And there are inherent disadvantages to being open, which Google is trying to mitigate here, and they have been doing this ever since Android launched (people have short memories or simply bad attitudes -- Android's source code wasn't released from the start).
If anything Google's behavior is actually consistent.
Also, when referring to "their words" some references are required ;)
"We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open."
(from: http://source.android.com/)
Are you seriously going to pretend that Google is not now restricting or controlling the innovations of any other industry players?
Huh? How is delaying the source code release of an incremental update such a big deal? Innovate all you want on top of 2.3(which is barely a few months old), make it tablet friendly or whatever and port it to whatever hardware you build.
Haven't you heard of the concept of forking?
Capitalism is open, but unfair; mother-nature is open, but unfair.
Hypocrisy is a perfectly valid strategy under capitalism.
If they are so disappointed, they can always launch Windows Phone 7 devices.
If Google never releases Honeycomb, then I'll agree; until then ...
Any other industry player can take Gingerbread and create its own Honeycomb, while keeping compatibility and totally being able to take the market by storm.
That's the very definition of open-source -- when unhappy with a project's governance, you can fork ; and you can fork Gingerbread, or Honeycomb when it will get released. You don't have to trust the company, just the source-code / license of the last release.
So what stops you or any industry players from just doing that? Lunch not free anymore?
The point is that Google is using Android to do precisely what they claimed they stood against - which is to control other players in the industry. That's what makes it hypocrisy.
I assume you'd agree that someone who forked a months old version would be at an extraordinary disadvantage against a competitor who had access to the current source and ongoing contributions from Google.
the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u
git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
I am not overly enthusiastic about that.