Onutz,

I have to say I mostly disagree with the points you're making in your article. First, I believe the analogy between cars and computers is inappropriate; while cars are perceived only as tools, computers nowadays are something much more: they are an extension of our personality. Tinkering with your car is strictly a hobby; tinkering with your computer is a necessity. A car has to be safe, fast, and comfortable; a computer has to be anything you choose it to be -- a communication device, a fashion accessory, an entertainment center, an oracle...

I could have agreed to some extent if you were only comparing cars to computer hardware. Fixing your car is similar to modding your hardware, but when it comes to software, it is a completely flawed simile.

Most people, without a doubt, are only concerned with content consumption, and for them a generic polished closed-up device is fine; but for many people the boundary between viewing and editing is blurred; the content that they are interested in does not exist on any commercial system, because it gets created by themselves.

Believe me I understand your sentiments against the DIY mentality from a former Easter-blocker point of view: after years of demagogy and lack of market competition, it must feel nice to be reassured that someone cares about you as a customer. However, waking up from the post-communist nightmare one pretty soon realizes that the coveted free market of the West has its drawbacks too; the one that is relevant to the current discussion is the fact that any idea that isn't profit driven and that doesn't generate revenue is unlikely to survive. Alas, we live in an age when money no longer drives progress, but instead stifles it.

In a way, the iPad follows an old tradition by Apple to use well established trends with a 1-2 year delay, presenting a polished albeit somewhat unimaginative product that "just works", and not much more. There are, however differences that stem from the current economy downturn: unlike some other Apple products, the iPad is by far not the pinnacle of technology advancement, its design is driven by necessity and want. While previously Apple have been temporarily crippling features as part of their marketing strategy, they are now sacrificing them altogether, to target a certain price point. They couldn't maintain their usual profit if they had added to the iPad a camera, a screen with higher pixel density or modern aspect ratio, e-ink display, connectivity ports, etc. Thus, the iPad is another example where customers are not presented with the best that could be designed, but with whatever makes most profit...

As to the teams of hundreds of people smarter than us, well I don't know about you, but in my case that just isn't possible. And I find your suggestion to go to MIT to learn computers preposterous: I already have my degree in a completely different field, and I do not see why this should prevent me from writing up some C code when I want a calculation to finish today instead of next week...

Well, you asked for opinions, here is mine. I hope this post isn't longer than your original article...

the writer give us a wrong example,
if i only want to go from point A to point B i will buy "DIY" like car Dacia for the price of iPad & iPhone and for the rest will spend with my friends.
General Motors was near faliment vs. romanian Dacia Logan car manufacturer . Logan is a best seller across Europe.
if apple product are so good why there are not on 95 % market share ?

the writer is a romanian guy and for most romanians an expensive fancy car is a must even if they live on 30 square feet room so here is the example.

the guy is nobody on world and deserve a great iSictir word joke from apple iPh..., iPa... and romanian sictir.
sictir translated as like no 1 on this http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sictir

Replace the "c" with a "k", and it reminds me a whole lot of the Turkish equivalent...

that article is stupid. what a waste of time.

I get the point he is trying to make, Apple is smart for protecting it's stuff, but when you need a special adapter just to plug in a USB device into your iPad, maybe you've crossed over from protecting your assets to just plain being an ***.

Does Ford, or Mercedes for the matter build their cars using special pattern screws and nuts and bolts, made of say a parallelogram head ? of course not. because no one would want to buy a proprietary tool just to mess with their car.

the biggest problem I have with Apple, is 2 things:

1. Their F'ing products ARE NOT INNOVATIVE. why the freak do they have to release some dated product and be heralded as an innovator.

2. Their F'ing followers are so smug about owning Apple products. How many times has an i-anything user given you that smirk like their (insert apple product here) is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

When the very first Ipod came out, I thought to myself "this is junk. it's over priced, and doesnt do much outside of play music only found in an itunes store" but I was there, eventually movie stars started showing up on TV with one in their hand, and bam, instant success.

great now i'm going to bed angry.

/rent

hahaha.

Onutz, am I the only one to think that a not-so-small part of you is deeply nostalgic of the years when every Rumenian bloke was a do-it-yourself mechanic?

The author of the article is mixing up things. First of all, it appears he does not know the difference between free software and open source. That hurts...

Second, open source systems are old Rumanian cars, while closed source systems are Fords, Renaults and Mercedes? I don't really get it. Just because there are products out there based on open source software, that are not as major as Mac OS or the iPhone OS? There are many systems out there based on open source/free software, that are stable and usable as Mac OS, he probably just doesn't know or recognize. Maemo is a good and simple counterexample. It's open (partly) and working. My mom does not have a clue about the operating system actually running and just uses the N900 as she uses her iPhone and for her it works. So, it works for the average users who want to experience the magic and for those who actually want to take a look under the hood. Beside that, countless friends of mine are actually often mad about the restrictions the iPhone/Apple imposes on them. Take for example: setting a ring tone, replacing the battery...

Now what Apple does with their app store etc. is nothing new: its tying customers to their products and system. Google does the same with the android market and to me it seems Nokia doesn't really know which way to go yet. Obviously their are not pushing OVI as they could. The difference between Nokia, Apple and Google is, that Nokia has been manufacturing mobile phones for years now. In these years they relied on symbian as a stable, reliable and optimized OS running on their devices. Many devices sold are still running Symbian, and for years there will be phones running this operating system. As market leader they obviously have missed or misinterpreted recent developments. Now they have symbian, which is still fine, but not competitive in the "smartphone segment" and maemo, which is more than competitive, but lacks the user and developer base of Symbian. We will see how things evolve here in the coming months, years.

Nevertheless, to come back to the closed source argument. The real innovation is not only the OS or only the hardware: it's the combination. To me open source/free software can be more innovative than any closed source system developed secretly. Nokia is a big hardware manufacturer, having more experience in the segment of mobile devices than many others. With maemo being innovative as it is, yes it is, and becoming more mature all they need to do is coming up with good hardware, harmonizing with the OS. I have no doubt they will.

What will happen to OVI, if they can attract enough devs for maemo, if there will be thousands of apps for maemo devices as we know it from other platforms: we will see. This will definitely also have a big influence on the success of upcoming devices etc.

However, the openness of a platform, in my opinion, only encourages developers. They can exploit the possibilities of this approach and create powerful apps, users on the other hand want and enjoy to use. So, this indirectly has positive influences on the users.

I've let my comment on the article directly.

Not by me but still I Think this is a good contrast to your article:

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...2576C30068FAA9

Apple's OSX is based on the UNIX source and FREE BSD last time I checked . . . . anyway . . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

An open source system is like a Ford, Honda a Mercedes or any other type of car.....their is documentation about them, how to fix them, how to modify them, you can take them apart and put them back together again. You can take them to the dealers mechanic to buy parts and service or you can goto a custom body shop and add custom body kits and even an engine that the manufacture never would have dreamed about manufacturing.


A closed source automobile would be like some type of car you could not open the hood . . . . image the hood of the car was locked with a key or a combination lock . . . . only the dealer could open it . . . . you could not change the oil or the spark plugs yourself or anywhere else but from the manufacture's body shop . . . .

In the real world no one would buy a car like that . . . I mean you can even unscrew your Vacuum Cleaner to change the belt yourself . . . but unfortunately when it comes to software this is alot easier . . . even a windows PC uses standard parts for the most part . . . . If you want a bigger hard drive you can just go out and buy one from a wide variate of different manufacturers and since their are standards in hard drives they will all work just fine.


Apple had TRIED building fully proprietary devices like these for years but they never really took off as compared to the customizable PC's and they finally had to start building STANDARDS COMPLIANT COMPUTERS that used Intel Processors and other standard components.

I mean who would buy a computer you couldn't upgrade they screen on?

Or a cellphone you couldn't replace the battery on?

Oh ... wait..... anyway ...

That is why you can now run Windows or Linux on a Mac and Mac OSX on a PC.

Open Standards helps sells and mass appeal - Check out the stats of Apple's Sales from their own proprietary "POWER PC" processors to the switch too the Intel processors



Don't let this chart fool you tho . . .

Apple's sprint of trying to lock you out of the things that they sell you has not died though . . . . you will find it is alive and well in the iPhone and iPod with their built-in battery and proprietary chargers.

So, what happens when your iPhone's battery starts to not hold a charge anymore?

You have an expensive paper weight!

What about when your on the road & need to charge your iPhone but do not have your charger with you?

I are screwed! If your phone used a standard Mini -USB you would be much more likely to find a friend or college with the same charger.

The amount of ignorance presented in the replies here are quite staggering.

Being on the side of what's perceived as 'good' (open source, free market, etc) doesn't excuse you from having proper understanding of the market... (...and logic... and grammar...).