Isn't honeycomb just a codename for the latest version of android though? Isn't that like saying: Ubuntu LATEST will not be open sourced until...Ubuntu OLD is still open ? In my mind, that makes it a whole lot more closed than open.
Unlike say, Ubuntu or Google Chrome, Android has always been developed behind closed doors and then opened, usually a few weeks after devices ship with it preloaded.
That is a difference on the spectrum of openess, and on that measure Chrome or Ubuntu has always beaten Android. The only difference for Honeycomb is the time between device and code reveal.
It's a bit of a philosophical question as to whether changing that 2 week delay to a 2 month delay moves you from "open" to "closed".
I think it's salient to point out, too, that that shift on the spectrum is tiny compared to the spectrum-distance between Google and any other player in the industry.
When I hear "open source", I think "developed in the open". While projects that occasionally dump source can be technically called "open source", they don't look at all like the open source projects I like to work or or with.
Honeycomb originally started as a fork for tablets only. It looked like the plan was to have the 2.x branch for phones and the 3.x branch for tablets. I think recently something happened and they are now going to standardize on the 3.x branch for everything. This leaves google with its pants down as 3.x is barely ready for tablets, let alone for phones. So now they have quite a bit of work to do and don't want to give away the goods to smaller manufacturers (who will simply make shit phones and hurt the brand) just yet. I think these smaller partners can survive waiting a couple months for 3.0 while google puts in all this work to make it acceptable. Heck, its free expert level coding for them. I'd hate to see what Sylvania or A-Open or whomever would do with a half cooked 3.0 source.
Regardless, you may not say Ubuntu is closed source, to follow your analogy, which is what the author writes about Android. You may say that Android is not completely open source (which you could before Honeycomb was conceived) or that the latest version of Android is closed-source for now. There's no question the article is inaccurate and it's clear to me the author is trying to deliberately create an exaggerated conflict to get more page views. All in all a pretty poor article I think.
I would not call that "open". Doing "open source" does not necessarily imply "being open".
My main problem with Android is that you do not see any of the development that lead to Honeycomb. Even if you are interested, there is no way to see where the project is going without being on the inside. Android has a completely closed development cycle until _after_ the release of the first devices. I cannot consider that 'open' in a general sense.
I think the point that people want to make is that all competitors of Android are even more closed down.
Yeah, it's certainly not 'open source' in the traditional sense of an open community.
However, it's "the best we've got", and all things considered, it's pretty good: Google could have kept many things much more tightly controlled and still been somewhat 'open' (see Windows vs Mac).
Steve Jobs harping about it though is sort of nonsensical: great, pick your nit, but to really make me stand up and care, go them one better, which is something he will never, ever do.
> tightly controlled and still been somewhat 'open' (see Windows vs Mac).
Huge chunks of OS X are open source. It's not necessarily equivalent to throw it into the same box as Windows (there are no "open" forks of a Windows based OS, but there are of Darwin, and FreeBSD has benefited from Apple as well.)
> Isn't Darwin open source in the same way Android is?
Not really. Android is a complete system, with a kernel, libraries and the whole GUI on top of that. Darwin is just the kernel, and I think they've sort of phased out doing much with the 'open source' aspect of it.
"honeycomb will not be open sourced until they decide it's ready" That's what I was thinking until the article speculates how smaller tablet providers will lose out.
If it was my platform, I know, I'd like to be first to market with well built tablets rather than a bunch of mediocre tablet attempts, which could reflect badly on the platform itself.
"If it was my platform, I know, I'd like to be first to market with well built tablets rather than a bunch of mediocre tablet attempts, which could reflect badly on the platform itself."
And since most of those tablets used pre-Honeycomb Android, it's actually counterproductive to hold back Honeycomb if the goal is to raise the quality of the worst tablets.
Well, it is the register, which I am surprised would be popular on a site like this. Regardless, google is pushing back the release date. Its their prerogative to do so. Not sure why this matters to 99.9999% of the population who will never look at the source or install a custom ROM, etc.
Not to mention there are several versions of android. There's the public version which is a little behind. There's the cutting edge version that members of the OHA get and if they follow their contract they get google-branded apps (gmail, youtube, maps, market, etc).
Dunno, seems much ado about nothing. They didn't give market access or gmail branded apps to the previous garbage tablets released so far. This is just google trying to stop this wave of horrible half-assed tablets from destroying the android tablet market. It may be too late, but leaving dozens of manufacturers selling non-capacitive touch screen based tablets with seriously underpowered specs on buggy software that was never meant to run on a non-phone is hurting the brand.
Expecting the "market" to work itself out is having a little too much faith in markets and consumers imho. Brand damage is real and is helping sink Android into the tech ghetto.
Oh, and Steve Jobs has already been vindicated by selling billions of dollars of tech.