Doctorow on the iPad

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

stustaff - Urm...

Darn skippy they comply with the requirements of the GPL. Because the GPL has won time and again in court against D-Link, Cisco, Skype and a host of other big names. The SLFC has been remarkably successful.

Some links? Okay!

OSX (And a bunch of other apple stuff)
Kindle
Sony (a load of devices)

Etc. etc.

Well thats cool!

I had assumed you wouldnt be able to download all of the software required to run the devices, so whats stopping people just using sony's operating system on a TV they make or downloading their own OSX and calling it stuSX and selling it?

[DawnFalcon]

Well, that's the trick of it. Some hardware functions are typically run by drivers which are not open source, and others might only be available as "binary blobs". Also, while directly linked software is covered under open source licences, other software on the device (like, all the utilities, etc.) are not necessarily open source.

Simply because some components you need are open source doesn't mean that you can necessarily run the OS off the open source components. For some devices, the work to make that happen has been done - primarily in routers, where you have DD-WRT, OpenWRT and several other open OS's, but on a range of devices - take Open Inkpot, who use these forums.

TiVO use a trick of releasing the source code, but implementing hardware check for "approved" firmware, or it won't load, this is known as Tivoization, and was one reason for the GPLv3 replacing v2 - as more and more projects shift to v3, that trick becomes less and less viable.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Logseman

We must say something and have it quite clear: open source stifles innovation. The strength of open source projects lies on its userbase. OSo projects must adapt themselves to the current userbase they have, unlike copyrighted software which forces a much bigger turnover and replaceability since its idea is to profit on its patent which eventually wears off. I believe it's a good idea to compare an open-source oriented device like the Netronix ones, particularly the 600, with the Sony PRS-505 device. While the latter was discontinued and is sorely missed by many users who don't feel the newer model (the PRS-600) is quite as good, the Netronix model has been hanging around for four years, seemingly pleasing users as its dozens of rebrands around the world can give proof of, now the latest iteration being the Kobo device. While the PRS-505 outlived its usefulness for Sony and got replaced, the EB600 has lived longer precisely because it's useful.

The iPad is just as far away from the concept of Open Source as they make them. It has branded itself explicitly as an "enhancement" more than a stand-alone device. People buy it with the assumption and conviction that it will be dated in months when a new little thing is added to the carcass. It is not just consumption electronics: it's something in a deeper level.

No slam intended, but could you expand on what you said a little? I didn't quite grasp all the context...

[Logseman]

I'll do so tomorrow, Ralph. It's dangerously late here and I need a good night's sleep ^^

[mcl]

nevermind.

[Logseman]

After a good night sleep, I'll readress what I was saying.

Mainly, my idea is that open source stifles innovation because it makes planned obsolescence harder to apply. Planned obsolescence is, as you can imagine, the fact that companies build in a lifetime for their product, "forcing" you to buy the new version when that lifetime ends, regardless of you being happy with the prior product.

Planned obsolescence is, for software, the fact that every year a FIFA or Madden videogame come out, without interoperability with the former version, forcing you to buy to take out your dollars for cosmetic changes and current player names.

For hardware, it implies that companies build their products with proprietary batteries which only they are allowed to repair or give you a replacement for, or when they design a product in such a fashion that repairing it is more costly than buying a new one (something which is an issue with e-book readers as well).

Open source is, on the other side, more interoperable. The same Linux kernel has versions like Puppy which can be installed in very old computers alongside with the flashy Kubuntu series for the new machines. Kevin Carson explains in the essay I've mentioned some times before.

Absent legal constraints [of copyright], it would be profitable to offer competing generic replacements and accessories for other companies' platforms. And in the face of such market competition, there would be strong pressure toward modular product designs that were amenable to repair, and interoperable with other modular components and accessories of other companies' platforms. Absent the legal constraints presented by patents, an appliance which was designed to thwart ease of repair through incompatibility with other companies' platforms would suffer a competitive disadvantage.

[kennyc]

Hee-Hee:

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Logseman

After a good night sleep, I'll readress what I was saying.

Mainly, my idea is that open source stifles innovation because it makes planned obsolescence harder to apply. Planned obsolescence is, as you can imagine, the fact that companies build in a lifetime for their product, "forcing" you to buy the new version when that lifetime ends, regardless of you being happy with the prior product.

Planned obsolescence is, for software, the fact that every year a FIFA or Madden videogame come out, without interoperability with the former version, forcing you to buy to take out your dollars for cosmetic changes and current player names.

For hardware, it implies that companies build their products with proprietary batteries which only they are allowed to repair or give you a replacement for, or when they design a product in such a fashion that repairing it is more costly than buying a new one (something which is an issue with e-book readers as well).

Open source is, on the other side, more interoperable. The same Linux kernel has versions like Puppy which can be installed in very old computers alongside with the flashy Kubuntu series for the new machines. Kevin Carson explains in the essay I've mentioned some times before.

I think it depends on what you consider innovation. What you describe to me is not innovation but variation. Innovation is something new, that hasn't been done before, variation is superficial change just for variety.

Example. A car that has the same motor, frame, brakes, ect, but a different body style is not innovation, just a variation. A Hybrid car, with a combination gas electric power train is an innovation, when it first comes out. It's a totally new concept.

Open source doesn't stifle innovation, it stifles variation. And I'm not certain that's a bad thing. It allows mental effort to expended on true innovation, rather that being wasted on (often meaningless) variation.

Your mileage may differ....

[pilotbob]

Playing Dance Dance Revolution on that iMat is going to blow away the XBox version.

BOb

[Logseman]

Ralph, what I mean with "innovation" is the kind of innovation companies can monetise. Sports games come every year with one or two novel features and an up-to-date database. Cars include some changes in their insides. However, the important thing for producers is what is marketable (better graphic power or cool controllers in games, and new designs in cars). Open source has less power to be marketed.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by Logseman

Cars include some changes in their insides. However, the important thing for producers is what is marketable (better graphic power or cool controllers in games, and new designs in cars). Open source has less power to be marketed.

The most important thing for open-source software developers is that it is good, so over time good features tend to added if they are appropriate (as opposed to popular features getting added in every new version as a marketing point regardless of whether they improve the product or not). Tom Nadea had this to say regarding the differences between the proprietary software development of Windows to the open-source development of Linux distributions:

The difference here is, in every release cycle Microsoft always listens to its most ignorant customers. This is the key to dumbing down each release cycle of software for further assaulting the non-PC population. Linux and OS/2 developers, OTOH, tend to listen to their smartest customers. This necessarily limits the initial appeal of the operating system, while enhancing its long-term benefits. Perhaps only a monopolist like Microsoft could get away with selling worse products each generation -- products focused so narrowly on the least-technical member of the consumer base that they necessarily sacrifice technical excellence. Linux and OS/2 tend to appeal to the customer who knows greatness when he or she sees it.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

The most important thing for open-source software developers is that it is good, so over time good features tend to added if they are appropriate (as opposed to popular features getting added in every new version as a marketing point regardless of whether they improve the product or not). Tom Nadea had this to say regarding the differences between the proprietary software development of Windows to the open-source development of Linux distributions:

The difference here is, in every release cycle Microsoft always listens to its most ignorant customers. This is the key to dumbing down each release cycle of software for further assaulting the non-PC population. Linux and OS/2 developers, OTOH, tend to listen to their smartest customers. This necessarily limits the initial appeal of the operating system, while enhancing its long-term benefits. Perhaps only a monopolist like Microsoft could get away with selling worse products each generation -- products focused so narrowly on the least-technical member of the consumer base that they necessarily sacrifice technical excellence. Linux and OS/2 tend to appeal to the customer who knows greatness when he or she sees it.

I'm not a computer expert at all so may be totally wrong but aren't even the "experts" saying Windows 7 is the best version of the Windows operating system yet? Some even say it is getting very close to being comparable to the Mac OS.(which, from the context I see those comments in, I can only assume is some sort of high praise indeed)

If that is the case it seems odd to suggest MS is producing worse products every generation.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Lemurion]

The iPad looks like a great device to use approved content in an approved fashion.

It's not as good for someone with different needs. The one thing I hate most about i-products is that you pretty much have to use iTunes to get your own data on the device, and the iPad is no different.

Drag and drop mass storage is pretty much my deal breaker, and the iPad fails at that.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Drag and drop mass storage is pretty much my deal breaker, and the iPad fails at that.

Yeah that's probably my biggest issue with it--I'd much prefer drag and drop and a straightforward file management system on it.

It's ok for somethings, like PDFs in Goodreader since you can just drag and drop them into the Goodreader file sharing section in iTunes and they appear instantly on the iPad with no synch needed. And I believe you can make folders etc. in the program.

But it would be much better to have a file management system that you could just drag and drop files in and all the apps that handle the file types could find and open them through an open menu just like on a computer.

I'd be fine with iTunes being needed to get to the folders system on the PC to drag and drop stuff. That's no big deal, drag and drop is drag and drop to me regardless of whether I'm clicking "my computer" or a 3rd party program to get to it.

[Penforhire]

You sure there won't be "an app for that?" Air Sharing app supplies USB-drive-like functionality to my iPhone.