Linked by tessmonsta on Tue 16th Mar 2010 08:55 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Today's mobile space is owned by the likes of Nokia, RIM, Apple, and Google. While some of these corporations have embraced some open source components, a full FLOSS solution has yet to gain traction. Why? Blogger Bradley M. Kuhn posts thoughtful analysis of the current state of Open Source in the mobile space.
Thread beginning with comment 413838
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Design Thinking
by puelocesar on Tue 16th Mar 2010 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Design Thinking"
puelocesar
Member since:
2008-10-30

"because most desktop users care about user experience and fancy desktop effects and theres better funding in enterprise solutions."

That's a unfunded affirmation. People want things to work. They want to work <strong>with</strong> technology, not work <strong>for</strong> techonology. Apple is loved not because of the desktop effects, it's because of simplicity, well defined goals and technology that helps people get their stuff done.

This mentality of users want eye candy must stop. Eye candy without purpose just get in people's way. But if used to improve familiarity and fluidness on interfaces they can bring great value.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Design Thinking
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Mar 2010 14:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Design Thinking"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"because most desktop users care about user experience and fancy desktop effects and theres better funding in enterprise solutions."

That's a unfunded affirmation. People want things to work. They want to work with technology, not work for techonology. Apple is loved not because of the desktop effects, it's because of simplicity, well defined goals and technology that helps people get their stuff done.

This mentality of users want eye candy must stop. Eye candy without purpose just get in people's way. But if used to improve familiarity and fluidness on interfaces they can bring great value.


Meh.

http://amarok.kde.org/en/releases/2.3.0
(play the clip, Apple has nothing to compare to this)

http://www.digikam.org/drupal/about?q=about/overview
http://www.digikam.org/drupal/about?q=about/features
(I have found better features for photo management here than anything that Apple has)

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html
(Apples stuff doesn't have anywhere near this level of coverage of formats, nor platforms for that matter)

http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/
(power and features ... perhaps best of breed)

http://www.firebirdsql.org/
(often overlooked, but very powerful)

http://gcc.gnu.org/
(the compiler that produces more software for more platforms than any other)

http://www.beowulf.org/
(nothing if not innovative)

http://www.alfresco.com/
(not innovative, but the only competitor to Sharepoint)

http://www.eclipse.org/
(the original and best ide)

http://www.apache.org/
(the original and best web server)

http://www.cherokee-project.com/
(if you don't have a powerful machine, you can still have a web server)

http://www.puppylinux.org/
(blindingly fast because it runs from RAM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_CD
(try before you install, check that everything works on a machine, only available for open source)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_repository
(still the only means of installing software with a guarantee of having no malware)

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/
(the browser that broke the back of IE dominance, popular for a reason)

http://why.openoffice.org/
(not innovative, but it has got 20% market share where no other Office suite could make inroads into MS Office dominance)

http://opendocument.xml.org/
(open, interoperable formats are an innovation that benefit millions ... commercial office suites have never offered this)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
(a very solid kernel that lesser commercial vendors have forked)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
(the origin of webkit)

http://meego.com/
(it will be alone in letting users decide what apps they want on their smartphone)

None of these were Apple's idea.

Edited 2010-03-16 14:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Design Thinking
by Laurence on Tue 16th Mar 2010 14:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Design Thinking"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

That's a unfunded affirmation. People want things to work. They want to work with technology, not work for techonology.


and that's where my point about usability comes into the equation.
The problem we have here is you have a too specific classification of just what 'usability' means'

Apple is loved not because of the desktop effects, it's because of simplicity, well defined goals and technology that helps people get their stuff done.

There's much much more to Apple's success than simplicity alone.
There's the fact that some people are fed up with Windows and Apple is the next biggest commertial platform.
There's the fact their their marketing is second to none.
The fact that to many people Apple are bordering on a religion.

But let's also not over state Apples success - they're still only a tiny fraction of the overall desktop market share.

Thus if you're point was as clear cut as you imply, then OS X would be out selling Win7 (despite Win7 also having desktop effects).


This mentality of users want eye candy must stop. Eye candy without purpose just get in people's way. But if used to improve familiarity and fluidness on interfaces they can bring great value.


I agree, but we are geeks.
At risk of stereotyping, You ask an average girl if she prefers an ugly phone that has 2x the battery life, 2x the processing speed and is easier to use, she'll usually go for the phone that's the same price but half the spec and usability because it is pretty and pink.

If "normal" people really cared more about intelligence over beauty then celebrity culture wouldn't be so big. Countdown would get more viewers than Britain's Next Top Model and so on.
Obviously I'm making somewhat extreme examples, but the point I'm making is most devices work "good enough" already that most normal people with money to burn will spend on the better looking products.

Heck, I bet even you have at least once thought "that looks sexy" at one piece of impractical hardware.

You can't change human desire. Rightly or wrongly most people only care about what they can see and touch. The rest is left for the geeks to discuss.

Reply Parent Score: 2