That defends its refusal to ban 'craplets,' or apps dictated by the carrier, and often unremovable;
That notes that the presence of such craplets is a plus...
“That’s the nature of open..That’s actually a feature of Android.” (Andy Rubin said it.)
That acquires one of the three leading Android hardware handset makers (Motorola), despite the obvious disadvantage that it puts the other makers who bet on its commitment to openness.
Whereas Google has in essence stated a commitment to the good, bad and ugly that its open manifesto bears, they have been deathly silent about Amazon's successful launch of the Kindle Fire Tablet, the first REAL success of an Android-derived tablet.
Now, why could that be?
Because Amazon is using Google's open medicine to create a forked, proprietary village where Google is not invited?
Where Google Search is nowhere to be found;
Where Android Market is mostly unwelcome;
Where Android's look and feel is buried;
Where Google Maps won't open;
Where the 'spirit' of Google's version of open is closed for business.
Yes, for all of the platitudes that Google has uttered about 'open this,' 'open that,' they have said zero about what Amazon is doing.
When you boil it down, either:
A) This is the nature of open - a feature of it - and they should verbally acknowledge it as such. OR
B) They should raise their hand, and say that it's not cool, and embrace their 'open-ish'-ness.
To sit silently as they are, in the face of a successful instance of their platform, is at best ironic, and more probably, hypocritical.
But, I am 'open' to other interpretations.
- Amazon's "Prime" Challenger to iPad
- Open "ish": The meaning of open, according to Google
- You say you want a revolution? It's called post-PC computing
- Existential Threats: Google v. Apple v. Amazon - who fares best?
- Built-to-Thrive - The Standard Bearers: Apple, Google, Amazon