3 ms·
The post begins: 'It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat les
by podperson 16y ago
The post begins:
'It is getting tiresome to hear Apple fans, having long bashed Google's Android because "open" was bad, now bash Google for being somewhat less "open."'
But Gruber didn't say "open" was bad, did he? He (and others) argue that "open" is used as a synonym for "good", a virtue of itself, but that in the end you don't get something that's either "open" or "good" for pretty much any definition of "open" or "good".
Open would mean I can do anything I like to the OS (update it, customize it, replace it). In most cases I can't.
Good would mean I can have the latest OS on my phone if I want it. In most cases I can't.
Open would mean I can easily get access to the complete source code for my phone if I want it. In most cases I can't.
Seriously -- for what values of open or good do we get a big fat green tick?
It's not like Gruber is biased and other people aren't. Everyone is biased. Argue the evidence.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago>Seriously -- for what values of open or good do we get a big fat green tick? Open and good in the sense developers don't have to go through a App Store with capricious restrictions and a forced 30% cut. You can either publish on your own or go to alternate stores like Amazon App Store which will try to attract you with better terms. Open and good in the sense that subscription providers don't have to pay a toll of 30% to Apple for nothing. Even WP7 is 'Open' in this sense. Open and good in the sense of the variety of hardware. Eg. If you like hardware keyboards on phones you have no choice in Apple land. Even WP7 is 'Open' in this sense. Open and good in the sense you can install whatever normal apps you want without jailbreaking. (AT&T phones are locked to the Android Market, but Android apps don't have to go through an Approval process).