Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Apr 2010 22:19 UTC
Google Andy Rubin is a vice president for engineering at Google, and he is responsible for the Android mobile operating system project. He recently had an hour long chat with The New York Times' Brad Stone, sharing his insights into things like openness, the lack of secret APIs in Android, and several other things. Of course, the jabs at Apple were prevalent.
Thread beginning with comment 421166
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: "Open usually wins"
by tweakedenigma on Wed 28th Apr 2010 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE: "Open usually wins""
Member since:

You might wanna take a closer look at the history of things. No one was brain washed by Microsoft. Microsoft carved out a market that was not being served at the time. People wanted to be able to buy computers from anyone and have them inter-operate. Apple, Amiga, and others tied the OS to their hardware, the Unix vendors of the world fought against themselves, and Linux was just something Linus was working on with a small group online.

For the record I am not Brainwashed by MS, I don't even have a computer that runs Windows in my house (All Linux and Mac). I do think Linux is a suitable competitor however there are a number of variables that effect it from coming into its own, but I wont get into it here.

Lastly comments like that just drive people away from Linux and Open source, makes us sound like a bunch of zealots.

Reply Parent Score: 5

jabbotts Member since:

It wasn't all about carving out a market based on un-served customers as things like the OEM contracts forbidding unit sales with competing OS. But I do also agree that in the beginning, Microsoft was the savior who delivered us from IBM's corporate grasp; it's just disappointing that Microsoft went on to emulate IBM's market monopolization so successfully.

They benefit significantly now from the questionable (and sometimes outright illegal) things they got away with early on.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: "Open usually wins"
by bert64 on Wed 28th Apr 2010 21:49 in reply to "RE[2]: "Open usually wins""
bert64 Member since:

Infact, Microsoft exploited the users' desire for openness, by allowing them to have open hardware but tying them in to closed software instead... At the time, software was such a tiny fraction of the overall cost that it got overlooked until it was too late.

There is a reason windows is about the only major os that hasn't been thoroughly cloned, and that is very much by design. Microsoft went out of their way to make it complicated and difficult to clone precisely so they could keep a lock on it and not have compatible clones springing up everywhere. This complexity however, is proving severely detrimental now especially when it comes to security.

Reply Parent Score: 3