Comments on: Andy Rubin tweets “definition of open” as Jobs retort

By: Zimmie

Zimmie — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:29:00 +0000

Hilariously enough, this tweet was deleted some time between when it was made and today, December 28, 2011.

By: Steve W, Indialantic FL

Steve W, Indialantic FL — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:40:28 +0000

Andy left something out of his definition of open. Here is the REAL definition of open:

“mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make; make install”.

How open is it, if you can’t install it?

By: Zed

Zed — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:37:24 +0000

This argument almost always conflates two very different things: Android *can* refer specifically to the OS, true, and the code to that OS is open. When most people heard the word Android nowadays, however, they think about *Android devices* …

… and almost none of those are open. In fact, are there *any* left actually being sold that don’t have to be jailbroken to get a root prompt and modify the OS itself?

It doesn’t get to be called an open system until you can *also* type “make install” and “reboot” and have a working device.

Jobs is correct on this. For all practical purposes there are no open Android devices on the market, and Google seems perfectly happy with this state. Where *he* is spinning the truth is in implying that all closed systems are equal, and most Android devices will at least allow you to install your own applications, even if you can’t modify the core OS. Android devices aren’t open, but at least they’re not hermetically sealed.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:44:54 +0000

Wow, so he tweeted for his first time… To who I ask, he has a whole 119 followers. All which are undoubtedly his fellow engineers. Now they all can pout together. Boo hoo.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:55:37 +0000

Yay, I can compile from source. That is super cool to me as a geek. But, I have a real job, and I don’t have time to tweak the source code. As a user it’s a big yawn; I could care less whether it’s open or not, I just want to get stuff done.

Practically, these days, Google’s Android strategy is all about improving the CARRIER experience, NOT THE USERS’. Google panders to each carrier, inviting them each to install their own proprietary interface, apps, and store. It’s an effective strategy, but it is motivated by winning, not by regard for developers or for users.

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:00:14 +0000

His comment wasn’t about fragmentation. What was being implied by his twitter is that Android is licensed under the GPL and Apache license. OPEN is short for Open Source. Which means something that uses an Open Source License. The GPL and the Apache license are Open Source Licenses.
Android IS OPEN SOURCE right down to the definition of the word. Steve Jobs implying that android somehow isn’t is absurd and its not like he doesn’t know what open source means. After all, apple uses an awful lot of BSD licensed code, and then added a proprietary layer on top of it so no one else can benefit.