Slashdot Mirror
What Open Source Can Learn From Apple
Linux and open source have long struggled to gain acceptance from the wider (read: non-technical) audience. This has improved in recent years, but still has a long way to go. Columnist Matt Asay suggests that perhaps open source projects should attempt to emulate Apple's design philosophy, with whoever succeeds becoming the "winner" of the hearts and minds of the vast majority of users. "Some projects already accomplish this to some extent. The strength of Mozilla, for example, is that it has figured out how to enable 40 percent of its development to be done by outside contributors, as BusinessWeek recently wrote. The downside is that these contributors are techies, but the upside is that they're techies who add language packs, accessibility features, and other "niche" areas that Mozilla might otherwise struggle to deliver. This suggests a start: enable your open-source project to accept meaningful outside contributions that make the project reflective of a wider development community. But the real goldmine is broadening the definition of "developer" to include lay users of your software. The day that I, as a nontechnical software user, can meaningfully participate in an open-source project is the day that open source will truly have won."
Agreed. The lay user will only be able to meaningfully participate in early design phases (think requirements) and then again in testing (especially UI testing). It seems to me that they already have the ability to participate in these ways. Any attempt at involvement in the architecture design surely would only hinder good software practices.
Apple spends a lot of money implementing their design philosophies. Lets face it. It's not cheap to design user friendly high quality UI. Most companies that build open source products aren't serving the Desktop; they're serving the server market. The few that actually are (Ubuntu) are taking Linux and the open source desktop to a higher level.
I am very thankful for Mark Shuttleworth and what he is doing for the Linux Desktop. Everyone knows Redhat flip-flops on the Desktop subject all the time and never actually get much done for it.
"Linux and open source have long struggled to gain acceptance from the wider (read, non-technical) audience"
Do they really? Consensus on Slashdot seems to be "If they can't figure it out, screw 'em".
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
They're not impressed nor amused by app names like gtkWTF, IAMRECURSIVERECURSIVEIAM, and, especially, The GIMP. Also, stop talking about programs being "stable." Isotopes are "stable." Programs either run well, or are buggy.
People mock Microsoft, but I tell ya... I've worked with people who have no idea what Silverlight is or does, but they want it cuz it sounds cool and has something to do with the Web. It's almost as if Linux developers go out of their way to be non-MS in everything -- including creating marketable names for their wares.
The problem, of course, is that the same guys doing the codewriting are the same guys doing the naming and marketing ("...because, after all, I've written the code, and that's the tough part that really matters, right? And if people don't get the Linus/Stallman/Montypython joke upon which I've based the app's name, then fuck 'em, who needs 'em, I'm only doing it for love anyway...").
Why isn't there any open-source marketing? Maybe some of the bigger projects could reach out to some university business and marketing students who could take on the work in much the same way they attract coders?
I don't even think Apple's success is about UI guidelines. I mean, sure, they help, but Apple seems to have a... I don't know... what's the opposite of "tin ear"? Anyway, they just have a very good sense of design. Not just UI design like "graphic design", but engineering a product, like figuring out which features to include and how those features should work.
I've always thought that one of the interesting differences in design approach that Apple uses is that they don't throw in the kitchen sink right away. Some people hate them for it and feel like their products aren't feature-rich enough, but it really seems to work. They just start with a basic product that basically does one thing simply and well, but might not yet have all the features you want. Then their next release of that product adds a few features, but very carefully integrated in to the existing feature set. The next version adds some more in the same way. What you very rarely hear as a criticism about Apple's products is, "this feature feels tacked-on". You might hear, "It doesn't hear every feature you might want," but it's usually followed by, "but if you only want the features it has, it will do those things well."
Microsoft, for example, has in the past had the exact opposite design philosophy. It used to be that version 1 or 2 of their products had pretty much every major feature they're ever going to have, but none of it was actually usable until version 3. It's only then that Microsoft seems to focus on making those features work well together.
No, he's right. Why hasn't Apple released a Netbook? They could have put there OS on a tiny underpowered device with a 800x600 screen and called it a Netbook. But they didn't. Why do you think that is? Maybe they're not fixating on new technology. Maybe they don't "ideologically" repackage products to fit every new product category like other companies do. I mean, people wanted an iPhone for years before Apple release it and it turned the market upside down. If they just put an iPod on a phone or a phone on an iPod nobody would have cared except for a few fanboys. Instead they made a truly innovative device and entered the market when the time was right -- when they had something interesting. The same thing will likely happen with the Apple Netbook. They'll enter the market for sure, but not just for the sake of entering the market. They'll have something to offer, something that will take two years for the market to catchup with.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Hmmm...as a recent convert from Linux to OS X, I have to comment here.
I like iPhoto. I like the app-centric database. I like the simplicity of time machine. I never noticed anything wrong with the red-eye tool. It is more than good enough for the casual photographer.
I never told anyone that I wanted this. I didn't even know I wanted it until I tried it.
As far as I am concerned, when I started needing to get stuff done, instead of 'messing around on the computer' is when the shift from Linux to OS X happened for my home computer use. At work I am still forced into using windows and still use Linux for the server functions.
As far as I am concerned, when I started needing to get stuff done, instead of 'messing around on the computer' is when the shift from Linux to OS X happened for my home computer use.
Really? I find Linux (or at least Ubuntu) is the opposite way. Set it up for a half an hour, and then everything works behind the scenes. Updates OS-wide, various configurations and whatnot, new programs, etc. It seems so hands-off to me. Maybe I'm just a weird Linux user.
Apple is an open source success story. OS X and WebKit are massive open source successes. The iPod is as good an Internet citizen as BSD Unix. The Mac is the easiest to use computer yet gets no viruses. The Web was created on an early OS X and ported easily to open source Unix as a result.
The people who should be learning from Apple are not open source coders who work on the many successful projects. Open source is at least 1 step further into behind-the-scenes than the consumer. It's HP, Dell, Sony, possibly Google and Microsoft, and maybe other manufacturers of consumer technology like car makers who should be studying Apple very closely. Not only to notice Apple's design chops, but also to notice their very successful engineering, including open source efforts.
You only have to say "What Microsoft can Learn from Apple" and contemplate how much better Windows XP would have been if the core OS was BSD-compatible. No viruses. No botnets. All of the engineering efforts that went into the failed Windows 2004 could have been used more productively in the user-facing features. All of the engineering efforts to redo that for Vista could have been used more productively. The typical Windows user installs more patches than apps, and the patches are for stuff they never see or use. Microsoft could be platform-independent through open source, so they could choose to run Windows on ARM right now, which they are not at all prepared for. If they had done their browser engine a la Gecko and WebKit, then they wouldn't have 4 wholly incompatible engines running in great numbers on the Web right now, which they analogized to puke in a recent ad and they were the last ones to admit it. Apple has none of these problems. Apple runs the same kernel on iPod, iPhone, Mac, and XServe and no crashes or viruses anywhere.
On the other hand, with Palm, in the Pre you have a Linux kernel and WebKit browser engine replacing Windows Mobile and IE Mobile from the Treo. Because of Apple. That is Palm learning from Apple about open source.
So it's Apple's competition that needs to learn both from Apple and from open source. Apple and open source are both very successful.