More to the point, the superiority of the tool is not a direct function of it being an open or closed platform, or cramming as much different kinds of technology as is possible. Rather, the superiority of the tool is more directly related to how the builder made it to function and behave in response to the user; in other words, it’s the specific implementation of the tool and its paradigm of user workflows. Further, it is a question whether the tool’s paradigm of user workflows is harmonious with the user’s own methods and flow of activity, or if it is counter to those. For this reason, what works well for one person may not work so well for another.

To put things more pithily, most users care about whether they have the coolest, most complex, hi-tech swiss-army hammer imaginable. They just want to hang a picture on the wall. Will the hammer help them do that quickly and easily?

I frame this more fully as a lot of these debates can get pretty abstract and far removed from the outcome goals.

Plus, as others will note, the good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from, which is another way of saying that API and Open Standards as constructs can mean a whole heck of a lot and nothing. It all depends upon the implementation details and breadth of support for the standard and/or API.

Now the natural arguement I would expect from open sourcers is that having closed platforms decreases innovation and progress. My response here would be that there is always an unseen cost to change. Platform changes are only reasonable when benefits are an order of magnitude larger.

Does this sound reasonable? Or am I talking too much like an engineer again? :)

More to the point, the free software argument then doesn’t really factor the reality that these types of decisions don’t take place in a vacuum. There are economic and market decisions involved, all of which leads me to re-affirm my sense that it depends upon what problem you are trying to solve, and what outcome you are trying to facilitate relative to the openness vs. proprietary equation, which is hardly an ALL or NONE decision to begin with.

Cheers,

Mark

We’re now in a situation where closedness, or mixed closed/open, is perceived, wrongly or rightly, as more beneficial for developers. In that situation, Raymond’s argument does break down, I agree with you—and you’re not the first to point it out.
The second argument, from the Free Software Foundation, holds firm. All the apps in the world couldn’t change the fact that the app store is what it is and that consumers not in the dev program have basically zero rights.

The one facet to this excellent article is the idea that I don’t think Apple really wants to dominate anything, I think they just really want to make the best stuff. Perhaps it comes from having almost no PC market share and finding a way to survive despite that. They are self contained because they had to be. Google on the other hand has ambitions that include absolute concepts like “all the data” yadda yadda yadda. Both companies have succeeded wildly but I believe they have very different view of what success is.

The cost, though, (I believe) is that that choice will come at the cost of increased fragmentation of the SOFTWARE platform, even more so now that Google has muddied the water by rolling out their own, branded phone, which despite what Google says (or a grin and bear it, Motorola, might say), is bad news for handset makers. You can’t simultaneously be an arms dealer and a warlord.

As to the Linux and Windows analogs, like you said, Linux is very horizontal, whereas Android is (relatively) focused on a specific segment, and also has the benefit of iPhone to point the way in terms of the types of apps that will proliferate on top of it so that alone suggests a beachhead for Android. (Sidebar: Call me old school, but the diversity of apps will drive the success of Android more so than anything.)

By contrast, say “Linux” and all that I can think of is LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl/PHP/Python); potent, utility and ROI bearing, to be sure, but faceless, nameless. Windows is a different beast altogether, and facing the slow demise of entropy from supporting so much legacy, so not worth talking about much (in this context).

To your last point, which is a good one, Google seems to be competing with Apple, but in practice, their target is Symbian, as that is the current alternative for the “anyone but Apple” handset coalition, and the one reason even a pissed off Motorola won’t abandon Android; they’ll just fragment instead.

(If they’re smart, though, Motorola will get the cajones to buy Palm before Nokia does.)

Thanks again for the thoughts.

Mark

My guess is android will be both loved and hated this year, with some phones giving it a good name and others a bad name. Much like windows and linux and anything else that isn’t controlled end to end.

I think android will do much better than linux though. Phone makers are making phones with android in mind, whereas manufacturers don’t generally make machines with linux in mind. Apple does fine because they only support a very small subset of the hardware market.

I agree with somebody else who said mobile phones unlike computers don’t yet have the staying power though. You get a new phone every couple of years and thus far so long as it makes calls, takes pictures, has email, sms, calendar, etc the rest is fluff. I don’t have any ‘must keep’apps from previous phones and I’ve had several palms and windows phones. The iphone isn’t any different.
for example (it’s old now but the point is obvious)
http://www.installerapps.com/2008/04/28/the-top-50-iphone-applications/
I couldn’t see a single app in that list that is a must have. The few that were somewhat useful are available on all major smart phones. It’s fluff, and given the form factor and touch only ui, it’s going to be hard to get better than gimmicks for the average person.

If the android wants corporate penetration they need to compete with BES and blackberry. This means management, remote policies, etc, managed by the company buying the phones and not by apple or google.

So far android looks to be trying to compete with apple, which is good news from RIM. I think the wide price range in phones will help them do well in volume, but the jury’s out on whether they get the geek crown from apple. I suspect it won’t be this year, and maybe not next year either.

Mark

Nothing Apple hasn’t done already… just so you know, the iPhone is a Mac OS X mobile version….
Apple is one step ahead in that matter.
I agree with your second statement, there can obviously be many players, the idea here is which one will have the biggest market share.
The answer so far, is obvious, not Android anytime soon.
RIM and Apple are at the top, and Apple’s market is growing while RIM has become stable.

Anyway, I think one of the reason why FLAC not being support is a big thing to people with android is that it’s expected to be there — after all Android is running a Linux stack where FLAC support is pratically always a given.

I suspect the issues with email not being high on the list has to do with people having android phones properly don’t use their phones for email all that much. Besides, it’s pratically a given that the issue will be fixed — it’s too important not to.