I don't agree with the parent poster's implication that 'because you work for Google you are a spokesperson'
But.. You have certainly claimed to have authority to speak about parts of Google's strategy because you were in certain meetings.
But.. You have certainly claimed to have authority to speak about parts of Google's strategy because you were in certain meetings.
These are very different things, and you should not confuse them.
As i've said before, everything i've stated about these strategies is public knowledge, and often stated by Andy Rubin himself, just not always believed :)
All i've done is basically say "believe it".
You seem to be trying to wriggle out of this by saying that what people mean by Android today has moved past the 'open beginning' that is all that was ever meant to be open, and that's not Google's fault.
I agree that this isn't Google's fault. But let's speak plainly. Android began as open and that was all that Google intended. Things have changed since then and only a part of Android is open anymore.
Why try to claim otherwise?
This is why I said that. You have your belief. You are clearly unlikely to change it no matter what I say. Your goal in this is not to possibly change your belief, but to find a way to confirm it in what i'm saying. This is what people do in these situations.
That does not often generate useful discussion, and it hasn't really here.
Realistically, I haven't tried to wiggle out of anything. It just turns out, as I suggested, we strongly disagree over whether Android is open, whether it was meant to be, and whether it still is.
Rather than continue this unproductive debate, i'm just going to go back to hacking some code on this fine sunday :)