When is the next and more powerful openmoko releasing
openmoko at ginguppin.de
Sat Aug 14 16:40:18 CEST 2010
>> - gain a reputation as being "open" (which might appeal to goverments as
>> well b/c of several reasons)
> Or not -- see the current spat over Blackberry in India/UAE/etc. "Open"
> good for governments looking for tight controls. And while it might be
> for their citizens, it's the gov'ts that control devices, unfortunately.
the spat you mentioned is just about rim not being open with it's servers.
were they open, gouverments could simply set up their own and force their
citizens to use those.
what i was refering to, wa sthe fact that with open sw/hw gouvernments
would be able to check on their own the integrity and safety of
implemantations, not being dependent on the vendors.
>> - additional promotion by mouth-to-mouth through people being interested
>> in open devices, probably cheaper than paid merchandising for the same
> While this is true, this target audience is small.
sure. but so is, after all, the target audience for apple products. and as
said before, openess would have this increased promotion at no additional
>> - somewhat broadened developer base
> Do you really think that the term "open" will attract more developers?
> a handful or two, but developers flock to where the money is. See
> iPhone. :S
see below. openess would mean, developers are not restricted by limited
apis, but could access the complete bandwith of options available.
>> - android inspired cost structure: make your hw specs public -> enable
>> developers to make the best from it -> gain market share since your
>> offers the most b/c developers can use the hw and are not limited to
>> app-like apis (cf iP[od|hone|ad])
>> with the success of android, i think a more open approach might appeal
> I'm not up on all the latest android stuff, but from what I've seen, you
> a pretty closed system from those building blocks.
sure you can. but otoh, android being (more or less) opene, it allows
vendors to get their devices to market in rather limited time compared to
closed, vendor-specific os which need a lot of inhouse investment to
develop and get stable.
and seeing how an open os, offered at no costs helps saving money, an open
hw design easily extensible might appeal as well.
assume vendor X creates a design freely available, there would probably be
a lot of other vendors re-use that design to decrease their costs --
google did not create android out of altruistic motives, they have their
profit and interests at heart, and yet, android is attractive to the
but after all, i have the sure feeling as if the very same discussion has
been had already, years ago and all arguments have been on the table
More information about the community