Overall, I think Google stepping in to control Android a bit more is a good thing for end users considering my experience with the Captivate. For most of the Android fans out there, they choose a similar experience to what the Apple users do. A Google designed phone (Nexus One/S), with a Google (only) OS, and a Google update system. The rest of the Android market is made up of normal consumers who wanted a smartphone and simply picked what was available on their carrier, unaware of all the differences. Unaware that Samsung or Verizon or whoever was altering the "Android Experience" and hindering the speed of updates.

What does trouble me is most of what Bruno and others here have pointed out. Google is moving forward with these changes, while trying to act like they aren't changes. It's just enforcement of rules they already had in place, and they still hold dearly to the "Open" tag. (I want to revisit that thread soon, but specifically avoided going too far down the Android path there). The hardware manufacturers ended up with their own idea of what open meant for them, and they ran with it. Google went along with it too, certifying devices like the Galaxy S variant on Verizon even though it took out Google search and changed it to Bing. This set a certain precedent that Google is clearly trying to back away from, to the point of not allowing search to be changed on a recent T-Mobile phone. Google should have been more consistent with the enforcement earlier, denying the Google certification that allows the proprietary parts of Android to ship on a device if they weren't happy about something.

If they want to keep using the Open tag, they need to release source when they ship at a minimum. Most pure open source projects these days even grant access during development, with Chorme and Firefox being two notable ones pointed out by Dan. Linux, Apache, Samba, FFMpeg, VLC, Socorro, Wine and many others work this way. Does Google have to do the same? No, they don't. But they should't bash their competitors over the head with "Open" while intentionally restricting access. Honeycomb is not open to end users, and not open to any hardware vendor. It's only open to chosen companies, and may remain that way until Ice Cream. The next Google I/O should be interesting to see. If Google backs away from the whole Open description, then great, they are being more honest about their change in direction. But if they say similar things as last year, then yes, I can see the hypocrite tag fitting.

While the phrase "Google is the next Microsoft" doesn't properly describe the situation, I do see some truth to it at least with Android. Google makes an OS that they license to hardware vendors, just as Microsoft did with Windows. Google allows vendors to make modifications, just as Microsoft does with Windows. On a technical level, yes the open source part is different then Microsoft's closed methods, but there are similarities. Dell is free to add programs before a system ships, and change some aspects of Windows. Same for Android. And much like Microsoft did in the 90s, Google will use threats like a stop ship order to prevent changes they dislike, even after previously certifying said changes. If Android becomes the dominant licensed OS for smartphones, Google is likely to have a similar focus on their activities as Microsoft had in the 90s. Such actions as the Skyhook situation jump from breach of contract issues, to potential anti trust issues. Especially when Google touts the "open" nature of the OS. Microsoft said OEMs were free to make changes, up until one of those changes was bundling Netscape as an equal choice to IE.