I do blame Google, though, for the way it has conscripted the word “open” for marketing purposes, rendering it meaningless in the process. Nearly every Google product release is accompanied by marketing copy about how Google’s product is more “open” than everybody else’s, and that this “openness” is its key virtue. Sometimes, as in e-books, this openness pitch is transparently false. In other cases, Google does offer a legitimately more “open” product, but the fruits of that openness are dubious.

Excerpted from a much more detailed analysis by Farhad Manjoo in Slate, which undercuts Google’s claim about the openness of its new ebook venture:

“Even if Google’s e-book store offers no better prices, selection, or functionality than Amazon’s Kindle Store, isn’t it true Google’s e-books are more “open” than Amazon’s? The store’s tag line promises that Google’s books will “set your reading free.” In a blog post, the company touts that its books are as portable as photos or e-mail—you can access them on “just about any device” using nothing more than your Google username and password. Openness, it seems, is central to Google’s push to become the Web’s pre-eminent e-book seller.

I’ve long supported a more open e-book marketplace. Two years ago, when it looked as if the Kindle was going to become an unstoppable force in electronic publishing, I lamented the way Amazon had locked down its users. Amazon won’t let you share or resell your Kindle books, and it will only let you read them on devices that it has approved. (Update, Dec. 9: The company did recently announce a plan to let you share your books with others for a two-week period—but you won’t be able to access the book during this period, and the publisher can decide to turn it off for any title.) Amazon’s restrictions were sure to pad its bottom line, I argued, but “everyone else with a stake in a vibrant book industry—authors, publishers, libraries, chain bookstores, indie bookstores, and, not least, readers—stands to lose out.” So, shouldn’t I be happy about Google’s entrance into the book market? Won’t this deep-pocketed, “open” rival take down Amazon’s e-book juggernaut?

Not at all. That’s because Google’s e-books are “open” in the same way that politicians are “bipartisan” and oil companies are “green”—the claim makes for good marketing, even if it lacks substance. Buying from Google rather than Amazon will give you no greater control over your books. You’re not likely to get any practical benefit from going with Google, either. In fact, Amazon’s “closed” books will soon work on more devices than Google’s “open” books.”

Farhad also adds some general conclusions about ‘openness’ itself:

I’m not arguing that “openness” is a bad thing in the tech business. What I’m saying is that it is not an unmitigated virtue, and it’s not necessarily the first thing people should care about when they’re shopping for a product. I’m glad that Google has introduced its new bookstore, because the e-book industry would obviously benefit from more competition. But I’d be even happier if Google wasn’t touting half-closed openness as its store’s main selling point. In the absence of real openness, Google ought to have something that Amazon doesn’t: more books, cheaper books, prettier books, books with more functions, more reviews of books, better recommendations, some kind of social-networking integration—something, anything, that would distinguish it from the bookselling herd. Calling something “open” isn’t enough, especially when it’s actually closed.