Originally Posted By: hybrid8
In follow-up to Matt from the iPad 2 thread:

Matt, "open" has a lot of definitions and they're all in the dictionary. Open doesn't have to have anything in particular to do with software. No one outside of geeks know or care about the "open" discussion being marketed by iOS detractors.

You posted this while I was writing my post. Like I say in the following, I'm fine with that, but my basic response is the last line in this post.


Excellent post, Tom, and frankly, I completely agree with everything you said. I've been frustrated myself with the doublespeak we've heard from Google, and it frustrates me even more to see what the carriers have done to make things even less open than the already arguably open base of Android. So to make matters worse, in addition to there being different definitions of "open," companies are starting to try to pass of different degrees of the technical definition of the word.

Speaking to the first portion of your post (relating to the discussion in the iPad thread), I can agree that there are different definitions of "open." My problem starts when you start mixing those definitions just to fit an argument. I'm perfectly fine with "open" meaning "an open and welcoming experience." I think that's very true of Apple's products.

But to then say that this shows how Apple's products are actually more "open" than the competition, you're obviously referring to previous arguments about openness, which was always a technical argument. This drives me up the wall when people argue in this fashion.

Going back to the start of my post, if we're talking about the technical definition of "open," I don't see any way (and I think most unbiased tech pundits are agreeing on this), that iOS can be seen as "more open" than Android. The fact remains that at its core, Android can at least be freely loaded onto any company's devices. The fast that most of the companies who have taken advantage of this have produced the worst CE devices ever made ( smile ) is irrelevant. Yes, there are proprietary apps placed on top of Android.

I'm now willing to concede that for the average consumer, the promise of Android's "openness" might, sadly, be irrelevant as well. Google's fault in that is their trust that manufacturers and carriers wouldn't completely F*** with a good thing and screw over the consumer like they ALWAYS DO. For that, I'm pretty pissed off myself, and it's the reason I've stuck with stock Android phones.

To sum up: I'm fine with different definitions of the word "open" when talking about the tech world. I only ask that we not confuse the issue by mixing those definitions.


Edited by Dignan (25/03/2011 19:54)
_________________________
Matt