You don't need Google's closed services to have a working and meaningful platform. You also still benefit from the large developer mindshare and identical APIs compared to Google's Android.
You don't have the added benefit of the content discovery & delivery platform Google provides, nor of any of the closed Google API's. Depending on your use case, that may make it "meaninglessly open", but I would definitely argue that this isn't a universal statement.
I also have multiple Android devices that don't have access to Google Play (a set-top box and a system-on-a-stick) and I really don't mind that they don't have access to Play.
In my opinion the following software is much more open than Android:
Linux, Apache, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GCC, clang, and generally most open source products developed by the community.
In my opinion the following software is less open than Android: C#, OSX, iOS, and generally most software developed by major corporations.
The real keys are that your Android device is locked down, fixing it voids your warranty, and development does not take place in the open, rather every few months a major patch is released and there is no way for the community to contribute to the project in any meaningful way.
As it should. There's nothing in open source that requires a warranty. Here's a snippet from the MIT license, generally considered open:
"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT."
And from the GPL, also open:
"THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW."
When manufacturers go out of their way to lock down a device, I agree that's a jerk move. But I also don't think it's reasonable to expect them to agree to replace your device if it bricks after you've hacked the firmware. Obviously, the device may be bricked for reasons entirely unrelated to whatever you've hacked, but I don't begrudge manufacturers for drawing a line in the sand and not wanting to expend resources beyond it.
IBM somehow figured out how to do it on an IBM 5150 back in the early 80s and my Raspberry Pi supports it on ARM systems.
I'm happy to use my iPhone which doesn't allow firmware mods under warranty, however, I've never heard Apple talk about the iPhone being an open platform. Google's stance on the openness of Android strikes me as disingenuous.
Yeah, that one never gets boring.
Oh, you mean the _hardware_ is locked down? Guess what, I can't install Ubuntu on an Iphone either. I guess that makes Ubuntu non-open then?
open source licenses generally don't provide warranty because they don't have to and devs, providing free stuff, certainly do not want to bother with warranties. Companies could.
Just compare how much an insurance costs that covers damages caused by yourself (being negligent) as opposed to those covering only damages caused by hardware/software defects.
That's not an issue about Android though, it's an issue with manufacturers.You are free to release an Android device that is not locked down.
Of course a more cynical mind can see a reason in planned obsolescence - if you stop updating a device after an year you will buy your next sooner.
It seems to be an issue with 'Android' as no one, including Google, makes an Android phone on which you can install a modified version of Android without voiding the warranty.
Of course when you do that, the current level of openness is not just "no longer meaningful", it's bordering on parody.
Google has all the right to change the openness of it's software, but generally should be truthfull in their marketing. I haven't lately found them promoting Android for being open source, so all we need to be aware of is that Android, iOS, WP, BB are not open and are of course made to create profit for their companies from their users.
Back in the days, people argued that free software will not survive if they keep being idealistic. Instead, people argued that free software should market more, and compromise more with proprietary software. Well, here is the result.
That is not 'free to do whatever you want'.
The GPL speaks for itself. You are free to modify GPL-licensed software and distribute your modified version with the caveat that you make the source code available. Thus you are in fact free to do whatever you want to the software. The restriction is on the distribution of the software, not the modification you make.
Why does that one restriction cause so much distress?
The problem is that your observation isn't true. Here are some of the under-the-hood changes in just the most recent releases of Android:
Yes Google is moving some functionality to Play services. Yes it is worth discussing how this may impact the future of Android as an open platform. No, that does not mean that Android is no longer "meaningfully open", especially not in the matter-of-fact way you are presenting it.