Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Why don't more proprietary software vendors use a common license? The proprietary EULAs mostly say the same things -- couldn't the BSA or somebody issue a standard one?
- Twitter as we know it was built for about $15-20 million. Google lasted almost a year on $100,000 before taking over the world with $25 million of investor money. This is highway robbery, you could...
- I think the news people are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" bind over Google's indexing and summarizing of their work. Allowing it to be indexed gets them a little...
- I'm a software engineer who has built web applications for Office Depot, Target, AIG (no I'm not proud of it) and many others. J. Stephens apparently has not worked in the private sector....
- Exactly.
1 year ago
But I also recognize that the vast majority of people in our society are not geeks. They don't code Java, they don't understand IP addresses or DNS, and they don't know what J2ME, Part 68 standards, or IEEE 802.11x variants are all about.
These people don't want to be given a general purpose palmtop computer with wireless capability that can have any browser installed and configured, and they don't want to have to call the nearest geek to figure out how to view a web page, listen to music, or make a phone call.
These people want someone to sell them a bundled solution that will do what it's sold to do, and do it as simply and unobtrusively as possible. The walled garden and proprietary system/service approach satisfy normal users' needs much better than fully open systems, for the most part.
This has its downsides, which people are more or less resigned to. They can't keep using their Mac software if they switch to Windows (and vice versa, unless they are capable of doing Boot Camp or Parallels). Likewise, they can't keep using their Verizon Blackberry if they switch to AT&T.;
Apple has catered to people like this. Apple users (for the most part) don't have to worry about which video cards or peripherals will work with their computers, or how to get them working. Apple offers a more-or-less closed machine that works very well. People who want to focus on graphics arts, recording music, or editing video instead of becoming operating system experts are well served by Apple's approach.
The Apple iPhone is a perfect extension of Apple's largely-closed computer philosophy. It's a very elegant, intuitive, and functional black box that does things you want to do, does them well, and doesn't make you learn a lot of voodoo to get there.
All that being said, I think there is a strong market incentive for companies such as Apple to open their systems up to a limited degree, without compromising the simplicity and elegance of what they offer. Apple's computers would not be nearly so popular if they couldn't run third-party software or browse websites on the public Internet. Likewise, I think some degree of openness will come to the iPhone through market forces, but Apple will allow this to happen only to the extent it doesn't compromise the user-friendly nature of the device and its associated services.
1 year ago
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070926/12315...
His historical examples are absolutely wrong.
The thing is, when entering a new space, a closed system can be good initially, but history shows that it doesn't last. A closed system can initially jumpstart a new market, but the open ones that encourage more innovation always win out in the end. Anyone who bets on a closed system winning will eventually lose when a more open system comes along to take away frustrated users and allow for much more free innovation.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
I've tried several different brands of electronic ear muffs, and this is absolutely my favorite. This is the Peltor Tactical 7S, sold by MidwayUSA. ear muffs manufacturers.