No I don't think. It would have less customer, or would need to spend more on development, or would have to share it's margins with a software company.
Either way, it's less money.
i perfectly agree that they made the "smart" choice given the situation.
what i was asking is whether IBM, HP, m$ (of course...) and many more wouldn't be happier (= making more money) in a world without GNU/Linux...
the fact that we, customers, would be poorer for it is a different story.
and i think we all agree that the mobile phone world would be a lot poorer without Maemo (RIP) and the N900.
obviously, that didn't help NOKIA, now, did it?
Beg to differ
You may be right about the Japanese phones though.
As far as i can see that only tells how many phones there are in the country, that tells nothing. Phone penetration by a country at least would have some use(of course you can make it from those numbers while there is more up to date info) while that makes no difference as Finland was first European country to get 100% penetration and pretty much all EU countries got over 100% mobile phone penetration these days.
I was talking about study that meassured how versatile your use of phone is and how many hours you use on your phone daily.
so don't you think IBM would be happier (= making more money) without open source GNU/Linux?
No that's one-dimensional way of thinking.
Consider this: by developing OSS, they expand their share, which in turns someone else gets shrinked (M$).
In long term that brings more money.
Another example: Google and Android. They have found a way to steal a huge number of Java developers by cleverly designing Dalvik, and allowing developers to use their favorite tools.
At the same time closed-source competitors are shrinking, no matter how good their products are.
I think you may find a fair number of OSS project which became dominant over their closed-source counterparts. Apache web server is an excellent example, or MySQL before the Oracle got it.
Consider this: by developing OSS, they expand their share, which in turns someone else gets shrinked (M$).
In long term that brings more money.
Another example: Google and Android. They have found a way to steal a huge number of Java developers by cleverly designing Dalvik, and allowing developers to use their favorite tools.
At the same time closed-source competitors are shrinking, no matter how good their products are.
I think you may find a fair number of OSS project which became dominant over their closed-source counterparts. Apache web server is an excellent example, or MySQL before the Oracle got it.
funny you should mention Apache & Oracle in the same sentence;
until 1/2 a dozen yrs ago, the web server Oracle used was plain dumb Apache, they didn't even hide it.
meanwhile, they have done a number of modification (to integrate it better with they management products) and discourage the use of apache-ctl. but they shamelessly use(d) open source software.
that's why redhat has decided NOT to release the code of their updates anymore, so that Oracle would have to reverse engineer the updates from the updated source code & couldn't simply take over the updates in binary anymore...
who said money is corrupting?
Java?
caffeine is unhealthy, we should all drink IcedTea, right?
Noooo ! how could you ! the hands video !
the hand of a strange man giving candy to a little girl in the park ...
dunna about the candy or the park
on the N95 (most Symbian phones w/ a Green & a Red button) it is possible to cancel the movie (& the sound ) by pressing the Red one.
not so on the N900, thus the file had to go.
Guys, IBM is now a services company. To that end, open source makes a LOT of sense for them as it means lower overhead and easier adoption by cash-strapped customers.
) by pressing the Red one.