Apple has demonstrated that a closed and proprietary system works extremely well in the mobile space. My mobile life is within that space.
But this does not excuse Steve from misappropriating what 'open' means. You can split that bastard a thousand ways but in a nutshell should mean free to use and modify. He did it with h264 and he's doing it here, subtly redefining what open means.
Open does not mean 'ease of implementation' which, among other things, seems to be the thrust of his 'TwitterDeck' comments. Nor does it mean, 'available to use' or 'ubiquitous' which was the tenor of his comments regarding video on the web.
It does mean, however that you can get multiple and different versions of the same thing out in the wild as there are no restrictions on what one may do with open software.
Whether that is better for the consumer is a question for discussion but that in no way feeds into whether something is 'open' or not.
Try stripping Android of Google's monetization opportunities and get back to me about how "open" it is.
This is where Google's (and their amen corner's) disingenuousness gets tiresome: they trumpet "open" where it serves them while rigorously controlling the parts that make them money-- just like any other business. They get away with it because a lot of people are a little vague on how Google's profits work. In brief, their customers are advertisers, which permits them to be "open" in certain ways that wouldn't make sense for businesses for whom the customers are their users.
How open are Google's search algorithms? Why aren't they? Isn't open better? Shouldn't I be able to modify how Google search works to suit my purposes? How about Google's location services? How about how Google uses and sells information about me? Why isn't that open? Why can't I examine my bill of sale, since I'm the one that's being sold? Open my ass.
Apple has demonstrated that a closed and proprietary system works extremely well in the mobile space. My mobile life is within that space.
But this does not excuse Steve from misappropriating what 'open' means. You can split that bastard a thousand ways but in a nutshell should mean free to use and modify. He did it with h264 and he's doing it here, subtly redefining what open means.
Open does not mean 'ease of implementation' which, among other things, seems to be the thrust of his 'TwitterDeck' comments. Nor does it mean, 'available to use' or 'ubiquitous' which was the tenor of his comments regarding video on the web.
It does mean, however that you can get multiple and different versions of the same thing out in the wild as there are no restrictions on what one may do with open software.
Whether that is better for the consumer is a question for discussion but that in no way feeds into whether something is 'open' or not.
In a "pure" sense of the word open, I agree!
But "open' as applied to software can have many varied meanings, licensing, restrictions, etc.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton: "It depends on the meaning of the word "open" as to how "open"open is".
You raise some good points. Regardless of intent however, it's clear that the public at large took his comments as a commentary, if not attack, on 'open', so I think other wording indicating that Google's approach to 'open' with Android isn't necessarily effective compared to the iOS model would have been a better way to go.
I am not fully sure 30% (or pic another number) of posters here count as the public at large (but that does not mean that public at large understood it differently). Jobs' comments where targeted both at financial analysts, financial journalists, journalistes in general and the interested general population.
To me, for anybody who was listening carefully it was obvious that there were two messages:
1) The Android model as it exists does have some problems with fragmentation.
2) Maybe, the fact that it is open is a or even the key factor causing this fragmentation.
He was not explicitly saying open = fragmentation but he was clearly planting a seed to that effect in people's mind. You could call that disingenuous. This is certainly a public debate with each side trying to get their message across.
You raise some good points. Regardless of intent however, it's clear that the public at large took his comments as a commentary, if not attack, on 'open', so I think other wording indicating that Google's approach to 'open' with Android isn't necessarily effective compared to the iOS model would have been a better way to go.
Your commentary appears to overlook how much Apple has promoted open source and public protocols. A few salient examples are WebKit, Darwin, bonjour. Just about any technology company, including Google, has both proprietary and open source code (some just use and others contribute as well). Only someone unfamiliar with pesky facts could claim Apple and Steve Jobs are opposed to open source.
But this does not excuse Steve from misappropriating what 'open' means. You can split that bastard a thousand ways but in a nutshell should mean free to use and modify. He did it with h264 and he's doing it here, subtly redefining what open means.
Some people call OS X open and iOS closed. Though OS X is certainly not as open as Linux, it is comparatively open compared to iOS (in their stock form before jail-breaking).
I think if we want to make sure that everybody understands the same thing, we should call things open-source when we mean open-source and not just plain open (preferably with the type of license attached). And as much as I know, most of the handset makers modifications are not open-source.
That may be so, but they still bought Android phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
Well, then, what do you think happens when they get their next chance, and the availability of iPhones has greatly increased across carriers and retail locations? Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that the iPhone juggernaut is going to continue growing, even while the Android Army, through sheer numbers if not individual size, does the same.
Apple is going to rake in plenty of cash during this market expansion. (I'm not making any market share claims, here.) It is unclear to me which company is going to rake in cash from Android. Motorola is a decent bet so far. Google should make out well if they manage to successfully monetize Android via advertisement. But you know, I am really glad that that won't be the iPhone way. I wager dollars to donuts that Android phones end up with advertisements all over the place as opposed to just in the apps that users elect to install (which is where iAd lives).
Thompson
Hope they buy iPhones next go around... wouldn't count on it though. Once someone adopts a product/platform/way of life they tend to stick with it even if it stinks. And Android doesn't stink - I don't think it's as good as iOS, but it's "good enough". M$ built an empire on "good enough" (and lies and corruption and so on - but we won't get into that here).
He is showing how easily and tersely one can recompile Android from it's publicly available source code. That implies if you want to change some aspect of Android you have the opportunity to edit the source code, recompile, and then install on your handset...
Just a possibly amusing follow up on my previous comment. I mainly use XCode for development but am quite willing to use shell commands when needed for various purposes including compiling and installing code. So I pasted in the example and I got:
-bash: repo: command not found
Not too discouraging so I started looking around for how to install repo. I find a webpage with some instructions and comments that indicate others have not been able to use the suggestions. And so it goes. I know that if I were willing to muck about (starting with a trip to Google's Android site) I would get the commands to work their magic. The point is that terseness sometimes comes at a cost of nontrivial preparatory work.
You raise some good points. Regardless of intent however, it's clear that the public at large took his comments as a commentary, if not attack, on 'open', so I think other wording indicating that Google's approach to 'open' with Android isn't necessarily effective compared to the iOS model would have been a better way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdbryan
Your commentary appears to overlook how much Apple has promoted open source and public protocols. A few salient examples are WebKit, Darwin, bonjour. Just about any technology company, including Google, has both proprietary and open source code (some just use and others contribute as well). Only someone unfamiliar with pesky facts could claim Apple and Steve Jobs are opposed to open source.
I understand what Apple has done with open source, using it to their advantage quite well, and giving back to the community, sometimes in a big way (WebKit), but that's really not my focus here. I'm really only discussing Steve's comment in relation to Android.
But since you opened the can of worms, I'm going to pull some out and say that Apple's behavior says they either don't fully get open source, despise it, or they are afraid to play in the pool. I would have expected a Linux version of QuickTime by now if Apple had any real appreciation for the open source community. I personally think they hate open source unless it fits their agenda. Don't take that as bashing, cause I'm a huge Apple fan, but I also try to call a spade a spade.
Just a possibly amusing follow up on my previous comment. I mainly use XCode for development but am quite willing to use shell commands when needed for various purposes including compiling and installing code. So I pasted in the example and I got:
-bash: repo: command not found
Not too discouraging so I started looking around for how to install repo.
I think you basically have to install Git (I think it is not installed by default in OS X).
I understand what Apple has done with open source, using it to their advantage quite well, and giving back to the community, sometimes in a big way (WebKit), but that's really not my focus here. I'm really only discussing Steve's comment in relation to Android.
But since you opened the can of worms, I'm going to pull some out and say that Apple's behavior says they either don't fully get open source, despise it, or they are afraid to play in the pool. I would have expected a Linux version of QuickTime by now if Apple had any real appreciation for the open source community. I personally think they hate open source unless it fits their agenda. Don't take that as bashing, cause I'm a huge Apple fan, but I also try to call a spade a spade.
But as per my previous comment, it's pretty clear the same can be said about Google. The big difference being that "open" works for an advertising company in ways that don't work for people making devices to sell to customers, and that the proprietary areas that Google keeps complete control over are obscured view owing to their business model.
But as per my previous comment, it's pretty clear the same can be said about Google. The big difference being that "open" works for an advertising company in ways that don't work for people making devices to sell to customers, and that the proprietary areas that Google keeps complete control over are obscured view owing to their business model.
You realize you are citing an analyst personal gut projection, not any actual fact. Right??? A couple phone calls, a couple stock research projections to push. Yeah a dramatically rising green line will help the broker salesmen out greatly today!
That may be so, but they still bought Android phones.
But they won't again. And by the Rule of 10's, for every actual dissatisfied customer, a company loses 10 future customers. Apples repeat business is off the charts. That's how to build a long term ecosystem.
appl does indeed deserve this lashing, since he seems to be a paid agent of discord on this forum. Transparent to me, anyway.
It's pretty likely we have a sockpuppet back in our midst after being banned a couple times previously. I would love to read the result of a mod/admin comparing some IPs.
Do I smell the rotting husk of SpotOn sliming around again?
I also find it odd that another very new member, ltrain_riders has been following both SpotOn and appl via their member pages. How would a true newbie with no posts even know about a couple months ago banning unless the sockpuppet master was checking his ready minions?
Hope they buy iPhones next go around... wouldn't count on it though. Once someone adopts a product/platform/way of life they tend to stick with it even if it stinks. And Android doesn't stink - I don't think it's as good as iOS, but it's "good enough". M$ built an empire on "good enough" (and lies and corruption and so on - but we won't get into that here).
Emphasis mine... Oh, let's do!
I miss having a MS bash fest... Let me start:
With a couple of partners, I owned some computer stores, 1978-1989. in 1979 (I think) MS came out with this 80-column U/L case card for the Apple ][ -- A highly sought-after item. They pre-release promoted it through trade mag ads and local computer stores. The ads had pre-order forms that you'd take to your local retailer and they would submit these, along with forms promoted and provided by the retailer, to the MS rep. The theory was that users would get a special price and first-come-first-served priority shipments to the local retailer.
In effect, what MS did, was hold off shipments to the retailer and direct mail the end user that he could get early delivery (with free shipping) direct from Microsoft at the pre-order price (bypassing the retailer, and MS pocketing the retailers 25% commission). Several of our loyal customers brought the letter to our attention.
One of my partners was Mark Wozniak -- Steve's younger brother. Mark had a bit of influence and raised holy hell with MS... to no avail. We were a very high-profile Apple retailer in Silicon Valley. We immediately discontinued carrying all MS products.
We, relented in 1984-1985 when MS Word for the Mac came out-- Do da' name "Kensh Rutha" strike a familiar note?
Anyway, since that personal experience, I never trusted MS again. Where I could, I avoided MS products.
It's pretty likely we have a sockpuppet back in our midst after being banned a couple times previously. I would love to read the result of a mod/admin comparing some IPs.
Do I smell the rotting husk of SpotOn sliming around again?
I also find it odd that another very new member, ltrain_riders has been following both SpotOn and appl via their member pages. How would a true newbie with no posts even know about a couple months ago banning unless the sockpuppet master was checking his ready minions?
Comments
DEVELOPERS BEHOLD!!! .....the OPEN Android Architecture.
Just make sure your apps will run on this list of every modded ROM and custom UI of Android.
Apple has demonstrated that a closed and proprietary system works extremely well in the mobile space. My mobile life is within that space.
But this does not excuse Steve from misappropriating what 'open' means. You can split that bastard a thousand ways but in a nutshell should mean free to use and modify. He did it with h264 and he's doing it here, subtly redefining what open means.
Open does not mean 'ease of implementation' which, among other things, seems to be the thrust of his 'TwitterDeck' comments. Nor does it mean, 'available to use' or 'ubiquitous' which was the tenor of his comments regarding video on the web.
It does mean, however that you can get multiple and different versions of the same thing out in the wild as there are no restrictions on what one may do with open software.
Whether that is better for the consumer is a question for discussion but that in no way feeds into whether something is 'open' or not.
Try stripping Android of Google's monetization opportunities and get back to me about how "open" it is.
This is where Google's (and their amen corner's) disingenuousness gets tiresome: they trumpet "open" where it serves them while rigorously controlling the parts that make them money-- just like any other business. They get away with it because a lot of people are a little vague on how Google's profits work. In brief, their customers are advertisers, which permits them to be "open" in certain ways that wouldn't make sense for businesses for whom the customers are their users.
How open are Google's search algorithms? Why aren't they? Isn't open better? Shouldn't I be able to modify how Google search works to suit my purposes? How about Google's location services? How about how Google uses and sells information about me? Why isn't that open? Why can't I examine my bill of sale, since I'm the one that's being sold? Open my ass.
Apple has demonstrated that a closed and proprietary system works extremely well in the mobile space. My mobile life is within that space.
But this does not excuse Steve from misappropriating what 'open' means. You can split that bastard a thousand ways but in a nutshell should mean free to use and modify. He did it with h264 and he's doing it here, subtly redefining what open means.
Open does not mean 'ease of implementation' which, among other things, seems to be the thrust of his 'TwitterDeck' comments. Nor does it mean, 'available to use' or 'ubiquitous' which was the tenor of his comments regarding video on the web.
It does mean, however that you can get multiple and different versions of the same thing out in the wild as there are no restrictions on what one may do with open software.
Whether that is better for the consumer is a question for discussion but that in no way feeds into whether something is 'open' or not.
In a "pure" sense of the word open, I agree!
But "open' as applied to software can have many varied meanings, licensing, restrictions, etc.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton: "It depends on the meaning of the word "open" as to how "open" open is".
.
You raise some good points. Regardless of intent however, it's clear that the public at large took his comments as a commentary, if not attack, on 'open', so I think other wording indicating that Google's approach to 'open' with Android isn't necessarily effective compared to the iOS model would have been a better way to go.
I am not fully sure 30% (or pic another number) of posters here count as the public at large (but that does not mean that public at large understood it differently). Jobs' comments where targeted both at financial analysts, financial journalists, journalistes in general and the interested general population.
To me, for anybody who was listening carefully it was obvious that there were two messages:
1) The Android model as it exists does have some problems with fragmentation.
2) Maybe, the fact that it is open is a or even the key factor causing this fragmentation.
He was not explicitly saying open = fragmentation but he was clearly planting a seed to that effect in people's mind. You could call that disingenuous. This is certainly a public debate with each side trying to get their message across.
You raise some good points. Regardless of intent however, it's clear that the public at large took his comments as a commentary, if not attack, on 'open', so I think other wording indicating that Google's approach to 'open' with Android isn't necessarily effective compared to the iOS model would have been a better way to go.
Your commentary appears to overlook how much Apple has promoted open source and public protocols. A few salient examples are WebKit, Darwin, bonjour. Just about any technology company, including Google, has both proprietary and open source code (some just use and others contribute as well). Only someone unfamiliar with pesky facts could claim Apple and Steve Jobs are opposed to open source.
But this does not excuse Steve from misappropriating what 'open' means. You can split that bastard a thousand ways but in a nutshell should mean free to use and modify. He did it with h264 and he's doing it here, subtly redefining what open means.
Some people call OS X open and iOS closed. Though OS X is certainly not as open as Linux, it is comparatively open compared to iOS (in their stock form before jail-breaking).
I think if we want to make sure that everybody understands the same thing, we should call things open-source when we mean open-source and not just plain open (preferably with the type of license attached). And as much as I know, most of the handset makers modifications are not open-source.
Originally Posted by mytdave
That may be so, but they still bought Android phones.
Well, then, what do you think happens when they get their next chance, and the availability of iPhones has greatly increased across carriers and retail locations? Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that the iPhone juggernaut is going to continue growing, even while the Android Army, through sheer numbers if not individual size, does the same.
Apple is going to rake in plenty of cash during this market expansion. (I'm not making any market share claims, here.) It is unclear to me which company is going to rake in cash from Android. Motorola is a decent bet so far. Google should make out well if they manage to successfully monetize Android via advertisement. But you know, I am really glad that that won't be the iPhone way. I wager dollars to donuts that Android phones end up with advertisements all over the place as opposed to just in the apps that users elect to install (which is where iAd lives).
Thompson
Hope they buy iPhones next go around... wouldn't count on it though. Once someone adopts a product/platform/way of life they tend to stick with it even if it stinks. And Android doesn't stink - I don't think it's as good as iOS, but it's "good enough". M$ built an empire on "good enough" (and lies and corruption and so on - but we won't get into that here).
He is showing how easily and tersely one can recompile Android from it's publicly available source code. That implies if you want to change some aspect of Android you have the opportunity to edit the source code, recompile, and then install on your handset...
Just a possibly amusing follow up on my previous comment. I mainly use XCode for development but am quite willing to use shell commands when needed for various purposes including compiling and installing code. So I pasted in the example and I got:
-bash: repo: command not found
Not too discouraging so I started looking around for how to install repo. I find a webpage with some instructions and comments that indicate others have not been able to use the suggestions. And so it goes. I know that if I were willing to muck about (starting with a trip to Google's Android site) I would get the commands to work their magic. The point is that terseness sometimes comes at a cost of nontrivial preparatory work.
Originally Posted by mytdave
You raise some good points. Regardless of intent however, it's clear that the public at large took his comments as a commentary, if not attack, on 'open', so I think other wording indicating that Google's approach to 'open' with Android isn't necessarily effective compared to the iOS model would have been a better way to go.
Your commentary appears to overlook how much Apple has promoted open source and public protocols. A few salient examples are WebKit, Darwin, bonjour. Just about any technology company, including Google, has both proprietary and open source code (some just use and others contribute as well). Only someone unfamiliar with pesky facts could claim Apple and Steve Jobs are opposed to open source.
I understand what Apple has done with open source, using it to their advantage quite well, and giving back to the community, sometimes in a big way (WebKit), but that's really not my focus here. I'm really only discussing Steve's comment in relation to Android.
But since you opened the can of worms, I'm going to pull some out and say that Apple's behavior says they either don't fully get open source, despise it, or they are afraid to play in the pool. I would have expected a Linux version of QuickTime by now if Apple had any real appreciation for the open source community. I personally think they hate open source unless it fits their agenda. Don't take that as bashing, cause I'm a huge Apple fan, but I also try to call a spade a spade.
Just a possibly amusing follow up on my previous comment. I mainly use XCode for development but am quite willing to use shell commands when needed for various purposes including compiling and installing code. So I pasted in the example and I got:
-bash: repo: command not found
Not too discouraging so I started looking around for how to install repo.
I think you basically have to install Git (I think it is not installed by default in OS X).
I understand what Apple has done with open source, using it to their advantage quite well, and giving back to the community, sometimes in a big way (WebKit), but that's really not my focus here. I'm really only discussing Steve's comment in relation to Android.
But since you opened the can of worms, I'm going to pull some out and say that Apple's behavior says they either don't fully get open source, despise it, or they are afraid to play in the pool. I would have expected a Linux version of QuickTime by now if Apple had any real appreciation for the open source community. I personally think they hate open source unless it fits their agenda. Don't take that as bashing, cause I'm a huge Apple fan, but I also try to call a spade a spade.
But as per my previous comment, it's pretty clear the same can be said about Google. The big difference being that "open" works for an advertising company in ways that don't work for people making devices to sell to customers, and that the proprietary areas that Google keeps complete control over are obscured view owing to their business model.
But as per my previous comment, it's pretty clear the same can be said about Google. The big difference being that "open" works for an advertising company in ways that don't work for people making devices to sell to customers, and that the proprietary areas that Google keeps complete control over are obscured view owing to their business model.
Yea, I'd say you're right about that.
Apple completely redefined the smartphone market, while Google just watched and adapted.
So, according to you, both companies have done the same thing, looked at the market, and released a product?
The facts speak for themselves.
You realize you are citing an analyst personal gut projection, not any actual fact. Right??? A couple phone calls, a couple stock research projections to push. Yeah a dramatically rising green line will help the broker salesmen out greatly today!
Where are the actual manufacturers data? ...
... Bueller?
... ... ... Bueller?
Thought so.
That may be so, but they still bought Android phones.
But they won't again. And by the Rule of 10's, for every actual dissatisfied customer, a company loses 10 future customers. Apples repeat business is off the charts. That's how to build a long term ecosystem.
appl does indeed deserve this lashing, since he seems to be a paid agent of discord on this forum. Transparent to me, anyway.
It's pretty likely we have a sockpuppet back in our midst after being banned a couple times previously. I would love to read the result of a mod/admin comparing some IPs.
Do I smell the rotting husk of SpotOn sliming around again?
I also find it odd that another very new member, ltrain_riders has been following both SpotOn and appl via their member pages. How would a true newbie with no posts even know about a couple months ago banning unless the sockpuppet master was checking his ready minions?
No comment?
Most of them are probably small releases with next to no one using them. Why bother targetting them at all?
Hope they buy iPhones next go around... wouldn't count on it though. Once someone adopts a product/platform/way of life they tend to stick with it even if it stinks. And Android doesn't stink - I don't think it's as good as iOS, but it's "good enough". M$ built an empire on "good enough" (and lies and corruption and so on - but we won't get into that here).
Emphasis mine... Oh, let's do!
I miss having a MS bash fest... Let me start:
With a couple of partners, I owned some computer stores, 1978-1989. in 1979 (I think) MS came out with this 80-column U/L case card for the Apple ][ -- A highly sought-after item. They pre-release promoted it through trade mag ads and local computer stores. The ads had pre-order forms that you'd take to your local retailer and they would submit these, along with forms promoted and provided by the retailer, to the MS rep. The theory was that users would get a special price and first-come-first-served priority shipments to the local retailer.
In effect, what MS did, was hold off shipments to the retailer and direct mail the end user that he could get early delivery (with free shipping) direct from Microsoft at the pre-order price (bypassing the retailer, and MS pocketing the retailers 25% commission). Several of our loyal customers brought the letter to our attention.
One of my partners was Mark Wozniak -- Steve's younger brother. Mark had a bit of influence and raised holy hell with MS... to no avail. We were a very high-profile Apple retailer in Silicon Valley. We immediately discontinued carrying all MS products.
We, relented in 1984-1985 when MS Word for the Mac came out-- Do da' name "Kensh Rutha" strike a familiar note?
Anyway, since that personal experience, I never trusted MS again. Where I could, I avoided MS products.
... fool me once
Ahh.. that was cathartic...
... now you go!
.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1549...?lsrc=rss_main
It's pretty likely we have a sockpuppet back in our midst after being banned a couple times previously. I would love to read the result of a mod/admin comparing some IPs.
Do I smell the rotting husk of SpotOn sliming around again?
I also find it odd that another very new member, ltrain_riders has been following both SpotOn and appl via their member pages. How would a true newbie with no posts even know about a couple months ago banning unless the sockpuppet master was checking his ready minions?
Ha! Nice catch!
.