Google providing me with definitions was troubling, but online dictionaries are sub-optimal. Google giving me instant conversions was so handy that I didn't care.

But etymologies are handled nicely by http://www.etymonline.com/ and it's sad to think they're going to get a lot less traffic now.

Why would anyone expect Google not to eliminate its competitors?

I don't object to Google fighting its competitors, but it must play by the rules. Google is not a country, but part of society and this imposes certain obligations.

If you are in the information business, Google is in competition with you.

These things are made open source under a permissive license. The whole point is that people can do what they want with the code.

You also have to wonder how Apple would know? There are almost half a million apps on the App Store, detailed code analysis of the app binary and comparison with other compiled app binaries on the store is hard enough on an individual basis, and trivially defeated by code obscuration, let alone at app store scale.

What are you suggesting Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and other store operators should be doing?

So no, you absolutely cannot do this with what almost everyone thinks of as 'Android'.

You can do it with a different thing that also has the name 'Android', but isn't the same.

I assume you haven't noticed this, because otherwise you would be deliberately trying to spread a misleading view.

Regardless of what Mozilla does, the manufacturers are not going to sell non-differentiated phones for very long. They are going to keep that differentiation closed source, as they do now.

If one of them becomes very popular (say, Samsung), the Firefox OS you can do things with will be nothing like the Firefox OS on consumer's phones.

This is the way of the world, not just the way of Android.

No, instead it's licensed in a way that lets the rest of the world decide what they want to do with it, and the complaint is "we don't like what the world is doing with it". You must also realize if android was GPL'd, nobody would have used it, right[1] ?

" and Google itself builds its most significant end-user functionality as closed components."

I don't agree this is true, but even if i did, if you want to compete, compete. If you don't, don't. Essentially this whole complaint boils down to "i have to do my own work in order to compete seriously, i don't get to freeride anymore after x number of years".

I'll point out the mariadb folks did this, rather than simply complain.

In any case, the fact that someone may build closed source stuff on top of an open platform does not make that open platform less open. It may make that platform less useful as time goes on, but not less open.

"I note that you are implicitly conceding that what is commonly considered to be Android is indeed not open."

I haven't conceded anything, actually.

It's just not a point worth arguing with someone who holds a position that clearly conflicts with mine and is highly unlikely to change it.

[1] I wouldn't try arguing with this, this is a case where i was there, and I literally know the answers and positions of the phone makers, which was essentially 'never ever ever'.

DannyBee - have you read Moral Mazes by Robert Jackall (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate-Managers/d...)? It was one of Aaron Swartz's favorite books.

It's an excellent, and fair to all sides, dissection of morality in corporate management. It explains how and why managers rehearse to explain actions their company's have taken.

In this particular comment of yours, you say lots of true things. However, you are not acting in a straightforward "hacker" way, as befits this site, telling the truth how it is.

Google can continue to behave in this way as a company, but it will alas find it harder and harder to hire good geeks.

For the record, I'm specifically not accusing DannyBee of dishonesty. The reason I mentioned Moral Mazes as a book is because it explains what happens from the point of view of the managers, and why it comes across to outsiders as dishonest.

This stuff is subtle and systemic.

Fair point about speaking for the site.

I'm not even sure where to start with your comment, because it implies so much, and has so little to offer.

Rather than address it point by point, i'll just say things:

When i'm speaking for the company I work for, you'll know it, because it'll be a press release that says Google on it. Maybe you are unable to separate your personal and professional lives, and hold opinions separate from your corporations. For me, Google is a company I work for. While I love my job, Google certainly does things i don't always agree with. When it does, i'm certainly not going to avoid saying something because i am "rehearsing to explain the actions my company has taken".

There are a lot of things Android could do better. But in the end, what I see over the years is a lot of whining that it's never enough. From where I sit, Google has taken a lot of flack for actually pushing the ball forward, because it doesn't always go as far as the open source community wants. First they wanted Google to beat up the carriers (without understanding why this is pretty much impossible). Then they complain when we don't. Heck, some people complain android is "too open", because we can't force carriers to give people what they want. I could go on here for hours. Look at the complaints of a lack of a nexus 4 and nexus 5 on certain carriers . Google releases an entire platform, on which other open platforms are now based, and people complain that they have value-added apps that provide a lot of functionality, and haven't opened them. Well great, good for them. This is supposed to be an innovative community. Create your own. Do it better. Do it open, and win. Prove that they made the wrong choice.

Let's stop and be honest for a second. Do you really think something like Firefox OS would even exist (not even just because it is/was based on Android at the lower levels, like Gonk) in the market today if Android had not pushed the ball forward?

When Android was first released, one of my good friends told me no matter what Google did, people would never see it as enough, no matter how open it was. The saddest part to me of all this is that he was right.

Android was never meant to be the end solution, it was meant to be the beginning.

All the hard work on Android is much appreciated - I'm really glad Apple didn't gain a monopoly.

But the mobile web is inevitable. Eventually there will be parity in performance between web apps and native apps. (And Android is on the wrong side of that divide, and Dalvik doesn't exactly help.) Even if Firefox OS isn't doing what it is now, someone would have tried to push for a mobile OS focused on web apps. Perhaps even Samsung.

But.. You have certainly claimed to have authority to speak about parts of Google's strategy because you were in certain meetings.

These are very different things, and you should not confuse them.

As i've said before, everything i've stated about these strategies is public knowledge, and often stated by Andy Rubin himself, just not always believed :)

All i've done is basically say "believe it".

You seem to be trying to wriggle out of this by saying that what people mean by Android today has moved past the 'open beginning' that is all that was ever meant to be open, and that's not Google's fault.

I agree that this isn't Google's fault. But let's speak plainly. Android began as open and that was all that Google intended. Things have changed since then and only a part of Android is open anymore.

Why try to claim otherwise?

This is why I said that. You have your belief. You are clearly unlikely to change it no matter what I say. Your goal in this is not to possibly change your belief, but to find a way to confirm it in what i'm saying. This is what people do in these situations.

That does not often generate useful discussion, and it hasn't really here.

Realistically, I haven't tried to wiggle out of anything. It just turns out, as I suggested, we strongly disagree over whether Android is open, whether it was meant to be, and whether it still is.

Rather than continue this unproductive debate, i'm just going to go back to hacking some code on this fine sunday :)

How much time did using this port from BSD take over shipping with a GPLv2/LGPLv2.1 version of libc and coreutils?

(Note, I'm explicitly referring to the Unix base operating system, not drivers, audio or video codecs or libraries or anything else, only Bionic and the core Unix utilities)

Your comment about 'You don't get to freeride after X years' is perfectly reasonable if google's goal is to stop contributing to the open parts of android.

I am not disputing Google's right to do whatever it takes to compete, or that there is somehow something morally wrong about that.

I am disputing the canard that 'Android is open' when really only a part of it is, and that part is not what most people think of as Android.

I do thing there is something morally wrong with perpetuating this misleading idea, even though it furthers Google's PR goals.

I know that corporations mislead us all the time with communications that are technically true but pragmatically false. I realize it may be naive to expect different behavior, but it's certainly not going to stop if it isn't called out.

This is because of what you define Android as.

Of course, the humorous part is that when all of this first started, Google tried very hard to make sure Android was defined in terms of what the Android Open Source Project was and had, but failed miserably here, so they gave up.

If as you say, Google intended to have 'Android' mean the AOSP at one point, and it has stopped trying for that definition now because it failed to make the distinction to the public, then that only strengthens the point that Google (and you) know that what people think of as 'Android' is not open, and so are knowingly exploiting the ambiguity between 'Android' and the AOSP when you perpetuate that idea.

I'm not a naysayer about the product in general (although I am not a fan of google), but I have used Glass, and it is far from being a usable consumer product.

Iteration will change that. However I have doubt that that have got to that point yet.

If this is article is accurate, then I think the operative words are 'invitation only'. The idea would be to get massive celebrity endorsement to create desire without real consumers actually experiencing the product.

So far Glass has done a great job of making Google not look like a boring copycat. If they can keep this up and launch a great product at some point, it will turn out to be a masterpiece of marketing.

The fact that a few hobbyists can back their phones does nothing to change this.

Look at the history of when the lawsuits are filed, and who filed them.

There is no equivalence.