How open is the open-source Android truly?

There are four major operating systems available in today’s smartphones: the Android OS, the iOS of Apple, the Blackberry of RIM and the newest of all, the Windows Phone 7 (you can read more on the market share of these here). One of the key benefits of the OS supported also by Google is that it is open-source. Many think that the OS being "open" is meant literally, without thinking what’s behind the term. Unfortunately, even though the source code is open to anyone, this does not mean, that we can freely modify any detail of any function on any device.

The Android OS is oddly dual in this matter: on one hand it is totally open for the software developers, but on the other hand it is absolutely closed for the hardware manufacturers. This makes Android uniquely skewed.

Re-interpreting one of the famous sayings of Henry Ford we might say:

„Any customer can have Android in any color he wants so long as it is black”

Even though the Android OS itself is open-source, codes of many elemental pars of it are closed, such as the:

• Android Market
• Google Talk
• E-mail client
• Maps application
• YouTube client
• Calendar application
• Framework responsible for the synchronization

Remember the first tablet models that were shipped without the Market app? This was because Google decides who can access the closed applications, and so far it is only the Samsung Galaxy Tab, that was granted such access. While outsider developers can not contribute directly to the Android project, the code is only made public with the final release of an Android version. This makes the life of the outsider developers (such as ourselves) harder, as they (we) don’t have the opportunity to prepare the applications for the newer versions.

Note, that Google almost exclusively influences the direction of the development of Android. For the everyday user it is almost irrelevant if the product is open source or not, but let’s take a look what this means of us?

The openness manifests itself mostly in the regulation of the Android Market. Due to the lack of strict control, developers can more effectively exploit the services built into the OS, or can even alter these (i.e. Swype). This would be impossible in the Apple App Store, as in this case the big bro’ is always watching, and as long as they find something in the app they don’t like, there is no way you will be launch your app. The loose control of the Android apps might be dangerous, but as the community filters the apps (by rating them) the risk is minimal. Ultimately developers can also directly distribute their apps, even without registering it in the Market.

The Android OS made it also possible for the Mobile Operators to customize the OS of the devices they sell, and to publish unique applications. Verizon in the US used this possibility several times, by signing exclusive contracts with Skype and Microsoft (among others), not letting other operators use these services. Hardware operators can also modify the OS, see the UI of HTC called Sense, or the TouchWIZ of Samsung. Unfortunately, Google would like to stop these initiatives in the next versions, as these might lead to the fragmentation of the platform. Another concern is, that HTC users might have problems using a TouchWIZ device, and that the new OS versions hold back the updates for these kind of modified versions.

Taking a closer look at a device running the Android OS, we can see that there are similar limitations as in case of the Apple devices. With an original OS one can not touch the basic parts, as this is not allowed by Google for security reasons. The user in this case has only "user rights", whereas if one wants to access all functions of the device, the device has to be "rooted". Note, that this is done at one's own risk only, as in this case the bootloader has to be hacked, that is an irreversible process, and might lead to the loss of warranty and bricking the device.

As you can see, an Android device is not as open as it seems, especially after all the buzz around the OS. It is safer to say, that the Android OS is in many cases much more open than the iOS.

All in all we cannot state that one OS is better than the other, as they were designed for different purposes. While Apple and RIM offer a complete – but closed – solution (united hardware and software), Windows Phone 7 and Android are OS that can be used by the mobile manufacturers, and thus these have to be more open, so that the developers can personalize them according to the different hardware used.

As we can see there is a necessity for a certain level of closeness, as we tend to store more and more sensitive information on our mobile devices, and as only a minority of the users wants to customize their devices. For all of the functions to be accessible, the Apple devices have to be jailbroken, the Android devices have to be rooted. Also, the closeness in case of the Android OS is Google’s tool to keep control over the platform. Before making hasty decisions on any of the platforms, it is recommended to investigate the different platforms thoroughly, and to make the choice only after the picture is clear.

http://androidhungary.com/2010/11/az-android-os-alnyiltsaga