4 ms·
Don't forget, they tried "open" with Google Wave, which was a total flop. Developers did not buy into it. You can't expect to have it both ways, especially sin
by jpswade 13y ago
Don't forget, they tried "open" with Google Wave, which was a total flop. Developers did not buy into it.
You can't expect to have it both ways, especially since Apple has proven that a closed infrastructure (walled garden) works.
- kevingadd 13y agoOpenness was not the only thing wrong with Google Wave.
- nwh 13y agoIt might have been the most open platform in the world, but I'm still not sure what Wave was actually for.
- samastur 13y agoBecause every open project that fails means that was the reason why it happened so all will? Wave had lots of problems one of which was that they gave up on it fairly quickly.
- Turing_Machine 13y agoThey've tried "closed" with Google+, which is also a total flop.
- philwelch 13y agoYes, but they haven't realized that yet!
- wluu 13y agoI think the App Store does well on ios because it's the only way to load apps onto those devices, but I don't think it works as well on OS X. (I've found that most apps I install on my mbp aren't from the App Store). I suppose, for everyday consumers (ie: less tech savvy), the experience may be different. Anyway, I think developers will go where they think it's cool. And also, they'll go where they can get the most market share (and hence higher ROI potential). If that were to be an open platform, then so be it. In this case, it's not so open.
- freehunter 13y agoOpen? I waited for months to get an invite.
- ryukafalz 13y agoWave was never federated. They announced plans to federate, and released a (severely limited) version of Wave as open source, but they never federated the reference implementation at wave.google.com. The open source code doesn't include one of my favorite features, too... inline private messaging. If we want that back now we have to code it from scratch.