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."
" 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
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.
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"
...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. Does it matter why a company actually adopts open software? Isn't the fact that it's being used more important? Also, what's the harm in a business finding that open software is a way to get an edge on the competition?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.
Series 60 3rd Edition is Symbian OS 9.1. Series 60 refers to the UI toolkit, not the operating system. And the Communicator-branded devices have traditionally used a different UI called Series 80.
And for all this whining about digital signing, remember that it was a direct response to all the whining about potential viruses that made it mandatory in S60 v3. There are iPhone promoters who will tell you that security is the primary justification for the closed nature of the iPhone, and in their very next breath tell you that the signing model is another drawback to S60, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry. I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Yes, it sucks for the hobbyist, but these three platforms let you generate and install developer certificates freely. And for anyone who does this commercially, the signing expense is really in time, not money. I'm glad they're doing it; what annoys me is that it is dependent on the digital certificate racket run by companies like Verisign, and being abused by carriers to cripple device capabilities.
And this make sense. Apple is not about openness. They are about lock-in.
I don't know that that's fair. I mean, I'd agree that Apple isn't "about openness", but not being "about openness" doesn't necessarily mean you're "about lock-in".
It seems to me that Apple is "about" producing the sort of products that Steve Jobs thinks are cool. Sometimes this means being open, sometimes it means being closed. Every once in a blue moon, it means some kind of lock-in, but it's relatively rare.
For example, Apple doesn't really use proprietary file-formats or network protocols. Even when they invent their own, they generally open those new formats and protocols to other developers. The only three things I can think of where they aren't very open are the iPhone, Aqua, and FairPlay DRM. For the iPhone, I expect AT&T is pressuring them to stay closed, for FairPlay we know that the RIAA is pressuring Apple to stay secure. With the UI for OSX, it'd just suck for their business model if all Linux/BSD distros were suddenly able to offer the same GUI.
But it's not as though Apple is engaging in the sort of vendor lock-in that Microsoft is.
...or care about things that matter a lot, but for completely wrong reasons.
Open systems, open standards and open source are important -- but as a platform for innovation, not a pissing match.
Yeah, Bonjour, Open Directory, Darwin, WebKit, Darwin (QuickTime) Streaming Server, and a whole bunch besides... evidently the "bare minimum". With the exception of WebKit and the few bits and pieces of Darwin that come from third-parties under licenses that require it, there's an awful lot that Apple have made available--a fair amount of it Apple-developed code--that they didn't have to in the slightest.
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!".
Let me just point out that WebKit, the Apple HTML rendering engine, which is based upon KHTML, the origional KDE HTML rendering engine, has a Subversion repository from which you can download code, that you can submit patches just like you can for Firefox, and that the code is now used by KDE, AtheOS, Apple, and ... wait for it ...
NOKIA.
WebKit
Ars Technical article about unforking of KHTML and WebKit
Aplications Using WebKit
Nokia S60 website page for WebKit based web browser (yeah, the registrant for that website is Nokia).
So, you see, things are a lot more complicated than some folks seem to think.
Here's what I don't get about Symbian signing: the extra effort of self signing an application for your own phone seems like a complete waste of time and energy to me, as it doesn't really add any security benefits over a "WARNING: You are about to run an unsigned application for the first time" dialog. Why did they bother? The excuse given is that then someone can explicitly revoke that certificate and the phones will magically stop trusting the app, but if you are distributing that development version of the app (as opposed to using it in house), you should be signing it with a development build key anyway, not self signing it with an untrusted key, so that argument just doesn't pass muster with me.
I'm also a little annoyed about the $200 annual fee for the "privilege" of getting to write apps for the platform. That cuts out any possibility of a small business ever making money off of writing apps for the phone. You pretty much have to be able to guarantee $200 with of sales to break even, which either means small apps cost way more than they are worth or they don't get written at all. At least they make an exception for freeware authors, but I find it really hard to consider anything that has mandatory annual fees for developers to be "open". That doesn't meet my definition of "open".
IMHO, the definition of an open platform is one in which anyone can write software for it without fee. Period. If the telecom providers are really so terrified about the stability of their network that they require this level of paranoia, that speaks volumes about how poorly designed their data networks are.... The cell phone manufacturers shouldn't be protecting them with signed applications. They should be exposing the cell providers' incompetence for everyone to see. Maybe then we would get a provider in the picture that actually knows something about designing a robust data network....
Put another way, the first telecom to dispose of the signed application requirement will immediately win me away from AT&T Wireless. Consider that a challenge to all the telcos out there. We don't want excuses. We want a network that works. Give us one, and we'll go there. Keep this crap up, and we'll start our own. Google 700 MHz, here I come.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.