

Investing in an open mobile development platform - erikstarck
http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2010/02/investing-in-open-mobile-development.html

======
raganwald
I flagged this article because I think the headline "MySQL-Monty about the
importance of open in mobile & why Apple can not win" is over-editorializing.
I think it's fair to personally draw that conclusion from the article, but
that isn't the article's headline, nor is it what the author is really saying.
The author is talking about the importance of open vs. closed platforms, and
iPhone is _both_. Apple went out of their way to make what at the time was the
very best mobile browser available.

To me, the post is a marketing ploy for the author's latest investment. if I
was going to editorialize the headline, I might write "Why MySQL Monty is
investing in the cross-platform and open source company MoSync."

~~~
silvestrov
His argumentation is weak. He says _it [is] of outmost importance that the
platform that grows to be the dominant one for native applications is an open
one_

And why do he think this so important? Is it because _On the Internet it's
(somewhat) safe to say that the philosophy of open is winning_ or is it the
rhetorical question _do we want this to be an open world or a closed one
controlled by one company._

He never considers that a completely open platform will be very open to
trojans and other malware. There are so many (Windows) users that happily
download trojans from web sites, that it is no fun at all. A fully open
platform might not be the best for phones to most users. The optimal system
might be only be semi-open, where all apps are sandboxed and vetted by some
party.

Just like cars: the government make restrictions on the cars (e.g. requires
seat belts, ability to brake, strength when crashing) and can take cars off
the street if the government deems them unsuitable. The government has solid
institutions for this: Department of Transportation, NHTSA, etc.

Apple's vetting is far from perfect, but some kind of vetting is probably
required to avoid ending in the situation we would have if cars were not
vetted at all.

So, if we find Apple's vetting bad, then let's discuss how the vetting process
can be improved instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

(please fix the headline).

------
fierarul
No thanks, I don't need any more "open" products from Monty the same way MySQL
was so open he cried wolf for months when Oracle purchased Sun.

Speaking of open-source, MoSync seems to support: Android (1.5, not 2.0),
Moblin 2, Java ME, S60 and Windows Mobile. Out of these 3 are probably 100%
open-source (Android, S60, Moblin) while the rest of the bunch have nowhere
near the iPhone level of "lock-in". Where is the need for MoSync exactly ?

Not saying I might not use their SDK, I was thinking about
<http://phonegap.com/> not long ago (which is also open-source), but I don't
see why is he bragging about "open" so much, there is nothing revolutionary to
talk about.

~~~
towndrunk
Yea. I think Monty has lost some (maybe a lot) of credibility.

~~~
X-Istence
He has lost all of his credibility. When he kept crying about MySQL being sold
to Oracle after he sold it to Sun it was not just annoying but it looked
pathetic like he wanted to get his old company back now that it was going to
what I gather he once considered a competitor.

Monty's ranting in general is starting to get annoying and I hope that in the
near future he realises that nobody is listening to him and that maybe it is
time to call it quits.

