You can’t ‘heart’ what you don’t own
Originally posted on May 15, 2010
A lot of hate has been exchanged across the web as of late. Apple’s complaining about Adobe’s software, Adobe’s complaining about Apple’s plans for mobile domination, etc..
With individuals jumping on the bandwagon with ‘facts’ and ‘facts about the facts’, it is clear that its become a political free-for-all. Simply-put, its not about doing what’s right for the public, and it shouldn’t be.
For one, Apple and Adobe are not ‘good people‘. They’re corporations which create products that happen to be beneficial to the livelihood of a group of individuals. I would say, mankind, although I just realized there’s not a preference in Adobe’s software to ‘solve world-hunger’ nor a button on a mac labeled ‘world peace’.
What these companies make, enable others, but past that, they’re not, nor should be, responsible for the output of those who make a conscious investment in their services.
To say that either publicly-traded, profit-based, company is ‘bad or evil’ in the sense of its virtuosity to humankind, is an oxymoron. With that said, any argument which implies ‘the good of all’ in its thesis should be ignored, and its author tagged under ‘defensive’, ‘fanboy’, ‘erectile dysfunction’, ‘Note from CEO’, ‘overpaid-marketing firm’, etc..
What upsets me is that there are a lot of really intelligent people out there who have bought into the emotional plea of both companies. Facts become irrelevant, and reviews turn into flamewars fueled by defensiveness and personal vendetta. The word ‘open’ gets thrown out and immediately defined as ‘for the people’, when in actuality its a rope pulled over a big ditch of bullshit in a childish game of tug-o-war.
Simply put, we can’t rely on companies such as these to make or break innovation. The word ‘open’ doesn’t belong to either of them, and yet somehow we’ve allowed them to create their own definition to it.
As individuals, we shouldn’t feel the need to depend on others to set the limitations of what we can do. Any argument for ‘open-ness’ based on either company’s definition is not a valid one, for it stands not on the strength of the individual, but on that of a self-serving corporation.
Design limited to technical constraints is like art limited to social constraints. It doesn’t exist, if in doing so it wouldn’t be an act of creation.
So, to conclude, stop bitching and start doing. You’re too smart to fall into this ditch.
