> All in all, it seems to me as an effort to build a proprietary platform with a free software layer between closed-source components and well-defined APIs to interface between them. What's the point? We already have Android for that, what we really need is a *more free* platform!
This platform is more open than Android. First and foremost, development is done in the open, not in the form of code drops like Android does. Participation in development is open just like regular open source projects. Second, the platform is built on open standards, not proprietary ones. Open standards aren't the same as open source, but both are important.
There are compromises though, like the ability to interface with binary blobs on the device, like Android does. I don't like this either, but without that it would be much, much harder to get device manufacturers and carriers on board. Is this the right amount of compromise, that keeps the platform open while allowing it to succeed, without giving up too much? Time will tell. But it's significantly more open than Android, that much is already clear.