

This is so true. "Open" has become a software-politics analog of "freedom" in ordinary politics. An undefinable, but very good, thing. (Freedom from taxes? Freedom from poverty?)

One point of clarity, however, regarding these recent statements is that Andy Rubin helpfully gave his definition of the term:

http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

This definition allows much less wiggle room! It's wiggle room that Google wants back now. ;-)

> Android is "open" to end-users

Android absolutely isn't "open" to end-users. It's not as bad as iOS, but it definitely isn't good, and it's far more open to vendors (of all stripes) than to end-users so far.

Isn't this recent move about changing that around?

It might be, but so far I see it mostly as platform re-consolidation (/protection) and branding defense, the pushback on honeycomb source release goes the other way as well.

So if I go read a couple weeks worth of daring fireball, I'm not going to find any posts disagreeing with something another pundit has written?

In my experience pundits spend the majority of their time explaining their agreement or disagreement with the arguments of other pundits, so it seems odd to define that as second-order punditry.

The author of the OP probably included some overdramatic language, but I thought the meat of the post was about why he disagreed with Gruber on a specific point. That may not be interesting to you, but I don't think it is categorically a waste of time either.

If second-order punditry is so worthless, why are we content to spout third-order punditry here?

this is second-order punditry. It's a critique of a pundit. And it's a pundit who wears his bias on his sleeve. It's boring.

But... But... Someone is WRONG on the Internet!

http://xkcd.com/386/

The annoying thing is, Gruber's not wrong. He's biased and he's going to adopt whatever findings of fact and findings of analysis are most favorable to Apple, but he's been doing this for 10+ years and he's not simply going to make things up. Which makes it especially dumb to get into a blogfight with him. Because it's never going to end.

There is still a case to be made for Android over iOS based on openness. People should make that case. But what are they saying when they make a case for Android based on Gruber? Is that the best they've got? That an Apple advocate is advocating Apple?

he's been doing this for 10+ years and he's not simply going to make things up. Which makes it especially dumb to get into a blogfight with him. Because it's never going to end.

As the old saying goes, never argue with someone who buys their ink by the barrel. And I agree that Gruber is not wrong. "Biased" does not mean wrong, it means consistently interpreting the facts to favour certain interpretations or disfavour others.

In my opinion, it is very healthy to consider biased opinions when trying to understand an issue:

http://raganwald.posterous.com/bias

But no, Gruber is not wrong. It's just that some people think he's wrong and are compelled to argue with him personally rather than either (a) identify which facts he is wrongly reporting, or (b) give their own alternate interpretation of the same facts.

As you can tell I completely agree that calling Gruber out because someone disagrees with his opinion is adding an unnecessary level of indirection to the debate.

>But no, Gruber is not wrong. It's just that some people think he's wrong and are compelled to argue with him personally rather than either (a) identify which facts he is wrongly reporting, or (b) give their own alternate interpretation of the same facts.

The problem is there are lots of other people who take his fawning writing as the gospel truth and mindlessly upvote any posts in favor while downvoting any that are against.

>are compelled to argue with him personally rather than either (a) identify which facts he is wrongly reporting, or (b) give their own alternate interpretation of the same facts

You forgot (c) Get mercilessly downvoted and/or watch nonsense rebuttal replies get upvoted.

This is the real reason that the discussions around Apple on tech sites are so polarizing, the disconnect with reality and objectivity.

There are even a bunch of people who have left HN in disgust over this prevalent practice of Apple worship over proper discussion on here.

mindlessly upvote any posts in favor while downvoting any that are against.

How exactly do you judge which upvotes are mindless and which are the result of someone who disagrees with a post but thinks it's insightful or valuable or otherwise a positive contribution to Hacker News?

What parameters do you use to judge which upvotes are mindless and which are the result of people who weigh the issues and then come to a conclusion that differs from yours?

Some time ago, I decided that I liked using Macintoshes and disliked using PCs. I also noticed that there were 19 PCs for every Macintosh. What would you have said if I'd suggested that all the people buying PCs were "mindless drones" instead of deciding that they were people who, given the information in front of them, came to a different conclusion for themselves than the one I had come to for myself?

proper discussion

Here's my definition of a proper discussion: No ad hominem arguments and no ad hominem abuse. What's yours?

Well, see point #3 here. http://mattmaroon.com/2010/11/23/i-quit-hacker-news/

And here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1800253

The comments and the moderation are extremely predictable in most cases regardless of technical merits of the discussion. A casual or statistical observation would easily reveal the prevalent biases, even amongst the crowd that prides itself on being objective.

Does HN pride itself on being objective? This seems like wishful thinking. HN is supposed to favour hacking software, hardware, and the ultimate in social and business hacking, disruptive startups. I would call that being biased.

If we were "objective" about everything, we wouldn't actually have any culture. It's our lack of objectivity that makes us cohesive. To put it another way, "biased" can often mean the same thing as "opinionated." Sometimes that is annoying if you have a different opinion. Sometimes it is refreshing.

So what I will say in response is that without agreeing or disagreeing about whether HN is biased in favour of or against Apple and/or Gruber's writing, we should be careful to distinguish "bias" from "mindlessness." I do know what you mean, humans have a tendency towards groupthink and conformity. Voting a certain way solely because you observe other people voting that way is mindless in the sense you are using, and that dynamic has been seen on HN.

But the other thing that takes place on HN is bias that is not based on conformity, the bias that comes from a set of people with similar values tending to interpret objective facts in similar subjective ways. If what you want is to reduce the conformity and deaden the echo-chamber effect, you have my support. I'm only cautioning against assuming that all bias--especially bias towards disagreeing with you--comes from the same place.

p.s. Please don't think I'm arguing with you. It would be ironic indeed if I were to argue that bias is acceptable and healthy yet tell you that you are wrong to have a different interpretation of HN's behaviour that I have :-)

> HN is supposed to favour hacking software, hardware, and the ultimate in social and business hacking, disruptive startups. I would call that being biased.

Except when it's Apple and then people lose all sense of objectivity and perspective and support the locking down of platforms so that things are not hackable anymore. Example: http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/1015614125/google-voice-says-h...

And people envisage in grand terms about a Post-PC world with devices such as these which is very alarming given the potential for abuse(which is already happening). There is barely a protest but there is certainly a lot of fawning over the choice of chair in the latest Apple conference. :)

Anyone pointing out any fact that can be construed as critical to Apple is usually downvoted to obscurity.

The downvotes are even more reflective of the community because of the high karma threshold needed to downvote.

Regardless of the origin, the end result is still the same, the bias is harmful because it drowns out alternate views, and most of the people affected either leave or are forced to conform.(see the HN comment link in my comment in a parent post in this thread).

You've linked to two comments there, both o which complain of downvotes, both of which are upvoted. Even so, those are just people who agree with you, that doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument.

Are you sure people aren't just over reacting?

Gruber doesn't need to make things up, he just links to half-baked stories as long they fit his "Google is evil" frame and doesn't bother to go back and correct them when there's been time for the real story to come out. This is likely yet another of these occasions.

It's similar to making things up when you are linking to small sections of an article and trying to paint a narrow view of an argument. His commentaries are also incredibly horrible.

tangental, but the actual source of that comic: http://xkcd.com/386/ or http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

The whole 'more open' thing leads straight to Godwin's law.

If "open" is now a marketing term to be defined individually by each entity that's exploiting it, than Google and their supporters should stop using it, because it's ultimately meaningless.

The spirit of open source is supposed to be that you have access to the Android source at all times and can do what you want with it. However, it's not an open platform if Google retains final approval over source changes by licensees and is holding up phones that just so happen to use a rival search engine like Bing. It's not an open platform if they're withholding source except to their privileged partners who get early access while others don't.

I just don't understand why so much faith is placed in this multi-billion dollar advertising company. Google is not really an open source company--their core business is a closed source, proprietary content-indexing platform that just happens to be backed by open source software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com