In the developing debate between Apple's Steve Jobs and Google's Andy Rubin, the two parties are now debating the definition of an open OS. Jobs claimed that Google was using the 'open' moniker to justify their supposedly scattered and inconsistent presence. Rubin then tweeted that their OS is indeed open because the source is available for download.
Hewitt isn't convinced. He argues that the Android OS can't be called an open OS, because the code isn't available until the release. He says that if it really were open, then we would be able to monitor and provide input on the OS as it developed.
Hewitt cites Linux and his own Firefox browser as true examples of open systems. In these, the community shares control with the developers, rather than waiting to have access to a pre-packaged product.
Regarding the debate between Apple and Google, Hewitt tweeted the following: "Point I am trying to make is, Rubin bickering with Jobs is a farce, because both refuse to share the one thing that matters: control."
It seems that Hewitt isn't necessarily complaining about the implementation of Android, but is merely disagreeing with their definition of 'open'. TechCrunch keenly points out that his impatience for upcoming OS codes might be related to his role in developing the next version of Facebook for Android.