Slashdot Mirror
Nokia responds to iPhone by Promoting 'Open'
An anonymous reader writes "Nokia has responded instantly to the iPhone update-bricking fiasco by running a series of flyposter ads pointing out its own hardware and software is open. While this is to be applauded, it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head. After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft. Since that initial blow, they've been a lot less eager to promote open source."
After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft
Really...I don't recall Apple even being involved at the moment that architectural decision was made. Or are you saying that this was the reason Apple acquired NeXT instead of Be? To irritate the Beast of Redmond? So tragic that historical accuracy is just a few clicks away, and still it eludes everybody.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
in part i agree with this, but even then, if BSD wasn't a solid base to begin with(and this is from a linux user) the marketing wouldn't have been enough.
they used it because it worked.
Does this mean that Nokia will no longer support subsidy locking in their products?
Of course not, they'll keep shipping phones that are locked, so this ad campaign means nothing, and might actually backfire if enough people stop and say "Now, waitaminute..."
" it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head"
The purpose of a company is generally to make money, not to crusade for some political stance. The investors want a good return on their investment, not a philosophy. You are living in a dream world if you think the number 1 aim of most companies isn't to maximise their profits. Any kind of 'belief' about open or closed source etc is very much a secondary concern, and always will be. If it wasn't they would quickly find themselves losing market share and customers to the the competition.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
For those intrigued by the ads, here is where to get started for Nokia development. It is important to note that all applications must be signed (expounded on here), with the option (but not requirement) of doing things through a Symbian Signed certificate.
It should also be noted that Nokia's openness to development in comparison to the iPhone has been suitably documented previously.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
Seriously, companies like Nokia that "open" their products need to be rewarded regardless of their motivations, we can't change certain qualities of for-profit companies in a for-profit world.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I have to hand it to Nokia. I have had little experience with their products (don't and never have owned a Nokia cell phone), until recently. I'm using a bunch of Nokia N800 Internet Tablets for a project and they're great (cue Tony the Tiger)! Seriously, if you have a Bluetooth phone and don't have an N800, you're missing it. I'm seriously considering dumping voice service and going to a data only package, using the N800 with SIP for my voice needs. I'm looking forward to what Nokia has in the works for the next gen (WiMax maybe), but in the interim I will enjoy the onslaught of great FOSS projects running on the Maemo platform usable on the N800. Nokia has really produced a great open hardware platform in the N800 and I applaud them for their 'walking the walk'.
Companies exist to make money. If being more open allows them to make more money, then then they "truly" believe in it. QED.
Corporations are amoral amalgamations of many different kinds of people with different goals; they are not the single-minded overlords that so many working folk like to paint them to be. The only thing they agree on is making a profit.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Your symbian software have to be signed of by nokia, and that is really expensive! You cant run any own software on that brick!
nope.
I was under the impression that Apple wanted to dump their aging code base and get a tried-and-proven *nix kernel + HTML/JS engine for free.
Flame me all you want, but I haven't noticed a lot of open-source love (or user-love in general) from Apple, and I'm sure they didn't use Darwin because they wanted to annoy Microsoft. If they wanted to annoy Microsoft, they would have joined the Linux/OpenOffice/Firefox-camp.
No matter how Apple fanboys twist reality, bricking a phone is yet another way how Apple rapes their user base. It goes to show that no matter how you abuse your customers, great PR fixes everything.
This sig is intentionally left blank
It's disingenuous, because we all know that any handset is as open as the network allows. Which is to say, not very. If a handset manufacturer won't agree to their capricious whims, they just won't carry it. Insta-death for Mr Phone.
Although you can download 3rd party applications to my phone (Nokia N80 on Vodafone), that's only to the extent that Vodafone allows.
Nokia might like to think they're open. In reality, it's just not their decision, alas.
People get confused about Apple and open source. Apple is mainly an open-source consumer, what they produce/contribute is basically the bare minimum that they have to.
And this make sense. Apple is not about openness. They are about lock-in. This is part of what lets them provide such a smooth and simple experience (and charge the highest margins in the industry).
So, it's about time that Apple competitors started pointing this out to people.
But, it's an indication of powerful Apple has become that the #1 company in the cell phone industry would have to start attacking a company that has just entered it.
What all /. readers, CIOs, CEOs, etc. need to do right now, if you want to understand the present and see the future, is read the book,
"Wikinomics" by Tapscott and Williams. Read about how openness turned Gold Corp. from a bankrupt basket case to a mult-billionaire company. Read how open source is transforming economies, corporations, businesses, education, etc. How the closed companies are losing. It's all there.
http://www.wikinomics.com/
http://www.wikinomics.com/book/authors.php
http://www.wikinomics.com/book/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinomics_(book)
From Wikipedia's Symbian OS Article it reads like this is Symbian OS 9.1 only. And 9.1 isn't developed any further, AFAIK. The newest Communicator Model uses Symbian OS Series 60 3rd Ed.
Sure they are not phones but tiny computers running linux. I have both of them, I kept the old N770 because I like reading books with it. My N800 has 16GB storage and is my iPod substitute (audio+ video). Unlike the iPod, N800 and N770 are real linux computers and and can do many things in addition to playing audio and video. As an iPod substitute N800 can play many video and audio formats which an ipod cant play (sure after installing suitable Linux software). Unlike the iPod it has integrated stereo loudspeakers, the sdhc cards are hot swapable and many other features the ipods dont have.
Here's another situation where intellectual property laws really make the market unfriendly to both consumers and producers. Apple has a fantastic interface, but it is really nothing new and exciting -- just a mashup of previous functions that have existed in human interface design for years, if not decades. Yet competitors can't mimic anything because of the outrageously inept intellectual property laws that exist in the States and the in the International Law community.
I'm anti-IP completely, but I do understand why people feel there is a basic need for some sort of anti-competition protection. Since I feel the market always provides a great balance between consumers and producers, it is legislation that ends up harming both sides.
Nokia makes a great product. I had the N80 for a few weeks when it came out, but the interface was lacking and it just didn't flow well (too sluggish, IMHO). I still use my HTC Trinity, but even there I'm not 100% happy. There's so much more I'd like to see, a mixup of various interface and software designs from Apple, Nokia, Motorola, HTC and Samsung -- yet this can't happen because it would encroach on whatever patent rights each producer has, leaving us consumer with far-less-than-perfect products, and leaving producers unable to fill what the market desires.
I tried the iPhone for a week, and it also wasn't perfect. The lack of 3G is significant, the locking to a network is ridiculous, and the overall feel of the product was great but just not cohesive enough to be my primary device. I still travel with 6+ devices (I travel at least 2-3 days a week) and I know I could combine everything into 2 devices, had it not been for the ridiculous patent laws we have today.
There's no fix to this, and if anything things will get only worse as the companies merge and bring with them even more power in convincing the State that we need MORE laws to fix a problem that is caused by too many regulations in the first place.
There's no text in this message body.
Did SCO every try to collect a paycheck off of the use of Unix in the iPhone?
The game.
Topic: After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft.
Um, what?
I can't be sure, but I'd make a guess and think that Apple didn't use open source mainly because it would irritate Microsoft. I'm sure they had acutal valid business reasons for doing so. (lower costs?, community esprit-de-core?,massive army of unpaid labor?, time to market?) Even if it would "irritate" Microsoft (which I can't figure out why Microsoft would care about where Apple gets it's source code from--especially in these days of the new Kinder, Gentler Microsoft) it hardly seems like a valid business move.
Thanks for the daily slap-Microsoft-because-you-can though.
*sigh*
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
Here. Nokia, would you make something like it (but working)? Please?
Whether Nokia itself is open, is neither here nor there. The move is good news, IMHO for one reason - it is turning the question of lock-in into a commercial/marketing issue. It's competitors going after it in advertisements for undue lock in and lock-down is going to be more influential than any discussion-board griping. It may drive Apple to revisit the SDK issue off its own bat, but just as important it may provide Apple with valuable ammunition in discussions with AT&T over the degree of control necessary in terms of allowing 3rd party apps.
It's disingenuous, because we all know that any handset is as open as the network allows. Which is to say, not very. If a handset manufacturer won't agree to their capricious whims, they just won't carry it. Insta-death for Mr Phone.
Huh!!! if it's a GSM phone, then the network provider can't do anything to disallow the
phone on their network. You buy a new GSM phone from a phone retailer, remove the SIM card
from your existing phone & insert it into the new phone. Voila - you are ready to go.
Also, all the US GSM carriers, sell you a connection without celling you a phone. I have
gone for T-Mobile & Cingular SIM cards without buying a phone from them.
What makes altruism in this case “better”? Innovation is born from necessity and competition. Evolution is not sparked because it makes someone feel warm and cuddly with sunshine and rainbows, but because of the need to survive. History has proved that open platforms are essential in this market and those who decide otherwise inevitably get punished (e.g., Apple, Microsoft). Only those which choose openness make it in the end, and whether they did it because “they truly believed” or because they wanted to stay afloat makes no difference.
Why bother.
Having any major cooperation do openness for the sake of openness is impossible when it will cost them substantial amounts of money(as with AT&T). Honestly who would stay with AT&T if they had a choice. I personally have AT&T but that is because Verizon T-mobile and sprint have very poor signal in my hometown so the entire town including all my friends had Cingular. If they allowed the iPhone to be open to all privers then AT&T would lose a lot of money and that is why they don't do it. But we will beet them in the end, hackers will always overpower the providers in these matters.
When will people learn that corporations do not have feelings? They are mandated to make profit, nothing more. And everything they do is for the purpose of maximizing shareholder equity. It is the law.
Stop pretending they have wants or desires other than profit, and then you wont be surprised when Nokia is only promoting open systems in order to make profit.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
I've seen a number of reports that just like Apple, Nokia does not permit unsigned apps on Symbian phones.
It's really sad when a Microsoft product (Windows Mobile) is the most open of the mainstream mobile OSes. You get a warning the first time you try to run an unsigned app on a Windows Mobile device, but that's it.
The only thing more open than Windows Mobile I've seen so far is OpenMoko. Most of the other Linux-for-phone implementations appear to be Tivoized to varying degrees.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Hey, competition works. Enlightened self-interest is a powerful motivator for the overall good of the masses, so why do you have to knock on it in the name of some all powerful moral reason being better? Accept what works, and fix what doesn't.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
What a nonsensical write up. It would be nice if a lot of things happened, if I won the lottery, if my company decided to hire only lovely nymphomaniac ladies from now on and many other nice things which would be nice if they happened.
If the writer really thinks that any business opened their products purely because they belived in "openess" without it also making sense for them from a making money point of view then he'd have to be as stupid as someone who believes that Apples primary motivation is to irritate Microsoft.
Honsetly this is purely and simply a torrent of drivel, I think we deserve better.
They need to lock down their OS, because they want to sell their overpriced hardware along. Same with all their devices. They need to make it easy to develope for the Mac, because the PC is all about the apps. But not (yet) in the phone market. So there is actually no reason for them to let you run your own apps.
OTOH Symbian is about as open as Windows. Same with the Linux Motorola sells with their phones. But at least you can develope for Symbian and sell you apps.
As things stand now, only two countries (GB, DE) will sell the iPhone to a very limited audience: those who wish to stick to the Apple/O2/T-Mobile rules.
It should be clear to Apple that starting a war against hackers will dramatically damage their image in Europe: Europe does not want imperialistic control.
In my view, Apple should open up their mobile device policy and concentrate on what really matters: bringing the best possible product to the public.
Hackers have proven that many simple and straightforward applications are still missing on the iPhone. Why not join hands with the open source development audience to concentrate on what really matters?
Common Apple, stop being gready and agressive. Europe might not want you (so much) anymore...
That would make an excellent sig line.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think Nokia is screwing around with the definition for "open".
The phone will be unlocked! Big deal, I can get unlocked smart phones already... The real question is "Can I run any application I want on it?"
Of course I can't forget that other important question "Would I want to actually use this phone, even if it was truly open?" Because, let's face it... Nokia has made some really bad phones before!
So Nokia, you have a tall order to fill: (1) Let me run anything I want on it and (2) Let the phone have nice features in a nice form factor with decent battery life.
Now what the iPhone has going for it (that I know people around here tend to overlook), it is a nice phone with features most people want and it works...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Somehow Microsoft has been elevated to a mythical godlike status. They are omnipresent, all-powerful, and strongly despised. Similiar to other myths like the Illuminati that secretly runs all world affairs, or Area 51 that hides extraterrestrial beings and spacecraft from the public, combined with a bit a rabid frothing hate like those that believe George Bush is Neo-Con Hitler.
WRT to the linked Infoworld article in the post: it's out of date, Apple has since released the source to the Intel Mac OS X kernel.
Not that this will change anyone's opinion one way or the other.
can someone tell me how to reply, comment, to the original story. I don't see a link. Thank You
I don't want to hear the end of any sentences.
Oh whatever Nokia, where was your openness before the iPhone came about?
What, no competition -- no worries?
No thanks, I'll take the innovative iPhone.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
No, seriously, what is it?
If it is meant to be a video iPod with a built-in phone and web browser then all this talk about openness is pretty irrelevant - and keeping it closed will help ensure that it "just works".
If, however, its supposed to be a pocket computer then keeping it closed is a major handicap.
I suspect that Apple see it more as an iPod + Phone - but /.ers are more interested in a pocket computer.
The other Big Question is how enthusiastic Apple really are about making a 'phone, or whether they're just hedging their bets against the prediction that phones will eventually take over the iPod market. Now, having struggled with a Windows Mobile stupidphone for a few months I'm coming to the conclusion that next time round I'll get:
even if my 'phone batteries are running low.
What would be nice is if all of these things had standard power connections so I didn't also have to lug around a suitcase full of wall-warts... we're getting there, as more and more things charge from USB. But, basically, they all have different user interface requirements and (these days) carrying all of them is hardly a chore.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I think any support Apple had for the open source concept went out the window when they started making sweetheart deals with companies in other industries. iTunes was hugely successful--but in order to make it work with the RIAA, Apple put in DRM. With its success from the iPod, the iPhone was almost guaranteed to be a success. But they signed this deal with AT&T, which is a complete anathema to anything remotely approaching open source--just ask the poor schlubs who are carrying around $500 bricks.
The thing is, if Apple *wants* to support "open source" ideas, they can--they just have to choose to make it a company principle and be aggressive about it. They're successful enough that they can make it work. But the reality is, they have no incentive to do so.
Compare the situation with IBM, who is heavily backing FOSS. In fact, doing so has likely saved the company; their proprietary products simply weren't doing well, and the company was a mess in the 90s. AIX, OS/2--really, the company had very little going for it. Nobody was adopting their technologies. So they started investing in technology that people were adopting--Linux, Java, and so forth. Many of which were either open source or OS-friendly (Java).
Apple has no similar motivation to go the OS route. People are buying their technology, in droves. They have no reason to open up the iPod or iPhone API, or stop the DRM implementation in iTunes (though this may change as non-DRM competition gets stronger).
For that to change, either Apple has to adopt a pro-FOSS ideology, or find themselves in a situation where a closed-source viewpoint is hurting their bottom line.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
not a troll (and unlikely to be modded into visibility), but...
the 8GB N95 is currently only available at Nokia Flagship Stores, of which there are exactly TWO in the United States (Chicago, NYC). nokia has, however, taken out multi-full-page color ads in the San Francisco Chronicle for this product that cannot actually be ordered. i'm sure the people in marketing had a good reason...
that said, the N95 could theoretically be activated on both GSM and CDMA networks (eg, t-mobile + verizon) -- has anyone actually tried to get verizon service on this phone? this combination is really the holy grail for people like me; i could combine my work and personal phones into a single device, and get sip-over-wifi as a third option. if i could actually buy the phone without flying to chicago.
I think you meant, "TNSFS" (The Not So Fine Summary).
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I've noticed every once in a while that the story comment line isn't visible. Reloading the page sometimes seems to bring it back. Restarting the browser sometimes seems to bring it back. I suspect it's not a client side problem, however.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
If corporations see a new or larger source of money, they will act to capitalize on it. Their action may not be what you hoped would happen (from an integrity perspective), but you're right -- they will do everything they can to convince investors that their money is smartly placed in corporate hands.
Nokias 'open' site is coded in.... Flash!
http://www.nseries.com/open
What I would like is a 2nd SciFi Channel that doesn't need to censor parts out of most everything good they show.
I totally agree! Like on the action/adventure film Grizzly Planet about a group of marines in the woods up against intelligent stock footage of grizzly bears. They showed the two furry gloves clutching either side (in close-up!) of the marine's screaming head, but then the next scene was the head rolling under some bushes. For the gods' sake (what's a sake?) where were the neck tendons and spine being torn apart? Bah...cable...
> I'm not getting the part why signing is required but not getting a certified signature isn't.
If it isn't a certified sig when you install the app you get a warning box that is a 'development' version and that it may be unstable, damage settings, the phone, sell your soul to the devil while you aren't looking, etc.
Nothing everyone isn't long used to ignoring after the signed drivers in XP experience.
Democrat delenda est
Think of the shiny new APIs that the iPhone currently uses (Core Animation and resolution independence being the big ones) and look at what's not in Tiger but is in Leopard.
Like hell Apple is going to expose those APIs to commoners like us before the big 10.5 release. Developers pay big bucks to have access to that shit before the rest of us and Apple isn't about to kill of that rather lucrative little market. Watch how either XCode 3.0 or XCode 3.1 after Leopard's release supports the iPhone as a target architecture and watch Apple tout it as "So you can write an OS X app? You can write an iPhone app!". Also stay tuned for the retarded Digg post that says "WE WIN! APPLE BOWS DOWN TO THE PRESSURE AND OPENS UP THE IPHONE TO THIRD PARTY APPS!".
> ...it requires a bluetooth compatible phone for 3G/GPRS connectivity, if it had this built in it would be ideal...
No, it would just be repeating the same damned mistake that destroyed Palm. A phone is a phone and a PDA/Tablet is a PDA. No Phone can have enough screen real estate to be useful as a PDA and conversely any useful PDA is too freaking big to hold as a phone. If you are a total convert to the bluetooth earpiece it could work from an exgineering standpoint but still get stuck on practical matters.
The big practical objection is that both phones and computing are on two different replacement cycles and the phone part tends to be closed down, locked down and tied to longterm contracts. So unless the whole industry could come together and adopt one (or perhaps two) standardized modules to allow the whole radio part to be swapped out along with the SIM module it is just asking for trouble.
Democrat delenda est
Why? Who cares why they open their products? Even if they do it just because "open" is a marketing buzzword they don't understand, then it's still open.
If you care why they do it because you want to be sure their products stay open, then competition is probably the best way. Except of course the part where the open products inspire a community which buy their products because their openness makes them more usable.
But favoring openness that relies on some immaterial "belief" in some slippery ideology is a recipe for failure in the marketplace. And therefore not only failure of that product, but also stigmatizing the openness with the fallout from relying on naive ideologues to support future openness.
--
make install -not war
After some of these iPhone articles, Apple misinformation is at some all-time high here at slashdot. There's lots of valid complaints to be had about the company - let's not muck that up with retarded ones, okay?
I bought a Nokia N770 Internet Tablet because it was a nifty little "open" Linux machine. It couldn't do much, but it was open, so the promise of an amazing device was there. Unfortunately, it was abandoned by Nokia as soon as the N800 came out, even though the devices are similar. No more OS updates, application development has largely dried up, and the developer community has moved on.
On the other hand, I will be able to install Mac OS X 10.5 on Macs that are much older than the N770, because the Apple wants to keep those machines in service and their owners happy.
I don't want to defend Apple on what they did with the iPhone, but Nokia is not an open source hero, nor does openness guarantee a great product.
Although I agree that IBM makes substantial and important contributions to open source projects, your impression of IBM is a bit naive. IBM makes their money by introducing complexity into the customer environment. This is essentially the opposite strategy as that taken by Apple. IBM backs open source projects to the extent and only for the reason that it allows them to continue to gain from this strategy. They still make enormous amounts of money from their closed proprietary products. AIX, mainframe, and whatever that AS400 thing is called (it still lives on), Lotus Notes (which is a development environment that sneaks into enterprises masquerading as an email system), Tivoli... the list goes on. IBM moneymakers are closed and proprietary. IBM actively works to convince customers to deploy Windows based solutions rather than Linux based solutions for no-brainers like file servers. Yes, I've seen them do this, and it cost the customer a great deal more to get the IBM blessed Windows based solution than it would have to deploy something that "just worked" based on Linux (or FreeBSD, or Solaris, or Mac OS X for that matter). This was after IBM finally quit pushing their own broken SMB server, "Fast Connect" on the client.
IBM has an insanely complex internal corporate structure, which guarantees that you can make any statement about IBM goals, activities, practices, processes, or strategies, and it will be true. IBM may do a lot of nice things in the open source world, but other parts of IBM are actively undermining that strategy at every turn. It's how IBM makes money. It is unlikely ever to be any different.
If you're using the new discussion system, the "reply" link appears on the comment filter "slider" widget. It's not very obvious though...
In general (always with a few exceptions, of course) people tend to do what they are incited to do.
Investors usually buy stocks so that they can make money, so they usually buy stocks from companies which are the best at doing just that.
Large companies usually try to find some kind of desirable balance between making products that attract buyers and making stock that attracts investors. Whatever strategy they believe will get the highest net payoff is the one they go for.
"morality" only enters into the picture when enough people pay enough attention to it for it to be financially impactful. In many cases, that is not at all.
For example, many big companies cut costs by employing foreign sweat shop labor. It makes their prices attractive AND makes their stocks look good. It also offends the sensibilities of the morally conscious....however....since most investors are looking to make money and most buyers are looking for a good product cheap, the companies have no incentive to cater to this moral minority. So they don't.
If you want companies to behave in a more morally responsible fashion, give them incentive to do so. You can do that by making everyone else also want companies to behave in a more morally responsible fashion (even if it has a negative impact on the bottom line).
I wish you the very best of luck with that.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I've been expecting this all along. My guess is: iPhone took so energy away from other projects that there simply weren't enough resources to put out a new version of xCode before 10.5 shipped. Take a look at the Apple HUI guidelines for iPhone web apps. Look for the word "currently" and guess why that's there: Apple HUI Guidelines There will eventually be a dev kit, it will help Apple sell a bajillion more iPhones. They just didn't have enough developers to pull it all off by iPhone launch.
it seems to me that nokia is getting everything done right the first time around compared to apple...they're closely watching all the problems that the iphone has had, then using it to their advantage. good marketing technique...im looking forward to this phone.
I'd hardly argue that the current state of IP law is ideal, and perhaps no IP law would be an improvement (though there's a good deal of middle ground available that would likely be better), but it's very unlikely that it's primarily IP law that has kept competitors from developing something like the iPhone.
Consider that it isn't really multitouch patents or specific gestures that are at the heart of what makes the iPhone a better experience. It's really just a few things: it's responsive, it has a decent web browser, its UI is well-organized, and its visual design is clean and professional. The touchscreen is nice, but not necessary, multitouch certainly isn't necessary, you could have a phone that would look entirely different using rather conventional unencumbered mechanisms of interaction, and it would still work fine, as long as it followed those rules, which nobody has a corner on.
Also consider that most of the other phone manufacturers have been doing research and development in relevant arenas for tech-world aeons longer than Apple has. Even if a Nokia, Motorola, or Ericsson were for some reason to tread close to the recognizable and patent-protected elements of the iPhone as a product, it seems quite unlikely Apple would be interested in a serious fight with them. Each company very likely has a significant portfolio of mobile-related patents. A cross-licensing agreement would be a more likely outcome than any kind of threat that would keep a competing product from the market.
Finally, the same mobile developers have had an ample window of opportunity to get a jump on Apple and deliver a product that meets the basic criteria I outlined well before Apple introduced the specific technologies they used to implement the experience. Even with a head start stretching back to a decade and beyond in some cases, they didn't. One can hardly argue it was Apple's intellectual property which kept them from doing so.
So:
(1) The most important things that make the iPhone an interesting product are not subject to IP constraints
(2) The other manufacturers have a significant IP war chest they could cross leverage if they really wanted to use each other's IP
(3) The other manufacturers could have staked out Apple's territory long before they did
Given these things, it's hard to pin the state of things on IP law.
I think the better explanation is simply that there are few people in the right places in industry who are product driven in the same people in similar places at Apple are. Other things take priority for them responsive devices, information services in the device, thoughtful interface, and high-quality visual design. Perhaps they're not wrong -- Apple's competitors have successful businesses, and their products may simply be good enough or worse-is-better. Or perhaps over time the market will favor products like the iPhone, but it's important to remember, IP law or no IP law, markets are not magic. They're more quickly adaptable than some other institutions, but they have their own inertia and often take time ("the long run", as noted economists have referred to it) to make changes and arrive at optimal states.
Tweet, tweet.
I think any support Apple had for the open source concept went out the window when they started making sweetheart deals with companies in other industries. iTunes was hugely successful--but in order to make it work with the RIAA, Apple put in DRM.
Since iTunes was never in the open source bag, and Apple has made no effort to create a "trusted audio path" for iTunes to use, and iTunes DRM is basically "honor system", I'm not sure what relationship you're trying to establish between iTunes and Open Source. Are you saying that the DRM in iTunes keeps them from releasing parts of Darwin they could otherwise release? What parts of Darwin do you believe they're embargoing to protect iTunes DRM, keeping in mind that they don't even try to keep you from intercepting digital audio coming out of itunes just using the published APIs (let alone the source code)?
The iPod is an appliance, it's always been an appliance... you might as well ask for the source code to your bluetooth keyboard or your hard drive.
It's very humorous that people complain about Apple's "lock-in" with iPhone development, or with the proprietary FairPlay DRM. They are making money with their current scheme, so there is no incentive to change. But think about it... if the market changes, and truly looks much more profitable to them if they opened up these technologies, they would do it in a heartbeat. Is the iPod suddenly losing market share because of DRM issues? If so, FairPlay will be available for licensing tomorrow, and at rock-bottom prices. Is the iPhone selling poorly because of software lock-in? The SDK will magically appear, with great pomp and circumstance, again for little money. I doubt Apple can do anything about the AT&T/Cingular lock-in, but in four years it will be a moot point. And just imagine where the iPhone will be then.....
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Apple locked the phone on to the Cingular/ATT piece o' poo network because they were the only ones willing to give Apple part of the profits from the sale of the service to go with the device.
Frankly, I'm disappointed. I hate the AT&T network and think that they have over-sized huevos to advertise that they have fewer dropped calls than the other carriers. That was my main complaint with them. I've tried several devices and pretty much gave up. Since I changed carriers, using one of my old devices, I've not really had any problems.
2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank
Why wouldn't you beat your competitors over the head with it? This is a lesson that companies will need to be reminded of, over and over again. There are many advantages to being more open and accessible than your competition, with many case studies to back that statement. Of course, there are also a couple of disadvantages, too - but if you're smart, you'll understand how to play it correctly.
-John Mark
Hyperic Community Manager
Not only that, but the submission is wrong. That Tom Yager Infoworld piece that is linked was Yager's reaction to the fact that Apple hadn't yet open sourced the Intel kernel, and ran it under the sensationalist headline "Apple closes down OS X".
Except for the fact that at WWDC, they announced that the Intel kernel would continue to be open alongside PowerPC, as it always had.
Anyone is welcome to see for themselves. At the same time, Apple also launched Mac OS Forge, Apple's clearinghouse for its open source projects. Granted, Darwin as an OS is essentially dead, and has been for some time. But Darwin as the core of Mac OS X is alive, and many key components, including the kernel, are open source on both Intel and PowerPC.
And, no, Apple did not do this in "response" to Yager's article or anything similar. Yager just wasn't patient enough to find out what was actually going to happen, and assumed that since he hadn't seen any new Intel kernel source releases before WWDC that Mac OS X must now be "closed" - but he was wrong.
Does Apple do some of its open source stuff for PR or because it's to its advantage? Of course. One would hope that would be obvious. If you don't think Apple is giving back enough to the community, that's another valid, albeit subjective, opinion. I'd advise people to look at some of the Mac OS Forge projects, however.
So, the submission is wrong in both spirit (irritating Microsoft) and in fact (OS X now being "closed"; or any more closed than it has ever been).
(Really off-topic)
For god's sake means for the sake of god, i.e. doing something to benefit god.
Cynical Idealist
While this is to be applauded, it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.
What makes altruism in this case "better"? Innovation is born from necessity and competition.
I'd rater "The Invisible Hand" in the spiked gauntlet dragged them kicking and screaming into truly opening their products (because the least bit of lock-in bites them big time on the bottom line), while their competitors beat them over the head and shoulders all along the way, than that the opened their systems out of the goodness of their heart.
If they do it for a solid business reason that they can understand, it will stick. (And the stockholders will replace them if it comes unstuck.) If they do it for ideology it will last until the first financial crunch, executive training seminar, or mood swing.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The article on the first release of OSX on Intel id from FUCKING 2006, you dumbass bastards. Apple released the source to the kernal fucking ages ago. God, I swear, I read fucking hystericatl snotnose OSS crapshit like this anymore and I will begin to understand why everyone hates you unwashed brainless OSS trolls and your constant fucking whining.
That image at the top of the linked page is a fake. Someone has just pasted up some black pages, taken a photo and then superimposed a (pretty crappy) simple image over the top. Look closely at the lettering, it doesn't follow the folds of the underlying paper.
Baah.
Or are you saying that this was the reason Apple acquired NeXT instead of Be?
Actually, Apple probably bought NeXT because of Jobs. The fact that it came with an OS that had some FOSS components in it probably bugged them, but their marketing department made lemonade out of lemons by trying to portray OS X as a kind of open system. Of course, they've been up to their usual tricks ever since.
You don't "have" to sign your code; many applications ship unsigned. All it means is that the user gets a warning dialog and has to go through an extra step.
Unsigned apps just generate a warning dialog. Like they do, oh, on Debian Linux or for Windows drivers.
So is there the same sort of developer and consumer interest for Nokia 3rd party apps? Are there programs to easily manage/upload these new apps?
My sister has an N95 - does it support new apps? Is there a web community page where they are listed?
The iPhone had enough hype that it seemed (to a non-iPhone owner) that there were very easy programs being developed to load and manage the extra apps, and there was a lot of coverage, making them easy to find. Does this (yet) exist for Nokia?
I'm being serious. I don't see how it is inconsistent to say that security is a concern on cell phones, and that the signing model is not a good solution to that problem. The former is true, and the latter is just an opinion. You might disagree with that opinion but I don't see how that automatically makes someone else a hypocrite.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Do you see the correlation between the period Apple was knocked off their pedestal by the extensible alternative offered by IBM and when they began to make a come-back? Did you notice how Microsoft has lost market share to competition from Apple and open source in over the past decade? Although the latter of these is occurring much more slowly either as Microsoft have behaved somewhat favorably to third-party development for their platform (just so long as it does not compete with them) or open source alternatives are not compelling the market to move away so rapidly. Market forces may be lumbering at times, but they eventually serve ill effects to companies making poor decisions.
I fully expect (and, as an iPhone user, hope for) Apple to suffer in the long-run for their efforts to lock out third-party software development for the iPhone. Just wait and see—their competition will not sit idle as Apple weaken their own position with a killer product.
Why bother.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I'd be bitter too if I'd just realised that I will never have sex with a woman.
You have my pity.