I agree, in terms of innovations, Google also has the advantage of being the younger and smaller of the two.
When a company becomes larger, bureaucracy tends to creep in and stifle innovation. When it becomes older, more resources are devoted to maintaining and supporting existing apps and customers. Also it's harder to break into something new when you have legacy apps (that you have to retain compatibility with) holding you back. Hence innovation by acquisition.
With that said, there are factors other than innovation that will determine who will come out ahead (I think they'll both be around). For example Yahoo has a huge installed base of _registered_ users. For a majority of users, good enough is good enough, so switching to another service is almost out of the question. It remains to be seen if Google can pry that away.
This would make for a great case study in a social ethics class.
Personally if I had to make a call on this, I would agree with the schools and reject the applicants. However I'm glad I don't have to make that decision because it's not a easy one, you can make a good case for either side.
To play's devil's advocate, the arguments for the students are:
1. It's almost (but not quite) the same as entrapment. Most people in the same situation would be tempted to check.
2. There was no harm done. The students are checking their own information.
The arguments against the students are:
1. It was still wrong no matter how easy it was. The physical world equivalent would be the admissions office left the list inside a folder on their front desk. The folder is marked confidential/private... (The students were aware this was a 'hack')
2. These are tomorrow's leaders and they should be held to a higher standard. I'm sure there would numerous occasions where similar temptations come into play... and someone can always justify it won't hurt anyone.
I think a lot of people completely missed McVoy's point -- either because of a knee-jerk reaction or more likely because of not reading the article. I don't think he's saying innovation does not occur in open source. Of course there's innovation in OSS , to refute that would be silly.
He's saying a business based on the open source model cannot sustain innovations...
1) without support (monetary or otherwise) from non open-source companies,
2) or because the service contracts don't bring in enough revenue to support heavy R&D.
I think that's a legitimate point. He's talking about three things: innovation, (in the context of) business, and sustainability.
To refute his point you'll need to give examples of some companies which have built a business around open source and continue to churn out innovative open source products without outside financial support (self-sustaining). That's a mouthful.
With that said, in some ways this is like talking apples and oranges. The model and philosophy of open source is so different from the business realm. In terms of how innovation happens, Businesses have usually sustained their innovations from a central/focused R&D arm. However Open source innovations work mainly because it's not centralized. Also the philosophies are night and day. As Linus pointed out, the primary goal of open source isn't about economic sustainability. For a business, that's the primary goal.
Sure there's a tiny area where business and open source meet but somehow in discussions like these everything gets cojumbled together.
My understanding is that you have to implement the idea before you can patent it.
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.
...
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.
I recently learned of Konfabulator -- a shareware version of Dashboard -- and tried out the Windows version. Very well done.
I don't know the details about Konfabulator and Apple, but it would be sad if Apple did lift off the idea so blatantly without due credit. I hope at the very least the Konfabulator guys get more attention from this. Maybe the Apple market is gone but the Windows market might grow because of this.
I'm not a Mac user -- haven't used a Mac since the pre-NeXT integration days -- but all this buzz peaked my interest and I had to take a look at the features. I admit they are very cool.
I especially like the Dashboard idea. I've seen similar apps which mimic the behavior as an application but it doesn't work as well. This breaks out of the application paradigm. The value is also they've added a default set of items which are actually very useful... calender, stickies, calculator and my favorite a builtin dictionary. It's so simple and obvious, you wonder why more computers don't have a built-in dictionary... especially with the amount of storage computers have now-a-days.
It's a self-reinforcing phenomenon. An existing strong community advocates for your products, and as long as you don't disappoint, it reinforces your product and community. Apple has such a strong and tight-knit community base, information and news tend to circulate quickly and thing get amplified. For instance, I've heard more about the Tiger release from Apple users than from Apple itself...
It's questionable whether pure number or dollar-wise there are more Apple add-ons than say PCs. I would say not. For example I bet for every single 3rd party add-on (software or hardware-wise) for Macs there are probably two, three or more similar ones for PCs. It's just the one for the Mac gets quick circulation within the Apple community whereas the ones for the PC either compete against each other or are somewhat diluted in the multitude of options. I remember when I used my Macintosh heavily, it seemed like there was one and only one good app for every purpose. For windows there are dozens and sometimes they're all mediocre.
As for cell phones, at least in this part of the US there are tons of add-ons -- face plates, blinking what-nots, games, etc -- although the market for those tend to be middle/high-school crowd. Again because of the shear number of cell phone models the community gets diluted. (I guess diluted community is an oxymoron).
Good points. What I still don't understand is how the phrase, ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.'' applies to Free Software.
RMS uses the phrase himself. Possibly he introduced it. But after reading his Free Software Definition again, it contradicts the phrase. It sounds more like the definition of Free = Free Speech = Free Beer.
Why? Because how can you offer your software's source code to the public (free as in speech) without essentially making it free (no cost/free as in beer) especially when other people are free to duplicate and distribute it. The value of software is primarily the IP not the distribution or packaging. Sure you can charge for those and other auxilary things but that still means (re-using the analogy) the beer is free -- just not the cup (packaging) it comes with or the bartender fees (service) you pay... The fact remains if you offer source code your software itself becomes free, as in speech and beer.
The question asked is slightly different from the one you answered in your post.
It's the difference between how do I make money writing on top of software someone else has already written and open sourced AND how do I make money selling the software I wrote and opensourced?
If time and resource were not an issue (ie if there's another source of income and you're not struggling to pay the bills and you have alot of free time -- hey that sounds like a profile for a./'er : ) ) then the difference is minor. But if time and resource were issues, then the person who wrote the software has already spent it vs. the person who didn't write it.
To your credit, your reply still applies to some extent. He/she has to take it up a notch and sell something complementing the software, be it service, customization, etc. He/she just has to do it, _on top_ of what they've already done.
You, my friend, are Plato re-incarnated for the/. age.
"How will programmers get paid?"
"Do you have a programming job?"
(...Socratic Dialogue snipped)
Sounds like you're talking about utility-computing where there's an ongoing fee to 'rent' the functionality which has traditionally been sold in a package for a one-time fee.
Even for some products it already follows this model either because the vendor frequently comes out with new versions or because the product is so complicated it requires additional support and hand-holding. It's just a matter of relabelling it.
It remains to be seen how far this goes. Does the 30% you mention include products that are distributed purely off the internet?
From a user's perspective, I think F/OSS is great because it's free and I can't help but feel enveloped with a warm fuzzy feeling from the idealism that it's bundled with. F/OSS is one of those things that everyone wants to work so badly, we ignore some of its shortcomings. It's like the uncle who everyone likes because he showers you with nice gifts but no one ever mentions his capricious spending or impending bankruptcy.
For those making money 'using' OSS, of course it's wonderful. They are essentially getting something for nothing ie for free.
The problem as you as mentioned, is that it devalues -- in $monetary terms -- the software developer's efforts and undercuts the efforts of other software developers.
I stress that the devaluation is monetary. But software developers or many that I've known (and I concede myself to some extent), run on a different currency -- one of ego and recognition. So in that sense the developer isn't entirely losing out. He has traded his time and energy for personal pr rather than money.
In some cases that recognition translates into getting a well paying job. However if money were the goal, F/OSS route wouldn't be the best route. I know it's a gross simplification but still noteworthy, take the two most recognized and influential personalities of operating software: Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds. It's obvious who's the world's richest man is, and who gets all the karma from the geeks like us.
The whole F/OSS movement is political. I know 'political' is a bad dirty word that engineers like to avoid. It's not necessarily bad because it's political but we should recognize it for what it is. It's a joust for power and leadership, goodwill in exchange for favorable opinions and sympathy. In the best case, OSS results in something like Linux, and in the worst it's the girl with a skirt giving looksies -- great for onlookers, a questionable gain for the exhibitionist, and great for the pimps who know how to squeeze a buck from it.
Dan Foreman: Alright listen Carter, I'm going to tell you something. You're going to be OK.
Carter Duryea: You think so?
Dan Foreman: Yeah, I know it... You're a good man.
I don't know enough about you or your situation to tell you reasonably well whether you're a fool or not for giving up your job.
You're definitely being picky if the choice of tool was your reason for leaving... but hey some people have that luxury especially if you're good (you're not Linus are you?) or have the financial flexibility.
All I can tell you with good certainty is that you're going to be OK. You were unhappy, made a decision, and took action. That's more than what some people do in a lifetime. Do what you believe is right, follow through, and don't let the nay-sayers deter you.
Slashdot Mirror
When a company becomes larger, bureaucracy tends to creep in and stifle innovation. When it becomes older, more resources are devoted to maintaining and supporting existing apps and customers. Also it's harder to break into something new when you have legacy apps (that you have to retain compatibility with) holding you back. Hence innovation by acquisition.
With that said, there are factors other than innovation that will determine who will come out ahead (I think they'll both be around). For example Yahoo has a huge installed base of _registered_ users. For a majority of users, good enough is good enough, so switching to another service is almost out of the question. It remains to be seen if Google can pry that away.
Personally if I had to make a call on this, I would agree with the schools and reject the applicants. However I'm glad I don't have to make that decision because it's not a easy one, you can make a good case for either side.
To play's devil's advocate, the arguments for the students are:
1. It's almost (but not quite) the same as entrapment. Most people in the same situation would be tempted to check.
2. There was no harm done. The students are checking their own information.
The arguments against the students are:
1. It was still wrong no matter how easy it was. The physical world equivalent would be the admissions office left the list inside a folder on their front desk. The folder is marked confidential/private... (The students were aware this was a 'hack')
2. These are tomorrow's leaders and they should be held to a higher standard. I'm sure there would numerous occasions where similar temptations come into play... and someone can always justify it won't hurt anyone.
3. Wrong is wrong.
Call them stupid, Stupid.
He's saying a business based on the open source model cannot sustain innovations... 1) without support (monetary or otherwise) from non open-source companies, 2) or because the service contracts don't bring in enough revenue to support heavy R&D.
I think that's a legitimate point. He's talking about three things: innovation, (in the context of) business, and sustainability.
To refute his point you'll need to give examples of some companies which have built a business around open source and continue to churn out innovative open source products without outside financial support (self-sustaining). That's a mouthful.
With that said, in some ways this is like talking apples and oranges. The model and philosophy of open source is so different from the business realm. In terms of how innovation happens, Businesses have usually sustained their innovations from a central/focused R&D arm. However Open source innovations work mainly because it's not centralized. Also the philosophies are night and day. As Linus pointed out, the primary goal of open source isn't about economic sustainability. For a business, that's the primary goal.
Sure there's a tiny area where business and open source meet but somehow in discussions like these everything gets cojumbled together.
If someone else comes up with the same idea then the invention may not have been obvious and therefore may not be enforcible in court.
I'm not saying all is fine and dandy. The patent system is not perfect. But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
This has the potential to be a very good or very evil company depending on what percentage they spend on innovators or lawyers. We'll have to see...
I don't know the details about Konfabulator and Apple, but it would be sad if Apple did lift off the idea so blatantly without due credit. I hope at the very least the Konfabulator guys get more attention from this. Maybe the Apple market is gone but the Windows market might grow because of this.
I'm not a Mac user -- haven't used a Mac since the pre-NeXT integration days -- but all this buzz peaked my interest and I had to take a look at the features. I admit they are very cool.
I especially like the Dashboard idea. I've seen similar apps which mimic the behavior as an application but it doesn't work as well. This breaks out of the application paradigm. The value is also they've added a default set of items which are actually very useful... calender, stickies, calculator and my favorite a builtin dictionary. It's so simple and obvious, you wonder why more computers don't have a built-in dictionary... especially with the amount of storage computers have now-a-days.
Brilliant.
It's a self-reinforcing phenomenon. An existing strong community advocates for your products, and as long as you don't disappoint, it reinforces your product and community. Apple has such a strong and tight-knit community base, information and news tend to circulate quickly and thing get amplified. For instance, I've heard more about the Tiger release from Apple users than from Apple itself...
It's questionable whether pure number or dollar-wise there are more Apple add-ons than say PCs. I would say not. For example I bet for every single 3rd party add-on (software or hardware-wise) for Macs there are probably two, three or more similar ones for PCs. It's just the one for the Mac gets quick circulation within the Apple community whereas the ones for the PC either compete against each other or are somewhat diluted in the multitude of options. I remember when I used my Macintosh heavily, it seemed like there was one and only one good app for every purpose. For windows there are dozens and sometimes they're all mediocre.
As for cell phones, at least in this part of the US there are tons of add-ons -- face plates, blinking what-nots, games, etc -- although the market for those tend to be middle/high-school crowd. Again because of the shear number of cell phone models the community gets diluted. (I guess diluted community is an oxymoron).
RMS uses the phrase himself. Possibly he introduced it. But after reading his Free Software Definition again, it contradicts the phrase. It sounds more like the definition of Free = Free Speech = Free Beer.
Why? Because how can you offer your software's source code to the public (free as in speech) without essentially making it free (no cost/free as in beer) especially when other people are free to duplicate and distribute it. The value of software is primarily the IP not the distribution or packaging. Sure you can charge for those and other auxilary things but that still means (re-using the analogy) the beer is free -- just not the cup (packaging) it comes with or the bartender fees (service) you pay... The fact remains if you offer source code your software itself becomes free, as in speech and beer.
So that phrase is misleading at best...
It's the difference between how do I make money writing on top of software someone else has already written and open sourced AND how do I make money selling the software I wrote and opensourced?
If time and resource were not an issue (ie if there's another source of income and you're not struggling to pay the bills and you have alot of free time -- hey that sounds like a profile for a ./'er : ) ) then the difference is minor. But if time and resource were issues, then the person who wrote the software has already spent it vs. the person who didn't write it.
To your credit, your reply still applies to some extent. He/she has to take it up a notch and sell something complementing the software, be it service, customization, etc. He/she just has to do it, _on top_ of what they've already done.
Even for some products it already follows this model either because the vendor frequently comes out with new versions or because the product is so complicated it requires additional support and hand-holding. It's just a matter of relabelling it.
It remains to be seen how far this goes. Does the 30% you mention include products that are distributed purely off the internet?
From a user's perspective, I think F/OSS is great because it's free and I can't help but feel enveloped with a warm fuzzy feeling from the idealism that it's bundled with. F/OSS is one of those things that everyone wants to work so badly, we ignore some of its shortcomings. It's like the uncle who everyone likes because he showers you with nice gifts but no one ever mentions his capricious spending or impending bankruptcy.
For those making money 'using' OSS, of course it's wonderful. They are essentially getting something for nothing ie for free.
The problem as you as mentioned, is that it devalues -- in $monetary terms -- the software developer's efforts and undercuts the efforts of other software developers.
I stress that the devaluation is monetary. But software developers or many that I've known (and I concede myself to some extent), run on a different currency -- one of ego and recognition. So in that sense the developer isn't entirely losing out. He has traded his time and energy for personal pr rather than money.
In some cases that recognition translates into getting a well paying job. However if money were the goal, F/OSS route wouldn't be the best route. I know it's a gross simplification but still noteworthy, take the two most recognized and influential personalities of operating software: Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds. It's obvious who's the world's richest man is, and who gets all the karma from the geeks like us.
The whole F/OSS movement is political. I know 'political' is a bad dirty word that engineers like to avoid. It's not necessarily bad because it's political but we should recognize it for what it is. It's a joust for power and leadership, goodwill in exchange for favorable opinions and sympathy. In the best case, OSS results in something like Linux, and in the worst it's the girl with a skirt giving looksies -- great for onlookers, a questionable gain for the exhibitionist, and great for the pimps who know how to squeeze a buck from it.
I don't know enough about you or your situation to tell you reasonably well whether you're a fool or not for giving up your job.
You're definitely being picky if the choice of tool was your reason for leaving... but hey some people have that luxury especially if you're good (you're not Linus are you?) or have the financial flexibility.
All I can tell you with good certainty is that you're going to be OK. You were unhappy, made a decision, and took action. That's more than what some people do in a lifetime. Do what you believe is right, follow through, and don't let the nay-sayers deter you.
>nobody keeps the throttle wide open for 60 seconds straight Think uphill.