An Open Operating System is not a bad thing.  Cost wise it’s usually fantastic because who can really beat free and that’s exactly what an operating system is when it’s open.  As the old saying goes though, you get what you pay for.  Linux began the revolution of the open OS on the PC what seems like ages ago now.  At one point it seemed as though Linux would be  the nail in a Windows coffin but Linux only managed to gain sizable traction in the corporate environment.  Despite it being free for nearly every PC, potential consumers opted for the tried and true Windows platform for their home computing needs.  To a lesser extent, people also maintained a relationship with MacOSX despite that OS being more restrictive in terms of software then Windows.

Where Linux has gained a significant foothold is in a market that it was not originally envisioned for, smartphones.  Two smartphone OS’s have successfully made it to market with Linux as it’s underbelly.  The less then stellar selling WebOS and the king of smartphones, Android.  Both of these brought with it a new look to smartphones that significantly changed the way we interact and expect a smartphone to perform.  Both were innovative in ways that are hard to measure but definitively visible.  WebOs was only available on proprietary hardware made by Palm, later HP, but it’s influence on multitasking is still felt to this day.  The card system was a revelation on how to take multitasking to brand new heights on a small device.  The ease of use of Pre was unparalleled even in comparison with the friendliness of an IPhone.  Android brought with it a hardware revolution.  Before Android manufacturers dealt with both building the OS and building the hardware.  With a free OS available to all, the hardware manufacturers were able to direct their complete efforts into building stellar devices.  Processing speed and specs became just as important to the consumer as can it do emails.  The Android Marketplace grew as usage grew.  The stars aligned perfectly for great hardware and even better sales.

But with this comes a couple of problems.  By building a free open operating system available to all you must satisfy all.  What good is free if it doesn’t work.  If I gave you a free couch you couldn’t sit on it would be just about worthless anyway.  So with this idea in mind,  Android has had to design the OS to fit the needs of numerous manufacturers with numerous goals.  HTC builds high devices as well as low end ones.  The OS must satisfy it’s needs for a high end phone but also for one not as high powered.  The first problem with this methodology then is clear.  When building an OS for everyone no set standards can be enforced therefore the quality of the experience varies wildly from device to device.  If for instance you take $50 (on contract) phone from any manufacturer and compare it a $199 (on contract) phone, the performance of said devices are night and day.  This could lead to some unsatisfied customers.  Imagine being shown a high end phone and decided to invest into the ecosystem only to find that the device you purchased is the polar opposite of the one you liked.  You would assume because they both run the same Android OS that you would have the same experience on both.  You would be dead wrong.

Obsolescence is epidemic in the Android Ecosystem.  WebOs never experienced this due to it’s lack of growth.  The average Android phone becomes virtually unusable after one life (upgrade) cycle after it’s introduction.  The OS completely moves beyond it.  Now Apple tends to do the same but this is planned obsolescence rather then unintentional.  There is no reason to believe. that the IPhone 4s was such a dramatic departure from the 4 or the 3gs before it.  Windows Phone 7 users may actually enjoy two life cycles if Windows Phone 8 is compatible with first gen phones which indications are looking good.  No where though is this more prevalent in the Android ecosystem because of the speed of which upgrades occur, which they had to slow down, and the varying devices running different versions available simultaneously.  Android has always been accused of fragmentation but it goes deeper then that.   When a device that you just bought is overshadowed mere weeks after you purchased it that’s a huge problem.  This may not be directly the fault of the OS but it is symptomatic of the approach that has been taken.

Finally, the open nature of the Android ecosystem, this was common with WebOs, has lead to stability and security issues.  By having to please so many different vendors holes have been left in the OS that have made it susceptible to trojan software and force closes.  The most frustrating thing about Android has always been to me the complete shut down of my phone at which point it resets itself.  Can this happen with another OS?  Yes. Does it happen with the same frequency and annoyance as Android?  No.  An open OS leaves it exactly that.  OPEN.  Google has been trying hard to fix these problems but when they do another will open up because at the end of the day they don’t control the OS.  It’s the community that builds the foundation on which they have build the palace.  That foundation is cracked.

There are a lot of things to love about a community driven OS.  Openness is not always bad in technology.  It leads to knowledge and advancement.  But much like democracy, it isn’t perfect.  An open smartphone OS was not the idea of the original Linux community but it is where the legacy of Linux will live.  That legacy is cloudy at this point because of it’s imperfections and implementations.  Time though and sales are still on it’s side.