Should Apple Open Source the iPhone? 379
An anonymous reader writes "Given the OpeniBoot project is just a breath away from getting Android onto the iPhone, maybe Apple should consider opening up the platform. This post has five reasons, but I think there are far more. Without open source, Apple will find itself in the same position as today's Microsoft in seven years."
Oh no! Success (Score:5, Funny)
Without open source, Apple will find itself in the same position as today's Microsoft in seven years.
The largest software producer on the planet? Perish the thought! That would be TERRIBLE!
Anyway, I don't like the iPhone either but let's face it, some people are zebras and others would just as soon kill you as open a pack of gum.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
WITH open source, Apple will find itself in the same position as today's IBM. (looks at PC). Nope not an IBM and soon Iphone/Macintosh will not be apple if they go down this road.
Re: (Score:2)
WITH open source, Apple will find itself in the same position as today's IBM.
You mean Apple will start making lots of money from business services and high-end servers?
Re:Oh no! Success (Score:4, Funny)
Well as an Apple stockholder (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare: The glory days of MSFT are over. It is no longer a growth company. That stock made a lot of early adopters rich, but MS is a victim of its own monopoly. Where do they go from here, other than forcing needless OS upgrades down XP users' throats?
Re:Well as an Apple stockholder (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer Apple's performance over Linux. I have been using Linux for more than 10 years, and I still think it's not nearly ready for the desktop. Many commercial systems or programs still outperform their open source compatitors by far. Give me a phone that works, not one that I have to tinker with for a long time to get something simple working.
Re:Well as an Apple stockholder (Score:5, Funny)
"Every single application that I've needed has, so far, been superior to its proprietary equivalent once I adapted to it."
Er... I think you'll have to define your terms there. Tell me, does that free software have wizards and shiny metal UIs? When you install a DVD burning util, does it install its own little media player and a few other little utils? A toolbar to help you browse the web more effectively? Call me back when the free software installs some other related software from other companies without even having to be asked. Often, that other software even automatically gives you hints as to how you can buy yet more software. I for one tried using Linux and found that it barely even gave me any incentive to upgrade my software as each version seemed to be backwards and forwards compatible with the other version. It was practically encouraging me switch over to something different. WHENEVER I FELT LIKE IT. It sucked basically.
I think that FOSS has a way to go before it has caught up with proprietary software.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well said. A few examples:
I still use Linux at work. Ubuntu no less, touted by many as the most user-friendly desktop Linux out there. Yesterday I downloaded Acrobat Reader, because that bloated piece of rubbish is a better pdf-viewer than the standard viewer that comes with Ubuntu. On my Macs I never had the feeling I needed something better than Preview.
A friend of mine recently switched back from Ubuntu to Windows because she couldn't get her microphone working. What the..?!!
Re:Well as an Apple stockholder (Score:5, Insightful)
Where does MS go from here? Oh, I don't know... Consoles, handheld music players, cell phones, car control systems, Internet search...
Oh wait, they're falling in all of those (consoles excepted) because they waited for someone else to forge the path, then were unable to buy the leader out as easily as they have been able to in desktop software.
Microsoft isn't suffering from success, they're suffering from a profound lack of vision.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft isn't suffering from success, they're suffering from a profound lack of vision.
That may have been the wrong thing to say. Watch out for incoming chairs...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, old story, old argument. Apple will never fully open source its products and will fight to keep them closed. It's who they are, and when I use my Apple MacBook I appreciate OS X all the more when I boot back into it from Ubuntu. OS X just works because of Apple's tight integration of software and hardware. As long as my Touch works, why would I load Android and fight to get the features that I already have? For a hobby? Apple isn't selling millions of iPods to hobbyists, they're selling them to thos
Re: (Score:2)
in other words they'll have too much money to care what customers think about their products because the products sell themselves... (waits for trolls)
What company wouldn't want enough cash on hand to be able to NOT SELL STUFF for a whole year? (of course what kinds of products would they make?)
Re:Oh no! Success (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit I had a similar response. There are so utterly few open source projects that succeed in any large financial way, apple are a company that wants to make money, and the iPhone is one of the biggest gadget successes in the last 5 years - their iPod is one of the others.
This post seems to say Apple should dump surefire success and go for something risky and likely to flush all their efforts into the toilet. Goodluckwiththat indeed.
Re:Oh no! Success (Score:5, Interesting)
It's poorly worded. I read it as, "In seven years, Apple might find itself in the position of Microsoft today [in 2008]."
Microsoft's market share is going down, but the grandparent meant to point out that Microsoft of 2008 has just under 90% of the market. Apple should be so lucky.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Vista is doing fine????
That would be why take up is vitrually non existant in the corporate/education sector. Vista is an epic fail.
Every single person I know who has a Vista machine wants to dongrade to XP. Must be some strange new meaning of the word "Fine" I haven't previously encountered.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And there I was thinking its just an expression.
I "picked it up" hanging around Slashdot.
Amusingly, that makes you one of the people you refer to, and I am suitably impressed by your taste.
So, would you prefer
1. Unmitigated disaster.
2. Bloated DRM riddled piece of shit.
3. Pile of slow inefficient rubbish that no one wants.
When the range of people I know that want to be rid of Vista goes from teenagers to middle aged housewives to the elderly, I think that is a fair spread.
In between posts another person cam
Microsoft in 7 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Without open source, Apple will find itself in the same position as today's Microsoft in seven years."
You say that as if it were a bad thing. I'm guessing that despite the recent drop to 89% marketshare MS is feeling just fine.
I'm not saying OSS would be a bad move for Apple or the iPhone, but to say that if they aren't careful they might end up completely dominating the market and rolling around in mountains of cash isn't going to get your point across to most people.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not saying OSS would be a bad move for Apple or the iPhone, but to say that if they aren't careful they might end up completely dominating the market and rolling around in mountains of cash isn't going to get your point across to most people.
Oh NOES!!! Teh moneeeez!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I can't imagine what is going through the submitters head. Are they saying that if they go open source they will never be successful? Sounds like a good reason to drop OSS
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but for different reasons.
Apple won't be Microsoft ever, because unlike Microsoft Apple actually uses open standards. Sometimes they help to develop them, but even when that's not they case they haven't hesitated to use them. Microsoft has a history of releasing competing technologies, then leverage their large market share to drive open standards into the ground. When they try to play the open standards game it has to be their standard, and the rest of the world is expected to conform. OOXML an
The music space... (Score:3, Interesting)
"iTunes + iPod are killing everyone else in the music space."
Digital sales are 20% of retail. Apple sells 70% of digital. That's a total market share of 14%. How is that "killing everyone else"? There are plenty of other digital sellers (Amazon), other players (Zune, Archos, cell phones), and services and models (Rhapsody, XM).
Further, in many ways Apple acts as an enabler in the space. iTunes provides a platform for lesser known artists. The iPod/iPhone provides a home for Amazon's MP3's, Audible's audiobo
Re:Microsoft in 7 years? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously. Talking about their stock price right now is an extremely dishonest way to look at it, and saying they are "ratcheting downward" seems to be totally ignoring the size of the rate.
They've lost... 1.9 points from their marketshare in the last 10 months (oh, the horrors!) and are down *only* 44% from their 52-week high. SPY is down 41% from their 52-week high. FCX (to pick a random stock) is down 82% from their 52 week high. Citigroup is down 77% and Apple is down 48%.
Given the rest of the market, MSFT is doing just fine right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people have WMT [yahoo.com] (-13%) in their 401k.
those who dont learn from history (Score:3, Interesting)
are doomed to repeat it
one would think apple would have learned from their past mistake of a less closed platform overtaking them and nearly sending the company down the drain
Re: (Score:2)
Did people ever need a license to sell Macintosh software beyond paying for a copy of MPW or what-have-you? I don't think so. This is going to be a new and excitingly different lesson that Apple learns.
Re: (Score:3)
All you do is sign up for a free developer account and you can download the iphone SDK.
They did... (Score:5, Interesting)
one would think apple would have learned from their past mistake of a less closed platform overtaking them and nearly sending the company down the drain
Apple went down the drain more from the clones. Look, Apple's whole thing is about the entire consumer experience from store to computer hardware to boot. It always has been and hopefully always will be. To say that Apple should just be like Microsoft, is kinda crazy. Apple doesn't have the money to compete with Microsoft or Dell and so the real brand differentiator is that they have an entirely different business model.
mod parent up... business model is key (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying the clones had a better customer experience? Because it looks to me as though if a company can be damaged by clones, then the reason for that is that most of the people who use its products just want the product itself, and don't give a damn about the "consumer experience" or the trendy white stores.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mac clones gave people pretty much the identical experience to using a Mac. In fact, most clones used very slightly modified Apple motherboards, and required a strenuous testing process to be legally sold. The problem is that they undercut Apple's prices without making the market for Macs any bigger. Also, this was in the days of Mac OS 7.6, before Steve Jobs' return, before the iMac, before Apple really figured out the whole lifestyle thing despite numerous attempts.
Re:They did... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to be contentious, but you might want to review your statements before posting.
Dell market cap on 12/10/2008: $23.41 billion.
Apple cash in the bank at quarter ending Sep 08: $24.49 billion.
Apple could write a check for Dell and have a billion dollars left over. If they aren't competing with Dell, it's not because of a lack of money.
So, uh.... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if Apple has more money in the bank than Microsoft and has more money in the bank than Dell's market cap, exactly why should Apple change its strategy to be more like Dell?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...being able to compete in the low-end PC market..."
Everyone repeats this fallacy, which assumes that Apple WANTS to compete in the low-end PC market. Why get into a major dogfight over a few pennies?
It's akin to saying (car analogy coming) that if BMW wanted to dramatically increase their market share they should create a competitor to the Yugo or Yaris.
And drop their margins accordingly. Apple has a nice premium brand that appeals to a lot of people. Why screw it up?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple went down the drain more from the clones.
Apple went down the drain due to slow processors and slower, buggy operating systems. The very early OS 7s (7.1, for example) were solid, fast...of course the fastest processor at the time was about 33 MHz. Then came 7.5.3 where Apple was on its knees and it was rumored to be the "last MacOS".
With the price point of Apple hardware higher than PCs and the advent of Windows NT taking over Graphic Designer's workstations, all of a sudden Apple had to work harder
Re: (Score:2)
one would think apple would have learned from their past mistake of a less closed platform overtaking them and nearly sending the company down the drain
Huh? If anything, the original IBM PC was more closed than the Apple II...
Re:those who dont learn from history (Score:5, Funny)
And those who do learn from history go mad while watching the same shit happen over and over again.
Will never happen (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely they will try to find a way to prohibit Android from being installed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OP is not asking if the OS should be open-sourced. They're asking if the platform should be open for development.
Two vastly different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of the way that MS open sourced the development of, say, the XBox or the Zune?
Oh, hi, Troll. I didn't see you there! Come in! Come in!
Stay and chat!
Why the Bleep should they? (Score:5, Interesting)
A huge part of the reason why people buy the iPhone is the unified user experience. Yes, I'd like a platform that I don't have to pay $100 to develop on...
But my mother doesn't care. she wants a smartphone that "Just Works": its easy to use, with lots of apps.
Apple has provided a great unified user experience on the iPhone, and thats the secret. Its a smartphone my MOTHER can use.
Opening up the platform wouldn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they are talking about attracting developers in the long run. Which one is more appealing to a software company? An open platform that exposes itself to the world, or one that is closed? It's just good business and we've seen it work. Besides, even your mother would benefit from more developers being attracted to the iPhone. I don't see how it could hurt so long as the major carriers still control the pipeline from the hardware vendor to the consumer.
Re:Why the Bleep should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
From a developer standpoint, the iPhone is actually damn good.
The dev kit is $0, and a signing key/registration is $100. So the barrier to entry is very VERY low.
And the app store is a godsend. A distribution system where the distributor gets a flat 30% and thats it? And already has a micropayment infrastructure? Thats unheard-of nice.
If you can make a $10 app that sells to just 10,000 people, thats $70K gross revenue to you as a small developer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why the Bleep should they? (Score:5, Informative)
Really? For a complete selling infrastructure including payment processing?
Kagi charges like 16%*, and that's just for payment processing -- you still have to do your own distribution and installation. I'm not saying 30% is cheap, but it's hardly unreasonable.
* Kagi has flat fees, percentage fees, and both flat and percentage credit-card fees, so the exact amount varies from order to order. Given a $10 credit-card order it comes out to about 16%.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
30% is not an unreasonable rate. But saying that it is my only choice and I am not allowed to bypass it is unreasonable.
If I think I can do better then I should be able to try. A good merchant account might charge 5%, and the rest is up to me. Yes, it's more work, but if I do a lot of volume then building my own store and website can be well worth it. But I can't even consider it for the iPhone because Apple won't let me.
Re: (Score:2)
The dev kit only runs on Intel systems running OS X. Other systems also have free development kits that run on a greater variety of systems, and they don't even require you to pay any money to the smartphone vendor to get permission to run your own code on your own phone. Nor do they prohibit you from using third-party compilers, interpreters, etc.
And since other vendors don't exclusively control the softwa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can make a $10 app that sells to just 10,000 people...
There's no "just" about selling 10,000 units of anything...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Developers are already being squeezed by the App store shifting towards .99Â apps. Good breakdown on developing for the iPhone here [cnn.com].
Re:Requires a Mac computer (Score:4, Informative)
Plus you'll probably want an iPhone, which is not cheap.
But compare that to other perfectly successful mobile platforms like Windows Mobile, which requires that you buy a Lenovo-compatible PC, MS Windows, and MS Visual Studio. Even assuming you get a cheap CPU bundled with Windows it wouldn't be hard to get to $700. Plus the phone of course. And for Windows Mobile code signing is $300+ per app.
I'm not saying cheaper wouldn't be better, but people are already making good money selling apps that are way more expensive to develop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You got lucky. My company has already wasted at least 4 man-hours today trying to get a development application onto one of our people's iPhones. I haven't been keeping good track but I would hazard a guess that overall we have poured at least 25 man-hours, probably more like 50, just working around Apple's brokenness in this respect.
Yup its hard. But when you're done (Score:2)
it WILL work and you CAN make some money, if enough people agree that your app warrants it.
If you don't want to develop for the iPhone, don't.
Re:Why the Bleep should they? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which ever one has the most users that they can sell their product to so they can make the most money possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one is more appealing to a software company? An open platform that exposes itself to the world, or one that is closed?
A high barrier to entry is always more attractive to smart developers who are willing to pay whatever price and jump through whatever hoops to get over the barrier, and keep the riffraff out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The iPhone app store currently recently hit 10,000 apps and 300 million downloads. How is your open platform app store doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Well they are talking about attracting developers in the long run. Which one is more appealing to a software company? An open platform that exposes itself to the world, or one that is closed?
If you are writing for the iPhone/iPod Touch you've got a fairly consistent target. This won't be the case with Android once the various companies get their phone out. This will lead to the same user experience issues that S60 has. It will require an awful lot of clever coding to get an app to work the same across all Android phones, especially with the varying input methods that will be on offer.
The $ cost of developing for Android may be less than the iPhone. The real cost could be much higher though. Onl
Re: (Score:2)
Do me a favor, and don't capitalize "just works"
Unless you put a (TM) after it. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you're really addressing any important issues here. Apple could open source the iPhone software completely, and even allow people to install software on their own phones freely, without sacrificing the unified user experience. New phones would still come with Apple's default distribution of software, and you'd have to go mucking with internals to get it to break.
For example, when I buy a Mac, Apple is effectively controlling the user experience. I can install whatever applications I like,
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
I know what will get Apple to open up their phone! (Score:3, Insightful)
A loser blogging from "Wahoo's Fish Tacos" who contents "They're Gonna Have to Eventually," and decides put it to a vote: "all those in favor of an open source direction for the iPhone, leave a comment that starts with "+1." All those who think the iPhone should stay buttoned up, leave a comment starting with "-1."
This will be at least as effective as an online petition!
Briar Patch (Score:4, Informative)
GOOG cap $97 Billion
MSFT cap $182 Billion
Sounds good to me. I hope AAPL has twice the value of the rest of the pack.
iPhone open source tool chain... (Score:4, Interesting)
Should Apple Open Source the iPhone? The answer is threefold:
1. We must consider that if hackers mark off the natural paths that official developer programs later pave over and make safe for the less adventurous and smart companies know this, then Apple should - and will - pay attention to their hackers. (Google Maps is a great case in point. It became the mapping platform of choice because, rather than shutting down the early mashup hackers, it quickly figured how to pour fuel on the fire that they'd started.) Despite the official disapproval, Apple knows that the hacker interest in the iPhone is a great boost to their program and their goals. (Witness the fact that the Apple store in Cambridge MA allowed Rob Malda to suck his own cock and to present on iPhone development in a meeting at the store with cum dripping from his jaws.)
2. The open API has a great deal of overlap with the official API. So getting up and running with the open toolchain will help developers get a head start. But it's also more powerful than the official toolchain, and will let developers continue to push Apple in interesting new directions.
3. The demand is there. We should never kid ourselves on this. The number of slots in the official API program is far smaller than the apparent demand. We published the book, and it sold out immediately, indicating that we were right. Information about the official API as soon as the Apple NDA is lifted should be published, but for now, the iPhone is one of the most important new platforms in the market today, and one that developers should be exploring as deeply (and as soon) as possible.
sm2704
A stupid question (Score:5, Insightful)
And secondly, they'll end up like Microsoft? Do you mean they'll end up with 85%+ of the market share? How is that a loss?
I know OSS is real popular around here but let's face facts, MS and Apple have a combined 98% of the marketshare in their primary markets and tons of side markets that are doing well. Give us a real reason they want to be in alignment with the other 2% of the market.
I know, most folks here have a real love for the open source way but when it comes down to making a dollar off it the ratio of wins to loses is pretty sad. Given all the advantages of open source it's hard to understand why it never really got a bigger foothold and now it seems to be little more than that... a foothold that those involved are trying to keep in fear from falling off the mountain altogether.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given all the advantages of open source it's hard to understand why it never really got a bigger foothold and now it seems to be little more than that... a foothold that those involved are trying to keep in fear from falling off the mountain altogether.
Is this a purposeful troll? Linux hasn't done all that well on the desktop, but open source in general has been wildly successful. Open source operating systems are widely used on servers. Firefox has become a very popular browser and continues to grow, Safari is the number 3 browser, and lots of people use some kind of open source applications or tools on a daily basis. Even Apple's OS is largely based on an open source project.
And on top of all that, Linux is starting to do well on the desktop. Thos
Same position? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is Apple's iPhone position anything like MS? In both mobile phones and computers, MS sells their OS software to OEM hardware manufacturers. Some of the problems of MS have come because they have had to support a myriad of devices. Apple sells their hardware with their OS. If anything, with open source, Apple to be like MS in seven years.
Retarded (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would Apple open source their phone?
They already have the attention of the masses, and every phone is compared to the iPhone.
Every company is trying to come up with a handset to compete with it. The managers meet with the project leaders and the first question they ask is undoubtedly "does it have a touch screen?". Every Android-based phone is referred to as a "gPhone".
Why would Apple change their ways?
They are selling overpriced, underpowered, late-featured, shiny, UI-focused, locked-down, restrictiv
Re:Retarded (Score:4, Insightful)
"underpowered"
CPU or battery?
"late-featured"
What features is it missing?
"UI-focused"
Uh.. that's a bad thing? for a smartphone?
What are you comparing it to, anyway? In he US market there's what, like three phones with multitouch interfaces?
Seven years of profitability they won't give up (Score:2, Insightful)
...at which time Apple will either abandon that particular market, or jump on the open source band wagon while Apple fans pat themselves on the back for being flexible and forward thinking. Why would they give up 7 years worth of profit and reverse current trends. Apple have continually tried to close off their hardware. Look at the latest generation of iPods which attempt to prevent users from loading alternate firmware. In any case who knows what will change in 7 years. It'd take them all of 3-6 months to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
C'mon, let's be fair here. They did change, and they did get a hell of a lot better.
That has nothing to do with whether or not you create good products, which I will admit some of Apple's are. Can you use a Zune or a Sansa MP3 player instead of an iPod? Sure you can. Can you use a normal cell phone instead of an i
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, let's be fair here. They did change, and they did get a hell of a lot better
C'mon, you be fair. What did they really do. Put see through cases on their computers and start designing things that were as thin as possible?
Is the iPod really THAT great? I have a 30gig video model and the wheel has always stuck (warranty repair with Apple being a nightmare I've never bothered sending it in) and as your music collection grows you realize the click wheel interface isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
That h
Nah. (Score:5, Funny)
No, I think they should keep it as is, or maybe even lock it up even tighter.
Umm, what were you expecting Slashdotters to say?
Oh yeah, that'll really help (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, Apple is having so much trouble selling iPhones and attracting a developer community that open-sourcing the iPhone is the only way to survive... Wait, what? Apple already has the top-selling smartphone? They already have a huge developer community and thousands of applications in less than six months of having this OS on the market? They've all but killed Palm, made a huge dent in Microsoft's Windows Mobile business, and forced RIM to come out with a poorly-regarded "me too" touchscreen phone while eating market share?
Well, I guess that's how poorly things are going for Apple with a closed design. There's lots of valid reasons why Apple might be well-served to open up more of their iPhone code, but it's not like the current strategy has exactly failed miserably. Right now iPhone is in a pretty enviable place from a development point of view. Apple is early in the 2.0 cycle, and hasn't even implemented all the promised features for developers yet (like central push notification and true turn-by-turn GPS capabilities), and they still have a massive base of developers who are leveraging their Cocoa code and methods to produce iPhone software.
Not to mention that touch in general is a full-fledged platform for Apple. Not just phones, but iPods and likely other devices. Build for the platform and you run on all the devices (unlike, say, RIM's multiple platforms). And they have teh sexy as well in their hardware and UI designs, so there's consumer appeal (compared to, say, the skins manufacturers have had to overlay on Windows Mobile to make it less hostile to users).
There's always going to be people who want to tweak their phone, or run Linux on it because it has a CPU and RAM. But the mass market doesn't give a darn if iPhones are open or closed. They don't care if Android is open, either. They just care that the devices are cool and useful, and that there's plenty of nice software to run that's easy to get. iPhone is leading in that race now, and as long as they're all that, nobody important gives a darn otherwise.
This part's pretty funny (Score:2)
They might be vying for Apple's throne someday. Right now? They're vying for scraps outside the royal kitchen.
Open source not needed (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't care about open source, just give me relatively open platform like OS X. I don't mind if the underlying OS is closed source so long as the dev tools, APIs, and application installation are all open. As long as I know that I can release my application to be installed on other iPhones without going through iTunes (or dev tools), that's all I'm really asking for. I think iTunes still provides a great way to sell and distribute applications, but there's no way I'm developing for a platform where a company can decide on a whim whether or not I can distribute my application.
The development and the iron-clad ties to AT&T are the two reasons I didn't get an iPhone, and this is coming from a huge Mac fanboy. The rest of my family got iPhones, and it's definitely a great phone.
Open Systems needed (Score:2)
Before Open Source, before the GNU Manifesto, there was "Open Systems". Systems built around open APIs, interfaces, and protocols. UNIX was really the big push for Open Systems. If your software used the UNIX APIs, it would run on hardware from just about anyone, with less work than you might expect to do porting it from one release of an operating system to the next. Thanks to efforts like the SOftware Tools VOS, and emulation platforms like Eunice and Phoenix, it would even run on other operating systems
Should Apple Open Source the iPhone? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. They should also make it 100% based on Java.
What then would happen to the movies and music? (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPhone can play DRM'd movies. Yes, DRM and encryption and the like give the Stallman set fits, but it's certainly a key bit of functionality for the phone that would go away if it were open sourced, right?
I just don't really see more benefits to Apple, especially when if the iPhone were open sourced would make it easier to add the stuff to Linux or other competing devices, no? Of course that would _never_ happen, code being snagged and all :-/
Short Answer: No. (Score:2)
Apple is reaping millions from the unwashed masses and unbathed developers. They are becoming rich on the sweat of others while lifting no finger of our own. Their profit margins are at an all-time high. As long as the iPhone remains a unified piece of technology under the control of one boss, it will remain a cohesive product. Upon becoming OSS, it runs the risk of zealots branching off versions purely for the sake of stroking their egos. Stevie is the only allowed stroke the ego when it comes to Appl
Re: (Score:2)
Well, concerning your quote: They are certainly lifting some fingers. You can have a very stable BSD-like kernel (Darwin) without the Aqua overlay (but you're free to load KDE or Gnome on there) for free, no strings attached, code and all. Webkit got very good feedback from Apple. Apple has been working together with FOSS projects, finding and fixing bugs. I currently use XCode for one of my FOSS projects and imho it's better than Eclipse, it's free. There is a lot of source open and very well built SDK's f
Question: what business are you in? (Score:2, Redundant)
Several people have pointed out variations on this, but we'll try again:
Apple sells hardware. To a certain extent, they sell content. I don't know how much the App Store or iTunes makes for them. Maybe a substantial amount. Hardware is their cash cow. Open source the software, and both pillars of their model are lost.
Microsoft sells software. That's self-evident.
OSS companies are generally in the business of selling professional services. i.e., we'll give you the operating system. We will sell you w
Unnecessary (Score:2)
So....Apple will end up king of the industry? (Score:2)
I love you open source nuts...
Open source is wonderful, but what position is Microsoft in today? Microsoft is still king of the industry, their OSes are still the most widely used.
So are you saying that Apple will end up, king of the hill?
MS isnt going anywhere, and Linux is still not a mainstream desktop. Sorry guys, Its a great OS but the lens at which the die hard Linux Zealots look through is so skewed that it distorts reality.
They Cant Open Source the iPhone. (Score:2)
At least not with the GPL (which most people this as Open Source)
There are a lot of closed source code included and legally protected source, like Microsoft License to Hook the iPhone to exchange servers. As well Apple applied for Many patents when they made the iPhone. Then why would Apple want a team of outside developers making changes and "improvements" to the code without Apples control.
Apples success based on the "We Know Best" mentality. Microsoft failure is saying Customer knows best and will try
Rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
Since then: nothing out of Apple, despite mounting pressure from projects like Android that are vying for Apple's throne.
First off, I want to point something out: "Apple's throne" was achieved in less than two years, starting basically from zero, when competing against companies that have been in the cell phone market since the 80s. Keep that in mind when criticizing Apple's business strategies.
Open source is becoming the default way to develop software in many industries.
One SIGNIFICANT subset of the industry where open source is not the default way to develop software: Industries where the user interface matters. Think about how many times you've heard the phrase "As easy to use as Linux".
Open sourcing the iPhone gives customers a much broader selection of applications. Customers faced with a plethora of attractive applications when they visit the app store will spend money.
There is a lot of empirical evidence to refute this. Customers DO NOT want choice. One of the big complaints about Linux is that people have to choose between Ubuntu, Redhat, Slackware, Debian, Kubuntu, Fedora, LFS, Gentoo, etc. Or maybe FreeBSD or NetBSD. And on top of that, Gnome or KDE or something else. When faced with too many choices, the reaction amongst most humans is give up. One of the reasons Ubuntu has been so successful is that (unlike, say, Slackware) you don't have to go through and choose which programs and window manager/desktop system you want.
One of the biggest wins by far of the App Store is that there is a certain minimum quality level needed to be in it. If they opened that up, it would turn into something like SourceForge and it would be impossible to find the good stuff amongst the chaff.
It Will Solidify Apple's Dominance.
Apple's got a rare opportunity to solidify dominance in a market by killing the competition in the cradle.
But I thought you said choice was good? ;)
Honestly, I prefer Apple to have competition. Keeps 'em honest.
If They Don't, Someone Else Will
All of the other smartphones are already a lot more open than the iPhone, and (with the exception of Android) they've been around a lot longer. Apple's still whuppin' their asses.
That's right, Linux on the iPhone. Earth to Apple: if the iPhone had been open sourced, this probably wouldn't have happened.
Wow, you don't understand Linux people at all, do you? There is a certain sort of person who will try to install Linux on anything that stands still in front of them for too long. The only computing hardware that people won't try getting to run Linux is computing hardware that's already running Linux. And even then, they'll try to swap in a *custom* version of Linux. It's what they do. Making the iPhone more open would just have made that happen more quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[citation needed]
46.6%, if yer talking browsers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers."
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nobody cares. (Score:5, Insightful)
Joe User doesn't care about open source. He cares about his phone being 'cool.'
And I care about being able to only have one device instead of 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nobody cares. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly, this is not Highander! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is room for more than one model for how to develop a product. The iPhone is targeted to consumers who want a very well thought out, consistent, easily usable (and therefore more useful) device. Not all of us WANT the iPhone that would result from open source.
I don't know why more people cannot grasp this. There is plenty of market share to go around for both Apple and Android, both platforms have really easy to acess dev kits and great potentials, with different focuses for consumers.
People act like in the end There Can Be Only One, when in a real market there are Several. I'm sure even Windows Mobile will hang on pretty much forever.
Re:Nobody cares. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think all apple really needs to do is listen to the people. If they would get off their asses and allow some features people are currently jailbreaking like mad for then they would stay relevant.
Where is my 3rd party push support that has been promised forever? Why can't my google calendar sync over the air without jailbreaking? Why can't I run programs in the background without jailbreaking? Where's my java? Etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you mean this patent [uspto.gov] then don't worry too much. Apple didn't invent multi-touch (these guys [uspto.gov] did), nor did they patent the way it's currently used. They patented extensions, such as performing cut and paste with gestures. Why the G1 has no multi-touch is a mystery to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People do not buy them for your Hater reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the 21st century. People don't buy iPhones for their open-source platform, people buy iPhones because they are a hip status symbol.
In reality many people buy iPhones because they are incredibly practical devices, not as "status symbols". The iPod is no "status symbol" either as status symbols are very prone to being dropped by the market at the drop of a hat, which the iPod (and now iPhone) have not seen.
This misundertanding you and countless Apple Haters before you make is the reason why you cannot understand Apple's success, and never will.
Correcting another Apple Hater (Score:3, Informative)
Check any Linux repositories: thousands of applications, the top 100 lets say of a very high technical standard, many other good enough for large amounts of people, all of them susceptible of improvements that can closely follow the needs of the users.
The exact same thing can be said of both the Android and Apple App store. The apps are mostly developed by smaller developers, very sensitive to user requests.
Also, there are more open source (as in code) iPhone apps in the world today than Android apps. I
That old canard? So many counterexamples... (Score:3, Informative)
Apple is fundamentally unfriendly to open source
Webkit, Darwin, BSD, GCC, Apache, etc. etc. et.c
Or just look around Google Code for iPhone projects (of which there are many).
Don't you Apple Haters feel even a tiny bit of embarassmant for making yurself look totally incapible of even the simplest Google search? I guess not, you're too focused on your Hate.