This is true and happened with 1.5 and with the Nexus One: new version dev in private, then a big open sourcing effort (by specific team members) after the version is released. I guess the difference here is that for 3.0 they indicated that they made a lot of tablet-specific changes which won't translate well to phones. So the source isn't in a state where they want to release it for phones, and get the opposite of last year's fiasco (when OEMs put 2.x onto tablets).
Try not think of it as being an argument about what Android is, or what Google has done, so much as an argument about what a reasonable definition of "Open" entails.
All along Google has behaved in a way inconsistent with their "Open" marketing. And people have criticized them, not for what they were doing, but for trying to contort the definition of "Open" to still fit what they were doing.
Now that the project doesn't even meet the most-basic definition[1], there is simply no more wiggle room and those who would prefer "Open" still mean something at the end of the day are again pointing out the Emperor is naked [2].
[1] As codified in Rubin's famous tweet.
[2] Not because it's wrong to be naked, but because he insisted he was wearing clothes that he quite clearly is not.
I'm amazed what google's been doing all along hasn't caused this kind of reaction.
Throwing a source dump over the wall to out of date code has always been their operating procedure, but they've never publicly stated, as bald-faced as they have now, that they're not going to be releasing the source because they don't want smaller ODMs to have access to it.
This has nothing to do with hobbyist devs, this has everything to do with keeping Honeycomb limited to the few companies that have paid Google hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars for that access.
These articles are cropping up because Google (quite cleverly) utilized the "We're Open" mantra to gain a lot of momentum very quickly. Since the evolution of Android shows more and more evidence of "We're Open When Convenient/Beneficial", a lot of their most ardent supporters now feel betrayed/played.
If Google had said "We're not as secretive as Apple", there would be less bitterness now, but there also never would have been the sort of momentum/buzz they built early on.
gthank, roc. Very few situations are black and white. Sure Android may not be open as other open source projects but that doesn't mean they it is closed. Also google are not talking about closing it down. They are just talking about a delay in widening who has access.
Perhaps it's because Android is touted by Google fans as an open platform, yet the source is withheld and only given to Google's special partners until an official release.
