Android chief Andy Rubin has finally issued a statement in response to recent reports regarding Android's deteriorating openness. He characterizes the media reports as "misinformation" and says that he is speaking up "in the spirit of transparency" in order to "set the record straight."

In his statement, he defends Google's "anti-fragmentation" strategy and says that the source code will be made available when it's ready. He also dismisses the allegation that Google is tightening its control over the user experience. Unfortunately, his statement sheds no light on the Android roadmap, and he has completely failed to address many of the issues raised by widespread reporting on Google's role in the Android ecosystem. The condescending and evasive statement does little to support his argument.

The current wave of Android controversy started last month in response to the revelation that Google intends to withhold the Honeycomb source code for an unspecified amount of time. Confronted by BusinessWeek reporters, Rubin told the publication that corners had been cut during the Honeycomb development effort and that the code was unsuitable for release. Google has decided to hold it back until it has finished integrating the new tablet functionality with the existing phone version of Android. Like honeybees entombing infected pollen, Google is keeping its defective Honeycomb away from the hive.

The result is that Honeycomb is only available to a select handful of hardware vendors chosen by Google. Third-party developers and second-tier hardware manufacturers that want to customize the firmware are out of luck. Google's decision to withhold software code that is actively shipping on devices undermines the company's credibility on openness.

As we explained in our coverage of the situation last month, this disappointment is the latest in a string that goes all the way back to before Android's launch—a pattern of behavior that reflects a fundamental lack of commitment to delivering the openness that was promised prior to Android's launch.

The title of Rubin's statement suggests that Android is experiencing a "Gene Amdahl moment" amid the controversy. This is a reference to the founder of the Amdahl Corporation, who claimed in the 1970s that his computer hardware company was the victim of an aggressive misinformation campaign orchestrated by competitor IBM. Amdahl said that IBM was spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" among potential Amdahl customers in order to create negative perceptions.

Rubin's Amdahl analogy seems deeply disingenuous. Concerns about Google tightening its grasp on Android aren't part of a smear campaign orchestrated by a competitor—the criticism is coming from Google's own partners in the Android ecosystem. In a follow-up report last week, BusinessWeek attributed complaints about Android's waning openness to "a dozen executives" at companies that are major Android stakeholders, including LG, Samsung, Toshiba, and Facebook.

According to the BusinessWeek report, Google has been using its exclusive control over timely source code availability as leverage to block vendors from making customizations that don't align with Google's business interests. For example, the article says that Google attempted to block Verizon from shipping an Android device with Microsoft's Bing search engine.

Motorola reportedly ended a deal with Skyhook last year because Google insisted that its own geolocation service had to be used instead. Skyhook's CEO claimed that Google was pursuing an anticompetitive agenda under the guise of protecting compatibility—crafting Android compliance tests in a manner that disadvantages services that compete with its own. The BusinessWeek article indicates that Google is getting more brazen in its clamp-down on the use of competing services on top-tier devices.

It's unfortunate that Rubin completely failed to address that issue in his statement. The "spirit of transparency" that moved him to "set the record straight" apparently doesn't extend to those kinds of business dealings. The "spirit of transparency" also must have been taking a smoking break during Google's celebratory Honeycomb launch event, when the search giant neglected to mention that the code was unfit for disclosure due to corner-cutting. Perhaps Android's transparency is only a "spirit" because it never existed materially?

The current status of Android falls far below the standard of openness that Google promised in Android's early days when the company touted its vision of opening smartphones to third-party hardware and software in the same way that the Carterfone decision opened the phone networks.

The Honeycomb source code will eventually materialize—none of the critics have seriously disputed that. The problem here is that Google can and will use its unilateral control over the code base to manipulate Android adopters. The company can limit early access for any given release as a strategic instrument to hinder hardware vendors that don't do what it wants. While that is well within Google's rights as the author of the Android userspace stack, it is completely inconsistent with Google's rhetoric regarding Android's openness.