
John Gruber’s hypocritical and off-base Google attack  - apress
http://theorangeview.net/2011/03/john-grubers-hypocritical-and-off-base-google-attack/
======
DeusExMachina
John Gruber is an Apple pundit and fan? Yes, we know.

His attack is hypocritical? Maybe.

Off base? I don't think so.

Yes, as the article says, Android is still far more open and customizable than
iOS (and it's not that hard, actually).

Still there is another definition of open that matters to some people, and
that definition applies less and less to Android, giving to all this a taste
of bait and switch.

I know a lot of Android developers that believe in open software not on merely
his advantage from a market point of view, but also from a philosophical one.
These developers are all disappointed.

I am an iOS developer, I like Apple products, I agree with some of the
arguments for a more closed system even if I disagree on a lot of Apple's
decisions. I look at Android as a good competitor to iOS that keeps raising
the bar and as a possible future market for what I do. I thought from the
beginning that Android as a platform would have benefitted from a little more
closed approach.

Still, I'm disappointed too, looking at Google's behavior. It angers me a
little, even if I'm not an Android fan. Because I think about all those
Android developers that now feel somewhat betrayed. This has a bitter taste
not because Android is becoming more closed, but because this was not done
from the beginning, luring people to the platform with different promises.

Am I an hypocrite too?

~~~
refulgentis
How is he hypocritical? The problem here is Google employees have consistently
and constantly pushed that Android is open and thus inherently more pure than
iOS (see Vic's behavior last Google IO, Andy Rubin's infamous 'definition of
open' tweet). Apple has _never_ claimed to be open or anything, Google has,
and they're not.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
How is he hypocritical?

How about claiming he saw the bait-and-switch coming when he's a professional
pundit and all he ever said while commenting on it was a) open is bad for
consumers and b) Android isn't open.

Note that even a) and b) don't even make sense together, so the fact that he's
revised history yet again to claim that he always thought they were open, but
only so they could later become closed is even more laughable.

~~~
roc
He's been pretty consistent in calling out the OEMs and carriers as
incompetents who won't produce phones in Google's best interests. And jumping
on how useless all their 'added value' has been.

Simultaneously he's been suggesting Google needs to make its own devices to
really push a compelling Android experience. And he's been saying that for ...
christ, about as long as Android has even been publicly around.

He's never really said "Google's going to give up on this 'Open Source' thing"
that I recall, but he's been terribly consistent in saying things like this:

 _Android, on the other hand, strikes me as needing a course correction.
There’s a separation between the software and hardware, and to date the
hardware vendors are letting the platform down. It’s unproven whether this
model can even work in the long run (where by "work" I mean "produce a phone
and software platform with a state-of-the-art user experience")._
[http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/android_opportunity_addend...](http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/android_opportunity_addenda)

------
tptacek
Android is more open than iOS. It is less open than Ubuntu. We just saw a
story today about Google playing favorites with access to early releases of
operating system code; when you're shipping multi-billion-dollar SKUs based on
that code, this isn't a minor detail. The fact is, Android is "open" to end-
users, but not completely "open" to vendors.

It's frustrating to watch people try to reconcile this, because not only is
everyone using different definitions of the word "open", but they change
definitions from day to day.

Meanwhile: this is second-order punditry. It's a critique of a pundit. And
it's a pundit who wears his bias on his sleeve. It's boring. People don't read
Gruber for the unvarnished truth about the mobile market. If you want to right
whatever wrong you feel is being committed because a gifted writer has overtly
taken Apple's side (gasp!), write an excellent blog advocating for the Google
ecosystem. But don't waste our time litigating against Gruber. Nobody cares!

~~~
dman
I think the word "open" is now just too overloaded. What does open mean ? Does
it mean that I can read the source? Does it mean I can read the source in a
timely fashion as soon as the product is available? Does it mean that I have
the right to modify and execute the source? Does it mean that there are
reasonably good chances that if I make a valid and valued change to the code
it will be integrated upstream? While Gruber has a biased take on things,
there is some truth to the fact that there are definitions of open by which
Android is not an open system.

~~~
rbarooah
I find it hard to come up with a definition by which Android _is_ an open
system. It seems to pretty much boil down to:

Some of the time, some people can see some of the source, but some of those
people may be restricted in what they can do by licenses'.

If that's what passes as 'open' we need a new word.

~~~
recoiledsnake
By the same metric, we need new definitions for what Apple is doing. For
example, the forced 30% cut of all subscription content. That isn't 'closed'
anymore, like we say 'Windows is closed'. Maybe 'Locked down' is more like it?

~~~
Cadsby
This isn't about Apple, as has been pointed out repeatedly. There are a lot of
criticisms about iOS which are valid, however I don't recall them ever
claiming their platform was even remotely open.

If "Open" is now a convoluted word, we have Google to thank for that, because
that's what happens when you launch an entire marketing campaign around a
single term.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>..you launch an entire marketing campaign around a single term.

They did? Maybe I was the only one who missed it. Links?

Android is definitely way more "Open" than iOS, by almost any metric, even
with the latest changes. Care to dispute that?

And it's not helping that Apple is going to even more closed via forced cut of
subscriptions.

~~~
m0nastic
You can watch this video for starters:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89xc_1Vv69k> (Google IO 2010 Android Keynote)

One selected quote:

1.) "So if you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe
in innovation from everyone†, then welcome to Android."

† Everyone, depending on where the innovation is, being Google employees, and
select partners who are given access to the Android source before public
release.

~~~
recoiledsnake
That seems pretty true compared to the alternate platform which results in
things like this [http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/659211315/almost-on-the-app-
st...](http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/659211315/almost-on-the-app-store) and
this
[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207641/Apple_rejects...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207641/Apple_rejects_Sony_e_reader_app_Is_Kindle_next_)

And it seems like nothing has changed with the latest changes to Android. Care
to elaborate?

Edit: And how is a IO keynote 'an entire marketing campaign' ?

~~~
cube13
>Edit: And how is a IO keynote 'an entire marketing campaign' ?

How is the text on <http://source.android.com/> not?

~~~
recoiledsnake
A web page on the internet is an entire marketing campaign?

What percentage of Android users even visited that page in their lifetime,
forget about being swayed by that statement on it? 0.005%?

------
joeminkie
_It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's
Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less
"open."_

From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument
wasn't that open = bad, just that that Google shouldn't use it as a marketing
point if they're not 100% open.

 _And Apple makes just as big a deal about the advantages of iOS being closed
as Google does about the openness of Android._

Right, but with Apple closed means closed. No one says that Apple is a "almost
closed" and argues they should be totally closed. Google is half-assing their
definition of open — which is fine, do what you want — but people are calling
BS and rightfully so. The argument should be what is better: 100% closed or
less than 100% open? This is where the shades of grey come in.

~~~
isleyaardvark
_It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's
Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less
"open."_

 _From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument
wasn't that open = bad, just that that Google shouldn't use it as a marketing
point if they're not 100% open._

Here's my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective: Apple took a "closed" approach
which helped in quality control. Google took an "open" approach which allowed
others to add or modify their OS in ways that did not benefit the consumer, or
just plain sucked. This resulted in multiple products that either simply lack
polish or just stink to use. Google found this out the hard way and is now
trying to tighten their control, and Apple's approach is being entirely
vindicated.

~~~
jokermatt999
I agree partly, but not entirely. Some lock down is good, such as preventing
the modifications from carriers that usually users don't like (from what I've
seen, at least) and delay updates. However, allowing the user choice to apply
their own modifications like custom homescreens and skins is a good thing, and
has actually improved the default product for me. Some control is good, but I
think Apple takes it too far.

------
wtn
I think Gruber's point is spot-on. A lot of people prefer Android because they
want it to be open and open-source, and Android companies market to the public
on this specific point.

So I don't think it's off-base to point out discrepancies between the ideology
and the reality. Gruber would absolutely like Apple to be more open. However,
in this case, it is Google that contradicted itself with words vs deeds.

~~~
nextparadigms
That's not really spot-on. Most Android users would rather see Google put a
stop to deep skins and doing gross things like the carriers are doing with the
Android phones by not letting you uninstall their apps, or charging you for
features already built-in, and so on.

~~~
rbarooah
Are you saying most Android users don't want it to be open?

~~~
neutronicus
A more charitable interpretation is that most developers would like Google to
protect the Android _trademark_ a little better, perhaps by tightening up on
what modifications of Android are still eligible to be called "Android", so
that both users and developers could count on more consistency when hearing
the name.

~~~
bergie
The way this was set up with MeeGo is that there is a formal compliance
process backed up by the trademark (owned by Linux Foundation).

If you make a product based on MeeGo you can add whatever you want. As long as
it passes compliance, you can call it MeeGo.

<http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Compliance>

------
mellis
Openness is indeed a continuum and different degrees of it make sense for
different people and different situations. The problems arise when you claim
to be more open than you are or become less open than you were. Apple is clear
that it offers proprietary platforms; Google claims Android is open but isn't
acting accordingly.

~~~
nextparadigms
It's not so clear on Apple's side either. They _can_ be even more closed if
they want to, and they proved it recently with the subscription tax, which
also wasn't in place since the the beginning when those developers made their
apps for iOS.

------
roc
A fair observer might allow that "Android" is still an Open source project,
but only inasmuch as they explicitly identify Honeycomb as currently a closed-
source fork of Android. Honeycomb may _become_ open, but to discount the facts
of today involves assumptions about future.

If our hypothetical fair observer were to disregard the assumed future
altogether, things lean more toward Gruber than Google.

Google _has_ gone out of their way to disavow pre-Honeycomb releases on
tablets, and _is_ withholding Honeycomb to only those tablet-makers who sign
their agreements. They're currently doing exactly what Gruber asserts will
become SOP and what they're currently doing with Honeycomb simply doesn't fit
any fair definition of "Open Source" development. Not even their own.

------
seanx
Gruber is an Apple fundamentalist, preaching to the choir. There is only one
true way and all facts will be interpreted or ignored in favour of that way.

Dissension is not allowed in his church, if you disagree with what he says
then do so elsewhere.

If you need an analysis of what Apple is doing, or where they are going then
he might be good at that (I don't know, I don't care) but you absolutely
cannot rely on him for unbalanced coverage on anything else.

Arguing about whether google marketing is deceptive is a waste of time. ALL
marketing is deceptive. Go watch an Apple keynote for example.

Arguing about whether android is "open" is also a waste of time. Open is not a
bool, it's a float. If Linux is 100% and Windows is 0% then Android is maybe
60% and ios is somewhere in the single digits.

In the past 14 months, I have used WM6.5, ios, Android and Win Phone 7. The
only reason I could use Android is that it is open enough that it could be
installed on my HD2, a WM6.5 phone.

~~~
bonch
You can attack Gruber's position as an Apple advocate if you want, but that
doesn't really address his points about Google. The thing I've taken away from
this is that Android advocates are now defining openness in terms of degrees.
It's no longer about being open; it's about being "more open," a vague idea
that only gets to be defined by Google, the gatekeepers of Android.

Requiring licensees to agree to "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google
final approval over source changes is against the spirit of open source.

~~~
seanx
Personally, I'm not an android, or open source, advocate. I don't use it at
the moment and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to someone else. All the
phone oses I have have used are flawed to some extent and picking one is a
matter of deciding which flaws you can tolerate or not notice.

Gruber doesn't care about openness either, he uses an iPhone. His argument is
is simply a way to bash android without addressing anything that is
substantive to most people.

Last month he was trolling that android wasn't open because motorola hadn't
provided a froyo update to an older phone, completely ignoring the fact that
the comunity had already provided multiple updates.

Next month he will be complaining that android isn't open because google
hasn't provided the source to something else.

To most people, it doesn't matter if android is 65% or 70% open. What matters
is how well it meets their needs. If openness helps meet those needs then it's
important, if it doesn't then it's irrelevant.

Finally, if Gruber was interested in openness, he would allow comments on his
blog. Without that, he is just a troll with a pulpit.

------
inffcs00
The problem here is that Google used the word "open" as a feature of Android
and marketing term against iOS/Apple. But don't forget that a lot of parts of
iOS are open source and several parts of Android are closed (Google branded
apps). Does the percentage of opennes matter?

Gruber might be biased but that doesn't mean he is wrong or off-base.

------
joebadmo
I think the most annoying thing about Gruber is that he mixes fantastic
insights with near-propaganda. He's also got a razor-honed voice.

Generally I tend to pay close attention to him when he writes about Apple
products, eco-system, and culture, and ignore him when he writes about
anything else, especially Google or Android.

------
JCB_K
"The biggest joke is that the Businessweek article ends with a quote from
Nokia CEO and former Microsoftie Stephen Elop saying that Android is no longer
open and that's why he chose the more open Windows Phone 7. YIKES! Not good
company, Mr. Gruber."

All good and well, but this is just guilt by association. Very bad way to end
a fairly good article.

------
guywithabike
If you want a tl;dr of the article, take the last bit:

 _Both approaches have their merits and their failings. How about we focus on
that instead of which system is open or closed?_

What is he referring to when he says "both approaches"? He's talking about
open versus closed.

------
koko775
>Any fair observer would have to conclude that Android is still "open."

In my opinion, any fair observer would have to conclude that Android is still
about as open as it always was. This isn't necessarily hypocritical; I have
never viewed Android as "open".

Now, personally, I think that it's more customizable and flexible because it
isn't mature enough as a platform to be able to afford to lock down APIs. Not
that I think that the end result of an API should be to lock it down, but
orthogonality in a SDK can be very beautiful, as it is with Cocoa touch.

~~~
rbarooah
Google: "We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so
that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other.
That's why we created Android, and made its source code open."

The fact that they're now restricting and controlling the innovations of other
industry players by keeping the source code closed seems pretty much like the
definition of hypocrisy.

~~~
rbanffy
You are still free to fork any code that was previously released under a free
license. All of the source code they release can be used.

~~~
rbarooah
How is that relevant when they are giving the latest source to people they
approve?

~~~
rbanffy
It's their source. You are free to pick the last released version and improve
it yourself.

The source they didn't release may not be completely theirs (we can't know
this because we don't have it) and before releasing it under an open source
license they may be required to clean it up.

~~~
rbarooah
If it's not theirs, how can they give it to some of their approved partners?

~~~
rbanffy
Android is Google's. They don't have to release anything except the kernel
(which is a lot already). They can give it to whoever they think will improve
it and make it more popular. The kernel is GPL, but the rest is Apache. Google
can keep it to themselves and their preferred partners forever. It's their
software and they own it.

~~~
rbarooah
Exactly - they own it, and they are free to give it to whoever they like and
withhold it from whoever they like.

What part of that isn't about controlling other players?

~~~
rbanffy
Are you under the impression Google can take 2.3 away from anyone? They own it
and they can't. What they are doing is saying they won't release 3.x _for now_
source and not really disclosing the reasons. Anything can be behind that
decision, including the inclusion of non-Google code in the specific products.

I prefer to think along those lines.

~~~
rbarooah
I'm not under that impression. I am under the impression that they have given
the 3.x source to some people and not to others, thus choosing who gets to use
it. Normally we refer to that as 'control'.

They didn't say _Android 2.3_ is open. They said that _Android_ was open and
the purpose was so that no one entity could control the innovation of other
players, and yet that is exactly what they are doing.

You seem to be defending Google on the basis of their freedoms. If you read
what I've written, you'll see that I haven't argued they don't have the right
to do what they are doing. I haven't even argued that it's bad.

I am merely pointing out that they have gone back on what they said. You
haven't said anything that refutes this.

~~~
rbanffy
> they have gone back on what they said.

Point me, please, where did they say Honeycomb will not be opened. As it is
now, it probably has some code that went in to meet launch deadlines and that
prevents a full release. They may also want to tidy things up before pushing
it out because if they push out a defective API (and there are lots of new
APIs in HC) they will have a lot of heat when they fix it.

~~~
rbarooah
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said. I'll leave it to you to
read the thread.

~~~
rbanffy
You complain Android is not open when a lot of Android is (there are closed
source apps - like Gmail and Google Maps - that run on Android) and a small
part that's not _yet_ (Honeycomb - Gingerbread) without any definitive
announcement on whether it will be exclusive to their initial partners or not
(with a strong impression this is temporary).

Everyone can download and build most of what goes into an Android phone or
tablet. Most important on the software freedom (to programmers, that is) you
can fork it, build your devices and sell them without ever asking Google for
their blessing (much like they hadn't to ask Linus for his blessing when they
used Linux for Android's core).

Unfortunately, for users (me included - I own an Android and a Palm Pre) I
cannot _demand_ source code from you with the exception of the parts that are
GPL'ed and thus I am not effectively independent from the software provider.

I don't quite like this - I'd love to be able to build Gingerbread and burn it
into my Android handset (I'd prefer to keep the Palm as it is), perhaps, even
building the parts above Bionic and grafting it on top of iOS, just for the
kicks (unfortunately, Apple doesn't like that and, in order to distribute this
to other iOS users I'd have to ask for their blessing, which would never
come).

You are right. Honeycomb is not free right now. And that's what I don't quite
like about Apache-like licenses: the developer can withhold software from me.
But I am convinced this is a temporary stance and soon enough not only other
manufacturers will have full access but I will too.

------
rbarooah
"We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no
industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's
why we created Android, and made its source code open."

How is Google _not_ restricting or controlling* the innovations of other
industry players?

<http://source.android.com/>

------
nexneo
Honeycomb isn't desert so named well by purpose -- Sweat honey is caged in
honeycomb and protected.

------
ryandvm
John Gruber has a very specific audience: people that adore Apple products.

His narrative is extremely well tuned to please these people and to keep them
coming back for more. I can't fault him for his success as a niche blogger,
but his material is so predictable and formulaic that I stopped reading long
ago.

------
bonch
Google exploited the buzz of open source philosophy, so it's fascinating
seeing the open source community's reaction to their stricter control over
Android. Personally, I always saw the trumpeting of "openness" as an
unrealistic marketing ploy.

------
jinushaun
Honest question: Why do people listen to and retweet Gruber? Everything I've
read from him is pure biased hypocritical garbage.

