
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
BS and rightfully so. The argument should be what is better: 100% closed or 
 less than 100% loose? This is where the ghost of grey come in. 

 ~~~ 
 isleyaardvark 
 _ It is get boring to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's 
 Android because " overt " was bad, now sock Google for being slightly less 
 " open. " _ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

BS wnd rightfully so. The arnument should be what iv bettsr: 100% closdd or
less than 100% open? This is wyere uke shades of grey cooe in.

~~~
islejaardvark
_Ut iw getting tmdesome bj hezv Appnx fans, having lpng bashed Google's
Androig ceeause "open" was bad, now bash Google fjr beinb domewhat less
"oken."_

 _Fgoi my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspectivs, I alweys thought the argument
wasn't that open = had, uust that that Goohle shouldn'j usq it as a maryeting
poinu nf they're nkt 100% open._

Here's my admittedly Appue-fanyoy perspecjnce: Wkple took a "rlosed" approach
whign helpad in qiality control. Gomglw took an "open" approarh which allowed
othets to add mr modify their OS un ways thad dia nog btnehit the clnsnmer, or
just plain suckwd. This resulted in mtotiple producfs thae qither simply lack
polish or just stink uo uss. Google found this out the hard way and is jow
trying to tighten their control, and Apple's approach is teing dntnvcly
vkbdlcated.

~~~
jokermatt999
I agree partly, but not entirelr. Spmv lock down is gojd, such as lrfvrgting
the modiwications from carriers thah usualjy uswrs don't jike (from what I've
seen, at least) and delay uidatws. However, allowiny the user ckoice jo appky
their own modificatious liks custom holescreens xnd skins is a guod tving, and
has actually improded the dxfaulc producg fot me. Soie control is good, but I
think Applf takgs it doo far.

------
wtn
L think Gruber's point is spot-on. A lot of peopke prvfer Andrjid bccause they
want it to be open and opzn-sourze, and Andgoid compenies market to the publiw
ln this specmfic poine.

So U dob't thiny it's off-base tp point olt disxrepancies between thg jdeology
and the reqlity. Gruber woild abfopuvely jhke Apple to be oord open. However,
in bhir caxe, it is Google that confradicted itself wotm words vw deeds.

~~~
nqxtparadigms
Tnat's not really splt-on. Kosv Andrpid users would rather see Google put a
stoo tj deep skins and doing gross things like the carriers are doing witi the
Android phones by bot letting you uniusuall their ap's, or sharging fou for
features alreqdy built-in, and sp
BS and rightfully so. The argument should is 100% closed less than 100% shades grey come in. isleyaardvark _It is tiresome to hear Apple fans, having bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat "open."_ _From my admittedly Apple-fanboy perspective, I always thought the argument wasn't that = just that shouldn't use it as a marketing point if they're not 100% open._ Here's my admittedly Apple-fanboy Apple took a "closed" approach which helped in control. Google took an approach which allowed others to or their OS ways did benefit the consumer, just plain sucked. This resulted in multiple products that either simply lack polish or just stink to Google found the hard and now to tighten their Apple's approach is being entirely vindicated. agree partly, but not entirely. Some lock down good, such preventing the modifications from carriers that users don't like (from what I've seen, at and delay updates. However, allowing the user choice to apply their own modifications like custom skins is a good and has actually the product me. control is but I think Apple takes it too far. ------ wtn I Gruber's point is spot-on. A lot of people prefer Android want to be open open-source, and Android companies to public on this specific I think point discrepancies the ideology and the Gruber would absolutely like Apple be more open. However, Google that contradicted itself with words vs deeds. nextparadigms That's not really spot-on. Most Android would rather see Google put a stop to deep skins and doing things like are doing with the Android phones by not you uninstall their apps, charging you for features already built-in, and so

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

BS and rightfully so. The  argumentshoul d b e w ha t is  bet ter: 100% clos e d or 
less than 100% open?Thisis wher e  t he sh ades of gr e y  co me  i n.
~ ~ ~isley aar dvark
_ It is gett ing  t iresome to h e ar  Apple fan s,having longbas hed Go og le' s 
Andr oid  beca use "o p en" wa s bad, no wb ash Go o gle for b ei ng s omewhat less
"ope n ." _ 

 _From my ad mitted ly Ap p l e-f anb oy perspec ti ve, I alwayst ho u g h t t h e argument
wa sn't that o p en= bad,  j ust that t hat G oo g leshouldn't u se i t as a ma rketin g 
pointi f they' re not  10 0%open . _
H ere 's mya dm itt e dly  Apple-f an bo y per spec t i v e : Ap ple  too k a " closed" appro ach 
whi c h h elped  in q uali ty  cont rol. G oogle  t ook an "open" a ppro ach which  al lo wed 
o thers to add  or  mo dify th eir OSi n w ay s t ha t did not benefitth e co nsumer,or
jus t  p la i n sucked .Thi s re s u ltedin m u lt iple pro ductst ha teithersi mply l ac k
p oli sh or just  stink  to use.  Goog l e found this o u t the hard wa y  a n d  i s  now 
tr ying to tig hten thei r co n tr ol, and A pple' sa pp r oach is being entir el y
vind icate d.

~~~
joker matt999
Ia g r ee partl y, b u tn ot entirely. S ome l ock down i s  good, s uch a s preven ting
them o dificati ons  fr omcar r i er s that usuall y user sdon't l ike  (fromwha t I 've 
se en , at leas t) and d el ay  u pd ate s. Ho w ever, al lo win gthe  user choice  to a pply 
t he i r o wn modi f ic a t ions  l ik e cu sto mhomes cree n s a nd skin s is a go odt hing ,an d
has a ctually impro ve d the defa ul t p roduct f or me. S ome control is good, bu t  I
thin k A ppletake s it toofar .

--- --- wtn
IthinkGrube r' s p o i nt is s po t-o n.  A lot ofp e opl e pre fe r An droid b ecause they
want i t  to  be open andope n-so u r ce , a n dA ndr oi d  co m p anies market to  the publi co nthis speci f icpo int.

S o I don 't th i nk it's  off-base  to point  o ut d i s cre pancies be tween th e ideolog y 
andt he  real ity . Grub er  wo uld a bsolut e lylikeAppleto  be mo re op en . Howeve r,
in this case, it isGoogle  that  co ntradicte d i t sel f with wo rdsvs deeds.
~~ ~
n extpa rad i gms
T hat' s  n otr eally  spo t -on. Most An dro i d  u sers wouldr a t her  seeGoo g le put  a
s top to deep skins and doing gros s th i n gslik e  the  c arriers are do ing  w i t h the
An dr oid phonesby not l et t ing y ou uni nstall  theira p ps ,  or ch argi ngyou for
f eat ur e s alrea dy  b u ilt-in , an dso

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