Apple, iPhone, Google and the 'open' Android myth

Taking some time-out from listening to the latest Chase and Status album on my super-charged, neighbor-pleasing sound system I'm happy to note that the Google Android veil seems to be slipping, with the world and most of its brothers getting the message that, despite the anti-Apple [AAPL] iPhone hype, Android isn't really open now.

The happy hype machine

Ever since the introduction of the Android OS, the hype-machine has declared Android to be "open". Hardly surprising when it was announced as Open Source (above). This has been repeated so often that it constitutes yet more of the Orwellian double-speak which seemingly characterizes our age.

See, for many folk Google's assertion that its software was "open" confuses the status of the software with code from the Open Source movement. This situation is rather like the early days of OS X when Apple would explain how standards-focused OS X was, in the days before the Flash wars, HTML5 explosion and Java and Samba's removal from the Big Cat room.

Yet another game of smoke and mirrors.

[This story is from Computerworld's Apple Holic blog. Follow on Twitter or subscribe via RSS to make sure you don't miss a beat.]

Ian Betteridge nails it when he reports the following statement.

"Looking back on Google's statements over the years I'm struck by how rarely they actually describe Android as "open source" and how frequently they just referred to it as "open", allowing everyone to assume they meant the former. Clearly they didn't. They meant Android was open the way Windows is open – open to being run on different manufacturer's hardware."

Ultimately the doublespeak of the world's biggest search engine was designed to strike a division between Apple's iPhone (an OS which works on only Apple devices and is accompanied by a curated Apps market) and Google's own offering (an utterly fragmented mess of phones from different manufacturers accompanied by a non-curated, insecure Apps market).

Google's claimed openness was nothing but hype, and this week we learned that it intends changing its ways, enforcing more control on the software, more control of partnerships and demanding handset makers win approval from Google for their handset plans.

The return of a king

Bloomberg tells us the company has said there will be no more "willy-nilly tweaks" to Android. Companies seeking early access to the most up-to-date versions will need their plans approved by Andy Rubin, Google's chief. The aim is to tighten Google's policy on "non-fragmentation". (Not that the Phandroids would ever accept Android was a fragmented market).

In one fell swoop Google's Android leader, Andy Rubin, has become the king of the Android world, the Dalek Davros, seeking to assimilate an entire budding mobile phone industry to his robotic will -- not that he's a robot -- this is an ANALOGY to his position of control over the Anrdoid market. In future, he'll be making the final decision on what goes forward on Android, and what does not, if I understand the report correctly.

[ABOVE: An extremely poor image made by me to illustrate my point. Perhaps an artist out there will take pity on my poor Photoshop skills and do it better. Please?]

It is also an interesting analogy to consider that at this point Apple's 1984 ad is once again relevant, with Google cast as the Orwellian Big Brother on the screen.

Why the surprise?

Given a choice between following the lead of Steve Jobs, or this Andy Rubin character, who would you choose? The innovator, or the follower?

Who can ignore the moment in October last year when Steve Jobs noted that Android's openness was just a sham?

"Google loves to characterize Android as 'open' and iOS and the iPhone as 'closed'," said Jobs. "We find this a bit disingenuous, and clouding the real difference between our two approaches.

"Android is very fragmented. HTC and Motorola install proprietary user interfaces to differentiate themselves from the commodity Android experience. The user's left to figure it all out. Compare this with the iPhone, where every handset works the same."

Who can forget when Rubin countered the Apple CEO's claims with a Tweet in which he demonstrated how easily anyone could download and compile the latest build of Android. Of course, Rubin didn't actually claim any openness, he simply left it to the Apple-bashing media to make that claim for him.

Not so open any more, Rubin.

Over to John Gruber at Daring Fireball, who writes: "So here's the Android bait-and-switch laid bare. Android was 'open' only until it became popular and handset makers dependent upon it.

"Now that Google has the handset makers by the balls, Android is no longer open and Google starts asserting control. Andy Rubin, Vic Gundotra, Eric Schmidt: shameless, lying hypocrites, all of them."

You make your own decision on Gruber's vitriol.

Don't hope on hype

Naturally as an Appleholic, I'll be picking up an iPhone when they turn up later this year, but to those considering 'openness' as the big reason to pick up on Android, don't bother: just compare the features of the phones you're interested in and get the one you like the best. If you don't like Apple, don't buy Apple, but buy on the features and not the hype. You'll be happier.

Probably.

This has always been the case of course. After all, Android was and is only open to device makers and carriers to tweak and tease. For consumers this 'openness' only extended to giving you a choice of different products running the same OS. For handset makers it just gave an illusion of a future business proposition while they tried to remain current in a deeply competitive industry.

The Nokia/Microsoft detente shows my predicted consolidation within that space has now begun.

Underestimating Microsoft

Speaking of which, other than the lack of licensing fee, I fail to see how Android is any more open than Windows Mobile. In a few months time Nokia will come to market with a handful of devices implementing the Windows OS. Nokia will be fighting for its life, so expect these devices to be of high-quality, heavily subsidized and feature-packed.

This will challenge Android's partners and could decimate ABI's market prediction yesterday that Google's smartphone OS would take 45 percent of the market by 2016. I think ABI Research underestimate just how tough a fight Microsoft now knows it needs to put up in the mobile arena. I think the research also underestimates just how hard Nokia will kick as it attempts to regain market momentum. Think about it: How tough a fight would you put up to save your own business?

Interestingly, of course, the first of Nokia's new offerings will reach market shortly before or at the same time as Apple's iOS 5 and iPhone 5 are now expected to debut.

Did Apple change its schedule in order to give itself space to react to the new Microsoft challenger? I don't know, but I imagine Apple will be focusing much of its research and development in the mobile sector. It will aim to remain the premium smartphone choice, leaving Windows Mobile battling Android for the middle ground.

Let's change the conversation

I've said before that I'm saddened by the polarized coverage of the highly disrupted smartphone industry. There's no one true path in handsets, there's no one true path in anything. It isn't about one side "beating" another. Nokia's experience shows that marketshare is no protection against the next big disruptive wave. This isn't a game of winners and losers, this is a never-ending realtime strategy game, a dance in a ballroom that's big enough for everyone.

It really is time to cease the "Android is open" mantra.

Surely we should seek an intelligent new language to describe usability, customer experience, reliability and device capability for the benefit of mass market smartphone consumers?

We are defining a new age

Media coverage needs to get wise and accept the high importance of the battle that is being fought. Consumers need the best information to make the best decisions for a new computing Century.

This is because computing in the 21st Century isn't just for geeks, has an ever-decreasing need for a PC, and is more intrinsically powerful and personalizable than anything we have seen before in technology.

Is it time we looked at what's behind Google's hype? Or is Apple still the public enemy? Let me know in comments below.

Please follow me on Twitter so I can let you know just as soon as I post new reports here first on Computerworld.