Heya,<br><br><div style="visibility: hidden; display: inline;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}</style><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, arne anka <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:openmoko@ginguppin.de">openmoko@ginguppin.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>>> - gain a reputation as being "open" (which might appeal to goverments as<br>
>> well b/c of several reasons)<br>
><br>
> Or not -- see the current spat over Blackberry in India/UAE/etc. "Open" isn't<br>
> good for governments looking for tight controls. And while it might be great<br>
> for their citizens, it's the gov'ts that control devices, unfortunately. <br></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
<br>
</div>the spat you mentioned is just about rim not being open with it's servers.<br>
were they open, gouverments could simply set up their own and force their<br>
citizens to use those.<br>
what i was refering to, wa sthe fact that with open sw/hw gouvernments<br>
would be able to check on their own the integrity and safety of<br>
implemantations, not being dependent on the vendors.<br></blockquote><div><br>The issue I was referring to was if hardware and software is "open enough",<br>then said governments won't even consider allowing the devices in, since<br>
end users could use them to circumvent whatever protections the regulators<br>put on.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">>> - additional promotion by mouth-to-mouth through people being interested<br>
>> in open devices, probably cheaper than paid merchandising for the same<br>
>> group<br>
><br>
> While this is true, this target audience is small.<br>
<br>
</div>sure. but so is, after all, the target audience for apple products. and as<br>
said before, openess would have this increased promotion at no additional<br>
costs.<br></blockquote><div><br>With 14% of the market and 4th place in the Smartphone market (source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_2009_full.png">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_2009_full.png</a>),<br>
I would say that Apple's target audience is naturally slightly larger.<br>Would apple being open help them? In some ways, sure.<br>However, if we had Apple's war chest, we wouldn't be having discussions, we'd<br>
all have devices in our hands. :S<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">>> - somewhat broadened developer base<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Do you really think that the term "open" will attract more developers? Maybe<br>
> a handful or two, but developers flock to where the money is. See iPhone. :S<br>
<br>
</div>see below. openess would mean, developers are not restricted by limited<br>
apis, but could access the complete bandwith of options available.<br></blockquote><div> <br>Lot's of platforms have crap apis. If api's defined success, Unix would have<br>triumphed over Windows long ago.<br>Nice APIs do help, don't get me wrong -- but don't get lost in the clouds. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">>> - android inspired cost structure: make your hw specs public -> enable<br>
>> developers to make the best from it -> gain market share since your device<br>
>> offers the most b/c developers can use the hw and are not limited to<br>
>> app-like apis (cf iP[od|hone|ad])<br>
>><br>
>> with the success of android, i think a more open approach might appeal to<br>
>> vendors.<br>
><br>
> I'm not up on all the latest android stuff, but from what I've seen, you can
make<br>
> a pretty closed system from those building blocks.<br>
<br>
</div>sure you can. but otoh, android being (more or less) opene, it allows<br>
vendors to get their devices to market in rather limited time compared to<br>
closed, vendor-specific os which need a lot of inhouse investment to<br>
develop and get stable.<br>
and seeing how an open os, offered at no costs helps saving money, an open<br>
hw design easily extensible might appeal as well.<br>
assume vendor X creates a design freely available, there would probably be<br>
a lot of other vendors re-use that design to decrease their costs --<br>
google did not create android out of altruistic motives, they have their<br>
profit and interests at heart, and yet, android is attractive to the<br>
market.<br>
<br>
<br>
but after all, i have the sure feeling as if the very same discussion has<br>
been had already, years ago and all arguments have been on the table<br>
already.<br></blockquote><div><br>True true. If Android is used as a stepping stone, I think that is fine. But<br>Android isnn't the end, it's only something along the path.<br><br>Gerald<br></div></div>