3 ms·

It's a thought-provoking article. But I don't embrace the culture of free as much as Tim. If he gets his way, no company would be allowed to profit, everything

It's a thought-provoking article. But I don't embrace the culture of free as much as Tim. If he gets his way, no company would be allowed to profit, everything would be open. Somehow, Google would be the only one to survive in the environment. Tim is not shocked that Google is giving away for free the GPS software and therefore killing the GPS device makers. It would be anti-dumping if software had a fixed cost, but it doesn't... Where is the fine-line between playing dirty and being a great contributor to free technologies? Think of it this way: if Microsoft had done the same 10 years ago, they would have immediately been sued for abuse of monopolistic position. The thought-provoking part of the article is what Tim leaves out. What does an open world look like? Can the world be 100% open, or will there always be large companies fighting to control it? To me, it sounds a little bit utopian to hope or assume that 100% open is possible.

gloob 17y ago
Think of it this way: if Microsoft had done the same 10 years ago, they would have immediately been sued for abuse of monopolistic position. And that's the difference: Microsoft had a monopolistic position. Open-source doesn't, so much. What's more, open-source isn't even an organization, so it doesn't even make semantic sense to say that it could have a monopolistic position. Google (specifically) is a different matter. If they become a monopoly, smack them down. It makes little difference to free/open-source software at large, though.