3 ms·

The maps are clearly flawed, but the overall point is entirely true, and emphasised by the fact that most spending on Android is, predictably, done by those wit

The maps are clearly flawed, but the overall point is entirely true, and emphasised by the fact that most spending on Android is, predictably, done by those with newer higher end devices. I used to be super bullish on Android, now much less so. It's sacrilege around here, but I'm beginning to think that ecosystems which are not primarily based on open source have broader economic benefits. Even the notion of barriers to entry (i.e. expensive dev tools) can serve a purpose, in that companies will invest more developing products in such situations with less fear that they're going to be nuked by some kids and an open source stack. (Of course in reality they just do less, but the free competitors problem isn't going to happen). This is why I'm incredibly pessimistic about the web, and almost any technology attached to Google these days: it's simply far too competitive, and the barriers to entry, thanks to the cloud wars and modern software stacks, are getting smaller at a frightening rate. Google are smart enough that when you're in an ecosystem with them and they aren't doing the role you're doing it's because they've commoditized their complements: you. My hunch is Google have been pursuing Glass, and now wearables, in a desperate way to attach their brand to the classes of people that carry iPhones. The Apple envy in Mountain View seems to run very deep indeed, but they're also trying to fight off Facebook at every turn, which has led to a very confused situation.

ossreality 13y ago
lolwut. I know you're wrong, and even if I didn't, I'd pray you were.
Yetanfou 13y ago
And all this is bad for what reason exactly? If you see everything as a profit center - or, in other terms, something which gives 'economic benefits' (to whom?) - I can understand why you're peeved by free software. From a user perspective I can see no downside to the availability of a large body of free software, au contraire. Understand that 'value' does not equal 'economic value'. There are many factors which make up the value of a good or a technology, some of them easily quantifiable - like your 'economic value', some of them less so. Also understand that in the long run the increased access to technology which free software and free protocols provide can actually lead to economic benefits as well. You use the web as an example to support your thesis. Imagine what would have happened if CERN decided to license and sell web technologies in the way Apple and Microsoft license and sell their products. You would not have been able to write your comment here, on this web site, using that browser. There would not have been a web site for you to write it on. Even if you were 'lucky' enough to have some corporate sponsor to pay for your 'Platinum web access' voucher your comment would probably have lingered in the void for lack of readership. The web would have resembled America Online or Minitel, with limited interaction and commercial sites only. It would also have given but a fraction of the 'economic benefits' of the current, open web.

ossreality 13y ago

lolwut. I know you're wrong, and even if I didn't, I'd pray you were.

Yetanfou 13y ago

And all this is bad for what reason exactly? If you see everything as a profit center - or, in other terms, something which gives 'economic benefits' (to whom?) - I can understand why you're peeved by free software. From a user perspective I can see no downside to the availability of a large body of free software, au contraire. Understand that 'value' does not equal 'economic value'. There are many factors which make up the value of a good or a technology, some of them easily quantifiable - like your 'economic value', some of them less so. Also understand that in the long run the increased access to technology which free software and free protocols provide can actually lead to economic benefits as well. You use the web as an example to support your thesis. Imagine what would have happened if CERN decided to license and sell web technologies in the way Apple and Microsoft license and sell their products. You would not have been able to write your comment here, on this web site, using that browser. There would not have been a web site for you to write it on. Even if you were 'lucky' enough to have some corporate sponsor to pay for your 'Platinum web access' voucher your comment would probably have lingered in the void for lack of readership. The web would have resembled America Online or Minitel, with limited interaction and commercial sites only. It would also have given but a fraction of the 'economic benefits' of the current, open web.