A lot has been made of Google’s decision to delay the publication of Android 3.0 source code for the foreseeable future. One of the best write-ups is on Ars Technica, where Ryan Paul suggests Google is being hypocritical and contrary to the idea of open in the sense of software:

Android has become an insular platform developed almost entirely behind closed doors in an environment that is hostile to external contributors and is mired in a culture of secrecy that serves a small handful of prominent commercial hardware vendors and mobile carriers.

I’ve been moaning about this for a while now, not because I have a hugely vested interest in open-source, but because I believe that if you’re using an aspect of your product as a major marketing plus, it’s something you should stick to.

On Twitter, two points were made to me recently, seemingly countering my argument. First, Damien McFerran stated:

Google stopped playing on the ‘open’ thing ages ago, most Android phones don’t even advertise that they’re Android.

And then Nigel Whitfield said:

Is openness really a marketing gimmick? I really think, outside geeks, no one gives a damn.

I agree with both comments, but these points are also related and link back to the original argument about Google’s increasingly spotty track record on openness. Google may have—to some extent—stopped playing the openness card, but its advocates haven’t. And, yes, geeks are the only people who really care about ‘open’, but they still have a lot of clout when it comes to purchasing decisions. More often than not, a non-techie will ask a techie friend what to buy when considering a new smartphone or tablet. Geeks will sometimes push Android over other systems on the basis of its openness, no matter how disingenuous Google is being about that, and, often, purchasing decisions will be made on that basis, despite it being of little or no direct benefit to the purchaser.

This is why it’s still important for Google to play the open card—it gives the company an underground sales force of sorts, to counter the mag-friendly shiny shiny of its current major rival in the field, Apple. (The other major card Google holds is, of course, price: Android sales have sped past iOS, on the basis of lower cost of ownership—although that does mean a number manufacturers dependant on Android are forcing themselves into the same low-profit cul-de-sac that most Windows PC manufacturers are currently slumming it in.)

This one’s gold: Why Tablets Are Just a Fad, on PCWorld, by Katherine Noyes. For some reason, Noyes appears particularly miffed at the suggestion tablets are obliterating laptops and netbooks in mobile computing. It’s all she can do to stop herself screaming “No, you idiots! Laptops forever,” before jumping off a cliff with 15 Sony Vaios glued to her head.

Ever since rumors of Apple’s first iPad began to look credible back in 2009, I’ve been watching the tablet space with a mixture of wonder and confusion.

Which is presumably why you wrote the article you did, but do go on…

After all, the devices really don’t offer anything you can’t get on a smartphone

Aside from, say, a bigger screen that hugely impacts on the usability of complex apps and makes reading books and watching movies a lot nicer.

or a notebook computer,

Apart from massively superior battery life, a slew of handy streamlined apps, a lack of lap-burning temperatures and touchscreen capabilities that actually work.

and their form factor is inconvenient, at best.

Unlike those super-convenient laptops, with their super-convenient form factors. CLAMSHELL FOREVER!

Yet strong sales are backing up the hype–at least for now–suggesting something about the devices has caught on with consumers. What is that mysterious “something”?

The tactile nature of computing? The huge number of available apps? The high level of usability that means even toddlers and centenarians can use the devices?

Purely marketing, I believe.

Oh. Stupid me.

Apple is nothing if not master of the glitzy sales pitch, and there’s never been better proof of that than the iPad’s current success.

Fair enough. 15 million consumers can’t be wrong. UNLESS THEY’RE TAKEN IN BY APPLE’S GLITZY SALES PITCH!

Mark my words: The device–and all the others of its ilk that have sprung up for a piece of the action–are nothing more than a passing fad, at least in the mainstream.

I’m sure you’re right, assuming we ignore the iPad’s ongoing success. And the iPad 2’s huge early sales. And the iPad 3 rumours that are already circulating. And the fact every single major manufacturer in this space is desperately trying to rip off Apple and create its own ‘iPad’.

1. Limited Functionality. As far as I can tell, tablets do not offer any significant functionality that’s not already available on a smartphone or notebook computer

Which, as hinted at earlier, are two entirely different things, with different use-cases.

yet they lack critical components like keyboards.

Man, if only my iPad had a software keyboard or some means of connecting to a mechanical Bluetooth keyboard.

In fact, you can get a laptop with considerably more memory and storage and a much better CPU for a significantly lower price, as my PCWorld colleague recently pointed out.

Presumably, your PCWorld colleague didn’t point out that only geeks care about tech bullet points, and that CPU speed doesn’t remotely dictate how fast a device actually feels? No? Ah.

So why the hysteria? It’s a fancy new toy, and–in the case of the iPad–one from Apple, at that. Never underestimate consumers’ desire to impress each other with the latest and greatest gadget, especially if they’re Apple fans. “Latest and greatest,” however, doesn’t tend to stay in one place for long.

Tsk. Those 15 million idiot Apple fan-boys, eh? (Let’s ignore for the moment that many people buying iPads are entirely new to Apple, and the majority of iOS device owners don’t own a Mac.)

2. It’s Inconvenient. Unlike smartphones, the tablet form factor is too large to fit in a pocket or purse, yet it doesn’t offer anywhere near the functionality of only slightly larger devices like notebooks and laptop computers.

But you can fit a laptop into your pocket or purse? I don’t understand.

I just don’t see why you’d be willing to carry one of these things around–in addition to a phone, most likely–when you could have something convenient (a single good smartphone) or powerful (a laptop).

Oh, OK. Either it has to be mobile or it has to have a 426 GHz processor. Got you. That makes sense—if you’re a crazy person.

3. Waning Excitement. It’s true that other manufacturers are still hot on Apple’s trail with their own iPad-like contenders, but the release of the iPad 2 made it clear that excitement with the devices is already fading.

Mm. Those queues were only slightly longer than the ones for the original iPad, and the device only sold quite a lot more units. Wait. What was your point again?

Reviews of Apple’s new tablet were generally mixed,

True. The fuckers didn’t even include a free unicorn.

suggesting that reality is beginning to sink in.

And not that people had unrealistic expectations. WHERE IS MY GODDAMN UNICORN, APPLE?

4. Remember the PDA? Back in the 1990s, PDAs were the must-have device du jour, but they went on to spawn today’s smartphones. And indeed, the value they offered–and still offer, in smartphone form–is hard to argue with: portability, organizational tools and Internet connectivity, to name just a few. The natural evolution in this space led from something bulky but useful into something conveniently portable and useful; why would we want to go back again?

Because I can’t use GarageBand on my iPhone. Or (comfortably) read. Or create art in SketchBook Pro. Or play Civilisation Revolutions, Halcyon or World of Goo. Or work with Keynote. Or— Oh, sorry, you were being rhetorical, weren’t you?

It’s no secret that I am not an Apple fan

Man, I’d really never have guessed. GOOD JOB IT DIDN’T COME THROUGH IN YOUR ARTICLE OR ANYTHING.

as its devices are so closed and restrictive

Yeah, those Apple bastards and their walled gardens. Luckily, that’s not the case elsewhere. I’m looking forward to a weekend of installing the Mac version of iLife on my Windows PC and Microsoft Office on my Xbox.

…

What?

For that reason, I’d be far more inclined to look at Android tablets such as the Motorola Xoom–which, I should add, could certainly be useful in niche applications such as health care and inventory control.

CURVEBALL AWOOGA ALERT!

So, tablets are rubbish, boring, inconvenient and overly-hyped, apart from when they’re not made by Apple? And only for niche applications that the iPad already excels in but Android doesn’t? Right. Got it. Carry on.

For my purposes, though, I just can’t be bothered. I see no reason to own a tablet, and fully expect them to fade out of the mainstream over the next few years.

Much like your relevance as a tech writer.

Apple is evil. Google is good. That’s because iOS is closed and a walled garden, but Android is open. Presumably that’s why Google is delaying distribution of Honeycomb’s source code (Bloomberg).

Google argues Honeycomb isn’t ready to be altered by outside programmers; depressingly Andy Rubin, vice-president for engineering at Google, is quoted as saying:

We didn’t want to think about what it would take for the same software to run on phones. It would have required a lot of additional resources and extended our schedule beyond what we thought was reasonable. So we took a shortcut.

We have no idea if it will even work on phones.

So it might be open at some point in the future, presumably when it least affects Google’s own business (such as, say, when it’s no longer useful to RIM) and currently doesn’t work on phones; additionally, half the carriers will ignore Honeycomb anyway, to ‘encourage’ customers to buy new devices rather than upgrade old ones.

Open.

Oh my. The Guardian’s posted a video speedtest of the iPad 2 and… oh my. “How bad can it be?” you might be wondering. It’s… bad. But funny. Go watch it.

SPOILER: It’s a lot faster… Look at that! A lot faster! It’s faster! Again, faster! Actually, a lot faster!

What’s less amusing is the review itself, which is original content that somehow reads like it’s been cribbed from every other iPad 2 review, normalised and then fired on to the internet. It’s more a round-up than a review. Also, you know you’ve got a bad review when the only new information it offers is the odd error. Gah.

Andy Ihnatko on the iPad 2:

Many of you were around for the transition from text to graphical user interfaces. Some of you were even around when the world shifted from mainframes to personal computers. Well, congratulations: you’ve lived to see your third revolution in computing.

Interesting that Apple’s been instrumental in all three of these revolutions:

• The Apple II was one of the first personal computers, boasting then-rare built-in features, such as colour graphics, sound and a keyboard.
• Mac OS popularised the graphical user interface, in a time when people were staring glumly at command lines.
• And now iOS has kickstarted a touchscreen revolution that every other major player in the industry is clamouring to join.

It’ll also be interesting to see what the fourth revolution will be—and whether Apple will be a part of it.