Nokia criticizes Google said that Android was not open

4:23 AM Edited by Blony

Nokia seems to feel somewhat threatened by Android and all that is taking care of the vast majority of manufacturers that came to attack him and that is not open, but since October last year which made available its source code.

Director of the Symbian Foundation Lee Williams, elaborated with enthusiasm and gave Google a few nice clubs that are worth reading.

"Android is not open, that's just a marketing label that is controlled by Google. It is a nice label but I do not think that using Linux [Android is Linux-based] is synonymous with open and must be a mistake to assume so. This is just another Linux development next to a popular consumer brand, launched seems quite ironic no? But when asked the Symbian roadmap (which had promised to liberate it in 2010) said that he did not know because "the platform where it would lead the community" if clear;) -.

And at that point took the opportunity to respond Mine Rich, vice president of mobile at Google, it did so with as much certainty to join Symbian Foundation companies or organizations (not individuals may be) must pay a yearly membership:

"If we are talking about a platform, and the source code is not fully available for that platform, I would say that it is wrong to call this open platform. Because the platform can not be adapted, changed and shaped by people who are, either manufacturers or operators. I would say that if you need to join a club to gain access to source code, then it is not truly open. "

Furthermore, to fend off the attacks, the Google executive said: "There is no technology that we built in Google Android not made available to others. Then we can use for our competitors and ourselves. We believe that when someone controls a platform that is entirely bad for the industry. "

I think a mistake on the part of Symbian Android before criticizing its pledge to open the platform so they can say by example. For you, is it open Android or pure marketing?