stories filed under: "open"

Operation Payback And Wikileaks Show The Battle Lines Are About Distributed & Open vs. Centralized & Closed

from the the-soul-of-the-internet dept

Thu, Dec 9th 2010 9:11am — Mike Masnick

Back in October, I wrote a thought-piece on how "the revolution will be distributed," comparing Wikileaks to Anonymous' "Operation Payback" (whose tactics I disagree with). I noted that the two were very different, and were focused on very different issues, but that both were essentially about distributed and open systems taking on systems that were centralized and closed -- and that the folks in those centralized and closed systems didn't seem to understand this. Thus, all of their reactions did little to fix the challenges they were facing.

It seems that my comparison of the two operations was a bit more prophetic than I expected. In the wake of the latest Wikileaks saga, Operation Payback is getting attention for pointing its DDoS takedown efforts on Visa and MasterCard for their decision to disallow any payments to Wikileaks via their cards.

I still disagree with the tactics of Operation Payback -- which I fear will be counterproductive and could lead many people to think this is all about some "rowdy kids" rather than people with a serious agenda. However, it is rather telling how much attention they're getting. The folks behind Operation Payback point out that they're not affiliated with Wikileaks, but:

We fight for the same reasons. We want transparency and we counter censorship. The attempts to silence WikiLeaks are long strides closer to a world where we can not say what we think and are unable to express our opinions and ideas.

Again, I'm struck by the simple split many have here: it really is an argument between those who believe in distributed and open vs. centralized and closed -- and I'm still not sure if the folks supporting centralized and closed even realize this. Their response, to date, has been to act as if they're fighting a centralized system. They focus on things like Wikileaks' domain and its founder -- as if that's the issue. They target the centralized pieces. And even if you make the argument that Wikileaks needs Julian Assange to stay together, if it were to shut down, it wouldn't take long for a ton of other, similar offerings to spring up in its place. And, they would probably be even more effective (and potentially more damaging).

While I don't necessarily like "war" analogies, what we're seeing is very much a battle between the way people want to see information flow, and one side seems to be still fighting the last war.

Filed Under: anonymous, centralized, closed, distributed, open, operation payback, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

78 Comments

Microsoft Exec Says 'Open' Means 'Incompetent'

Say That Again

from the oh-really-now? dept

Thu, Sep 16th 2010 11:42am — Mike Masnick

Glyn Moody points us to the news that a Microsoft exec is criticizing the Brazilian government's support for open source software using some pretty weak arguments. This isn't new. For years, any government that supports open source software is attacked (falsely) as not supporting private enterprise. However, what's really ridiculous here is that the Microsoft exec in question, Hernan Rincon, president of Microsoft Latin America, seems to be making even more specious arguments than usual, claiming that "open" really is a way of saying "incompetent":

"When you can not compete, you are declaring open. This masks incompetence." (translated)

That's quite a statement, and one made with no basis whatsoever. Openness could "mask incompetence," but I'd argue that it's much easier to mask incompetence with a closed solution. Open generally is the opposite of "masking" anything. He also makes the typical FUDian arguments that open source is more expensive to run, which isn't quite accurate (or, realistically, depends on what it is you're trying to do). But this claim that openness is about incompetence is just plain ridiculous.

Filed Under: hernan rincon, open
Companies: microsoft

57 Comments

An Open iPhone App Market That Doesn't Require Jailbreaking... And Which Apple Can't Stop

Wireless

from the html-it-up dept

Fri, Jul 30th 2010 6:00am — Mike Masnick

In all of the fuss, hype and obsession over the iPhone/iPad app store, people seem to forget that when the iPhone first launched, it had no app store and no ability for third party developers to create native apps. Instead, Steve Jobs suggested the high quality Safari browser on the iPhone meant the end of native apps, as everything could and should just be done in HTML. And yet, a year later, Steve Jobs totally changed his tune, the iPhone app store was launched, and suddenly this obsession with everything "apps" began. Of course, the media industry fell in love, because they thought that they could regain an element of control, thanks in part to Apple's incredibly arbitrary iron fist over what got into the store.

And yet... in all of that, it seems that many people forgot that original promise of apps all just being created in HTML. Indeed, if you look beneath the surface, you would realize that many iPhone apps really are just made in HTML and then compiled into being native iPhone apps. Using HTML alone, you can access many of the phone's features and certainly create all sorts of apps. But still, there has been general anger over Apple's mercurial gatekeeper activities. Back in January, we noted that Google had remembered the ability to create apps via HTML and had simply routed around the App Store. It made us wonder why others weren't doing it too.

While there have been a few "independent" app stores for the iPhone, they've all required jailbreaking the phone. And while that's now officially legal as per the Library of Congress, it's still not something your everyday iPhone user wants to do. So I've been somewhat fascinated by a new offering that's launching today called OpenAppMkt, which effectively creates a brand new app market for iPhones all via HTML (both the openappmkt app itself, and all the apps in it are HTML based). The experience is very much like the regular app store, with the small exception of having to tap the "add to home" button:

While many of the initial offerings in the OpenAppMkt are free, it does let developers charge for their apps as well. Effectively, this is an entire "app market" for the iPhone that simply routes around Apple as a gatekeeper, and there's really not much that Apple can do to stop it. And, of course, since the apps in the OpenAppMkt are just HTML, it likely won't be difficult for OpenAppMkt to extend this to other platforms as well, such as Android (even though Android's much more open market means that there's less of a reason to developers to use OpenAppMkt for Android).

Overall, this fascinates me for two reasons. First, it's good to get more people realizing that HTML is already pretty damn good at creating app-style experiences, without having to create special compiled code and, second, it's a really clever way to totally route around Apple as a gatekeeper (without requiring a jailbreak), and is a reminder that even on "closed" systems, openness will often find a way.

Filed Under: app market, apps, iphone, open
Companies: openappmkt

74 Comments

Let's Face Facts: Google Isn't So Open At Times Either

Overhype

from the don't-play-the-open-card-too-much dept

Fri, Jun 11th 2010 4:43pm — Mike Masnick

There's a new battle brewing between Google and Apple over where the internet is headed next. At recent developer conferences for both companies, execs took very clear potshots at each other, and now they're directly sniping at each other over openness.

Google recently purchased AdMob, a mobile advertising platform, and AdMob execs are upset at Apple for prohibiting the use of other ad providers for the iPhone. Basically, you're locked into Apple's own iAds platform. This is a bit ironic, given Apple's recent claims that it won't support Flash because the platform is too closed. It seems that Apple is against closed platforms... unless they're Apple's closed platforms.

But, while Google plays the open card -- and very often is quite open -- some of the claims that Google/AdMob execs are making could be pointed right back at Google as well. Take this one, for example:

This change is not in the best interests of users or developers. In the history of technology and innovation, it's clear that competition delivers the best outcome. Artificial barriers to competition hurt users and developers and, in the long run, stall technological progress.

I agree with this point, wholeheartedly, but Google doesn't always act that way. Google's main product, its search engine, is still a very, very closed platform. If a developer wants to innovate off of Google's search, they currently have two options the AJAX search API and Google's Custom Search Engine (CSE) -- both of which have tremendous limitations. The AJAX API limits results to just 8, and really just keeps trying to drive users back to Google's properties. For CSE, the terms are quite limiting and only let you display Google ads on the results page -- not all that unlike Apple's limitations. At one point, Google had a SOAP API that let people develop on Google search results, but they killed that off. And, Google has never offered anything like RSS on search feeds.

If Google were truly "open" to "the best interests of users or developers" by encouraging more competition, why not let others build on top of Google's platform as well? If it were open, then Apple could innovate on top of Google's search and make money by selling its own ads, just as Google now wants to be able to run ads on iPhone/iPad apps. The reverse is true as well. If Apple were really open, then Google could innovate on top of the iPhone/iPad apps and make money off of its ads.

But the truth is neither company is that open when it comes to products it believes are core to its business. For many years, we've wondered if Google would make its search engine into more of a platform that others can build on, but to date, it remains very controlling on that side of its business, which I think is a loss for the wider internet. Now, obviously, this is Google's call to make, but to whine about Apple not opening its platform while keeping its own just as closed is a bit hypocritical.

Filed Under: ads, open, platforms
Companies: apple, google

28 Comments

Has Sony Finally Realized That Open Platforms Are Good?

Surprises

from the for-real? dept

Fri, May 21st 2010 3:54pm — Mike Masnick

Sony is pretty famous for creating closed platform after closed platform locked down with incredibly damaging DRM. Back in 2005, there was a surprise statement from Sony's Ken Kutaragi, where he admitted that the company made a mistake in focusing on proprietary consumer electronics... but it seemed like no one was listening. The company kept on coming out with locked down, proprietary offerings. So, we were a bit skeptical a year ago when Sony CEO Howard Stringer once again claimed that Sony should have been more open. You can say it all you want, but if your solutions are still proprietary, it's pretty meaningless.

Could Sony finally be realizing that there really is a benefit to openness? Perhaps only after getting crushed in the market. But, people are noting that Sony's agreement to use Google's open GoogleTV platform is extremely un-Sony-like. Of course, it might just be a desperation ploy -- and too little, too late -- for a company that hasn't been considered a real leader in the space in many years.

Filed Under: closed, open
Companies: google, sony

16 Comments

Apple: Closed, Proprietary Systems Are Bad (Unless They're Our Own)

Say That Again

from the do-as-I-say-not-as... dept

Thu, Apr 29th 2010 4:58pm — Carlo Longino

Steve Jobs fired the latest salvo in the ongoing Apple-Adobe spat today, with his "Thoughts on Flash" posted on the Apple site. In short, he says that Adobe looking out just for its own interests in drawing developers to its "100% proprietary" Flash ecosystem while Apple supports a great, open standards-based world. But just as we pointed out a couple of weeks ago when Apple moved to block cross-platform development tools, regardless of what Apple says, its interest is locking developers into its Apple-controlled and dominated ecosystem. Nearly every accusation Jobs levels at Adobe and its products can be made about Apple and the way it seeks to control iPhone app development. Jobs brings up Apple's support for open Web standards, but that's really little more than a red herring to distract attention from how Apple wants to lock down developers into its own ecosystem. Jobs makes it clear that he has no interest in developers using any platform apart from the iPhone, and any tool that helps them do so is worthy of his scorn. So for him to talk about supporting Web standards -- with the point being that they're standards, available across platforms -- is disingenuous when Apple's strategy for apps is guilty of pretty much everything he accuses Adobe of. None of this, on a strategic level, is particularly reprehensible, they're just business decisions (even if we don't agree with the approach). But Apple's apparent insistence on playing by a different set of rules to everyone else, and the hot air that accompanies it, grates just a little bit.

Filed Under: closed, flash, open
Companies: adobe, apple

113 Comments

Sarcasm Wars: Proprietary SarcMark Gets Some Sarcastic Open Competition

Too Much Free Time

from the open-sarcasm dept

Wed, Feb 17th 2010 8:57am — Mike Masnick

You may recall, last month, we wrote about some jokers who came up with the idea of the SarcMark to indicate when you were being sarcastic. They forgot to use their own mark on the stunt, though, because it seems pretty ridiculous to create a proprietary punctuation mark for which they expect people to pay $1.99 to get a special app to use. Like that would work. Of course, a few things happened in response. First, a bunch of people noticed that the SarcMark looked remarkably like script version of the Hebrew letter "pey." In other words, get yourself a Hebrew font, and you're probably good to go.

But, perhaps much more interesting is that the sarcasm wars have now broken out. In response to the closed and proprietary SarcMark, another group has launched the Open Sarcasm project that is, instead, pushing a version of an upside down exclamation point to indicate sarcasm -- based on the already in existence Ethiopian punctuation mark for sarcasm (which is why it's already a part of unicode) . I have no clue if they're being serious or sarcastic. Which is why the world needs more sarcasm markers.

Still, whether or not any of this is serious, it actually does show how betting on proprietary solutions can often come back to bite you, as more open, cheaper, and more flexible solutions pop up to fill in the gap. So, yeah, to SarcMark, good luck with that project.

Filed Under: open, open sarcasm, proprietary, sarcasm, sarcmark

34 Comments

Wait, Who Wants A Proprietary, Locked Down Device That Limits What You Can Do?

Overhype

from the why-are-you-buying-an-ipad? dept

Wed, Jan 27th 2010 3:59pm — Mike Masnick

I honestly didn't have very much to say about Apple's introduction of the iPad, which seems like something of a non-event, really. However, it's fascinating to see some, such as Nick Carr, react to the device by suggesting that it's the beginning of the end of the "PC era" in favor of specialized proprietary devices that allow companies to lock things down, act as gatekeepers and, perhaps more importantly, tollbooths:

The transformation in the nature of computing has turned the old-style PC into a dinosaur. A bulky screen attached to a bulky keyboard no longer fits with the kinds of things we want to do with our computers. The obsolescence of the PC has spurred demand for a new kind of device -- portable, flexible, always connected -- that takes computing into the cloud era.

Suddenly, in other words, the tablet is a solution to a problem everyone has. Or at least it's one possible solution. The computing market is now filled with all sorts of networked devices, each seeking to fill a lucrative niche. There are dozens of netbooks, the diminutive cousins to traditional laptops, from manufacturers like Acer and Asus. There are e-readers like Amazon's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook. There are smartphones like Apple's iPhone and Google's Nexus One. There are gaming consoles like Sony's Wii and the Microsoft's Xbox. In some ways, personal computing has returned to the ferment of its earliest days, when the market was fragmented among lots of contending companies, operating systems, and technical standards.

While it's true that all of those offerings exist, with some being more successful than others, I still wonder how sustainable most of those really are in the long term. We've said before that limited, locked-down proprietary solutions often win early on, but over time they quite often get surpassed by more open offerings. This isn't always true, but it does happen quite frequently. The locked down offerings may be better initially due to a benevolent dictator -- and the open solutions may be quite messy at first due to the design-by-committee nature of the crowd, but over time the crowd gets better (or, more accurately, those who are better within the crowd begin to shine and take over), while the benevolent dictator has trouble keeping up.

Instead, I think Tim Lee's analysis of the iPad makes a lot more sense, noting that Apple is making a mistake in simply trying to funnel people into a proprietary setup with a tollbooth and controls:

The [iPhone App] store is an unnecessary bottleneck in the app development process that limits the functionality of iPhone applications and discourages developers from adopting the platform. Apple has apparently chosen to extend this policy--as opposed to the more open Mac OS X policy--to the iPad.

With the iPhone, you could at least make the argument that its restrictive application approval rules guaranteed the reliability of the iPhone in the face of tight technical constraints. The decision not to allow third-party apps to multitask, for example, ensures that a misbehaving app won't drain your iPhone's battery while it runs in the background. And the approval process makes it less likely that a application crash could interfere with the core telephone functionality.

But these considerations don't seem to apply to the iPad. Apple is attempting to pioneer a new product category, which suggests that reliability is relatively less important and experimentation more so. If a misbehaving application drains your iPad battery faster than you expected, so what? If you're reading an e-book on your living room couch, you probably have a charger nearby. And it's not like you're going to become stranded if your iPad runs out of batteries the way you might without your phone. On the other hand, if the iPad is to succeed, someone is going to have to come up with a "killer app" for it. There's a real risk that potential developers will be dissuaded by Apple's capricious and irritating approval process.

Furthermore, the same two pieces seem to differ on the ability of Apple to really significantly create such a world where Apple gets to act as the tollbooth for all content. Carr notes:

Today, Jobs's ambitions are grander than ever. His overriding goal is to establish his company as the major conduit, and toll collector, between the media cloud and the networked computer. Jobs doesn't just want to produce glamorous gizmos. He wants to be the impresario of all media.

Which suggests a rather forward thinking position of Jobs. Lee, on the other hand, sees it in exactly the opposite manner:

Apple seems determined to replicate the 20th century business model of paying for copies of content in an age where those copies have a marginal cost of zero. Analysts often point to the strategy as a success, but I think this is a misreading of the last decade. The parts of the iTunes store that have had the most success--music and apps--are tied to devices that are strong products in their own right. Recall that the iPod was introduced 18 months before the iTunes Store, and that the iPhone had no app store for its first year. In contrast, the Apple TV, which is basically limited to only playing content purchased from the iTunes Store, has been a conspicuous failure. People don't buy iPods and iPhones in order to use the iTunes store. They buy from the iTunes store because it's an easy way to get stuff onto their iPods and iPhones.

Certainly, both Carr and Lee seem to agree about Jobs' ambitions and plans over the iPad, but where they seem to differ is the likelihood of it actually happening in any real way. If I could bet on either prediction, I'd go with Lee's.

Filed Under: ipad, open, proprietary, tollbooth
Companies: apple

146 Comments

eBook Market Gets More Crowded... But... Still Many Limitations

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the it's-a-start dept

Tue, Oct 20th 2009 6:56pm — Mike Masnick

As lots of tech sites are reporting (and as was leaked not too long ago), Barnes & Noble has released its own ebook reader, clearly designed to compete with the Kindle. The good news is that it takes aim at some of Kindle's weaknesses, such as by supporting more open offerings, like ePub, and also by allowing you to "lend" books to others. But the lending is pretty limited. You can only lend a book once, and then only for two weeks, after which the lent book disappears. It's nice that you'll be able to buy books from other retailers and use them on the Nook, but the limitations still seem pretty serious. Still, more competition is good, and even a slight step towards a more open solution is a step in the right direction. Next up: we just need someone else (perhaps not tied to a bookstore) to offer an even more open device.

Filed Under: ebooks, epub, lending, open
Companies: barnes & noble

28 Comments

Palm Finally Realizes It Needs To Help, Not Hinder Developers

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the back-to-its-roots dept

Tue, Oct 6th 2009 3:24pm — Mike Masnick

We've been getting on Palm lately for the widespread mistakes the company made in building out a strong developer community. Despite having had strong developer communities in the past, with the Pre, it seemed like Palm decided to simply copy everything (even all the bad things!) that Apple did with the iPhone app store. It was a terrible case of iPhone cargo cultism, that seemed to assume that if they just copied the iPhone's every move with developers, things would be just like the iPhone. Now that that's backfired, it looks like the company has come to its senses. It's brought in some Mozilla developers and opened things up wide. It's done away with the fee for developers. It's openly allowing people to offer their apps directly to Palm users without having to go through an insane and arbitrary approval process. And, the new folks promise this is just the beginning of a much more open offering. It's about time. This is the sort of thing that Palm should have done before it launched.

In the meantime... there are still other problems showing up, including odd complaints about hidden limits on how many apps you can get through the Pre app store, without any clear response from Palm. So, for every step forward...?

Filed Under: developers, open, palm pre
Companies: palm

21 Comments

<< Newer Stories

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Tuesday
12:08	Superbowl Ads Try To Make 5G Sexy, But Consumers Still Aren't Buying The Hype (13)
10:54	Israeli Police (Mostly) Cleared Of NSO-Related Wrongdoing While NSO Issues Legal Threats To Calcalist Over Cover-Up Claims (4)
10:49	Daily Deal: FlashBooks Business Book Summaries (1)
09:30	EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem (39)
06:08	ID.me Doesn't Have Enough Humans To Backstop Its AI, Allowed A Guy In A Bad Wig To Illegally Obtain $900,000 In Benefits (16)
Monday
20:16	YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring (65)
15:43	Eleventh Circuit Smacks Georgia Sheriff Around For Posting 'Don't Trick Or Treat Here' Signs In Sex Offenders' Yards (22)
13:38	The Intersection Of Section 230, SLAPP Threats, The Streisand Effect And Sex Discrimination In Corporate Structures (10)
12:02	FCC To Take A Closer Look At Racial Discrimination In Broadband Deployment (2)
10:44	Missouri's Governor Still Insists Reporter Is A Hacker, Even As Prosecutors Decline To Press Charges (22)
10:39	Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Adobe CC Training Bundle (0)
09:38	How EARN IT Could Give Abusers A Get Out Of Jail Free Card: By Making Evidence Inadmissible (21)
05:37	Law Firm Sues US Citizen And Immigration Service After It Tries To Claw Back Docs Obtained Legally Thru A FOIA Request (12)
Sunday
12:00	Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (14)
Saturday
12:00	This Week In Techdirt History: February 6th - 12th (1)
Friday
19:39	Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon (348)
16:26	Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World (62)
14:02	Declassified Documents Shows The CIA Is Using A 1981 Executive Order To Engage In Domestic Surveillance (12)
12:13	Can We Compare Dot-Com Bubble To Today's Web3/Blockchain Craze? (11)
10:49	Cop Trainer Encouraging Cops To Run Facial Recognition Searches On People During Traffic Stops (20)
10:46	Daily Deal: The Complete 2022 Microsoft Office Master Class Bundle (0)
09:46	Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again (79)
06:33	Unknown American VC Firm Apparently Looking To Acquire NSO Group, Limit It To Selling To Five Eyes Countries (13)
Thursday
21:09	Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence (146)
15:30	The Top Ten Mistakes Senators Made During Today's EARN IT Markup (61)
13:31	Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents (43)
12:00	Yet Another Israeli Malware Manufacturer Found Selling To Human Rights Abusers, Targeting iPhones (2)
10:45	Surprise: U.S. Cost Of Ripping Out And Replacing Huawei Gear Jumps From $1.8 To $5.6 Billion (12)
10:40	Daily Deal: The Complete GameGuru Unlimited Bundle (0)
09:36	Senator Blumenthal, After Years Of Denial, Admits He's Targeting Encryption With EARN IT (20)

Operation Payback And Wikileaks Show The Battle Lines Are About Distributed & Open vs. Centralized & Closed

from the the-soul-of-the-internet dept

Microsoft Exec Says 'Open' Means 'Incompetent'

from the oh-really-now? dept

An Open iPhone App Market That Doesn't Require Jailbreaking... And Which Apple Can't Stop

from the html-it-up dept

Let's Face Facts: Google Isn't So Open At Times Either

from the don't-play-the-open-card-too-much dept

Has Sony Finally Realized That Open Platforms Are Good?

from the for-real? dept

Apple: Closed, Proprietary Systems Are Bad (Unless They're Our Own)

from the do-as-I-say-not-as... dept

Sarcasm Wars: Proprietary SarcMark Gets Some Sarcastic Open Competition

from the open-sarcasm dept

Wait, Who Wants A Proprietary, Locked Down Device That Limits What You Can Do?

from the why-are-you-buying-an-ipad? dept

eBook Market Gets More Crowded... But... Still Many Limitations

from the it's-a-start dept

Palm Finally Realizes It Needs To Help, Not Hinder Developers

from the back-to-its-roots dept

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

More

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More

from the the-soul-of-the-internet dept

from the oh-really-now? dept

from the html-it-up dept

from the don't-play-the-open-card-too-much dept

from the for-real? dept

from the do-as-I-say-not-as... dept

from the open-sarcasm dept

from the why-are-you-buying-an-ipad? dept

from the it's-a-start dept

from the back-to-its-roots dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More