Slashdot Mirror
Should Apple Open Source the iPhone?
An anonymous reader writes "Given the OpeniBoot project is just a breath away from getting Android onto the iPhone, maybe Apple should consider opening up the platform. This post has five reasons, but I think there are far more. Without open source, Apple will find itself in the same position as today's Microsoft in seven years."
"Without open source, Apple will find itself in the same position as today's Microsoft in seven years."
You say that as if it were a bad thing. I'm guessing that despite the recent drop to 89% marketshare MS is feeling just fine.
I'm not saying OSS would be a bad move for Apple or the iPhone, but to say that if they aren't careful they might end up completely dominating the market and rolling around in mountains of cash isn't going to get your point across to most people.
Apple don't let you develop for the iPhone freely; it has to be done under their conditions and with their approval, asking the OS to be open sourced is foolish and it will never happen, Apple has shown what does it thinks about developer freedom.
More likely they will try to find a way to prohibit Android from being installed.
Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
A loser blogging from "Wahoo's Fish Tacos" who contents "They're Gonna Have to Eventually," and decides put it to a vote: "all those in favor of an open source direction for the iPhone, leave a comment that starts with "+1." All those who think the iPhone should stay buttoned up, leave a comment starting with "-1."
This will be at least as effective as an online petition!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Where Microsoft is now.. 90% market share?
First, they simply won't. The question is little more than theoretical and we all know how that goes.
And secondly, they'll end up like Microsoft? Do you mean they'll end up with 85%+ of the market share? How is that a loss?
I know OSS is real popular around here but let's face facts, MS and Apple have a combined 98% of the marketshare in their primary markets and tons of side markets that are doing well. Give us a real reason they want to be in alignment with the other 2% of the market.
I know, most folks here have a real love for the open source way but when it comes down to making a dollar off it the ratio of wins to loses is pretty sad. Given all the advantages of open source it's hard to understand why it never really got a bigger foothold and now it seems to be little more than that... a foothold that those involved are trying to keep in fear from falling off the mountain altogether.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
How is Apple's iPhone position anything like MS? In both mobile phones and computers, MS sells their OS software to OEM hardware manufacturers. Some of the problems of MS have come because they have had to support a myriad of devices. Apple sells their hardware with their OS. If anything, with open source, Apple to be like MS in seven years.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Why would Apple open source their phone?
They already have the attention of the masses, and every phone is compared to the iPhone.
Every company is trying to come up with a handset to compete with it. The managers meet with the project leaders and the first question they ask is undoubtedly "does it have a touch screen?". Every Android-based phone is referred to as a "gPhone".
Why would Apple change their ways?
They are selling overpriced, underpowered, late-featured, shiny, UI-focused, locked-down, restrictive products. It's working out great for them.
From a developer standpoint, the iPhone is actually damn good.
The dev kit is $0, and a signing key/registration is $100. So the barrier to entry is very VERY low.
And the app store is a godsend. A distribution system where the distributor gets a flat 30% and thats it? And already has a micropayment infrastructure? Thats unheard-of nice.
If you can make a $10 app that sells to just 10,000 people, thats $70K gross revenue to you as a small developer.
Test your net with Netalyzr
...at which time Apple will either abandon that particular market, or jump on the open source band wagon while Apple fans pat themselves on the back for being flexible and forward thinking. Why would they give up 7 years worth of profit and reverse current trends. Apple have continually tried to close off their hardware. Look at the latest generation of iPods which attempt to prevent users from loading alternate firmware. In any case who knows what will change in 7 years. It'd take them all of 3-6 months to open source if they choose to do so at a later date. For right now I don't see it happening.
Karma be damned. Apple is just not a nice company. I got screwed over in the 1980s when Apple decided to stop selling their software in department stores. My parents had just bought me an overpriced Apple IIe and here I was, a kid who would have to spend hours getting to the nearest Apple dealer to buy software.
People talk about how Apple changed when Steve Jobs came back but I don't see much change. It seems to me that Apple have always been more about marketing and hype than about empowering their users. If you believe the hype everything they do is stylish, bugs are rare, rare events, and the hardware is so reliable that if you have a problem you must be misusing it. The reality I have experienced has been very different.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Different business models entirely--Apple learned their lesson in the late nineties by finally stopping its efforts to be like the big boys. By focusing on a niche market and slowly expanding it is perhaps akin to Southwestern Airlines vs. American
After all, Apple is having so much trouble selling iPhones and attracting a developer community that open-sourcing the iPhone is the only way to survive... Wait, what? Apple already has the top-selling smartphone? They already have a huge developer community and thousands of applications in less than six months of having this OS on the market? They've all but killed Palm, made a huge dent in Microsoft's Windows Mobile business, and forced RIM to come out with a poorly-regarded "me too" touchscreen phone while eating market share?
Well, I guess that's how poorly things are going for Apple with a closed design. There's lots of valid reasons why Apple might be well-served to open up more of their iPhone code, but it's not like the current strategy has exactly failed miserably. Right now iPhone is in a pretty enviable place from a development point of view. Apple is early in the 2.0 cycle, and hasn't even implemented all the promised features for developers yet (like central push notification and true turn-by-turn GPS capabilities), and they still have a massive base of developers who are leveraging their Cocoa code and methods to produce iPhone software.
Not to mention that touch in general is a full-fledged platform for Apple. Not just phones, but iPods and likely other devices. Build for the platform and you run on all the devices (unlike, say, RIM's multiple platforms). And they have teh sexy as well in their hardware and UI designs, so there's consumer appeal (compared to, say, the skins manufacturers have had to overlay on Windows Mobile to make it less hostile to users).
There's always going to be people who want to tweak their phone, or run Linux on it because it has a CPU and RAM. But the mass market doesn't give a darn if iPhones are open or closed. They don't care if Android is open, either. They just care that the devices are cool and useful, and that there's plenty of nice software to run that's easy to get. iPhone is leading in that race now, and as long as they're all that, nobody important gives a darn otherwise.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
WITH open source, Apple will find itself in the same position as today's IBM. (looks at PC). Nope not an IBM and soon Iphone/Macintosh will not be apple if they go down this road.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
The iPhone app store currently recently hit 10,000 apps and 300 million downloads. How is your open platform app store doing?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
>is /. turning into digg?
Sadly, yes. The Idle experiment has been creeping onto the rest of the site. See - the new meta-moderation system, the new index (optional beta for now, but how long until we have no chioce?), and the new ~ pages. It's no surprise that story selection is following suit.
It seems like Taco and co. are forgetting that a lot of us still come here precisely because it's not digg.
I prefer Apple's performance over the last 15 years over Microsoft's. Even at 50% of its all-time high, Apple is still trading at 25 times what I paid for it, and runs the most profitable retail business per square foot in America.
Compare: The glory days of MSFT are over. It is no longer a growth company. That stock made a lot of early adopters rich, but MS is a victim of its own monopoly. Where do they go from here, other than forcing needless OS upgrades down XP users' throats?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The iPhone can play DRM'd movies. Yes, DRM and encryption and the like give the Stallman set fits, but it's certainly a key bit of functionality for the phone that would go away if it were open sourced, right?
I just don't really see more benefits to Apple, especially when if the iPhone were open sourced would make it easier to add the stuff to Linux or other competing devices, no? Of course that would _never_ happen, code being snagged and all :-/
I have to admit I had a similar response. There are so utterly few open source projects that succeed in any large financial way, apple are a company that wants to make money, and the iPhone is one of the biggest gadget successes in the last 5 years - their iPod is one of the others.
This post seems to say Apple should dump surefire success and go for something risky and likely to flush all their efforts into the toilet. Goodluckwiththat indeed.
The awesome thing is that Apple's one phone is going to sell more than all the Android phones combined.
Joe User doesn't care about open source. He cares about his phone being 'cool.'
And I care about being able to only have one device instead of 3.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I thought exactly the same thing. The only explanation I can come up with is that the moderator felt, probably with some justification, that anyone just looking at the post would say the same thing.
Since then: nothing out of Apple, despite mounting pressure from projects like Android that are vying for Apple's throne.
First off, I want to point something out: "Apple's throne" was achieved in less than two years, starting basically from zero, when competing against companies that have been in the cell phone market since the 80s. Keep that in mind when criticizing Apple's business strategies.
Open source is becoming the default way to develop software in many industries.
One SIGNIFICANT subset of the industry where open source is not the default way to develop software: Industries where the user interface matters. Think about how many times you've heard the phrase "As easy to use as Linux".
Open sourcing the iPhone gives customers a much broader selection of applications. Customers faced with a plethora of attractive applications when they visit the app store will spend money.
There is a lot of empirical evidence to refute this. Customers DO NOT want choice. One of the big complaints about Linux is that people have to choose between Ubuntu, Redhat, Slackware, Debian, Kubuntu, Fedora, LFS, Gentoo, etc. Or maybe FreeBSD or NetBSD. And on top of that, Gnome or KDE or something else. When faced with too many choices, the reaction amongst most humans is give up. One of the reasons Ubuntu has been so successful is that (unlike, say, Slackware) you don't have to go through and choose which programs and window manager/desktop system you want.
One of the biggest wins by far of the App Store is that there is a certain minimum quality level needed to be in it. If they opened that up, it would turn into something like SourceForge and it would be impossible to find the good stuff amongst the chaff.
It Will Solidify Apple's Dominance.
Apple's got a rare opportunity to solidify dominance in a market by killing the competition in the cradle.
But I thought you said choice was good? ;)
Honestly, I prefer Apple to have competition. Keeps 'em honest.
If They Don't, Someone Else Will
All of the other smartphones are already a lot more open than the iPhone, and (with the exception of Android) they've been around a lot longer. Apple's still whuppin' their asses.
That's right, Linux on the iPhone. Earth to Apple: if the iPhone had been open sourced, this probably wouldn't have happened.
Wow, you don't understand Linux people at all, do you? There is a certain sort of person who will try to install Linux on anything that stands still in front of them for too long. The only computing hardware that people won't try getting to run Linux is computing hardware that's already running Linux. And even then, they'll try to swap in a *custom* version of Linux. It's what they do. Making the iPhone more open would just have made that happen more quickly.
Apple has $24+ billion and no debt. What are you getting at?
There is room for more than one model for how to develop a product. The iPhone is targeted to consumers who want a very well thought out, consistent, easily usable (and therefore more useful) device. Not all of us WANT the iPhone that would result from open source. There are projects like Android to appeal to those consumers.
I think all apple really needs to do is listen to the people. If they would get off their asses and allow some features people are currently jailbreaking like mad for then they would stay relevant.
Where is my 3rd party push support that has been promised forever? Why can't my google calendar sync over the air without jailbreaking? Why can't I run programs in the background without jailbreaking? Where's my java? Etc.
Welcome to the 21st century. People don't buy iPhones for their open-source platform, people buy iPhones because they are a hip status symbol.
In reality many people buy iPhones because they are incredibly practical devices, not as "status symbols". The iPod is no "status symbol" either as status symbols are very prone to being dropped by the market at the drop of a hat, which the iPod (and now iPhone) have not seen.
This misundertanding you and countless Apple Haters before you make is the reason why you cannot understand Apple's success, and never will.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is room for more than one model for how to develop a product. The iPhone is targeted to consumers who want a very well thought out, consistent, easily usable (and therefore more useful) device. Not all of us WANT the iPhone that would result from open source.
I don't know why more people cannot grasp this. There is plenty of market share to go around for both Apple and Android, both platforms have really easy to acess dev kits and great potentials, with different focuses for consumers.
People act like in the end There Can Be Only One, when in a real market there are Several. I'm sure even Windows Mobile will hang on pretty much forever.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"...being able to compete in the low-end PC market..."
Everyone repeats this fallacy, which assumes that Apple WANTS to compete in the low-end PC market. Why get into a major dogfight over a few pennies?
It's akin to saying (car analogy coming) that if BMW wanted to dramatically increase their market share they should create a competitor to the Yugo or Yaris.
And drop their margins accordingly. Apple has a nice premium brand that appeals to a lot of people. Why screw it up?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Apple went down the drain more from the clones.
Apple went down the drain due to slow processors and slower, buggy operating systems. The very early OS 7s (7.1, for example) were solid, fast...of course the fastest processor at the time was about 33 MHz. Then came 7.5.3 where Apple was on its knees and it was rumored to be the "last MacOS".
With the price point of Apple hardware higher than PCs and the advent of Windows NT taking over Graphic Designer's workstations, all of a sudden Apple had to work harder. Then came MacOS 8 and quickly 8.1 but what saved Apple was the switch from PowerPC to the G3 processor. Noticeably faster and at a time where Windows 95 and even 98 were snappy, some sort of speed bump was mandatory for the sluggish Apple hardware and software.
With the faster, more capable machines, ad agencies stuck with Apple, the iMac CRT came out and education loved that. Apple continued to put out interesting products, market 1000 times better than Microsoft, and when OS X was released, was back on their feet. iPods, iPhones helped raise them back to profitability.
For Mac to dominate:
1) Out of the box enterprise administration. What they have now is meh at best and always has been. Microsoft has made Active Directory very powerful without having to go to the command line.
2) Gaming.
3) God help me, the price. I can build or even buy a home computer that will do way more than any iMac can for the same price. To do something comparable to a $1000 PC, I need a $2000 Mac.
And Nick Nerderton's app will probably be kludgy and a pain to use like most FOSS software made by basement coders who can hack the numbers but can't actually design a good UI to save their lives.
If you mean this patent then don't worry too much. Apple didn't invent multi-touch (these guys did), nor did they patent the way it's currently used. They patented extensions, such as performing cut and paste with gestures. Why the G1 has no multi-touch is a mystery to me.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.