He's not arguing that it makes it less open, he's saying it brings down the quality of the OS, since carriers can remove features and add their own junk.
I think he is arguing it's less open when he says "isn’t the point of "open" supposed to be that the consumer can choose what they want on their own devices? Instead, open is proving to mean that the carriers can choose what they want to do with Android."
It could bring down the quality of the OS, but the fact that the option exists for Verizon or anyone to make their own Market makes it more open in my book.
Android isn't really much more open for carriers and manufacturers than other operating systems. The source for Windows Mobile is available to manufacturers to tinker with, for example.
The whole point is none of this openness translates to anything meaningful to the end user. Those people who pick Android because it's "open" are really getting nothing for it.
I think two concepts are being combined here: one is that Android is open source and the other is that's not restricted like the iPhone. The former is not a prerequisite for the latter. Android is as open as Windows Mobile and Symbian in allowing arbitrary app installs.
I agree with you, benefit of installing arbitrary software does exist -- but that benefit alone doesn't justify the significant "openness" hype around the platform. The article points out the many ways in which you are not in control of your device.
I think there's a third concept as well which is where most of the "openness" hype stems which is the ability to replace entire parts of the platform. Don't like the homescreen, dialer, camera app, keyboard? Just replace it with something you do like.
That's what I find most compelling about the Android platform. As long as I have access to the Android Market and the ability to install apps directly from the internet, most of the problems mentioned in the article can be sidestepped. With that being said, I do find the trend mentioned in the article to be somewhat alarming. Removing those two features really cripples the phone, but I expect most Android phones to leave those enabled.
Again, just like Windows Mobile. This is why I think the "openness" hype is undeserving. Yes, in comparison to the iPhone this all significant, but the iPhone wasn't even the original smartphone OS.
Very true. For me, it's both. I've installed arbitrary non-Market apps on my N1, and I'm happy with that. As soon as CyanogenMod 6 goes gold, I'll be reflashing my phone.
(I'm a bit stricter with stability on a device like my phone, else I'd try the RCs.)
