“We await to see if iPhone or Android was the winner in most recent quarter. Google loves to characterize Android as open and iPhone as closed. We see this disingenuous and clouding the difference.
“The first thing we think of when we hear open is Windows, which is available on a lot of devices."
...
“Even if Google was right and the real issue was closed vs open, it’s worth remembering open doesn’t always win. Look at PlaysForSure. Even Microsoft finally abandoned this open strategy in favor of copying Apple’s integrated approach with the Zune, leaving their OEMs empty-handed."It is true that Android is fragmented and iOS is not - that is a natural consequence of openness, in the true sense of the word, and in my mind it's worth it for a phone that won't censor you with spellchecking.
Jobs' argument on tablet size (7" being too close to a phone, 10" being substantially more useful) is more legitimate, though the problem with 10" and 1.5 lbs is at that point having a netbook with a keyboard may often be better for many uses (though not as stylish).
But this truly absurd "open" nonsense just reeks of Microsoft FUD - even worse, really, as it's a bit better done.
UPDATE: Andy Rubin's take via Twitter:
the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
No comments:
Post a Comment