For me open source means something else. Maemo was a real open source platform. Android is not:

1. You can download part of the source (part is closed).

2. The source you can download and compile does not run on any phone (without some binaries).

3. Can you please send me the svn link to the newest pre-release version of Android (newer then Jelly Bean)?

So as a recap you can download part of the OS as source code. That's something you can also do for iOS. Apple gives you part s to download (to comply with licenses). Admitted Android is way more open than iOS.

Yet, to call it open-source discredits any real open source projects like Debian.

Just because you get some source dump from Doom e.g., after it's been developed, does not make it open source, at least not in my definition. Doom was still a closed source project, as Android is. You just get some source dumps once in a while.

Downvote me as much as you want ;)

Edit: fixed a typo

I don't think a downvote is necessary :)

It seems as though you're coming down on Android pretty hard. On my laptop I can't get my Broadcom wireless card to work without binaries. I also can't get my NVIDIA graphics card working either. Is that the fault of Debian? Does that make Debian any less open? It's more the fault of the hardware provider. I don't think that Android takes away from Debian at all. I think the open-ness lies in the licensing. For example, is qmail open source?

Here the problem ... Google partners with handset manufacturers and markets Android as open / open-source. For me the core functionalities of a smart phone are to call smb., mail, maps and installing 3rd party apps. All four are NOT open-source in any definition (3g modem, gmail, google maps and play).

No Debian is not at fault there, yet the debian community does not have direct links and influence on hardware manufacturers.

Imagine a Debian, where the most of it is open source (after some time), yet the core functionalities you use daily are all closed source. Is it still open-source? :)

I think you're probably just using the wrong term. Android does not have an open development model (which is certainly a downside), but they are certainly open-source.

Because Google and everyone else in the Android ecosystem* don't care.

*EDIT: I don't mean third party developers when I said 'ecosystem'. I mean the manufacturers.

They're in it for a profit like everyone else, and "open" is just a good a marketing strategy toward tech-minded people as any other. Consumers, on the other hand, still do not care.

But why should it matter whether they are in it for the money or not. The fact of the matter is that their source is open and people can take it and do things with it.

That's not what the definition of "Open" is.