or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open - Page 2

post #41 of 310

Part of the problem with open source efforts such as Linux and Office clones is the shitty, nerdy interface. Great ideas, a lot of effort and hard to understand, complex interfaces. Check out Gimp, the open source alternative to Photoshop. It's very name means hobbled or a limp. Windows and panels galore...ugly, underlined menu names.

 

Apple made cool looking products that were easy to use. I'm not sure it would have mattered where the source of their inspiration came from. NeXT failed because their computers were too expensive. Even being incredibly ahead of their time and super easy to use, price killed their magic.

 

The resurgence of Apple was in being easy to use, cool, and prices that came down to earth to eventually match competitors.

 

Apple's challenge is to stay ahead of Android in terms of ease of use and coolness. Many people can recognize and will pay for nicely designed stuff.

post #42 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL View Post

One day this smartphone holy war will be over.. I hope it is soon.

If that happens the true losers would be us the consumers.
post #43 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

For those of you who live on Mars, the way things work on planet Earth are as follows: he who makes the most money wins!

I don't like the notion of 'winning' because there isn't a end game. Whoever is making the most money now could be in second or third place 5-10 years from now. So what exactly was won?
post #44 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


How can you steal something that's open?

 

Well they've forked it right?  Which is practically the definition of co-opting something, which itself is as close to "stealing" as makes no difference.  If the fork works, they could be considered to have taken something, bent it to their own uses and simultaneously (at least attempted) to torpedo the original.  

post #45 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Open has been successful though. Android took the feature phone and buried it. Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones …

 

I don't think this is true at all.

 

Android didn't "bury the feature phone." In fact, the rise of the smartphone "buried the feature phone," and the rise of the smartphone was pretty much completely led by iOS and Apple.  

 

Android may have ended up replacing a lot of those feature phones but that isn't the same thing.  

post #46 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

 

I'll start with the easy one.  Where would those products be without the Internet?  You do realize a humungous portion of the Internet runs on open source software, right? ...

 

Actually you have a very short memory here and are (mostly) incorrect.  The iPod and iTunes were wildly successful without the Internet for a very long time.  Up until very recently all of the devices mentioned were intended to be, and could be (mostly) run without using the Internet at all.  

 

The original concepts behind them certainly had nothing to do with the Internet.  iTunes was originally for ripping CD's and organising them onto your iPod which was attached with a cable.  

 

How soon they forget!

post #47 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post


Pure economic Gobbeldy gook !
You can't ascribe a $ value to something that doesn't have a price, then wrap it up nice and neatly and call it social surplus.
The fact that a dev turns around and sells it for $5 means its value is FIVE dollars not whatever number you pull out of your hat. If the dev could charge $10 do you think he/she would ? Of course they would. Then your social surplus would be what, 0 or would you try and up it because of lost Opportunity Cost just so that you can have a social surplus ?
What about if the dev sold it for $20 - does that mean that your social surplus is a negative number ? Is it now costing an economy to have something sell for what people are willing to pay for ?
My point being that it has to be able to be measured accurately - otherwise it's meaningless.

 

Value's relative in economics. If I would pay $10 for that $5 item, the value to me is $10, not the $5 the producer demands. There'd be no such thing as consumer surplus, otherwise. 

 

There are almost as many hits in JSTOR for "social surplus" as "producer surplus." You may be right that the post to which you're responding defines the phrase simplistically, but the phrase is out there, and you've done the same thing for "value." 

post #48 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL View Post

One day this smartphone holy war will be over.. I hope it is soon. I want to continue enjoying my iDevice without some oversized plastic clone-phone carrying individual telling me how much Apple sucks. I think they just like to complain about what someone else has since they are obviously not enjoying what they own.

 

The length (to date) of the Mac vs. PC holy war suggests you're being optimistic. And the fact that this very site routinely reports on bad news for Samsung and Google suggests that the war is two-sided.

post #49 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL View Post

One day this smartphone holy war will be over.. I hope it is soon. I want to continue enjoying my iDevice without some oversized plastic clone-phone carrying individual telling me how much Apple sucks. I think they just like to complain about what someone else has since they are obviously not enjoying what they own.

Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.

post #50 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Actually you have a very short memory here and are (mostly) incorrect.  The iPod and iTunes were wildly successful without the Internet for a very long time.  Up until very recently all of the devices mentioned were intended to be, and could be (mostly) run without using the Internet at all.  

 

The original concepts behind them certainly had nothing to do with the Internet.  iTunes was originally for ripping CD's and organising them onto your iPod which was attached with a cable.  

 

How soon they forget!

 

ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.

 

How soon YOU forget!

post #51 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

For those of you who live on Mars, the way things work on planet Earth are as follows: he who makes the most money wins!
 
Untrue, on Mars or Earth.
post #52 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.

 

How soon YOU forget!

 

Even if they were it wouldn't change the fact that they've benefited from the Internet.  The Internet is a huge addition to what they are today and what they have been for a long time.

post #53 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

 

Even if they were it wouldn't change the fact that they've benefited from the Internet.  The Internet is a huge addition to what they are today and what they have been for a long time.

I don't disagree with that at all.

 

If nothing, the internet was instrumental in the distribution of iTunes from the beginning.

post #54 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

 

I'll start with the easy one.  Where would those products be without the Internet?  You do realize a humungous portion of the Internet runs on open source software, right?

 

I'm not sure I see where the disagreement is coming from.  Are you suggesting that open source projects haven't helped to move the world forward?

Well, look at the history of the Tim Berners-Lee adnd what did he use?  A NeXT Cube to build the first web server.  Does that mean that everyone has to have a NeXT Cube to be on the internet?  NO.   Open Source kernel can be closed to become more focused on the direction for the OS.

 

Heck, Apple Developed Open CL so Apple participates in Open Source community for certain projects..  They are into Open Standards for things that makes sense,  things like HTML 5 instead of something like Flash.   For someone that likes Open Source, Flash was a major security problem and other problems for running on mobile devices which is why Apple and Microsoft pushed Adobe for using Open Standards like HTML 5..  Google dragged their feet since they wanted mobile devices to get access to the ad infested Flash videos on YouTube, so they could make some money.  So they would let their users be at risk with a problematic Flash plug-in so their Android users could help them make money from YouTube.

 

Whatever the technology is, there are ways to paint the picture to look however you want.  It just depends on who's painting the picture and if someone wants to have several different people painting a different picture to decide which one is a better and more realistic painting.

 

I've sat through so many vendor presentations through out my life and it's always interesting to hear different perspectives and some were more full of crap than others. I saw Novell give presentations on their Networking software and then Microsoft and it's just funny to see the differences in how they were pitching them when they were in heavy competition. I refused to bring the Microsoft rep out to my customer because they were saying things about NT that was just flat out BS. Microsoft had this whole security diatribe that was so pathetic like they just invented the perfect OS.  A day later, I had a MCSE/CCIE/CNE sit with a Mac expert that also had a MCSE and the Mac guy told the other person that NT is NOT secure and that he made him a bet that he could compromise NT within 5 minutes from a Mac (Mac OS as this was before OS X came out).  The guy took the bet.  The Mac guy leaves and comes back 4 minutes later and asks the other to log into an NT workstation.  Well, that login password was compromised and it's funny to see someone that has more certifications from Microsoft, Novell, CIsco, yada, yada than anyone in the geographic region.  This guy would get billed out at $400 a hour to perform Cisco CCIE work and people would be happy to pay it.  And he lost the bet to a Mac guy over NT Security.  It was funny.  Paint the picture that makes you happy and you'll find out someone may come around the corner painting a different picture that is better or at least closer to REALITY.

post #55 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.

 

How soon YOU forget!

was too! 1tongue.gif

post #56 of 310
You know why Android is an exception?
You know why it'll be successful?
Because it is run by Google!
A company that does not simply stack up cash but uses it to make the world a better place!
It is a company that strives for innovation unlike Apple.
I don't hate Apple because it is closed but because there are lower strides of innovation in the company. It looks only for profitability not a better world!
Hardware fragmentation naturally occurs as the platform grows. Simply, look at Apple. How many idevices of different sizes and different hardware capacities does it have?
If keeping closed is the only way to solve fragmentation of software. Then think again!
Google will show you how to with rolling updates shortly!
post #57 of 310
Ugh, wrong on so many counts...

I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.

Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.

I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
post #58 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sreeram View Post

Because it is run by Google!
A company that does not simply stack up cash but uses it to make the world a better place!
It is a company that strives for innovation unlike Apple.

What are you on? I want some of it since it obviously transports you into an alternate universe...
post #59 of 310
Thanks md - nice historical summation from one who was there.
post #60 of 310
Most of this article are points I bring up when talking about "openness" in software. The big thing to remember is that Android is open for use from Google as a driver for their services which they draw analytics and advertising revenue. Google doesn't really care if they have most of their market share in cheap phones and emerging markets, they draw their revenue by tying those people to their services. Google didn't make Android to be an ideal platform for developers. Google made Android to give OEMs an easy out for getting caught with their pants down by Apple in 2007 which in turn gave Google a trojan horse into people's information and habits. They've only recently put more effort into their developer ecosystem when Apple's app advantage started to become a sticking point.

Another point is that Apple didn't bring down the Wintel hegemony alone. Linux on the desktop was an absolute failure that never materialized, but Linux in the server room has continued to grow and gain acceptance from big IT shops. I'd argue that Windows the consumer operating system matters less to the Microsoft bottom line than Windows Server with it's lucrative user access licences and SQL Server with it's 5k per processor license. The stagnation of Microsoft was a two front battle with Mac and iOS devices on the consumer side and LAMP stack on the enterprise IT side.
post #61 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.

How soon YOU forget!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes

"SoundJam MP, developed by Bill Kincaid and released by Casady & Greene in 1999, was renamed iTunes when Apple purchased it in 2000. Jeff Robbin, Kincaid, and Dave Heller moved to Apple as part of the acquisition, where they continue to work today as the software's original developers. They simplified SoundJam's user interface, added the ability to burn CDs, and removed its recording feature and skin support. On January 9, 2001, iTunes 1.0 was released at Macworld San Francisco.

In April 2003, version 4.0 introduced the iTunes Store."
post #62 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Can you provide some evidence for the premise that the "notion that Android is winning because it is open" is "widely-held"? How is "winning" defined?

 

And thus the two main problems with this entire article:  

 

1) "Open" is not actually defined

 

2) "Winning" is also not actually defined. 

 

If this was a essay for a University class, it would get a C- at best.  

 

An essay should always start with a definition statement or thesis.  In this case it appears to be the awkwardly worded (paraphrased for greater clarity) "Android says it's winning cause it's open, but it's not."  Then it just jumps right in to arguing about why "open doesn't win." (again paraphrased for simplicity/clarity)  Without defining the terms, it could mean anything at all.  The author even uses quotes around "open" half the time, which literary speaking is a giant signpost basically saying that they are not using the word in it's usual sense or defined in the usual way.  

 

It's basically a very, very, broad editorial (i.e. - opinion not argument), based on very loosely defined, or even mostly undefined terms.  I bet if I took the time to analyse it deeper, that the very word "open" would change definition throughout the article.  Another big problem is that even though it's never explicitly laid out, "winning" seems to be defined most of the time as "making money" which is specifically not a goal of open source.  It's a shame because I generally tend to agree with the actual argument being made, but it's being made so poorly here, and is so completely lacking in any logic or structure that it shouldn't convince anyone.  

 

This really should have been a forum post and not an actual article.  There are lots of folks on the comment thread that can put together a better argument than this. 

post #63 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

  Open Source kernel can be closed to become more focused on the direction for the OS.

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm assuming you mean "closed" in terms of the development process and not whether the community is permitted to modify the released product. A large chunk of open source code like Linux and Firefox uses "copyleft" licenses like the GPL. Those projects can't ban derivative works without starting over from scratch and trying to find alternative (and possibly worse) implementations of everything. 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 7/7/13 at 12:19am
post #64 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

Value's relative in economics. If I would pay $10 for that $5 item, the value to me is $10, not the $5 the producer demands. There'd be no such thing as consumer surplus, otherwise. 


There are almost as many hits in JSTOR for "social surplus" as "producer surplus." You may be right that the post to which you're responding defines the phrase simplistically, but the phrase is out there, and you've done the same thing for "value." 

dude - see there's the "if" - Ill bet you 10 bucks that you were not going to pay any more for that last beer or soft drink you just bought. See, it's meaningless.
There are many many beers I have not bought - there are many many beers I have bought because I perceived value. There's also many many beers I have bought that knowingly I will derive no benefit from ( err, that's a whole other story that has does have economic consequence, I'll admit).

The problem I have is when micro economics gets applied to macro. There the social surplus becomes an issue if it can't be measured by any meaningful yardstick.
Air is free - measure that and try and put a social surplus on that.
Or solar radiation ...
Can't do it. That brings into question - why should it be a factor anyway if the concept can't be measured accurately ?

Some situations I can see, but what we're talking about in this case is software. Well software can't exist in any meaningful sense without hardware - and Id suggest that it's because of the delivery that in this case the software contribution is not a lot. It needs a whole bunch of investment for its potential to be fulfilled. That is the perceived value - that is what people will pay for.
F'all social surplus other than in an economists mind.
Edited by RobM - 7/7/13 at 12:48am
post #65 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.

I can speak with certainty that I'm enjoying my devices and never go to any Android forums but I'd be happy to mock Android fans who labored themselves to come here.

post #66 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Open has been successful though. Android took the feature phone and buried it. Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones.

I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
 

It's amazing how someone can be this blind but I guess that's part of the humanity.

post #67 of 310

Gazoobee is correct that this article does a poor job of framing it's argument. In generalities, I agree with some of the statements but it was tied together poorly. The explanation of why open is a failure is almost nonexistent. Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Android v. iOS arguments across the web is the very idea that for one of the platforms to win then the other has to be losing. I think Android is winning in the areas they want to win while Apple is winning in the areas they want to win. 

 

post #68 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

It's amazing how someone can be this blind but I guess that's part of the humanity.

Is replacing featurephones with affordable smartphones that have a higher level of communication and applications a bad thing? Android is driving the modern smartphone proliferation in developing countries. Is that a bad thing? 

 

This is where Google is trying to win and more power to them. Their business goals are to get more people using their services for their monetary gain and they can do that much quicker by going after the billions of people who can't afford a top-of-line smartphones. I guess it is concerning to them that their Android footprint in China likely has most, if not all, their google services stripped out of it. Still, I think this is exactly where Google wants Android to go.

post #69 of 310

Breaking News:

 

Samsung acknowledges that Android is losing and attempts to fly plane into Apple Headquarters.

 

Fails.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23214513

post #70 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL View Post

Most of my Android and "open" friends and fanboys say winning is all about the numbers, not the profit. The more Android phones they can count the better, even if the vast majority are barely feature phones and those that are get used way less often than their iOS counterparts.

They are convinced that raw numbers isn't just winning but has already won. They are convinced Google is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts or to spite Apple%u2026

You provide some really good arguments but you won't shut down the "Fandroid" crowd with facts as long as they can pull out that numbers card. Its all they care about%u2026 besides tech specs. Many that I know don't even really seem to enjoy their phones. They aren't on Twitter, Instagram, Vine, barely email or text, and frankly seem to want to make actual phone calls rather than stumble and fumble with technology. (and these are engineer type individuals)

One day this smartphone holy war will be over.. I hope it is soon. I want to continue enjoying my iDevice without some oversized plastic clone-phone carrying individual telling me how much Apple sucks. I think they just like to complain about what someone else has since they are obviously not enjoying what they own.

Having just finished a consultant job at the world no.1 telecom company (29th largest corp by market value) I can not agree more with John. I was the only one who use iPhone (2 in fact 4s & 5) and MacBook Pro. I stop trying to "explain" to people why I have gone full Apple (apart from my raspberry pi stacks for various dev projects. And my web server running CentOS) those self proclaim alpha geek don't even know how to add meeting schedule on their _______ phones (just fill out any non-Apple brand) and when I did my presentation using my phone via Apple TV ... Never mind.

Can we some how blame Hollywood that simplified everything down to just good or bad? Winning is a far more complex notion in the real world.

I have so much to thank for open source software. My entire career build on it. And it will forever have its place in the universe and beyond. At the same time, we are living in a world that is primary driven by MONEY. And that's the primary driver for almost every advance in technology in human history.

Let's make it simple - you need an idea then execution. The idea is always open but it will not succeed on its own. It must be driven by people that could wide spread it (and make profit then keep it going).

Gone back couple thousand years. Chinese invented 4 most important technology that completely change the world. But the Chinese weren't doing so well because of it - until the western world put them into a perfect execution. Paper become the primary medium to spread and extend knowledge. Compass become the guiding light to invade another country. Gun powder ...

I don't need to continue, do I?

They both have won. But Google is not very good at the "execution" part, that's for sure.
post #71 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


It's a lot easier than stealing something closed, isn't it?

Do you actually know anything about software?  Just curious...

post #72 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

was too! 1tongue.gif

Yea, it did do that.  Early my days.

post #73 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Breaking News:

 

Samsung acknowledges that Android is losing and attempts to fly plane into Apple Headquarters.

 

Fails.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23214513

You  probably will not see that on building 7...

 

Or in Penn.

 

Or in D.C.


Edited by Vadania - 7/7/13 at 1:44am
post #74 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

was too! 1tongue.gif

I like you and i really don't like you.  I'm thinking connotation wise within the article.

post #75 of 310

Quote:

===============================================================================================

Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

How can you steal something that's open?

===============================================================================================

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So Google could steal it properly, unlike everything else.

'Course they managed to screw it up anyway.

===============================================================================================

 

Simple. Dress it up as something new and lock it up in a walled garden, so only the thief can develop it any further.

 

In other words:

  • Fork it;
  • Rename it;
  • Profit from it

 

Many good examples abound, including the poetic irony of Java, which profited similarly from OpenStep, having its own stolen lunch eaten by Android.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Edited by airmanchairman - 7/7/13 at 3:25am
post #76 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelchu View Post

those self proclaim alpha geek don't even know how to add meeting schedule on their _______ phones (just fill out any non-Apple brand)

post #77 of 310

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Open has been successful though. Android took the feature phone and buried it. Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones.

I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

It's amazing how someone can be this blind but I guess that's part of the humanity.

 

I read Mac Tel's post as subtle sarcasm, even though the /S hasn't been deployed. Also, "successful" is valid, "winning" maybe not, but clearly he did not use the latter word and thus he is neither refuting nor agreeing with the article, merely making his own valid statement.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
post #78 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

 

But is Rob McCool rich because of the widespread use of apache web server?  DED mentions that his determining factor for success in this article is monetary.  By that measure, yes, open source is failing.  Not sure why a huge article needed to be written saying that giving away your software for free is not as profitable as selling it, but he's certainly correct.

 

If one were to consider factors like amount of users or the non-financial benefits of moving the world forward then obviously you can't say open-source software fails in those terms.

I love you!

 

It took 100 posts before I figured you out.

 

How about Sol?  It's very biblical...

 

I would actually like to know the wireless capabilities of some of the new items are even being reported.  Even though they are far fetched.

 

Don't let your beautiful mind go to waste.  Umm, not like the movie.

post #79 of 310

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

I can speak with certainty that I'm enjoying my devices and never go to any Android forums but I'd be happy to mock Android fans who labored themselves to come here.

 

For years now as an iPhone owner, I occasionally check out XDA Developers and Android Police (and maybe a few others) but I don't recall ever posting anything anti-Android there or having any desire to since I don't own an Android device. I check them out for the technological developments, discussions, advice and projects (if I ever ended up fancying an Android device, it would without doubt be rooted and fitted with CyanoGen so I keep abreast of developer discussions and news of that mod).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
post #80 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
 

 

I read Mac Tel's post as subtle sarcasm, even though the /S hasn't been deployed. Also, "successful" is valid, "winning" maybe not, but clearly he did not use the latter word and thus he is neither refuting nor agreeing with the article, merely making his own valid statement.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

If he's being sarcasm then more power to him. If not, then the bolded part was incredibly naive.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open