The failure of Android’s open

Daniel Eran Dilger:

Open Source enthusiasts love to tell you Android is winning, and that it is winning because it is open. But they’re wrong on both counts. The history of computing makes that abundantly clear, as do the current leaders in profitability.

Some great points in this article.



  • Lukas

    This is getting a bit ridiculous. Don’t you at least want to try to keep your arguments against Android straight? One day, you’re complaining about how Android’s openness is horrible for Android, and the next day, you’re complaining that Android isn’t open after all. Which is it?

    • DanielSw

      Why don’t you work it out for yourself? Trying to explain something to someone is a waste of time.

    • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/his-divine-shadow His Shadow

      These are not binary conditions. Androids “open” claims can be bullshit, and the extent to which Android is “open” has led to malware and a crappy user experience. Stop thinking like a light switch.

  • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/his-divine-shadow His Shadow

    I know Dilger doesn’t have many fans. But this article has a lot less of the over-the-top rhetorical flourishes that was characteristic of Dilger’s writing, and it’s always good to have someone run the the numbers on something like the putative success of “open” vs “closed”.

    As with the history of Microsoft’s partnerships in mobile computing, the reality of “open always wins” is much worse than those chanting such slogans would have you believe, especially since the tech press seemingly only discusses historical technology failures when Apple brings out a new product. Many writers may lament the passing of WebOS for instance, but they are loath to draw any substantive conclusions from it’s failure.