Why does open source need a villain?
Summary: Jobs' Apple simply does not pose the same threat to open source Gates' Microsoft did back in 2005, when ZDNet launched this blog.
Bill Gates has been in "retirement" for less than a month (heading his Foundation may be harder than being Microsoft CEO) and already open source advocates have settled on a replacement.
Steve Jobs.
As I wrote earlier this week, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Now Jobs is rich, he's powerful, and he's the same age as Billy and me (53). But in terms of the threat Jobs poses to open source, it's like going from Heath Ledger's Joker to Cesar Romero's (above).
Jobs' Apple simply does not pose the same threat to open source Gates' Microsoft did back in 2005, when ZDNet launched this blog.
Microsoft had a lock on the desktop, it had a strong position in the server space, it had a real position in online services and mobile. It even had its own TV network. Not to mention lawyers and lobbyists talented enough to beat the U.S. government.
Apple has a tiny desktop market share, nothing in the server space. Its power lies in gadgets -- the iPod and iPhone -- and the network services feeding them. That's it. That's all.
My view may be unpopular (it may even be wrong) but I see Apple's legal manuevers as supporting open source arguments, not threatening them.
So why the obvious upset? Why is the Free Software Foundation thundering that the iPhone threatens freedom? You want freedom fries with that?
I suspect this has more to do with human nature than business reality. Gates always focused intently on one enemy at a time, and always felt himself the underdog. This was part of his strength.
But open source is not a company. Open source is a lot of things. A movement. A business model. A development model. A legal framework. (Insert your view here.) But not a business.
My own belief is that Jobs' absolute belief in the proprietary model will, in the end, be his undoing. He lost a six-year lead in desktop technology because of it. The iPhone could easily fall to the same hubris.
Don't make Steve Jobs out to be more than he is. Stop worrying about what he's going to do to open source.
Make him worry about what open source is going to do to him.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
It doesn't need a villian
I agree
We are free to innovate our way out of any problems which the iPhone brings, but the clock is ticking. I don't think we have 6 years, which is how long it took Windows to equal the Mac in basic functionality. (Mac fans -- I said basic.)
villain or hero?
<font color=grey>"By giving away his software, the Finnish programmer earned a place in history"<br>
<br>
"Some of Torvalds' supporters portray him as a sort of anti-Bill Gates, but the significance of Linux is much bigger than merely a slap at Microsoft."</font><br>
<br>
Open source has identity crisis
If it's just about coding, then the war is lost. No one cares if the software inside their PDA is GPL2 3, or commercial. You can spin that any way you want, but it's the truth.
If it's about philosophy, then things get interesting. Imagine if this was applied to pharmaceuticals: any discovery funded by public dollars becomes public domain, and any products made from those public domain discoveries are freely available and unpatentable. All drugs become generic.
I think open source needs to broaden it's horizons in order to get more people to make the mental leap that it isn't just about software.
RE: Why does open source need a villain?
Why does open source need a villain?
OS doesn't need a villain, the blog writers do.
Just my $0.02 USD, your opinion may well vary.
Regards,
Jon
Meet Jon Doe
Actually I have been struck by how easy it is to gain traffic to a blog here with a readily identifiable villain, by personalizing things rather than going into any kind of technical detail.
I have mentioned this to my fellow bloggers on more than one occasion, but we have yet to find a solution that works.
Hi Dana, pleased to meet you too.
Frankly you'd be crazy not to, especially in the midst of a recession. We all tend to do that which rewards us: call it enlightened self-interest.
:-)
I wasn't attacking you so much as pointing out that much of this demonizing (sp?) takes place in the press, and not so much in the actual open-source community.
As for a "better solution" to straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks, that probably won't present itself until human nature changes. So long as such tactics work, they will continue to be used. For better or worse that, too, is human nature.
Regards,
Jon
"they know how they get paid and act to maximize it"
the iPhone is an attractive disease
then revisit, rethink, and revise
your own blog post.
http://www.jz.org/
Riddle Me This, Hack Man
So I wish ZDNet would stop attacking Linux each and every day!
I'm attacking open source?
I like the subject line, though.
You have Ballmer anyway.
Exactly! Why go after Jobs when we have Steve Ballmer to kick around?!?
Like I said, a ready-made villain.
Proprietary formats
marketshare is climbing at a very healthy rate.
The old Mac got marginalized because they charged a
ridiculous premium for their hardware. It was a deliberate
business policy when Jobs was gone and there was a lot of
infighting about whether it was wise to do so. The high price
premium crowd prevailed.
As to why Open Source needs an enemy? Because when you
can blame all your problems on the Other Guy, you don't have
to face them.
RE: Why does open source need a villain?
out to be a villain in the eyes of open source advocates. The
article presented the idea that Apple took much more from
open source than it gave back. I don't know one way or
another, but I do know that Apple users, and no doubt Apple
Inc., want Open Source to be successful as it can be.
Anything that reduces the Microsoft monopoly helps
everyone else. Open standards help everyone else.
That doesn't explain what I've read over the last month here
I have been curious as to why this is so, and so suggested here that open source advocates are replacing Gates with Jobs as their villain of choice.
*SOME* open source advocates
These tend to be the most vocal which distorts things quite considerably.
Which, of course, leads to blogs like this! ;-)
ttfn
John
The Mr Big Phenomonon
Anything that reduces the Microsoft monopoly helps everyone else. Open standards help everyone else. [/i]
Apple is only really interested in how much Apple can reduce Microsoft's monopoly. And while open standards would help them improve their selling position, Open Standards is not the same thing as Open Source.
But back to the title, the reason that people want there to be a Villain opposing Open Source is the same reason why a lot of police movies tend to feature a shadowy Mr. Big who commands crime from behind the scenes and who the good guy detectives can face and take down. It's easier (And often more fun) to ascribe one shadowy villain to explain all bad things than to sort through all the smaller factors that are the real explanation.
Basically, now that Bill Gates is semi-retiring, it's harder to say "Linux hasn't gained market share nearly as fast as it should have because of Gates." And it's easier to switch to saying "Steve Jobs has stabbed Linux in the back" than to take a serious look at all the small but significant factors making Linux a hard sell for the general public.