I think that this hits the nail on the head. If the code is ready to be used by consumers, it should be ready for developers to inspect it.
Imagine if a writer said "I'm ready to publish my book, but I'm not willing to release the manuscript to editors". This isn't a perfect analogy since I'm sure Google do massive amounts of in-house QA, but it seems like the more feedback you're getting on the code, the easier it will be to whip it into shape. Saying you don't want to release the source because it's not ready or not mature is almost nonsensical.
Actually, it seems like the reverse, "I'm ready for editors to take a look at my book, but not ready to publish everything."
I get what people are complaining about, and I'm not terribly happy about it either, but it's not like I push every commit to github as soon as I've got it running on my server; frequently there is cleanup to be done first.
If you want to make a credible claim to being open source, you have to realize that the code is your product. To say that the code is too bad to be seen and then turn around to say that the product is wonderful and everyone should buy an Android tablet is, while not evil, disappointingly low-class.
(Did I really expect otherwise? No, I'm not naive. Google's products are open source to the extent that it suits them, and no further.)
Imagine if a writer said "I'm ready to publish my book, but I'm not willing to release the manuscript to editors". This isn't a perfect analogy since I'm sure Google do massive amounts of in-house QA, but it seems like the more feedback you're getting on the code, the easier it will be to whip it into shape. Saying you don't want to release the source because it's not ready or not mature is almost nonsensical.