gnuite | # 121 | 2009-10-20, 05:20 | Report

It doesn't have to be GTK+ or Qt to be open. (That's especially true of Qt, since it hasn't always been so open as it is now. Then again, I'm obviously biased, as you can tell from my alias!)

The only thing Android "locks you into" is an application platform that happens to be different from GTK+ or Qt. But then again, so does Maemo, doesn't it? Sure, most of the framework is standard Linux libraries, but there's also a thin, Maemo-specific layer built on top of those libraries.

You can argue that Android's layer (on top of the standard Java libraries) is perhaps a bit thicker than Maemo's, but you can't argue that it's any less open. And when it comes to mobile development, it's good that those abstraction layers are there, because mobile hardware is complicated. Developing for them is different than developing for desktop applications, so it's nice for developers to not have to worry about that, or at least to deal as little as possible with the details of things like kinetic scrolling, finger-friendly controls, multitouch, cellular handoffs, etc.

Sure, there are Google-provided applications built on the Android platform that are not free, but Nokia provides the same kinds of apps on the Maemo platform, for probably the same reasons. And they don't affect the openness of either platform.

But I'll reiterate my main point: it doesn't matter which of Maemo and Android is better. It matters that they're both open. The source code is free. The application frameworks are built on free and open technologies. And application developers are free to build whatever cool inventions they can conjure - they don't have to deal with the tyranny of the iPhone App Store.

And those are wins for everyone.

GeneralAntilles | # 122 | 2009-10-20, 05:28 | Report

But governance does, can you address that?

Unfortunately they aren't, in practice it just means more fragmentation in mobile Linux, which is a sector that's suffered from that for far too long. Android does not provide a way forward beyond being a Google-oriented platform. Maemo does.

gnuite | # 123 | 2009-10-20, 05:33 | Report

Wait - creating a common platform that runs on multiple sets of hardware creates fragmentation? Or are you just refering to its existence as yet another Linux-based mobile platform (like maemo)?

---

Last edited by gnuite; 2009-10-20 at 05:49. Reason: Added quote and some italics.

gnuite | # 124 | 2009-10-20, 05:48 | Report

Maemo is mature in that respect, I will grant you that. But even Java went without governance for three years before the Java Community Process was formalized.

In many ways, the close guidance of a organized, funded company can make it easier for an infant software development platform to grow into something viable. Sun fostered Java; Nokia fostered Maemo; now Google is fostering Android.

And given the remarkable amount of progress that has been made on Android as an operating system and as a platform, after just a year of public availability, it looks like the process is working, just as it worked for Java and Maemo. In time, I have no doubt that Android will grow to a size that demands governance, just as Java and Maemo have.

mykenyc | # 125 | 2009-10-20, 05:56 | Report

In time but for now N900 rules

ysss | # 126 | 2009-10-20, 07:15 | Report

I think the main difference is what I'd call 'platform maturity'. I know it's not the best term to describe it, so feel free to correct me on this..

Each of the platform has their basic core design:

- iphone wants to be a simplified OS with high focus on gloss and UI, primarily as a content delivery mechanism.
- maemo is a refactoring of 'mobile computing'. boundless and unlimited in its potential, but it's still just a scaffolding compared to when it'll be fully blossomed.
- android... well I have the G1, but I don't use it enough to get the gist of it ;P Probably it's designed to be a middle-of-the-road kind of mobile OS: jack of all trades, master of none.

So, with each different 'endgames', they're all now going iterations to reach each of their own 'perfection'. The iPhone has been in the market for 2+ years and with 3 iterations to correct the glaring quirks. Not YOUR quirks against it, but the quirks against THEIR idealized design. The Maemo is fresh out of the gates, so there'll be PLENTY of rough edges compared to the more established platforms.

Also, b*tch*ng against iPhone's closed design is similar to b*tch*ng about the Tivo not able to do common linux tasks. They're just closed end products that make use of open parts as their building blocks.

cb474 | # 127 | 2009-10-20, 11:12 | Report

I completely agree with this. I was just thinking this the other day. Making the OS free to any device manufacturer was the stroke of genius. It even allows people to get into the phone business who might not have otherwise (Dell, Acer), because they don't have to develop an OS. I think Google is beating Windows at it's own game, in the phone world, in terms of figuring out how to become the default platform and that the hardware doesn't matter. Apple, though they've had a run of success, will end up marginalized again, for the same reason; it's need to tightly control the hardware and software combination.

To me Nokia is the wild card in all this. Meamo is a great platform. It's a step beyond Android, iPhone, and everything else, precisely because it is more of a true desktop experience. In the long run this could trump even Google, because of it's desire for tighter control. But Nokia has been so ineffective at pulling it's N series devices out of the high end niche, I don't know if they'll pull it off, even if they have the conceptually more radical and innovative design.

ewan | # 128 | 2009-10-20, 11:25 | Report

There's more to a system being open than simple visibility of the source code. The Android platform is designed to lock down the devices it runs on and prevent the user exercising their freedom to control their own device. The mere existence of the ADP1 as distinct from the G1 tells you how open Android is. There is no developer edition of Maemo because they're all open to development, or to anything else the user wants.

cb474 | # 129 | 2009-10-20, 11:37 | Report

I think this is exactly right. It's where the potential of Maemo lies. Someday, when most people do expect their mobile device to be more like their computer, they will want to be able to do whatever they want with it. Even people who are not *nix-heads and don't think about what "smartphone" or "mobile computer" means will benefit from the freedom of choices this will allow them.

On the other hand, it's going to be hard to compete with Google letting any device manufacturer who wants to use Android for free. As I said above, we all know this is basically how Windows won the OS war (minus the licensing fee). Android doesn't even have to be better than the competition. As long as it's perceived as more or less equal in capability to the iPhone, WinMo, Maemo, it can dominate just by spreading like a virus accross most device manufacturer's hardware.

Laughing Man | # 130 | 2009-10-20, 12:03 | Report

And that's why I think Android will win in the long run. But I'm hoping by then they would have sorted out the problems that have me preferring Maemo over Android. =P