I'm sorry, I do understand what you mean, all I am saying is that the source for Android must be available (because it is a Linux flavour and therefore the source is open) and that if you make a change Google doesn't like they will only be able to stop you from calling it Android, ie. Facebook could make changes and call it FaceOS and Amazon could make changes and call it AmOS and if enough people wanted to further their flavours they could.
Currently Google funds a lot of the Android development and many outsiders participate using their rule book but Facebook and Amazon could go it alone and my guess is they choose not to because the fragmentation would cost more than it's worth.
After all, 3 flavours of an Android like Linux OS would reduce sales and make them less desirable to app developers.
In fact I believe if all of the Linux desktop advocates would get behind one single distribution it would in a short period of time supplant windoze as the preferred desktop OS in maybe 5-10 years.
My point is that only Google does most of the works on Android. I know you can do marginal customizations. When Facebook wanted to radically redesign the software, Google refused. When Amazon wanted to do same, it refused. So, it is NEVER open source as not a commuity is maintaining, it is a single company that runs Android. The problem is that people confuse open source with open tool. When Android is an open OS, it is not open source!
@goafrit, What you say about Android is interesting and surprising, the GPL (used for Linux) says you may modify as much as you like for your own use but any changes that are distributed must have their source code revealed. Given that Android is based on Linux (correct me please if I'm wrong) I would have thought they must provide full source code therefore. At most they could prevent you from using the "Android" name for a dirivative work that they don't feel complies with what they set out to do, I would have thought.
Android is an open OS but not really an open source. Try to create a unique favor of Android, Google will send you a letter. You have limited rooms to modify that OS. It is open but never open source as largely it is mainly Google that develops it
Absolutely, for the fact most times most of the apps are made by the same people, iOS cannot claim to be superior. But with a locked door that is open only when vetted, Apple has found a way to police its ecosystem better unlike Android
I have a 2-year old Galaxy Ace - it's due for upgrade soon. When I first had it, I put on a free (AVG?) anti-virus app. But, with each "upgrade" of my other apps, they have taken more and more of the phone's memory and the anti-virus has had to go (as has TuneIn Radio. :-( ). My next phone will have more umph, even if i have to pay more for it.
Junko, I don't think you can blame open source for that, open source means the sourcecode is available and allowed to be modified where as a virus writer really only needs the API which Apple must provide to app developers. goafrit has written that the App Store pre-release surveilance lacking at Google Play is the difference as have I. Add to that that Android apps can be downloaded from many 3rd party sites that also have no control over what is made available and you have the most likely cause. It is likely that the iPhones with malware were jail broken as I don't see another method to get a contaminated app onto an iPhone.
@goafrit exactly my spin on malware in phones. I've been saying for a while that iOS isn't any better at avoiding malware, and that Apple's policy of lockdown is the reason there is little malware in iOS. It's why I have an iPhone even though I think they are inferior to Android phones in many other aspects.