Five Reasons Apple Should Open The iPhone
Five Reasons Apple Should Open Source the iPhone
You know, BusinessWeek asked me about Apple potentially open sourcing the iPhone over a year ago. Since then: nothing out of Apple, despite mounting pressure from projects like Android that are vying for Apple’s throne. With Christmas only days away, I’ve only got one thing I want to ask Santa Jobs for, and it ain’t a Red Rider BB Gun.
All I want from Apple is a more open platform. Sure, the odds are slim as long as they remain dominant. That’s why I’m not asking them to completely open source the iPhone. I’m just asking them to crack the door and let the breeze in.
It’s Good for Devvies, Non-devvies, and Apps Alike
Open source is becoming the default way to develop software in many industries. Why? Because a properly-managed, open environment leads to targeted, robust features and helps developers share code in a healthy coop-tition that helps everybody in the iPhone ecosystem.
Developers love working faster, cheaper, and more effectively. More importantly, many folks that aren’t traditional developers are starting to develop apps for platforms like the iPhone. He who satiates that audience wins the war.
Customers Love Choice
Open sourcing the iPhone gives customers a much broader selection of applications. Customers faced with a plethora of attractive applications when they visit the app store will spend money. More money make Apple happy.
Quash choice, on the other hand, and people revolt. No amount of legal wrangling or slick marketing will bend today’s consumers to the will of “rights management.” Doesn’t matter if it’s a 99-cent song in iTunes or the ability to co-develop software in an open environment—boxing people in will be the iPhone’s undoing.
It Will Solidify Apple’s Dominance
Apple’s got a rare opportunity to solidify dominance in a market by killing the competition in the cradle. An open source iPhone dulls some of Android’s luster. Given Google’s similar storefront approach, the open development environment is Android’s key differentiator. Ol’ Steve can level the playing field—he holds sway over a loyal following of diehard developers.
If They Don’t, Someone Else Will
If you haven’t heard of OpeniBoot, check this out. That’s right, Linux on the iPhone. Earth to Apple: if the iPhone had been open sourced, this probably wouldn’t have happened. I’ll say it again. Open source solutions come from lots of places, but the most frequent is a dissatisfied customer base. Don’t like the feature set? Write your own. Don’t like the functionality? Mod the device. Price too high? Wait it out. In the Internet age, consumers are makers.
iPhone Linux Demonstration Video from planetbeing.
They’re Gonna Have to Eventually
Regardless of Santa Jobs opinions on open platforms and iPhone dominance, Apple’s on a collision course with Google, and open source would be a big gun in Apple’s arsenal. Don’t think the average customer cares? I’m blogging from Wahoo’s Fish Tacos. Today’s inspiration was a manager at Wahoo’s, Jordan, who asked me as soon as I walked in about options for the two iPhones he bought and modded to work on tMobile’s network.
Tech customers are savvy. You don’t have to be an uber-geek to hack your gear any more. Innovative networks of customers cooperating with companies to build products will be the norm before long. Open source is just a step towards that future. My 12-year old is sharing mod tricks with his classmates over Skype, for cryin’ out loud. Customers want participatory rights—they want to be involved in the goods they consume. Letting them in just ensures that you give the people what they want.
I’m going Apache-style with this post: all those in favor of an open source direction for the iPhone, leave a comment that starts with “+1.” All those who think the iPhone should stay buttoned up, leave a comment starting with “-1,” and we’ll see how things shake out.
[...] Five Reasons Apple Should Open Source The iPhone | whurley Posted under Uncategorized, computer, hardware by admin on Wednesday 10 December 2008 at 10:48 [...]
Who wants free stuff? Anyone? Of course you know consumers want something cool that is free/open.
But tell me again how Apple giving away source code to its competitors will make Apple in control. From my perspective it just makes it easier for others to narrow the distance between them and Apple.
To OS the iPhone is to go from a clear business model to an argument that a business model might be possible. Sun has been giving away Java for years (various models of open) and they are not doing so well. We don’t need another great company going down the cr*pper.
K seriously guys, there are many types of people in th world n everyone is following their own philosophy. Same with manufacturers, they make what they believe in. At the end of the day, this serves the entire range of people as we have products that are different and unique. If all th phones were open n complex, what would simple people use? If all phones where closed, what would th geeks use? So lets stop this ride of jumping on one bandwagon or promoting one philosophy… Progress through diversity…
Whurley would you be cool with our republishing this excellent post in full, with your byline and bio (plus a link back to the original URL) at iPhone Developer’s Journal (http://iphone.sys-con.com?)
We try and do this across all our many and varied sites from time to time by adding insightful posts by writers outside our immediate circle. It’s our way of introducing fresh new voices to our audience…
Let us know, yes? Thank u sir – and meantime have a great Wednesday evening!
Jeremy G.
–
Jeremy Geelan
Sr. Vice-President, Editorial & Events
SYS-CON Media
http://sys-con.com
-1
I’d like for Apple to be more open, but I wouldn’t want them to completely open source OS X. The problem with Android is that you have to build for the lowest common denominator or cut out large chunks of your audience. With the iPhone and iPod touch, they both have accelerometers and the same size and resolution multi-touch screens. The only differences are he lack of camera, built in mic and GPS which are really secondary input devices.
++1
-1
The only widely successful consumer level open source project I can think of is Firefox. All the other open source projects I can think of live in developer or server land – which is not really what a mobile phone, or what ever you call the kind of converged device the iPhone is, is all about.
Yes, apps matter some what – everyone wants cool games. That said, as far as I know none of the major consoles are open source. Not the P3, not the Wii, not the XBox. Neither are the portable gaming devices as far as I know. I’m sure there are people who have ported linux to them, as there are ports of linux to almost every platform known to man. But I find it hard to imagine many people when considering buying a Wii might go “Oh noes! It doesn’t run an open source operating system. How will I ever get anything decent for it?”.
I would argue that a similar thing applies to the iPhone. Let’s face it, if people buy their songs from an online store, it probably doesn’t matter all that much whether they get the songs from a FairPlay store, or a Plays for Sure store, or a Zone store. If you want an open source device, you’re probably not going to buy from any of those – instead you’ll get your music in mp3 format (P2P or rip from CDs). So the tie to itms doesn’t affect you one way or the other.
I’m still not convinced that for consumer software an open source environment leads to targeted, robust features. I work as a developer, and someone paying me money leads to targeted, robust features. The stuff that I’ve worked on that was open source, both in small projects and larger projects, was very much itch scratching – I did enough to get the project into a state that worked for me, rather than to ensure that it would work for any possible configuration, making sure to best suit the needs of the target market for the project.
Not sure. Open source is OK, but who the hell needs it? It is very-very limited number of people actually does care about that. Most developers are focused on their APPLICATIONS for a particular platform.
Opening iPhone platform will make lots of problems to Apple instead. Starting from call-center thing, ending with updates and keep stuff constant. I would guarantee you that 99.999% Apple will never do that.
“Customers Love Choice”? Methinks you’re projecting your own wishes upon the masses.
If customers really loved choice, they wouldn’t all (or nearly all) be using the same OS and word processor and web browser. Sadly, most of them like having those choices made for them.
-1
I love open source, and think its a huge boon to the software world in general, however I really don’t think its in any way in Apple’s best interest.
In recent years Apple has been first and foremost about creating smooth simple flawless user experience. While I wouldn’t actually go so far as to call their products flawless, they still do a damn good job. Opening their software will do nothing to help the software’s polish and “it just works” usability, and when it comes down to it, that’s what most users want.
I like to dink around on my iPhone, I’ve jailbroken it, and mess with this and that, but 99% of the time, I just want it to work. It’s my phone. While yes its also a fun tech toy, I don’t need a fun tech toy, I need my phone.
It has to work, and I think that is where the iPhone shines. While yes it has crashed a few times, it was generally while using a 3rd party app, and a simple reboot solved all problems. It shocks me how unreliable most phones are these day (smart or not). Most friend’s RAZRs last 6 months max, my girlfriend’s LG Shine has been replaced twice, I’ve seen many dead Sony Ericksons. I have never seen a dead iPhone. I’m not saying they don’t exist… but I’ve never seen one. I don’t know about the G1, but I doubt it’s use is as trouble free as the iPhone’s.
+1
I completely agree, esp. with your last “collision course” comment.
That said, this would be brand new territory for Apple. I don’t have to tell you that they’ve always sold stuff that “just works”. Opening up the platform means venturing into the unknown, and quite possible tarnishing of their “just works” reputation. Honestly, I’d be surprised if they do it. I’d rather they adopt the safer “ride the fence” model: Don’t encourage it, but don’t prohibit it – AKA if you make a mess, you clean it up.
When Apple finds itself constantly closing loopholes that allow hackers to gain access, they must realize it’s an uphill battle (a la DRM). Why not go with the flow instead of against it: allow folks to hack the iPhones, but only support untampered Apple products. When the hacker community finally coalesces and gets their stuff working well, begin to support them too. Then Apple becomes the hero in all this, while not immediately losing control of the infrastructure they have built to date. In fact, they will always have their iPhone OS for non-hackers, which “just works”…but they can also support the hackers who wish to do more.
[...] they remain dominant. That’s why I’m not asking them to completely open source the iPhone. I’m just asking them to crack the door and let the breeze in. Write a [...]
You have NOT made a convincing argument about open-sourcing the iPhone.
Apple’s primary instructions are:
1. Survive
2. Make money.
3. Make the best products it can.
Open source:
1. Invites a lot of crapware. Invites destruction of the User Interface.
2. Is only of interest to a few geeks.
3. Does NOT make as much money as Closed Source.
4. Invites someone to CLONE the iPhone, which will then deprive Apple income.
It is GREAT that Linux can be installed on the iPhone, that Linux as Android is available on competing platforms.
This allows Apple to make even MORE PROFIT by keeping its code closed, keeping the user experience very easy and clean.
Remember than Apple targets the big 80% middle of the consumer population. It doesn’t target esoteric parts – particularly if they don’t create profit.
Apple, pound for pound, is the most profitable company in the word. Why should it allow for less?
I have been an Apple fan since the beginning and a shareholder. Thus Apple’s wellbeing is highly important. I don’t see open sourcing OS X doing this for Apple.
Note that Darwin, the UNIX core of OS X is open source. If you want to muck with it and install it on the iPhone, you are welcome.
[...] Read the rest of this post Print all_things_di220:http://voices.allthingsd.com/20081211/hurley/ SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Five Reasons Apple Should Open Source The iPhone”, url: “http://voices.allthingsd.com/20081211/hurley/” }); Sphere Comment Tagged: Evil Genius, Voices, William Hurley, iPhone, open source | permalink [...]
-1. Apple won’t do this for the same reason they don’t let anybody else use Mac OSX. They want to sell their hardware and out-of-the-box goodness and ease of use to the consumer who doesn’t want to go under the hood. And that’s a lot of people. But they’ll look the other way if people want to hack and do software and hardware teardowns. As long as they don’t try to sell cracked devices in the open market in bulk, as iCracks. Except in some markets. Apparently a big hunk of US sales end up in countries like Russia, hacked to accept local cards.
Apple are also going after the business market against MS and RIM, and business demands total hardware and network security. Uncrackability.
In Apple’s favour, they’re releasing code to the UNIX community and sponsoring open source WebKit, which is just Safari a few months from now:
http://nightly.web…rg/start/trunk/39073
They have an iPhone SDK, so once you pay the fee to get into the walled garden it’s fairly open. And they are cooperating with Google. Don’t forget Google chief Eric Schmidt is on Apple’s board. Anything created on Android can be easily ported over.
Android has effectively killed MS Mobile, which hurts Vista and Windoze 7.
My guess is Google and Apple want a 1-2 punch against Nokia.
BTW, Nokia acquired 100% of the Symbian OS they use and are going open source.
Customers like to hear that there are many options. The truth is that too many options cause choice paralysis.
Having lots of different types of applications isn’t choice. People doesn’t normally choose between a Personal Information Manager program, a game and photo editing program. They choose between two or more of the same kind.
If by “Apple should open the iphone” you mean “Apple should let everybody load any program on the iPhone” That does not make sense as a business strategy.
iPhones are selling because they are cool.
iPhones are cool because they offer a great user experience.
iPhones offer a great user experience because of good Software and Hardware integration.
iPhone has good Software Hardware integration because there are rules and guidelines for software.
Opening the iPhone the way you want can affect the user experience adversely.
Besides the iphone is already open source. It runs OSX and you can download OSX source code. (BSD code only of course)
iphone APIs are well documented.
You can register as a developer and access stuff.
Of course there is no easy way you can do changes, compile and install stuff beside Apples way.
Open source means that the code is disclosed. It doesn’t mean that you are getting your food predigested.
Open source doesn’t give you choice. Choice is given by people offering software of the same kind. Some people code for the money some because of the challenge, some for the fame, some just because they can.
You see, there is nothing stopping you or anybody else from developing and building hardware and then writing the software to drive that hardware. Except your skills and resources.
Your argument is broken because,
Linux free, Linux is open, nothing stops you from installing linux in lots of hardware.
Linux and generic hardware have what you are asking the iPhone to have.
For regular customers the openness and freeness of linux mean nothing. If your reasoning is applied to linux:
Why there is less software choice in linux than there is in Windows and even OSX?
Why Linux hasn’t been able to conquer the desktop?
Maybe this is going to change as people moves away from Vista and nettops market share increases.
-1
I think the open source community needs to stop congratulating itself for victories it hasn’t actually achieved, and declaring destinies that are anything but manifest. The open source community, and Linux in particular, has proven highly disinclined to produce usable software and enjoyable user experiences for typical users.
-1
As far as I understand, your main problem with the iPhone is its alledged lack of openness.
I agree with you on this part that the sandbox in which Apple confines 3rd party apps is too restrictive.
However, opening the iPhone does not necessarily mean open sourcing it and I don’t see how this would help Apple.
They’re not selling software, they’re selling a full system consisting of very well integrated hardware and software components. In order to provide a good user experience they must keep control over all those components.
-1
Most of your arguments have been brought up many times before. Yet mac apps tend to be of much higher quality then non mac apps, and apple is gaining market share like nothing else. Some ravings from some random open source beardie isn’t gonna change a thing.
PS: I am a linux admin, I make my living on FOSS, but I understand it’s not the only solution. FOSS works great for some things. Closed source works well for other things.
-1
This is a typical article written from the point of view of some opensource zealot. I like OSS, I use opensource software every day and I do contribute to some OSS projects, but OSS is not ‘42′.
The points made here are simply ridiculous, they contain a few punch-lines and then some statements and personal believs without any logic behind it. Let me get this straight: Apple is a company. As long as they’re making money, they are doing just fine AND proving you wrong.
1) “It’s Good for Devvies, Non-devvies, and Apps Alike”
The propaganda begins, this is like saying “I believe there is a god, which means god is the best”. Because you think it is doesn’t mean it is. I, for one, disagree here. As long as there’s decent documentation and development tools – you won’t hear many devs complain. Yes it can be practical to look up stuff in code when you actually have the code, but Microsoft managed to keep developers happy for what? 25+ years and counting? Don’t confuse “opensource” developers with Microsoft or Apple developers, they all have different views on ‘the world of development’. The non-devvies? Well – they don’t care about opensource at all, sorry to break it for you. They care about their money AND ease of use. There are plenty of ‘cost-free’ applications in the Appstore. If there’s a better version for which they have to pay for, they will – as long as it’s easy to spend their money.
2) “Customers Love Choice.”
Big misser. Yes customers like choice, up to a certain level that is. That’s why they choose the iPhone. Creating simplicity has been one of the keys to Apple’s success in the last 8 years. This means that Apple is actually selling “less choice”. It makes high-end features easier to use for the non-tech user, and it works: 1 sollution, maybe 2, but certainly not more, otherwise it might confuse the user. Sure if you dig deeper you have a lot more choices, but then you need to be a ‘power-user’. Apple’s main customerbase does not exist of power-users. Apple grew big on controlling their platforms, limiting choice both on hardware and software level – making it easy to use for the end-user. iTunes + iPod + iPhone made them the nr1 music retailer in the US. Their Mac sales are growing during what is probably the worst financial crisis since the 1930’s. The real world proves you wrong here, people care about ease of use more than they care about choice or money. And Apple is very good at ease of use, and their customers _choose_ a more limited choice.
3) “It Will Solidify Apple’s Dominance.”
There we have a fortune-teller… Does this author they really think that opensourcing the entire iPhone would suddenly make it dominate the market? There are plenty commercial competitors, some which were on the market long before Apple tried making a phone. The iPhone doesn’t dominate the market at the moment, it is 1 phone in a world of hundreds of phones. It’s also absolutely not in Apple’s interest that other phone-manufacterers could use the iPhone OS. As already pointed out, Apple’s strength is designing the hardware AND software, and not giving control away. They sell a “user experience”, not software.
Also the ‘competition’ has quite some money behind it and has invested a lot in competing technologies. Do you really think Google would give up? Or RIM? Nokia? Samsung? Microsoft? Google is not dominating the world right now with their Android right – and guess what, it’s opensource.
4) “If They Don’t, Someone Else Will.”
This one is funny, especially the “Earth to Apple: if the iPhone had been open sourced, this probably wouldn’t have happened.”. Say what? Do you really think those guys do it because they want to run “Opensource software” on the iphone? They do it because they can, because they’re challenged by it. Not out of some ideological “OSS the world” perspective, wake up please. Linux would have been running in weeks on the iPhone if it had been opensourced – just because they could. But who the hell would actually install and use that except for some hackers? Maybe 0.01% of the iPhones out-there? Jailbreaking is easy – that keeps the original functionality and you can add opensource software, but that’s already there. Installing a whole new OS which has to re-implement everything is something else. That means that the first few years, the software will unstable as hell and not suitable for daily use. It might be a cool tech-toy – but that would be it. It would not be a phone.
5) “They’re Gonna Have to Eventually.”
Stating something like this and not actually making the point actually makes you look stupid. Then going on about ppl already modding stuff makes it even stranger. If ppl already do it, and keep buying phones – why would Apple ‘have to eventually’? Like Microsoft will have to opensource Windows, SQL server, Office, … eventually? It took bankruptcy and a few in-house believers for Netscape to release the source-code of their browser. It took quite a while before even the first stable Mozilla suit was available. Firefox took even longer. So, if Apple doesn’t benefit from it, they won’t. And they won’t benefit from it, it would make their and their customer’s lifes a lot harder. Even if sales would go down, people would not start buying iPhones because suddenly it’s “opensource”. Offcourse a tiny few might – but you really think the ‘caring’ part of the ‘opensource’ world is that big? A large part that would buy such a phone already will have bought one – being an Android, iPhone or other smartphone.
I have an iPhone and I use OSS daily, but I’m also an Apple customer now. I buy (too much) music on iTunes (only iTunes+ DRM-free) for my iPod and iPhone, simply because it’s easier than going to a cd-store, buying the CD and ripping it, and even easier and faster than looking for it on some torrent tracker or p2p network. I don’t have to do anything to get that music on my phone or mp3player except plugging it in, which I have to do for charging it anyway. I’m happy because it’s hassle-free, just works and saves me time – Apple is happy because they make money. That’s how it works. Opensource has nothing to do with it, if a piece of opensource software is bad (and in realitiy, the majority is), nobody will use it, and that’s the cruel reality – opensource doesn’t magically make something good.
+1
Hey Bart,
You make some excellent points, but perhaps you misunderstand my position. I sit right between the open source side of the house, and the proprietary side.
However, I do believe that ‘open’ will always win in the future. Events like Maker Faire and TV shows dedicated to “modding your own electronics” are just a few of the signs that society is moving more and more towards a “I purchased it, I can do what I want with it” attitude.
People want freedom more than anything else. Yes, many users will never take advantage of that freedom, but does that negate their right to it?
+1
But not all at once. And they should only SUPPORT iPhone OS on iPhone.
-1
I’m not quite sure. Open source is ‘a’ way to go. It may even become the dominant paradigm. But Apple has made its comeback by bucking the neo-conventional wisdom of open platforms and made a fortune though the type of integration that dominated the computer market prior to the mid 1980s. If Android is open source and platform independent, maybe it’s better to differentiate and be closed.
You may ultimately be right, but I don’t think it’s clear yet. I guess there’s Darwin, but I never got a handle on how much they managed to get out of the open source community on that one.
You misunderstand the meaning of freedom. As a developer and Linux enthusiast, “freedom” to you means freedom to modify something however you want. As a consumer, “freedom” to me means freedom to choose between more than one quality product. There is nothing in your article that demonstrates that the first meaning begets the other.
You cite an example of a TV show where people are modding their devices. Really? That’s mainstream? Extreme Makeover iPhone Edition? With A Tutorial Of The Command Line? Are you serious?
Your biggest problem is that you have no experience with the mainstream public – it’s very easy to become convinced that what every mom REALLY wants for Christmas is to be able to sit down and jailbreak her iPhone so she can install Cydia and emulate NES games.. That is, if you listen to the collective geek voices in the blogosphere. Newsflash: Users want what is reasonable. What is reasonable is a crash free user interface and simply designed, free/commercial apps that let you manipulate the phone’s marketed capabilities. Users are very close to having that on the iPhone. What is NOT reasonable is a broken, buggy, unsupported, want-a-new-feature-code-it-yourself device.
The only reason Apple would open source the iPhone is if someone else created a quality product in direct competition with the iPhone. Sorry, there isn’t. The G1 doesn’t even come close. And merely getting Linux booting on the iPhone video (along with unfriendly system.log text) doesn’t make things look better for you.
Hi Peter,
I think you make a strong argument save the following:
“Your biggest problem is that you have no experience with the mainstream public”
Truth is, I have a great deal of experience in this area; including my experience in Apple marketing, training, and research and development. So to say I have no experience in this area (even specifically with Apple products) is a bit of a stretch.
Also, on the comment about a “What is reasonable is a crash free user interface”. My iPhone (yes I own one, and I was the co-founder of iPhoneDevCamp) crashes as much or more than any other mobile device I own; it’s not crash free by far and I think you’d have a hard time finding support for that part of your argument. I have posted screenshots of my more interesting crashes on flickr:
http://flickr.c…s/72157607994197903/
I do appreciate the logic behind the rest of what you’re saying…and yes, I would agree that the G1 is missing the mark…for now. Thanks again for the comment.
+1
free your mind
free your souce
Ah, then I apologize for my assumptions. To reiterate, I think the only way open sourcing will really prove itself (or make an honest argument) is if open sourcing stuff actually generates useful products. Firefox is one – but it’s probably the only one, at least where consumers are concerned.
You are right re: iPhone bugs – Apple has a long way to go until it’s the best consumer product it can be, and your crashes are indicative of that. But “open source the iPhone OS so we can fix bugs” is a different argument than “open source the iPhone so we can get a different OS on it.”
[...] friend William Hurley (whurley to most) has a post up on his blog about opening up the iPhone. This has proven to be predictably polarizing as is often the case when opinions regarding Apple or [...]
No apology necessary Peter. Part of the logic behind this post was to start a healthy debate. You’re making clearly defined arguments is greatly appreciated.
Thanks for following up as well.
+1 What the sceptics don’t realise, is that it doesn’t take a lot of people to ‘open’ the iPhone. It doesn’t require a lot of developers nor does it take a lot of people to bring it under attention of ‘the rest of us’.
All that it really needs is some features Apple now shields us from. That’s why they loosened up a lot already.
Either they lower restrictions even more or they will be passed by others just the same. In fact their iPhone has been hacked since day one and so will every other device that is ‘proprietary’.
+1
+1, in that I’m in favour of it.
But I don’t see how it would benefit Apple.
and in today’s news: iPhone 3G successfully unlocked by hackers
“Five months after the release of the iPhone 3G last July, a team of hackers has finally figured out a way to alter the device’s software so that it can be unlocked for use on networks other than AT&T’s. That team is, of course, the infamous iPhone Dev-Team, most recently seen hacking the iPhone to run Linux.”
Read the story: http://www.macworld…hone3g_unlocked.html
Well, short term it is really working out for Apple being totally proprietary. For now i see no need for anything else. They do it “well”, are doing well as a corporation.
They are providing selling products that are simple to use, have attractive design and … In the longer term…anything can happen. To say that they never will do one thing or another is nonsense. There are no guarantees that Apple or even IBM or MS will play the same role in 10 or 20 years as they do today. Did any of you forsee in ‘86 what IBM would become today? What about what would happen to music distribution?
That said, they have to think ahead…and i do think greater openness will be required. I doubt that they need it right now.
Same goes for selling OSX for other platforms. Right now, that would be bad for business. Get out your calculator and do the math. They would have to become huge on the os-side to match the returns they get from selling “monopolised” hw.
You might want to use OSX on your device… there is no business in Apple allowing it.
Like all corporations, when they are forced…they will…and they will become more open. Not just yet.
+1
They’ll have one more customer.
-100
I find it funny to think that people think making the iphone open source would do apple good. If it would do apple good then it would already have been done. If it were good then linux would be the #1 OS on the market (and it isn’t close to #1). Making iphone opensource would cause more problems than it would solve.
People buy a mac product not because it locks them into the hardware and software and because it keeps them in a box. They buy mac products because the software and hardware are tightly controlled so that the user experience is the best it can be. I am a hundred times more satisfied with my mac products (macbook, iphone, apple tv) than i am with anything that MS or linux has come out with, and I have tried a lot of things. Sure you can create word and excel docs with a pocket pc or G1 or the offer special features like scanning barcodes (G1) but those are not commonly useful. I don’t find myself in a store with a product in my hand and wanting to scan the barcode with my phone to search the product. I can do a google search with my iphone (and thanks to google…using speech) and find product reviews without having to scan a barcode.
Making the iphone open source would cause confusion for so many people. When i had my ppc (pocket PC) i had the hardest time finding software to suite my needs and much more figuring out how to install it and make it function properly. The iphone is so easy to use and finding and installing apps is as easy as a search in itunes.
Not to also mention you can jailbreak your iphone and have more control over it and just as much control over it as the ppc or g1.
The iphone allows the simple everyday user a mac experience…which is the best experience ever. It also provides those who want a little more control the option (with consequences, but not heavy ones) to jailbreak and take control. I am not going to argue about jailbreaking, but it is an option.
In the end, apple would lose if they open sourced and so would the user. There are only a remote few who want to play around with the limitless possibilities of an open source iphone (compared to those who just want to use it as it is). Making their software open source would ruin the integrity, end of story.
+1
open or not, but we all have to agree that the way the iPhone is ‘closed’ from the user is one pile of horse hockey!
IT IS RIDICULOUS!
I love my iPhone, I think it’s great and all and am a big apple fan. I didn’t mind the stupid way of adding custom ringtones as far as I could find my way around it easily, but the thing that tipped me off was the fact that we CANNOT add a custom text message sound. I mean, what the hell?!
It is stupid, unnecessary, idiotic and absurd. And yes, this was the reason why I’ve jailbroken my phone – just to put a bloody custom sms sound!
For a moment there I thought I could roll with what apple did, but all the sounds on the phone are crap, and I mean REAL crap. Now I have a sweet sound from ‘Worms 3′
But You see what my problem is, right? I can’t customise my bloody phone! And it is MY phone, I OWN the device and I want to have my wallpaper, my sounds, my own layout – everything just the way I like. The day when I’ll be licensing a device from a company will be the same day when I’ll start paying for playing games online and will eat my own arse!
PS I’d also like to have an iPhone file browser of a sort, so I can put a .pdf file on my phone and go through it whenever I like, or keep it for reference when I’ll need it.
[...] iPhone, he says, should become an open-source platform, and he lists five reasons [...]
[...] El blogger Will Hurley, entrevistado hace algo más de un año por Business Week sobre éste tema, nos proporciona cinco razones para que Apple se plantee dar el paso: [...]