3 ms·

Indeed, case in point. The Apple Watch was first released on 2015-04-24. The PineTime was announced on 2019-10-05. If it requires 4.5 years of commercial succes

Indeed, case in point. The Apple Watch was first released on 2015-04-24. The PineTime was announced on 2019-10-05. If it requires 4.5 years of commercial success for a FOSS competitor to be announced, well, FOSS certainly isn't pushing that product development envelope. It's a common pattern. Linux GUIs only came about once other commercially successful GUIs existed. The Linux Desktop was a reaction to the commercial success of Windows and Apple desktops. FOSS often ends up cloning existing successful products. Of course there's nothing wrong with creating open alternatives after the fact, but to pretend that FOSS is driving product vision is disconnected idealism at its finest.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Sure but for this discussion this feels like moving the goalposts. Is it possible for FOSS to make a smartwatch? The answer is yes. Apple tends not to lead product categories either, letting companies like Samsung and Meta try new features before they are proven. That’s more a development strategy than a limitation on what FOSS can do. Look at 3D printers, which exploded in popularity in the OSS world after the patents expired. Yes a commercial company made them first, but the wealth of experimentation on new price points and features happened in the FOSS world.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  The root comment of this thread is all about demonising companies and lionising open source. That's why this discussion isn't moving the goalposts. You've moved them to "OSS can also do this" which is not where it started.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  GP's claim is that corporate development is holding product development back. That's what I'm responding to. I have no doubt that FOSS can produce clones of existing products, occasionally even clones as good or better than the original. But FOSS is not driving any form of product development at all. The anti-corporate pro-FOSS thing is just disconnected online idealism. FWIW I own a PineTime and enjoy hacking on it quite a bit but a commercial smartwatch it is not. For me that's fine as I don't use a smartwatch as a daily driver, but if I did a PineWatch would be a nonstarter. I do hope that the PineTime can drive an ecosystem of open smart watches that occupy different points in the cost, functionality, customizability, and reusability space than commercial smartwatches do, especially those that may not be profitable to tape out large runs for, but I'm also thankful for commercial product development to drive new innovative products into our hands.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    Ah, sorry I was on the go and responding to the specific sentence I highlighted in my original comment, I must have missed the thrust of the thread.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
mr_toad 3y ago
> Linux GUIs only came about once other commercially successful GUIs existed. X Windows predates Microsoft Windows by a year, if you count Windows 1.0 as “commercially successful”.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

Sure but for this discussion this feels like moving the goalposts. Is it possible for FOSS to make a smartwatch? The answer is yes. Apple tends not to lead product categories either, letting companies like Samsung and Meta try new features before they are proven. That’s more a development strategy than a limitation on what FOSS can do. Look at 3D printers, which exploded in popularity in the OSS world after the patents expired. Yes a commercial company made them first, but the wealth of experimentation on new price points and features happened in the FOSS world.

robertlagrant 3y ago
The root comment of this thread is all about demonising companies and lionising open source. That's why this discussion isn't moving the goalposts. You've moved them to "OSS can also do this" which is not where it started.
Karrot_Kream 3y ago
GP's claim is that corporate development is holding product development back. That's what I'm responding to. I have no doubt that FOSS can produce clones of existing products, occasionally even clones as good or better than the original. But FOSS is not driving any form of product development at all. The anti-corporate pro-FOSS thing is just disconnected online idealism. FWIW I own a PineTime and enjoy hacking on it quite a bit but a commercial smartwatch it is not. For me that's fine as I don't use a smartwatch as a daily driver, but if I did a PineWatch would be a nonstarter. I do hope that the PineTime can drive an ecosystem of open smart watches that occupy different points in the cost, functionality, customizability, and reusability space than commercial smartwatches do, especially those that may not be profitable to tape out large runs for, but I'm also thankful for commercial product development to drive new innovative products into our hands.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Ah, sorry I was on the go and responding to the specific sentence I highlighted in my original comment, I must have missed the thrust of the thread.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

mr_toad 3y ago

> Linux GUIs only came about once other commercially successful GUIs existed. X Windows predates Microsoft Windows by a year, if you count Windows 1.0 as “commercially successful”.