4 ms·

"How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?" I don't think this analogy fits because there are open devices and people

by jshen 15y ago

"How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?" I don't think this analogy fits because there are open devices and people don't buy them. You don't buy them.

pyre 15y ago
This is more along the lines of, what if all cars had locks on their hoods, but there was an 'open' car with no locks, but it was only a Pinto. Then people point to the Pinto and say, "See no one is buying it! No one cares about openness!" The real conclusion is the there are relatively few people that are willing to go extremely out of their way to remain on the side of open-ness. If there were two products that could compete at the same level, people may skew towards the open one.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  I don't think that can happen, though. The investment required to make something like the iPhone needs to be recouped somehow. If it were free, people would be able to clone it, reducing the ability for the original developer to create v2. I would drop my Apple household if I could have a free environment that worked as seamlessly as my Apple environment, not just for me but for my wife and kids as well. I am making a tradeoff between free (though I don't believe a free phone exists, no matter how open Google claims they are) and easy. I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Calling me immoral (RMS, not you :) is insulting. That said, I am grateful for everything RMS has accomplished ideologically. I use emacs daily, but more important, things like GNU/Linux exist thanks to his work. I just want nothing to do with him.
  - danssig 15y ago
    This is what frustrates me so much with all the rabid "ZOMG, they want to take over the world!!!" fear mongering against Apple. Is is so hard to believe that Apple has just found that most users want their machine to just work as easy as possible? Is it so hard to believe they are just doing what their customers want?
    - loup-vaillant 15y ago
      It is. Their system could be just as usable if they gave you the root password. They could have provided the App Store by default, as a seal of approval, and let the users get their software from elsewhere as well. The garden is still walled, but you have a door for when you want out. Now without this App Store exclusivity, they probably wouldn't have been able to squeeze 30% out of the developers. But it wouldn't have affected usability.
      - jshen 15y ago
        this adds complexity. Maybe you think that complexity is warranted, but you have to understand that there is a cost to it. You can always buy a product from someone else, or make your own if you think there is a demand that isn't being filled.
        loup-vaillant 15y ago
        What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user? Surely allowing direct download of apps from the computer won't complicate things for those who don't want to bother? Don't say "if you don't like it, don't buy it". Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy. Heck, even I used GMail until two years ago. Plus, even if they are so capable, there is a tragedy of the commons here: if you surrender your data, it could be crossed-reference with the other's, and it may end up affecting even those who didn't surrender their data (GMail is an obvious example: they collect data about whoever writes to their users, even when they host their own mail server). This is way, way more serious than your comment suggests.
        jshen 15y ago
        "What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user?" It certainly is. The implementation from apple would be more complicated and more risky. "Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy." Um, we aren't talking about privacy, but if choice isn't enough then what exactly are you recommending?
- _delirium 15y ago
  People also assume, in the car case, that the law will be rational about allowing them to circumvent restrictions. Locks on the hood? You bought the car, so cut 'em. It can void the warranty, but it can't be made illegal. In fact, the law usually goes in the other direction: it's illegal for manufacturers to actively put in some kinds of restrictions, like first-party-only replacement parts or only-serviceable-by-manufacturer vehicles. Putting a lock on the hood, if it's intended to prevent third-party servicing, is probably illegal in the first place.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    So why not do that to software too?
- jshen 15y ago
  I agree, but the larger point I'm trying to make is that there is a reason we don't see good open devices in the market. So many tech people complain about this issue, yet none have succeeded in making one. If so many people are sure there is a need that isn't being fulfilled, then why don't they fill the need?

by jshen 15y ago

"How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?" I don't think this analogy fits because there are open devices and people don't buy them. You don't buy them.

pyre 15y ago

This is more along the lines of, what if all cars had locks on their hoods, but there was an 'open' car with no locks, but it was only a Pinto. Then people point to the Pinto and say, "See no one is buying it! No one cares about openness!" The real conclusion is the there are relatively few people that are willing to go extremely out of their way to remain on the side of open-ness. If there were two products that could compete at the same level, people may skew towards the open one.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
I don't think that can happen, though. The investment required to make something like the iPhone needs to be recouped somehow. If it were free, people would be able to clone it, reducing the ability for the original developer to create v2. I would drop my Apple household if I could have a free environment that worked as seamlessly as my Apple environment, not just for me but for my wife and kids as well. I am making a tradeoff between free (though I don't believe a free phone exists, no matter how open Google claims they are) and easy. I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Calling me immoral (RMS, not you :) is insulting. That said, I am grateful for everything RMS has accomplished ideologically. I use emacs daily, but more important, things like GNU/Linux exist thanks to his work. I just want nothing to do with him.
- danssig 15y ago
  This is what frustrates me so much with all the rabid "ZOMG, they want to take over the world!!!" fear mongering against Apple. Is is so hard to believe that Apple has just found that most users want their machine to just work as easy as possible? Is it so hard to believe they are just doing what their customers want?
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    It is. Their system could be just as usable if they gave you the root password. They could have provided the App Store by default, as a seal of approval, and let the users get their software from elsewhere as well. The garden is still walled, but you have a door for when you want out. Now without this App Store exclusivity, they probably wouldn't have been able to squeeze 30% out of the developers. But it wouldn't have affected usability.
    - jshen 15y ago
      this adds complexity. Maybe you think that complexity is warranted, but you have to understand that there is a cost to it. You can always buy a product from someone else, or make your own if you think there is a demand that isn't being filled.
      - loup-vaillant 15y ago
        What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user? Surely allowing direct download of apps from the computer won't complicate things for those who don't want to bother? Don't say "if you don't like it, don't buy it". Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy. Heck, even I used GMail until two years ago. Plus, even if they are so capable, there is a tragedy of the commons here: if you surrender your data, it could be crossed-reference with the other's, and it may end up affecting even those who didn't surrender their data (GMail is an obvious example: they collect data about whoever writes to their users, even when they host their own mail server). This is way, way more serious than your comment suggests.
        jshen 15y ago
        "What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user?" It certainly is. The implementation from apple would be more complicated and more risky. "Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy." Um, we aren't talking about privacy, but if choice isn't enough then what exactly are you recommending?
_delirium 15y ago
People also assume, in the car case, that the law will be rational about allowing them to circumvent restrictions. Locks on the hood? You bought the car, so cut 'em. It can void the warranty, but it can't be made illegal. In fact, the law usually goes in the other direction: it's illegal for manufacturers to actively put in some kinds of restrictions, like first-party-only replacement parts or only-serviceable-by-manufacturer vehicles. Putting a lock on the hood, if it's intended to prevent third-party servicing, is probably illegal in the first place.
- bad_user 15y ago
  So why not do that to software too?
jshen 15y ago
I agree, but the larger point I'm trying to make is that there is a reason we don't see good open devices in the market. So many tech people complain about this issue, yet none have succeeded in making one. If so many people are sure there is a need that isn't being fulfilled, then why don't they fill the need?