4 ms·

No this isn't the same. Stallman is referring to Apple's power over its suppliers (developers who sell software through the Apple store). Because Apple is a pop

by Dwolb 12y ago

No this isn't the same. Stallman is referring to Apple's power over its suppliers (developers who sell software through the Apple store). Because Apple is a popular platform and switching platform costs are high (porting software takes time and money), Apple is able to extract value ($) in each and every transaction that could have gone to the developers or end users. An open platform would remove 1 player from the value chain (Apple) and would increase value for end users, developers, or both.

fleitz 12y ago
Not necessarily, it may reduce cost, however value easily and usually exceeds cost, else a transaction won't occur. Which is why most desktop users don't run Linux despite it being free
- Dwolb 12y ago
  I think you're right the value would change. However, holding value constant and replacing Apple with an open platform in the game would increase value captured by either developer or end user. One could probably argue the value of an open platform could meet or exceed Apple, given enough time and money.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    > One could probably argue the value of an open platform could meet or exceed Apple, given enough time and money. GNU/Linux are at it for 20 years with money pumped from Intel, Google, IBM, Red Hat, SuSE and many others. The only success on the desktop is in the form of Android/Linux and Google has the freedom to change the kernel for something else whenever they feel like it. How much money and time is still required?
    - EGreg 12y ago
      I would argue that the Web is an example of an open source and free platform. I predict that in 3-5 years most of the mobile apps will be in Javascript with platforms exposing PhoneGap-like standard interfaces.
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        We all know where Symbian Web Apps and WebOS ended up. Besides, the Web has nothing to do with GNU/Linux, which was the point of my comment. The concepts behind the Web were the hypermedia applications at Xerox PARC and Doug Egelbart's work.
        EGreg 12y ago
        The web is not locked down. Anyone can publish anything, and the source has traditionally been visible. And look at the explosion that it produced - some good and some useless but the huge usefulness of the internet in the last 10 years has been led by the web, not by proprietary app silos.
        pjmlp 12y ago
        If web is to stay, as someone that has to develop web applications, I can only hope Frankenstein HTML/CSS/JavaScript model gets fixed. Otherwise better keep it for interactive documents only. On my computer you will find native applications for almost everything, except for the likes of online discussion forums, hotel and plane booking.
- rpdillon 12y ago
  No, most desktop users don't run Linux because it's not the default. People can perfectly well run Linux, it just needs to have apps, drivers and all the other stuff desktop users expect. In a world where Adobe doesn't port Photoshop and Micorsoft doesn't port Office, Linux operates at an enourmous disadvantage. For users that don't need those kinds of apps ported, Linux does great. Both Chromebooks and Android have sold incredibly well, for example.
cwyers 12y ago
Like, I get that Free Software as a movement is about software being libre, not gratis. But how many examples are there where being libre has not meant being gratis? And I don't mean the Red Hat sort of case where the software itself is gratis (yes, you have to go all the way over to CentOS to get it gratis) but support costs, I mean an example of being able to charge actual consumers for a piece of libre software.

by Dwolb 12y ago

fleitz 12y ago

Not necessarily, it may reduce cost, however value easily and usually exceeds cost, else a transaction won't occur. Which is why most desktop users don't run Linux despite it being free

Dwolb 12y ago
I think you're right the value would change. However, holding value constant and replacing Apple with an open platform in the game would increase value captured by either developer or end user. One could probably argue the value of an open platform could meet or exceed Apple, given enough time and money.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  > One could probably argue the value of an open platform could meet or exceed Apple, given enough time and money. GNU/Linux are at it for 20 years with money pumped from Intel, Google, IBM, Red Hat, SuSE and many others. The only success on the desktop is in the form of Android/Linux and Google has the freedom to change the kernel for something else whenever they feel like it. How much money and time is still required?
  - EGreg 12y ago
    I would argue that the Web is an example of an open source and free platform. I predict that in 3-5 years most of the mobile apps will be in Javascript with platforms exposing PhoneGap-like standard interfaces.
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      We all know where Symbian Web Apps and WebOS ended up. Besides, the Web has nothing to do with GNU/Linux, which was the point of my comment. The concepts behind the Web were the hypermedia applications at Xerox PARC and Doug Egelbart's work.
      - EGreg 12y ago
        The web is not locked down. Anyone can publish anything, and the source has traditionally been visible. And look at the explosion that it produced - some good and some useless but the huge usefulness of the internet in the last 10 years has been led by the web, not by proprietary app silos.
        pjmlp 12y ago
        If web is to stay, as someone that has to develop web applications, I can only hope Frankenstein HTML/CSS/JavaScript model gets fixed. Otherwise better keep it for interactive documents only. On my computer you will find native applications for almost everything, except for the likes of online discussion forums, hotel and plane booking.
rpdillon 12y ago
No, most desktop users don't run Linux because it's not the default. People can perfectly well run Linux, it just needs to have apps, drivers and all the other stuff desktop users expect. In a world where Adobe doesn't port Photoshop and Micorsoft doesn't port Office, Linux operates at an enourmous disadvantage. For users that don't need those kinds of apps ported, Linux does great. Both Chromebooks and Android have sold incredibly well, for example.

cwyers 12y ago

Like, I get that Free Software as a movement is about software being libre, not gratis. But how many examples are there where being libre has not meant being gratis? And I don't mean the Red Hat sort of case where the software itself is gratis (yes, you have to go all the way over to CentOS to get it gratis) but support costs, I mean an example of being able to charge actual consumers for a piece of libre software.