Open for business
Originally published on September 12th, 2010
There has been a lot of talk about ‘openness’ in the technology sector. Ironically, the definition of ‘openness’ itself is ‘open’ to interpretation. However one thing everyone seems to agree on is that openness is the ‘white-knight’ of, well, everything. Companies are fighting to convince us that closed-system is the epitome of all that is evil. It allows companies to dominate and control the way we think and act —its communism, and should be put on trial without question. What people forget is that, when you take the ‘company/man’ out of the equation, when you start thinking more ‘openly’, you start to notice that ‘closed-systems’ of the past have created innovations which ultimately defines humanity’s relationship with technology today.
Apple’s iOS has been criticized as being a closed system because it restricts developers from creating applications not abiding by Apple’s rules of ‘user interface guidelines’ and development tools. In their defense, Apple has gone so far as boldly stating that they’re the ‘first major computer company to make Open Source development’, and that they ‘remain committed to the Open Source development model’. While this is true of OSX, it is not for iOS. When it comes to developing an application to run off any of their touch-devices, developers have to go through the process of code review by Apple before it is made public. Along with this, the developer is only allowed to sell their product through Apple’s AppStore and/or iTunes Store. In this respect, Apple as a company is not one-hundred percent ‘open’, and not nearly as committed to Open Source methodology as they claim to be. When it comes to iOS, they defend their ‘closed’ stance with a means to ‘quality-control’ and a consistent user-experience. I for one don’t have a problem with this. I don’t want to go back to the days where shareware from no-name companies would crash my computer, and I certainly don’t want to have to learn a new way of interfacing with my iPhone. What I have a problem with is the inconsistent and false marketing tactics they use to spin the definition of ‘open-ness’.
With that said, there is a justified fear that arises from having a completely open-system run on a myriad of products. This has always been true, however it hadn’t surfaced as a major issue until touch-screen devices started saturating the market. Because touch-screen interaction is in its infancy when it comes to adoption, it is extremely important time to define the user experience —when it comes to defining gestural behaviors, Apple has the upper hand. They control/restrict the market due to patents, first to market, and early adoption.
Like it or not the Android OS may have won the numbers war, but Apple has won the user experience war precisely because of their ‘closed-system’. For example the ‘pinch gesture’ has become an expected way of zooming in and out, so much that any attempts to stray from it will ultimately fail. In many ways, Apple has defined what is a ‘natural’ way of interacting with touch screen devices. This is an example of how a ‘closed-system’ can succeed in outweighing ‘open-ness’ —and its not necessarily a bad thing.
Concluding that a ‘closed-system’ will always succeed over an ‘open’ one is like comparing ‘democracy’ to ‘communism’. We’re simply thinking of both in the wrong way. We’re judging broad terms, and not what defines them. Simply put, a closed-system still outputs positive results. You can have democracy built on capitalism, which ultimately, is defined by an individual’s choice to buy. Companies don’t control what product sells. If this were the case, the stock market would be much easier to predict. Amidst, Apple’s solidified definitions of user interactions, there is still room to innovate. When we remind ourselves that we are individuals the notion of a controlled-environment is a fallacy.
History has shown us that there will always be the right to choose, and that our fears of company-dominance are unjustified. Think of it this way, if there wasn’t, we’d all be using Internet Explorer.
