What it boils down to is that Google has a final approval over any Google-logo Android device. For phone OEMs, this looks like absolute and arbitrary control by Google, but, in reality, it's a three-way negotiation between the OEM, Google, and, in the US, the carrier controlling the channel for the product, with any one of them able to sink a product before it reaches the market.
Google has never seen fit to make licensing terms for Google's ecosystem apps (Maps, Play, etc.) transparent. That's a pretty sharp contrast with Android as an open source project, and even with the way Windows Mobile (not Windows Phone) was licensed.
So Android is open, on the one (AOSP) hand, and un-transparently proprietary on the other hand. That leaves an obvious market opening for a truly open OS. But, so far, Tizen, Open WebOS, or any other possible contenders have been insufficient and/or under-developed. Maybe Canonical will get it right.
What it boils down to is that Google has a final approval over any Google-logo Android device. For phone OEMs, this looks like absolute and arbitrary control by Google, but, in reality, it's a three-way negotiation between the OEM, Google, and, in the US, the carrier controlling the channel for the product, with any one of them able to sink a product before it reaches the market.
Google has never seen fit to make licensing terms for Google's ecosystem apps (Maps, Play, etc.) transparent. That's a pretty sharp contrast with Android as an open source project, and even with the way Windows Mobile (not Windows Phone) was licensed.
So Android is open, on the one (AOSP) hand, and un-transparently proprietary on the other hand. That leaves an obvious market opening for a truly open OS. But, so far, Tizen, Open WebOS, or any other possible contenders have been insufficient and/or under-developed. Maybe Canonical will get it right.