And they obviously do not refute my point at all which is: Many people besides hackers receive benefits of open-ness, and that there is a substantial demand for open as opposed to locked down devices, much greater than the .001% you maintain are hackers.

This statement was made in October of 2007 by Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, Richard:

“Since June 29, approximately 250,000 iPhoneshave been unlocked.”

This was out of 1.4 million sold. Hardly an inconsequential number, and certainly there were more who wanted untethered devices, but who didn’t actually unlock there phones…

And they obviously do not refute my point at all which is: Many people besides hackers receive benefits of open-ness, and that there is a substantial demand for open as opposed to locked down devices, much greater than the .001% you maintain are hackers.

This statement was made in October of 2007 by Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, Richard:

“Since June 29, approximately 250,000 iPhoneshave been unlocked.”

This was out of 1.4 million sold. Hardly an inconsequential number, and certainly there were more who wanted untethered devices, but who didn’t actually unlock there phones…

But seriously, I’m aware that MS has some undocumented APIs that they probably use for their own purposes. It’s not clear how significant they are, however.

The point was simply that full disclosure of the source code isn’t necessary as long as the published API documentation is sufficient. Windows can be a black box, but as long as all the doors and tunnels are open, it’s not a barrier to innovation.

I assume you know that many developers have said that what Microsoft publishes is not the full story, and that outside developers are thus placed at a competitive disadvantage.

[tedious anti-straw-man: This is not refuted by saying it's possible to develop to it anyway]

In other words, if I see a boulder in the middle of the road, I can swerve or brake to avoid it. If I don’t see it, I’ll probably hit it.

But seriously, I’m aware that MS has some undocumented APIs that they probably use for their own purposes. It’s not clear how significant they are, however.

The point was simply that full disclosure of the source code isn’t necessary as long as the published API documentation is sufficient. Windows can be a black box, but as long as all the doors and tunnels are open, it’s not a barrier to innovation.

I assume you know that many developers have said that what Microsoft publishes is not the full story, and that outside developers are thus placed at a competitive disadvantage.

[tedious anti-straw-man: This is not refuted by saying it's possible to develop to it anyway]

In other words, if I see a boulder in the middle of the road, I can swerve or brake to avoid it. If I don’t see it, I’ll probably hit it.

These are the facts.

The market shows that the open model is preferred by consumers, when they are offered the choice. They rarely are, but that’s about to change.

Note the very many iPhones that have been unlocked. That shows that:
1- the benefits of open accrue to many non-hackers.
2 - there is substantial demand for open

These are the facts.

The market shows that the open model is preferred by consumers, when they are offered the choice. They rarely are, but that’s about to change.

Note the very many iPhones that have been unlocked. That shows that:
1- the benefits of open accrue to many non-hackers.
2 - there is substantial demand for open

We can debate the reasons for that if you wish, but there’s really no doubt that open source has been a failure except for a few isolated examples, most of which are professional programers’ tools in any case.

Richard:

that would be akin to saying that normal users don’t get any benefit from GPL’D software, because they won’t use their freedom to modify the source code.

With the internet, essentially a no-cost medium for distributing information, many users benefit from the work of the 1%. Just look at how many apple phones have been unlocked; certainly most of those who unlock their iPhone are not hackers.

Then there is also the quality issue. Open devices allow many to inspect the software. Is it important to you to stop the NSA from building a ‘back-door’ into a mobile device? It’s much more possible to stop this with open software. Just look at what AT&T has provided the feds with, without even a warrent.

We can debate the reasons for that if you wish, but there’s really no doubt that open source has been a failure except for a few isolated examples, most of which are professional programers’ tools in any case.

The overwhelming majority (99.999%) of the hacking that leads to new products and services is actually done by professionals, most of whom have access to APIs and SDKs for closed devices, so the notion that non-professional hacking is a significant source of tech progress is simply malarkey.

Richard:

that would be akin to saying that normal users don’t get any benefit from GPL’D software, because they won’t use their freedom to modify the source code.

With the internet, essentially a no-cost medium for distributing information, many users benefit from the work of the 1%. Just look at how many apple phones have been unlocked; certainly most of those who unlock their iPhone are not hackers.

Then there is also the quality issue. Open devices allow many to inspect the software. Is it important to you to stop the NSA from building a ‘back-door’ into a mobile device? It’s much more possible to stop this with open software. Just look at what AT&T has provided the feds with, without even a warrent.

The overwhelming majority (99.999%) of the hacking that leads to new products and services is actually done by professionals, most of whom have access to APIs and SDKs for closed devices, so the notion that non-professional hacking is a significant source of tech progress is simply malarkey.

I don’t believe that he presented it as black and white as you maintain.

Having a preference for generative and open as opposed to closed and controlled does not mean that one would disappear completely.

However, seeing clearly the danger and freedom removing possibilities of locked down devices may remove partially the likelihood of the worst case scenarios coming to pass.

I don’t believe that he presented it as black and white as you maintain.

Having a preference for generative and open as opposed to closed and controlled does not mean that one would disappear completely.

However, seeing clearly the danger and freedom removing possibilities of locked down devices may remove partially the likelihood of the worst case scenarios coming to pass.

I *think* Zittrain could be partially summarized as arguing for strong anti-trust, like the European Union just did with Microsoft.

From the reviews and surrounding commentary, it appears that Zittrain forecasts a dystopian future for Internet-connected devices; we wouldn’t need to stop the future of the Internet if it were going along swimmingly. Now doesn’t that imply a preference for more of the complicated end-user-programmable devices the old folks don’t want to be bothered with?

I’m guessing Zittrain romanticizes the solitary hacker who’s going to start the next Google while strapped into a child safety seat by re-writing the code in his baby monitor (; I could be wrong, I was once before.)

If that’s the case, well, I hear he’s an entertaining speaker.

I *think* Zittrain could be partially summarized as arguing for strong anti-trust, like the European Union just did with Microsoft.

From the reviews and surrounding commentary, it appears that Zittrain forecasts a dystopian future for Internet-connected devices; we wouldn’t need to stop the future of the Internet if it were going along swimmingly. Now doesn’t that imply a preference for more of the complicated end-user-programmable devices the old folks don’t want to be bothered with?

I’m guessing Zittrain romanticizes the solitary hacker who’s going to start the next Google while strapped into a child safety seat by re-writing the code in his baby monitor (; I could be wrong, I was once before.)

If that’s the case, well, I hear he’s an entertaining speaker.

“Again, I guess I just don’t see how all of us would “lose a sense of equilibrium between the generative and sterile spheres,” or that “platforms that are open to third party innovation at first” will “close off selectively” and “squeeze out fully generative technologies.”"

Well, that’s sort of what his book is all about, his arguments as to why that could happen (n.b. I’m not endorsing that here, just explaining what I view him as saying, roughly). If you want to claim he’s wrong, OK. But thereafter, you seem to start pummeling straw-men, endlessly, tediously. You seem to believe that he’s arguing that “sterile and tethered” devices are not useful to anyone for anything and never any good in any way, and set yourself to refuting this with great vigor. In the essays, you say things at length, but the length doesn’t help if the premise is off-base.

“Again, I guess I just don’t see how all of us would “lose a sense of equilibrium between the generative and sterile spheres,” or that “platforms that are open to third party innovation at first” will “close off selectively” and “squeeze out fully generative technologies.”"

Well, that’s sort of what his book is all about, his arguments as to why that could happen (n.b. I’m not endorsing that here, just explaining what I view him as saying, roughly). If you want to claim he’s wrong, OK. But thereafter, you seem to start pummeling straw-men, endlessly, tediously. You seem to believe that he’s arguing that “sterile and tethered” devices are not useful to anyone for anything and never any good in any way, and set yourself to refuting this with great vigor. In the essays, you say things at length, but the length doesn’t help if the premise is off-base.