Recently I read an interesting blog post and, well, you know me, I want to throw in my two cents.
Being open comes with its risks. Take a look at the United States' government. It's an open system. By design, no one person or group of persons controls it. Everyone who uses the system has input.
Not everyone who uses the system knows the ins and outs of the system, so certain people are appointed to design the legislation. These people believe that they have a talent for such things and attempt to climb the ladder by building a following. The ones who truly are talented rise to power. They go on to have flourishing careers as mayors, governors, senators, and maybe even the President of the United States. They write legislation that truly benefits the system and makes the system better and more powerful.
There is a flip side to all of this. Because of the open design, sometimes people who aren't talented develop a small following, and they are introduced into the system. Even worse, sometimes people with ill intentions rise to power, get introduced to into the system, and cause great harm to the system. But thankfully, the open system allows for the users of the system to deal with such matters by removing the malicious person and repairing the damage.
Not everyone likes this open system of government. There are many people who prefer a closed system. In a closed system of government one person or group of persons controls everything giving them absolute power over the system that they have created and all users of the system must bend to the rules set in place by the ones who are in control. This provides a certain amount of safety for those who live within this system. But there is a catch. You must first be welcomed into the system. If the governing people decide you are of low quality or dangerous, you are not allowed into the system, and in many cases you are ridiculed or made into some sort of criminal. And you get absolutely no say in the matter.
Let's bring the analogy home, shall we.
In the blog linked above, Paul Skidmore talks about the safety he feels by living inside of Apple's closed system of iOS. And he is correct, the closed system guards him from poorly written or malicious software. But this closed system also strips him of all of the freedoms that I enjoy with Android or Windows, or that maybe you enjoy with Blackberry or Linux.
In the iOs world, Steve Jobs is king. What he says goes. If he doesn't like something for any reason whatsoever, he can keep iOS users from ever using it, even if it might benefit you. Flash is just one very big example of this.
I use Flash and I use it a lot. Chances are you do to. Or, if you use iOS, chances are you would use it, except you aren't allowed to. Not because Adobe doesn't desire to provide it, but because Apple has decide that you don't need it or that it's too dangerous for you.
In the Windows world, Microsoft is just a piece of the governing body. Users like myself or developers work with Microsoft to improve the Windows experience by providing input and creating software. If a piece of software that is harmful to the system is introduced, the users and developers report this to the appropriate people and the problem is dealt with. If Flash is experiencing difficulty, the governing bodies of Microsoft and Adobe address the problem. The downside is that I experienced the problem at all. The upside is that I can view a large portion of the internet that Apple is slowly taking away from it's users.
It's true that in Apple's closed system the problem would likely have never existed. But that also means that the ability for the system to grow and become stronger is handicapped. How often does iOS get a much needed update? Not often. Even worse, how often does Mac OSX get a needed overall? About every 18-24 months, and they charge you for what usually amounts to the equivalent of a free Windows service pack. (Yes, there are exceptions. Sometimes the pay-for update is pretty extreme. But that's rare.)
Corruption from within is also a much bigger risk. Look at the iPhone4. When it was discovered that the antenna design was deeply flawed, the one governing body that exist in that system told it's loyal users to deal with it. Yes, they handed out band-aids for the iPhone4, but they still refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem and address the issue in future shipments. Why? Because you live in a closed in system; they don't have to.
In an open system, problems are dealt with much quicker. There are more people able to (allowed to) identify problems and there are far more people able to (allowed to) handle the problems. An open system acknowledges that we are human, we make mistakes, and we need to be kept in check. A closed system claims that one person or group of persons is perfect and everyone else is 100% wrong.
Google and Microsoft treat me with dignity and respect. When I had trouble with my Xbox 360, Microsoft was quick to make it right because Microsoft knows the risks involved in making a device that lives inside of a mostly open ecosystem and that those risks must be dealt with. (The Xbox 360 was designed with many different hardware manufacturers input. This makes for a much more affordable and more powerful design. The flip-side is that it also means that sometimes tweaks need to be made to the different components to make them play nicely, even after the product has shipped.) When I've had trouble with my Android, Google (or Motorola or T-Mobile) have responded appropriately because Google understands the risks of a completely open ecosystem and can respond accordingly. (Google doesn't monitor the Android Market like a dictator, so sometimes bad software creeps in and damages the OS. The flip-side here is that I am able to decide for myself what I want and what I don't, not Google.) When I have trouble with my Mac, I'm met with denial and contempt.
I'll take my chances with an open system. I might download a virus or elect a Barney Frank, but at least it was my decision, and not Steve Jobs'.
No comments:
Post a Comment