Being open-source and wanting to control the experience are diametrically opposed ideas. When you choose to be open-source you are choosing to allow people to hack your code in whatever way they wish. That includes hacking it in a way that some might consider to be a poor experience. The fundamental value proposition of open-source is that some people will use your source poorly, but that on the aggregate good stuff will bubble up. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in open-source (which is fine).
I don't see anything in Andy Rubin's resume that suggests he's an open-source advocate. I'm not aware of any of his previous projects being open-source. Please call me out if this is incorrect.
Android is open-source in this same way id Tech is open-source. The current version is not, the previous versions may or may not be (in Android's case the 3 latest versions are not open-source). But eventually they'll open-source it, by the time it's no longer commercially viable.
Android is open-source in this same way id Tech is
open-source
On the stuff released by id -- that's pretty awesome what they are doing there and a lot of enthusiasts and even small companies have built stuff on top.
Of course, Android is much more than a game engine and the difference between Google and id is that being open-source comes in Android's value proposition.
it's no longer commercially viable
The Quake engines are still commercially viable for mobile phones. It also beats starting from scratch when low on budget.
I don't see anything in Andy Rubin's resume that suggests he's an open-source advocate. I'm not aware of any of his previous projects being open-source. Please call me out if this is incorrect.
Android is open-source in this same way id Tech is open-source. The current version is not, the previous versions may or may not be (in Android's case the 3 latest versions are not open-source). But eventually they'll open-source it, by the time it's no longer commercially viable.