Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Hardware

Nokia responds to iPhone by Promoting 'Open' 278

Posted by CmdrTaco from the well-isn't-that-interesting dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Nokia has responded instantly to the iPhone update-bricking fiasco by running a series of flyposter ads pointing out its own hardware and software is open. While this is to be applauded, it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head. After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft. Since that initial blow, they've been a lot less eager to promote open source."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nokia responds to iPhone by Promoting 'Open' More

Nokia responds to iPhone by Promoting 'Open'

Comments Filter:

  • irritating ms (Score:5, Informative)

    by pohl ( 872 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:40AM (#20810127) Homepage

    After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft

    Really...I don't recall Apple even being involved at the moment that architectural decision was made [wikipedia.org]. Or are you saying that this was the reason Apple acquired NeXT instead of Be? To irritate the Beast of Redmond? So tragic that historical accuracy is just a few clicks away, and still it eludes everybody.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JoeMoma ( 1021449 )

      ...it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.
      Does it matter why a company actually adopts open software? Isn't the fact that it's being used more important? Also, what's the harm in a business finding that open software is a way to get an edge on the competition?
      • Yeah, we shouldn't judge based on motivations, but by actions. It's an open platform, why should I care why Nokia made it an open platform?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by xappax ( 876447 )
          why should I care why Nokia made it an open platform?

          Because if they're doing it for cynical, cutthroat competitive reasons, it's not likely they'll stay true to an open model in the future. Of course it's good that they're doing it now, and it doesn't really matter why right now...But we should remember that just because a particular company is embracing open standards or open source now, it doesn't mean they're our BFF. Most likely, they're just doing what's most profitable for them at the moment, an

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by fastest fascist ( 1086001 )
            Wrong. If they're doing it for cynical, cutthroat competitive reasons, it means they have a genuine incentive to stick with an open approach, rather than a flimsy ideological reason. Business doesn't have ethics. You can trust a business to aim for maximum profit, you can not trust them to stick to a philosophy just for the hell of it.

      • Re:irritating ms (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:21AM (#20811533)
        > Does it matter why a company actually adopts open software?

        And anyway, Nokia HAS been playing in the Open Source/Free Software world for a few years now. Made some mistakes, true enough but they are learning the ropes. Or has everyone forgotten those cool N770 and N800 tablets already?

        The change from closed to open smart phones was already underway, Apple may have unwittingly acellerated the trend to a seachange by giving the world (with a product the press just won't STFU about) an object lesson in just WHY a customer doesn't want a closed smartphone.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by El Lobo ( 994537 )
      Yes, sometimes I feel like this is not Slashdot but some kindergarten. Serioulsly, here you the laws of Economics are sometimes weaker than the "my father is stronger than yours" laws.

    • So tragic that historical accuracy is just a few clicks away, and still it eludes everybody.

      That would make an excellent sig line.

      • What I would like is a 2nd SciFi Channel that doesn't need to censor parts out of most everything good they show.

        I totally agree! Like on the action/adventure film Grizzly Planet about a group of marines in the woods up against intelligent stock footage of grizzly bears. They showed the two furry gloves clutching either side (in close-up!) of the marine's screaming head, but then the next scene was the head rolling under some bushes. For the gods' sake (what's a sake?) where were the neck tendons and spi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by aliquis ( 678370 )
      Yeah, only reason I pressed the comment section was to say "Yeah, because it can't have been because it was free and available?"

      Pure bs summary.
    • I had the same thought. And the claim that Safari was built on open-source work just to bug Redmond is equally specious. There's no reason to think that Apple started with KHTML for any reason other than that it was a useful springboard. In fact, there's good reason not to [wikipedia.org].

      And the second article linked in TFS is a year-old reactionary piece from InfoWorld. Whoop-de-doo. Here [209.85.165.104] is the cached text, since it was Slashdotted within the first 20 comments. And IANAD, but this Apple page [apple.com] sure does make it look like
    • Somehow Microsoft has been elevated to a mythical godlike status. They are omnipresent, all-powerful, and strongly despised. Similiar to other myths like the Illuminati that secretly runs all world affairs, or Area 51 that hides extraterrestrial beings and spacecraft from the public, combined with a bit a rabid frothing hate like those that believe George Bush is Neo-Con Hitler.

    • Well, and let's face it: If you're going to develop a new OS, doesn't it make sense to at least *start* from one of the already-existing open source operating systems? It saves tons of development costs to just grab one of the BSD varieties that already exist, and then rewrite it for your own purposes. Even if you want to close off development immediately, A BSD license allows you to do that.

      There is hardly any reason anymore to start writing an OS completely from scratch. I guess it might make sense to

    • So tragic that historical accuracy is just a few clicks away, and still it eludes everybody.
      I believe GP was referring to the open sourcing of Darwin, not necessarily the choice of Mach kernel. Still, I think that this was more of an effort for Apple to ingratiate itself with the Linux community. This move (arguably) failed, and I believe that Darwin has gone closed-source again.

    • And wrong to boot (Score:3, Informative)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) *
      Not only that, but the submission is wrong. That Tom Yager Infoworld piece that is linked was Yager's reaction to the fact that Apple hadn't yet open sourced the Intel kernel, and ran it under the sensationalist headline "Apple closes down OS X".

      Except for the fact that at WWDC, they announced that the Intel kernel [apple.com] would continue to be open alongside PowerPC [apple.com], as it always had.

      Anyone is welcome to see for themselves [apple.com]. At the same time, Apple also launched Mac OS Forge [macosforge.org], Apple's clearinghouse for its open sourc

  • true in part (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phrostie ( 121428 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:45AM (#20810193)
    in part i agree with this, but even then, if BSD wasn't a solid base to begin with(and this is from a linux user) the marketing wouldn't have been enough.

    they used it because it worked.

     

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Marcion ( 876801 )
      True in part because you also have to use Windows to use the SDK.

      No SDK for Linux and if you hack it to work on Linux via Wine then you break the terms of the licence.

      Apologies for the plug but I was just moaning about this today [commandline.org.uk].
  • Does this mean that Nokia will no longer support subsidy locking in their products?

    Of course not, they'll keep shipping phones that are locked, so this ad campaign means nothing, and might actually backfire if enough people stop and say "Now, waitaminute..."
    • They either keep shipping phones that are locked, or they won't be shipping phones at all.

    • Re:So, does this mean they'll all be unlocked? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Javi0084 ( 926402 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:54AM (#20810303)
      I believe you can buy unlocked phones directly from Nokia. If you buy it from a telco, you are buying a phone locked by the telco themselves.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by clonmult ( 586283 )
      The big difference is that when you unlock a Nokia (which is either free, or just a few quid over here in the UK), you can still do the various firmware updates without bricking the device.

      Until Apple came to the party, unlocking of phones to allow use on other networks was pretty much taken for granted. They've now chosen to change this mode of operation, and people are starting to get just a little ticked off.

      Unlocking is extremely popular in the UK (obviously, can't comment on the US), with market stall

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Last time I checked you could order all of Nokia's phones unlocked from Nokia. Seems to me they offer you the choice of taking the subsidy or not. The choice is up to the consumer which sounds very open to me.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:14AM (#20810559)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arivanov ( 12034 )
        Further to this Nokia is the only common phone on which you can replace the operator menu with one of your liking (at least on O2). The operator crap is just another built-in application with the same rights and privileges as any other. While you cannot remove it, you can make it get out of your sight.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Yer Mum ( 570034 )

      On Nokia phones, firmware upgrades have nothing to do with unlocking. If your phone was unlocked before upgrading, it'll stay unlocked afterwards. Likewise, if your phone was locked before upgrading, it'll still be locked afterwards. A firmware upgrade does not mean the phone will return to its locked state or turn into a brick.

      In European countries where the network subsidises the phone, customers can ask their network for the unlock code after a year (by which time it's assumed the network will have rec

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dave420 ( 699308 )
      It's usually down to the carrier whether the phone is locked, not the mobile phone manufacturer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arivanov ( 12034 )
      It does not matter how many people say "waitaminute"

      It matters only how many people will write to the Advertising Standard Agency (or its equivalent in their jurisdiction) saying "waitaminute".
    • But they do sell unlocked phones directly to the public, so what's your freakin' problem?

      Apple could do that, but they don't. As far as I know, Palm is the only other company willing to look out for the consumer in that way.

      If carriers didn't lock phones, you wouldn't be able to get them at half their actual price. And Nokia is the only company in this business with more clout than the carriers themselves. Denigrate them for sleeping with the enemy all you want, but that are more responsible than anyone for

  • Companies exist to make money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:45AM (#20810197) Homepage
    " it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head"

    The purpose of a company is generally to make money, not to crusade for some political stance. The investors want a good return on their investment, not a philosophy. You are living in a dream world if you think the number 1 aim of most companies isn't to maximise their profits. Any kind of 'belief' about open or closed source etc is very much a secondary concern, and always will be. If it wasn't they would quickly find themselves losing market share and customers to the the competition.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 )
      In other news, it would be better if I were spending my Monday morning sitting poolside with a tall glass of iced orange juice and a Game Boy while beautiful women fanned me gently with palm leaves, but it's just not in the cards somehow.

    • The purpose of a company is generally to make money, not to crusade for some political stance. The investors want a good return on their investment, not a philosophy.

      Right. And, assuming our government does a good job of protecting the market, it's actually *our* job as consumers to show them that we'll pay for what they want - ie, their desire to make money is aligned with our desire to get good stuff. In this case, they're seeing the crap slung about with regard to the heavily protected iPhone and dec

  • Nokia development (Score:5, Informative)

    by PlatyPaul ( 690601 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:46AM (#20810209) Homepage Journal
    For those intrigued by the ads, here [nokia.com] is where to get started for Nokia development. It is important to note that all applications must be signed [wikipedia.org] (expounded on here [nokia.com]), with the option (but not requirement) of doing things through a Symbian Signed [symbiansigned.com] certificate.

    It should also be noted that Nokia's openness to development in comparison to the iPhone has been suitably documented [thebestpag...iverse.net] previously.
    • I'm not getting the part why signing is required but not getting a certified signature isn't. What does signing offer when anyone can self-sign? Is the entire app encrypted or checksummed so that a non-signed party can't easily hack that app?
      • > I'm not getting the part why signing is required but not getting a certified signature isn't.

        If it isn't a certified sig when you install the app you get a warning box that is a 'development' version and that it may be unstable, damage settings, the phone, sell your soul to the devil while you aren't looking, etc.

        Nothing everyone isn't long used to ignoring after the signed drivers in XP experience.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ctzan ( 908029 )
      I read the thing at:

      http://wiki.forum.nokia.com/index.php/TSS000431_-_Requesting_extended_capabilities_set_for_Developer_Certificates

      I found that racket absolutely disgusting.
      Are people so desperately needing to develop for symbian ?

  • Alturnate View (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:48AM (#20810219)

    While this is to be applauded, it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.
    What utopia are you living in? In what is essentially a capitalistic business world, you ask companies to forget the money, do what's good for mankind? Can I have some of your drugs?

    Seriously, companies like Nokia that "open" their products need to be rewarded regardless of their motivations, we can't change certain qualities of for-profit companies in a for-profit world.

  • Amen. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rindeee ( 530084 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:48AM (#20810229)
    I have to hand it to Nokia. I have had little experience with their products (don't and never have owned a Nokia cell phone), until recently. I'm using a bunch of Nokia N800 Internet Tablets for a project and they're great (cue Tony the Tiger)! Seriously, if you have a Bluetooth phone and don't have an N800, you're missing it. I'm seriously considering dumping voice service and going to a data only package, using the N800 with SIP for my voice needs. I'm looking forward to what Nokia has in the works for the next gen (WiMax maybe), but in the interim I will enjoy the onslaught of great FOSS projects running on the Maemo platform usable on the N800. Nokia has really produced a great open hardware platform in the N800 and I applaud them for their 'walking the walk'.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      I've got an n800 and I'm using it for Skype. It's working rather well so far, though I haven't had occasion to use it much.

      I also use it for reading ebooks a -lot-, and it's been great for that as well. (Using fbreader.)

      I used to -hate- their phones, and I'm still no real fan of them, but the n800 was well worth the money.

  • truly believe in openness? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by darjen ( 879890 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:48AM (#20810239)

    it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.
    Why would this be any better? And why does it matter? The end result is the same... consumers being provided with products they want, rather than being locked down. I applaud Nokia and their efforts in bringing the N800 to market. I recently purchased one and would take this over the iPhone any day.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )
      I too have an N800, and my only complaint is that it requires a bluetooth compatible phone for 3G/GPRS connectivity, if it had this built in it would be ideal for me (carrying 2 devices around is a little clunky).
      • > ...it requires a bluetooth compatible phone for 3G/GPRS connectivity, if it had this built in it would be ideal...

        No, it would just be repeating the same damned mistake that destroyed Palm. A phone is a phone and a PDA/Tablet is a PDA. No Phone can have enough screen real estate to be useful as a PDA and conversely any useful PDA is too freaking big to hold as a phone. If you are a total convert to the bluetooth earpiece it could work from an exgineering standpoint but still get stuck on practical m

  • They do trully believe it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by XorNand ( 517466 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:49AM (#20810243)
    Companies exist to make money. If being more open allows them to make more money, then then they "truly" believe in it. QED.

    Corporations are amoral amalgamations of many different kinds of people with different goals; they are not the single-minded overlords that so many working folk like to paint them to be. The only thing they agree on is making a profit.

  • You sure about that? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AlXtreme ( 223728 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:55AM (#20810317) Homepage Journal

    Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft.

    I was under the impression that Apple wanted to dump their aging code base and get a tried-and-proven *nix kernel + HTML/JS engine for free.


    Flame me all you want, but I haven't noticed a lot of open-source love (or user-love in general) from Apple, and I'm sure they didn't use Darwin because they wanted to annoy Microsoft. If they wanted to annoy Microsoft, they would have joined the Linux/OpenOffice/Firefox-camp.


    No matter how Apple fanboys twist reality, bricking a phone is yet another way how Apple rapes their user base. It goes to show that no matter how you abuse your customers, great PR fixes everything.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by simong ( 32944 )
      Mac OS was undergoing a massive revision before the move to BSD started - Copland [wikipedia.org] and Gershwin [wikipedia.org] were both attempts at revising the Mac OS before Steve returned with OpenStep in his pocket and presented it as a finished product, first named Rhapsody and then OS X. OpenStep might have been a version of NextStep released under the GPL, but it certainly wasn't free - Apple paid $400 million for NeXT Inc, and Rhapsody's list price in 1997 was $499. The 'Linux/OpenOffice/Firefox camp' scarcely existed in 1997.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Stamen ( 745223 )

      Flame me all you want, but I haven't noticed a lot of open-source love (or user-love in general) from Apple, and I'm sure they didn't use Darwin because they wanted to annoy Microsoft. If they wanted to annoy Microsoft, they would have joined the Linux/OpenOffice/Firefox-camp

      I think if you compare Apple, in this instance OS X, to something like Linux it will compare as closed and locked down; as anything compared to Linux (or even more-so BSD) is going to look that way. But if you compare it to Windows, it looks very open, and open source friendly.

      OS X is based on open source (I believe this decision was made by engineers at NeXT, way before Apple had anything to do with it), and the user space is BSD, so you can do, basically, anything software-wise, that you can do in BSD.

    • Re:You sure about that? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kalidasa ( 577403 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:35AM (#20811799) Journal

      Let me just point out that WebKit, the Apple HTML rendering engine, which is based upon KHTML, the origional KDE HTML rendering engine, has a Subversion repository from which you can download code, that you can submit patches just like you can for Firefox, and that the code is now used by KDE, AtheOS, Apple, and ... wait for it ...

      NOKIA.

      WebKit [webkit.org]
      Ars Technical article about unforking of KHTML and WebKit [arstechnica.com]
      Aplications Using WebKit [webkit.org]
      Nokia S60 website page for WebKit based web browser [s60.com] (yeah, the registrant for that website is Nokia).

      So, you see, things are a lot more complicated than some folks seem to think.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by m2943 ( 1140797 )
        So, you see, things are a lot more complicated than some folks seem to think.

        I don't see anything "complicated" about it: Apple is complying with the KHTML license, that's all. This doesn't make them some shining open source star.

        If Apple actually cared about open source, there would be a bunch of things they could do: make an official Gtk+ port, release their Objective C 2.0 runtime open source, open source Cocoa, support ext3, stop badmouthing Linux, etc.

  • Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by minginqunt ( 225413 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @09:56AM (#20810323) Homepage Journal
    It's disingenuous, because we all know that any handset is as open as the network allows. Which is to say, not very. If a handset manufacturer won't agree to their capricious whims, they just won't carry it. Insta-death for Mr Phone.

    Although you can download 3rd party applications to my phone (Nokia N80 on Vodafone), that's only to the extent that Vodafone allows.

    Nokia might like to think they're open. In reality, it's just not their decision, alas.

    • It's disingenuous, because we all know that any handset is as open as the network allows. Which is to say, not very. If a handset manufacturer won't agree to their capricious whims, they just won't carry it. Insta-death for Mr Phone.

      Huh!!! if it's a GSM phone, then the network provider can't do anything to disallow the
      phone on their network. You buy a new GSM phone from a phone retailer, remove the SIM card
      from your existing phone & insert it into the new phone. Voila - you are ready to go.
      Also, all the

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by arivanov ( 12034 )
        I suggest you learn the GSM spec before making rash comments.

        Each phone has a unique number (also known as IMEI). Part of this number is the phone model and manufacturer (similar to the way an Ethernet MAC is tied up to a manufacturer). It is possible to reject a specific phone or specific phone model based on IMEI and the support is there in all GSM networks. While this is rare and not done in anger, it is not impossible to do.

        Further to this some of the reject codes a network can give cause a mandatory sh
        • I suggest you learn the GSM spec before making rash comments.

          I would suggest that the GSM spec has very little to do with whether or not the networks will sell, subsidise and support a particular phone.

          A phone that is not supported in this way has very little chance of market penetration, and the networks know this well, and use it to get manufacturers to lock their handsets down.

          I'm well aware that unlocked phones from no-name manufacturers exist and can be used on any network; That wasn't really my point.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by fbjon ( 692006 )
            That depends very much on the laws of the country. I've never seen a locked GSM phone myself.

      • I think what you meant was that GSM mobile providers cannot simply disallow phones that were unlocked by other means than carrier-provided services. Unlocking a phone has been shown to be a legal practice and is endorsed in many countries.

        However, carriers CAN "brick" phones using the phone's IMEI. For instance, this is done when a user reports their phone to be stolen. The SIM on the stolen phone is disablea and, in many instances, the phone itself is placed on a blacklist via IMEI, thus preventing it to


  • People get confused about Apple and open source. Apple is mainly an open-source consumer, what they produce/contribute is basically the bare minimum that they have to.

    And this make sense. Apple is not about openness. They are about lock-in. This is part of what lets them provide such a smooth and simple experience (and charge the highest margins in the industry).

    So, it's about time that Apple competitors started pointing this out to people.

    But, it's an indication of powerful Apple has become that the #1

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iangreen ( 793707 )
      "After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft."

      Yeah, everyone knows the main factors driving huge tech decisions are what will piss off your opponent the most, never mind software quality, revenue, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by c_forq ( 924234 )
      Highest margin in the industry? Are you sure about that? I think Sun has quite high margins on their workstations, Voodoo and Alienware I think have higher margins on their desktops, and last I looked Acer had a few models of laptops with some pretty crazy margins on them (Ferrari branded if I recall correctly). Apple may have higher margins than Dell or HP, but they are far from the highest in the industry.

    • Re:About time somebody called out Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:40AM (#20810911) Homepage

      And this make sense. Apple is not about openness. They are about lock-in.

      I don't know that that's fair. I mean, I'd agree that Apple isn't "about openness", but not being "about openness" doesn't necessarily mean you're "about lock-in".

      It seems to me that Apple is "about" producing the sort of products that Steve Jobs thinks are cool. Sometimes this means being open, sometimes it means being closed. Every once in a blue moon, it means some kind of lock-in, but it's relatively rare.

      For example, Apple doesn't really use proprietary file-formats or network protocols. Even when they invent their own, they generally open those new formats and protocols to other developers. The only three things I can think of where they aren't very open are the iPhone, Aqua, and FairPlay DRM. For the iPhone, I expect AT&T is pressuring them to stay closed, for FairPlay we know that the RIAA is pressuring Apple to stay secure. With the UI for OSX, it'd just suck for their business model if all Linux/BSD distros were suddenly able to offer the same GUI.

      But it's not as though Apple is engaging in the sort of vendor lock-in that Microsoft is.

    • Re:About time somebody called out Apple (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nevali ( 942731 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:58AM (#20811117) Homepage
      Yeah, Bonjour, Open Directory, Darwin, WebKit, Darwin (QuickTime) Streaming Server, and a whole bunch besides... evidently the "bare minimum". With the exception of WebKit and the few bits and pieces of Darwin that come from third-parties under licenses that require it, there's an awful lot that Apple have made available--a fair amount of it Apple-developed code--that they didn't have to in the slightest.

  • Nokia N770,N800 open long before the iPhone (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sure they are not phones but tiny computers running linux. I have both of them, I kept the old N770 because I like reading books with it. My N800 has 16GB storage and is my iPod substitute (audio+ video). Unlike the iPod, N800 and N770 are real linux computers and and can do many things in addition to playing audio and video. As an iPod substitute N800 can play many video and audio formats which an ipod cant play (sure after installing suitable Linux software). Unlike the iPod it has integrated stereo louds

  • Legal restrictions = unhappy market (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:02AM (#20810421) Homepage Journal
    Here's another situation where intellectual property laws really make the market unfriendly to both consumers and producers. Apple has a fantastic interface, but it is really nothing new and exciting -- just a mashup of previous functions that have existed in human interface design for years, if not decades. Yet competitors can't mimic anything because of the outrageously inept intellectual property laws that exist in the States and the in the International Law community.

    I'm anti-IP completely, but I do understand why people feel there is a basic need for some sort of anti-competition protection. Since I feel the market always provides a great balance between consumers and producers, it is legislation that ends up harming both sides.

    Nokia makes a great product. I had the N80 for a few weeks when it came out, but the interface was lacking and it just didn't flow well (too sluggish, IMHO). I still use my HTC Trinity, but even there I'm not 100% happy. There's so much more I'd like to see, a mixup of various interface and software designs from Apple, Nokia, Motorola, HTC and Samsung -- yet this can't happen because it would encroach on whatever patent rights each producer has, leaving us consumer with far-less-than-perfect products, and leaving producers unable to fill what the market desires.

    I tried the iPhone for a week, and it also wasn't perfect. The lack of 3G is significant, the locking to a network is ridiculous, and the overall feel of the product was great but just not cohesive enough to be my primary device. I still travel with 6+ devices (I travel at least 2-3 days a week) and I know I could combine everything into 2 devices, had it not been for the ridiculous patent laws we have today.

    There's no fix to this, and if anything things will get only worse as the companies merge and bring with them even more power in convincing the State that we need MORE laws to fix a problem that is caused by too many regulations in the first place.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by p0tat03 ( 985078 )

      Yet competitors can't mimic anything because of the outrageously inept intellectual property laws that exist in the States and the in the International Law community.

      I call BS on that. Somehow these laws are binding and holding back everybody *except* Apple? I'm not happy with Apple at all for their shenanigans recently with the iPhone, but you have to hand it to them - every industry they enter experiences a resurgence of interest in usability. Do you think Vista would have a slick (or rather, slicker) interface if it weren't for OSX nipping at their heels? I have to congratulate Apple for introducing the most usable phone UI I've ever used, and I pray that other co

  • Did SCO every try to collect a paycheck off of the use of Unix in the iPhone?

  • Um... what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by His name cannot be s ( 16831 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:09AM (#20810511) Journal
    Topic: After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft.

    Um, what?

    I can't be sure, but I'd make a guess and think that Apple didn't use open source mainly because it would irritate Microsoft. I'm sure they had acutal valid business reasons for doing so. (lower costs?, community esprit-de-core?,massive army of unpaid labor?, time to market?) Even if it would "irritate" Microsoft (which I can't figure out why Microsoft would care about where Apple gets it's source code from--especially in these days of the new Kinder, Gentler Microsoft) it hardly seems like a valid business move.

    Thanks for the daily slap-Microsoft-because-you-can though.

    *sigh*

  • Good News, IMHO. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:12AM (#20810541)
    Whether Nokia itself is open, is neither here nor there. The move is good news, IMHO for one reason - it is turning the question of lock-in into a commercial/marketing issue. It's competitors going after it in advertisements for undue lock in and lock-down is going to be more influential than any discussion-board griping. It may drive Apple to revisit the SDK issue off its own bat, but just as important it may provide Apple with valuable ammunition in discussions with AT&T over the degree of control necessary in terms of allowing 3rd party apps.

  • While this is to be applauded, it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.

    What makes altruism in this case “better”? Innovation is born from necessity and competition. Evolution is not sparked because it makes someone feel warm and cuddly with sunshine and rainbows, but because of the need to survive. History has proved that open platforms are essential in this market and those who

  • When will people learn that corporations do not have feelings? They are mandated to make profit, nothing more. And everything they do is for the purpose of maximizing shareholder equity. It is the law.

    Stop pretending they have wants or desires other than profit, and then you wont be surprised when Nokia is only promoting open systems in order to make profit.

  • Not really open? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
    I've seen a number of reports that just like Apple, Nokia does not permit unsigned apps on Symbian phones.

    It's really sad when a Microsoft product (Windows Mobile) is the most open of the mainstream mobile OSes. You get a warning the first time you try to run an unsigned app on a Windows Mobile device, but that's it.

    The only thing more open than Windows Mobile I've seen so far is OpenMoko. Most of the other Linux-for-phone implementations appear to be Tivoized to varying degrees.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by simong ( 32944 )
      Not true, certification can be disabled in most Symbian phones: the installer warns that you are installing an uncertified app but will install it anyway. I say 'most' as my more recent experience has been with the E61 and the 9300 and I can't vouch for other phones.

  • it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.

    Hey, competition works. Enlightened self-interest is a powerful motivator for the overall good of the masses, so why do you have to knock on it in the name of some all powerful moral reason being better? Accept what works, and fix what doesn't.

  • What a nonsensical write up. It would be nice if a lot of things happened, if I won the lottery, if my company decided to hire only lovely nymphomaniac ladies from now on and many other nice things which would be nice if they happened.

    If the writer really thinks that any business opened their products purely because they belived in "openess" without it also making sense for them from a making money point of view then he'd have to be as stupid as someone who believes that Apples primary motivation is to irri

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by seebs ( 15766 )
      Well said. It's pretty much crazy. I mean, I know I'm not supposed to accept serious analysis from Slashdot, but WTF?
  • They need to lock down their OS, because they want to sell their overpriced hardware along. Same with all their devices. They need to make it easy to develope for the Mac, because the PC is all about the apps. But not (yet) in the phone market. So there is actually no reason for them to let you run your own apps.
    OTOH Symbian is about as open as Windows. Same with the Linux Motorola sells with their phones. But at least you can develope for Symbian and sell you apps.

  • I think Nokia is screwing around with the definition for "open".

    The phone will be unlocked! Big deal, I can get unlocked smart phones already... The real question is "Can I run any application I want on it?"

    Of course I can't forget that other important question "Would I want to actually use this phone, even if it was truly open?" Because, let's face it... Nokia has made some really bad phones before!

    So Nokia, you have a tall order to fill: (1) Let me run anything I want on it and (2) Let the phone have

  • FYI: Infoworld article out of date (Score:3, Informative)

    by Reverberant ( 303566 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:38AM (#20810887) Homepage

    WRT to the linked Infoworld article in the post: it's out of date, Apple has since released the source [macworld.com] to the Intel Mac OS X kernel.

    Not that this will change anyone's opinion one way or the other.

  • Oh whatever Nokia, where was your openness before the iPhone came about?

    What, no competition -- no worries?

    No thanks, I'll take the innovative iPhone.

  • No, seriously, what is it?

    If it is meant to be a video iPod with a built-in phone and web browser then all this talk about openness is pretty irrelevant - and keeping it closed will help ensure that it "just works".

    If, however, its supposed to be a pocket computer then keeping it closed is a major handicap.

    I suspect that Apple see it more as an iPod + Phone - but /.ers are more interested in a pocket computer.

    The other Big Question is how enthusiastic Apple really are about making a 'phone, or wheth

  • Apple & OS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cleon ( 471197 ) <cleon42@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Monday October 01, 2007 @10:59AM (#20811139) Homepage
    I think any support Apple had for the open source concept went out the window when they started making sweetheart deals with companies in other industries. iTunes was hugely successful--but in order to make it work with the RIAA, Apple put in DRM. With its success from the iPod, the iPhone was almost guaranteed to be a success. But they signed this deal with AT&T, which is a complete anathema to anything remotely approaching open source--just ask the poor schlubs who are carrying around $500 bricks.

    The thing is, if Apple *wants* to support "open source" ideas, they can--they just have to choose to make it a company principle and be aggressive about it. They're successful enough that they can make it work. But the reality is, they have no incentive to do so.

    Compare the situation with IBM, who is heavily backing FOSS. In fact, doing so has likely saved the company; their proprietary products simply weren't doing well, and the company was a mess in the 90s. AIX, OS/2--really, the company had very little going for it. Nobody was adopting their technologies. So they started investing in technology that people were adopting--Linux, Java, and so forth. Many of which were either open source or OS-friendly (Java).

    Apple has no similar motivation to go the OS route. People are buying their technology, in droves. They have no reason to open up the iPod or iPhone API, or stop the DRM implementation in iTunes (though this may change as non-DRM competition gets stronger).

    For that to change, either Apple has to adopt a pro-FOSS ideology, or find themselves in a situation where a closed-source viewpoint is hurting their bottom line.

  • Do you want to know why there's no 3rd party "SDK" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Talez ( 468021 ) on Monday October 01, 2007 @11:27AM (#20811659)
    Think of the shiny new APIs that the iPhone currently uses (Core Animation and resolution independence being the big ones) and look at what's not in Tiger but is in Leopard.

    Like hell Apple is going to expose those APIs to commoners like us before the big 10.5 release. Developers pay big bucks to have access to that shit before the rest of us and Apple isn't about to kill of that rather lucrative little market. Watch how either XCode 3.0 or XCode 3.1 after Leopard's release supports the iPhone as a target architecture and watch Apple tout it as "So you can write an OS X app? You can write an iPhone app!". Also stay tuned for the retarded Digg post that says "WE WIN! APPLE BOWS DOWN TO THE PRESSURE AND OPENS UP THE IPHONE TO THIRD PARTY APPS!".

  • it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.

    Why? Who cares why they open their products? Even if they do it just because "open" is a marketing buzzword they don't understand, then it's still open.

    If you care why they do it because you want to be sure their products stay open, then competition is probably the best way. Except of course the part where the open products inspire a community which buy their

  • This would be a decent article, but unfortunately the first half of the summary has absolutely nothing to do with the second half. And that infoworld link? Woefully out of date. See http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ [apple.com]. What's that on the left there? Buildable sources for OS X 10.4.4-10.4.9 on both PPC and Intel? 10.4.10 isn't there but that's probably because they're running a little behind, not some whacko conspiracy theory that was disproven a month or so after that article. And let's not

Slashdot Top Deals

It isn't easy being the parent of a six-year-old. However, it's a pretty small price to pay for having somebody around the house who understands computers.

Close