next »

[isthisthingon]

This one's for perks who eternally feels that sauce should be kept secret, or at least people should be able to make food and legally conceal the ingredients that you dice-roll into your body

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/57846

[Phaëton]

People are trying anything possible to do business as a restaurant.  I even
saw one that was "Name your own price"....

[isthisthingon]

Name your own price 

But who knows what the next killer app will be...

[nop_90]

 

[perkiset]

This one's for perks who eternally feels that sauce should be kept secret

You so miss me. I don't think that at all. I think it's fair that if some want to keep it secret, and some want to open source it, both will be part of their value proposition. I just think that the rigid rule that everything must be open sourced is as arrogant and dogmatic as the notion that everything should be secret. It's the secretives that give the open sourcers their value. And it's the open sourcers that give the secretives an argument in the board room. It's ludicrous to imagine that they do not mutually feed each other.

[isthisthingon]

Damn perks, you know exactly how to compel a response from me.  You produce straw men faster than I can say "where on Earth did that concept come from?" 

I just think that the rigid rule that everything must be open sourced is as arrogant and dogmatic as the notion that everything should be secret.

Couldn't agree more.  And if anyone even thinks of coming up with such a lame, rigid "rule" let's lake em out back for a power-weggie.  I would never suggest that someone in a non-monopolistic position (unlike Apple and Microsoft) should be forced to open their source against their will.  Well, to make things even with the IP extremists I'd have a chuckle if closing your source meant serious time in prison.  That would in fact be a more level playing field or at least fair retribution for the injustices caused by the closed source camp.

I do, however, believe that along with the rest of the IP extremist, gold rush ideas to get rich quick, the concept of writing, locking down legally and then selling software will soon become a laughable greed smudge in human history.  Leverage the infinite and focus on that which is truly scarce.

It's ludicrous to imagine that they do not mutually feed each other.

For those who see nothing but the game of potential profits from the sale of software, especially shrink wrapped software, I totally agree.  But it's all about the services in the future.  Cloud computing, utility computing, the programmable web.  People will no longer try to unnaturally wrap up and make the infinite finite hoping to get rich.  The open cloud makes owning software a completely useless and antiquated concept that's been stripped of all value 

Cloud computing is part of the problem for the on your ownership society, I mean ownership society 

[perkiset]

<g> we do spur each other on, huh?

Challenge to your post: you say you'd never posit such a rule against someone in a non-monopolisitic position. Therein lies the rub: you feel that (simply for example) Apple is in some way monopolistic. The definition of monopoly is more closely aligned, however, to there being only one seller in the marketplace - or one option - essentially, the capability to name your price because nobody else can get in.

Well, if we want to talk about a monopoly on Apple products, Apple certainly has it. But if we talk about computing, or OS, or smart phones, or notebooks etc, then we must evaluate the fact that market share or mind share does not equate to monopoly - it equates to good marketing. Does Apple have a monopoly on smart phones? Absolutely not. Even though they are 3rd in size in the world now, that's because consumers chose - not because they were forced. Consumers even choose iTunes, Apple hardware, movies sold by Apple etc when there are plenty options because they like the offering. Even with closed source, DRM laden hooie that restricts them - they choose it.

This is not to say that the deal struck between Apple and it's customers is not Faustian. I have a discussion going on with Nuts at the moment re. Google and their mail/forum offerings. They offer more storage, better features, quicker response yadda yadda all the things that I want. They also get to mine my shit. The deal is treacherously seductive: I can't really, efficiently or economically, duplicate their offering yet letting them sift through the details of my corporations, or that of my clients, is fundamentally disturbing. Do they have a monopoly on email? No, even through gmail is arguably the largest email provider in the world. But might I be compelled to make that deal? Well, time will tell. But THERE'S the difference: regardless of how cool, incredibly capable etc etc they are, I can choose other.

So this is where I take your argument from "Oh no, I don't want to see restrictions on people" to "everyone must be open source" because we see the notion of monopoly as completely different. You do not need to pay for your desktop software today. It's free, downloadable and open source. Or you can. It's up to you. But I'd push back pretty hard against the notion that just because something becomes popular, it must be converted from closed to open.

[nutballs]

@perk. you dont have time for this!! back to work! 

[perkiset]

Right! Back to work indeed. my apologies, master.







What hump?

[isthisthingon]

Wait, wasn't that hump on the other side....... nevermind.