I'd bet a lot of money on it. Apple has a long, long history of making beautiful, innovative, forward-thinking, and fairly locked down products, from the Mac onwards.
OK, but you admit that your definition of free isn't everyone's definition of free. To be even more precise, the OSI itself doesn't even call that definition free, they call it 'open source.' The FSF, in fact, has a contrary definition that they maintain is actually free software. Both parties refer to the OSI as 'open source' and the FSF as 'free.'
This leads in to the main problem that Google/Android have -- when they market Android as being open they don't really define what open is. It is prima facie true that Android is not open on all fronts, so the question is really what Google considers "open" to mean.
Jobs put this observation into an interesting context because it's important to note that a lot of software in the iPhone is free as well. In the manual you will find a list (quite a long one) of all the GPL and BSD licensed software included inside the iPhone. The question, then, isn't who is open and who is closed, but what the definition of 'open' is and who more closely abides by it.
OK, but you admit that your definition of free isn't
everyone's definition of free
No shit ... my definition of "free" includes me distributing the code I made however I want.
If it where for me I would include a new rule in the OSI definition that excludes GPL from being called "open source", because its copyleft extends to the whole package that links to GPL pieces, and for me this is not "free".
Both parties refer to the OSI as 'open source' and the
FSF as 'free.'
The Apache license has been approved as "Free Software", which is by no means the same as "free" ... an English word that you cannot trademark.
It is prima facie true that Android is not open on all
fronts
In my definition of "open" that doesn't include forcing the phone manufacturers to not build locked phones.
If my voice doesn't matter (I'm a nobody) here's the voice of Linus Torvalds (you know, the guy without whom you can't speak about Linux):
[Stallman] calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he
has made up, and a term I find offensive, so I don't
choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did
anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The
fact that they do their hardware and have some DRM
issues with the content producers and thus want to
protect the integrity of that hardware.
The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not
cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm
concerned, people who make their own hardware can
design them any which way they want. Whether that means
"booting only a specific kernel" or "sharks with
lasers", I don't care.
And I don't care about what Jobs says, the real question is: can you build your own iOS phone? can you participate in its development (like contributing bug fixes)? Can you choose phones from multiple manufacturers and multiple carriers? Can you install your own apps on it without going through that certification shit-hole?
No? Well Android is a lot more open, regardless of definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition - Android qualifies, except for a few bits and pieces.
> I think this is just speculation.
I'd bet a lot of money on it. Apple has a long, long history of making beautiful, innovative, forward-thinking, and fairly locked down products, from the Mac onwards.