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.
"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."
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.
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.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">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. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">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." </span>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
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).
Comments
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.
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
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.
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's a lot easier than stealing something closed, isn't it?
Do you actually know anything about software? Just curious...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
was too!
Yea, it did do that. Early my days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
was too!
I like you and i really don't like you. I'm thinking connotation wise within the article.
Quote:
===============================================================================================
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
How can you steal something that's open?
===============================================================================================
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
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).