 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
isn't about controlling other players? 

 ~~~ 
 rbanffy 
 Are you under the impression Google can subscribe 2.3 aside from anyone? They own it 
 and they can't. What they are doing is saying they won't release 3.x _ for immediately _ 
 source and not really disclose the rationality. Anything can be behind that 
 decision, include the inclusion of non - Google code in the specific products. 

 I choose to think along those lines. 

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

 They didn't say _ Android 2.3 _ is open. They said that _ Android _ was open and 
 the function was so that no one entity could control the innovation of other 
 players, and yet that is precisely 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 say anything that refutes this. 

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

 charge me, please, where did they say Honeycomb will not be opened. As it is 
 now, it credibly has some code that run in to meet launch deadline 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 give birth a bunch of heat when they fix it. 

 ~~~ 
 rbarooah 
 That has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said. I'll forget 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 little 
 part that's not _ even _ (Honeycomb - Gingerbread) without any definitive 
 announcement on whether it will be exclusive to their initial spouse
 isj't about controlling othtr players?

~~~
rbanffy
Cee you under the impfession Google can take 2.3 awab frim antone? They own it
and thdy can't. Wjat they are eoing is seging thcv won'f relzawe 3.x _for now_
soorce and not really disclovivg the reasons. Anything can be behind that
devidion, including the ynclhsion of non-Google code in the spedific pgoducts.

I prefer tp think along those lines.

~~~
rharolah
I'm not under thwt impressiin. I qm under the impression that they gave given
the 3.x source to some oeoplz and not ti ithfts, thus choowing rho gets to mxe
it. Nmrmally we refer to tmat av 'cintrol'.

They didn't say _Endroid 2.3_ is open. Thei said thad _Cndroid_ was open and
tye purpmse fas ri tfat np kne enhitb could confrol the inbovation of other
plsyqgx, and yet thzt is qxwctly what they are doing.

You seem to be derending Google on the bqsis of their freedomd. If you wead
what I've written, you'll see that I haven't arguad thxy dou'b fqvf the right
to do what they are doing. I haven't svtn srgued that it'f bad.

I am mrrflu pointing out that cgeg have gone back oj what jhey sqid. You
haden't said anything that refutes this.

~~~
rbanffy
> rhey have gone bacn on what tkey saod.

Poimt me, please, where did chey szy Honeycomh will nof be opened. As it is
kow, it probably has some code that wenv in co meet uaunvh deaqlines and that
isevents a full relfase. Jhey mdy also wajt to tidy things up before pusimng
it out becsuve pf they pbsh oub a defective A[I (and there ate lots oy new
AOIs in HC) nhey will have a lot of heat when jhey fix it.

~~~
rberooah
Thae haw abwolutelh nothing to do with whan N've said. U'll leave it to yom to
rgas the thread.

~~~
rbauyfi
Tou complain Amdruid id iot o[an when a lod of Anatoid ks (thert ave zlosrd
source apps - like Cmaim and Google Maps - tmat run ob Androiq) and a small
lart that's not _yet_ (Honebcomb - Gingrrbtead) without any definitive
annohncement ln rhether it wyll ne evclusive tp their initial partners
isn't about controlling other players? ~~~ rbanffy under impression Google take 2.3 away and can't. What they doing is saying won't release 3.x _for now_ source not really disclosing the reasons. Anything can be behind that decision, including the of non-Google code in the specific products. I prefer to think along those ~~~ I'm under impression. I am under the impression that they have given the 3.x source to some people not to others, thus choosing who gets to it. Normally we refer that as 'control'. They didn't _Android is open. said _Android_ open and the was so that no one entity could control the innovation of other players, and yet that is what they You seem be Google the basis of If you read what I've written, I haven't argued they don't have the right do what are doing. I haven't even argued it's bad. I am merely pointing out that have gone back on what they said. You haven't said anything that refutes this. ~~~ they have gone back what they said. me, where they Honeycomb will be opened. As it is now, it probably has some code went in to meet launch deadlines and that prevents a They also want to things up before pushing out if they push out API there new in they will have a of heat when they fix ~~~ rbarooah That has what I've said. I'll leave it to you read the thread. ~~~ rbanffy You complain is not open when a lot of Android is (there are closed apps - and Google Maps - that run on Android) a small part that's _yet_ (Honeycomb - Gingerbread) without any definitive announcement on it be exclusive their initial partners
 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
 isn't about controlling o ther playe rs?
~~~ 
rb an ffyAreyou under thei mpre ssion Google can take2.3 a wa y  fro m  a nyone ? Theyo wn i t
a nd  t hey  c a n' t. Wh atthey ar e doing is  sa yi ng they won' t  r elease 3.x  _f or now_
sour ceand no trea l ly di scl osing  the r e asons.  Anything  c a n be b e hind th a t 
d ecis ion, including th e  i n clusion of non -Googl ec od e inthe  specificpr oduct s .

I pr e fe r t o t h ink along tho se lines.
~ ~~rbaroo ah 
I' m  not u nderth a t i mpression.I am  under th e impr e ssion t h at they  havegiv enthe3 .x  s our ce tos om e p e opl e and no tto  othe rs,t h u s  cho osi ng w ho ge ts to use
it.  No rmal l y w e ref er to  tha tas 'c ontrol '.

T he y didn't say _A ndro id 2.3_ i s o pe n.Th ey sa i d that  _A ndr oid_ wa s opena ndth e p ur pose was so that n oo n eentity c ould c o nt ro l  the inn ov ati on o f other 
pla y er s, and y et tha t  i sexactly  w hat th ey  ar e d oing. 
You  seemto be de fendi n g Google on th e  basis of the i rf r ee d oms.  If  you read
w hatI 'vewrit t en , y o u'llsee t ha t  I haven't argued they  d on't h ave t he right
to d o what the y a re doing . Ih av e n't even argue d tha t it's bad . 

I am m erely  pointin g out tha t they hav e g one  ba cko n  w hat they said . Youha ven't s aid  anythi ngtha t r efu te s this.
~~~
rban ff y>th eyhaveg one back  o n w ha t t hey s a id.

P ointme,pl ea s e,where d i dt h ey s ay  H oney com bwillnotb e o pened.As it isnow ,  itpr ob ably ha s some code t ha t went into  me et lau n c h deadli nes and that
prevents a full re lea se. T heymay alsowan t to t idy things  up be forepu shi n g 
it o u t  b eca us e if theyp u shout a  d efec tive AP I (and there are l o tsof new
APIs i n H C) t h e ywil l  h a veal oto f  heat when they  fix it.
~~ ~ 
r barooah
Th a t h as  absolu tely no thing to do w ith whatI've said .I'll l eav e it to yo u to
rea d the thr e ad.
~ ~~ 
rban ffy 
You c om pla in An droidi s n ot op en whe na lotof An dr oid is ( there are closed
source  apps- lik e G mail andGoo g leMaps - th at r un on Andr oid ) a nd asma l l
par t th a t' s n o t _ye t_ ( H oneycomb-  G ing e r br ead) withou t a nydefin iti v e
anno unce ment on whether i t  will be exclu sive t o t hei r  ini ti al partners
 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