

Linus Torvalds: Locked Down Technologies Lose in the End - RyanMcGreal
http://mashable.com/2011/11/18/linus-torvalds-apple-lockdown/

======
tjogin
Whether locked down technologies "tend" to lose depends on what categories of
technologies you count.

A common mistake when speaking of closed vs. open systems is to look at a very
narrow set of technologies and product categories, often limited to PCs, and
extrapolate from that to other kinds of technologies, like smart phones. But
the world of technology is bigger than that, much bigger.

You've got everything from enterprise solutions, to consumer electronics, to
embedded technologies. People want "open" and "freedom" in general purpose
computing solutions, but people _(regular people)_ tend to not even reflect on
that in consumer electronics, like gaming consoles, GPS-devices, or the
software in their cars. And, the last few years, many classes of computers are
becoming more and more like consumer electronics devices, and less like PCs.

Suffice to say, there are quite a few markets and product categories that are
traditionally completely "locked down" or "closed" or "integrated", or
whatever you want to call them, that _absolutely do not_ "tend to lose in the
end".

~~~
jeffdavis
I'll add to that the amount of software we use that's not even really on our
computers at all, but on a server somewhere else.

------
blinkingled
A better way to put it would be to say "Locked down technologies tend to not
become as ubiquitous as their open counterparts".

Linux is a good example - other proprietary UNIX systems are not everywhere as
Linux is (openness being relative). Windows is another - it was more open than
OS X. Both proprietary UNIX systems and OS X lost in terms of market share.

Another example is Sony's proprietary formats - Memory Stick Duo Pro or
whatever it was called.

So there is a definite history of markets preferring open alternatives when
they were practical and at least in the same ballpark of usability of the
closed/proprietary counterparts.

Also the context is important as the article points out -

 _.. in Brazil, where Apple iPhone users cannot buy games for the device, due
to specific legal requirements from the Brazilian government. Apple has
reacted by simply removing the games category for users in Brazil altogether.
Because of its secretive corporate culture, Apple has recently been criticized
in Brazil for being the “most closed company in the world.”_

~~~
archangel_one
I don't think it makes sense to compare Windows and OSX and say that OSX lost
because it was less open. By the time OSX came around Windows had been a
monopoly for some time. OSX hasn't gotten any more open over time (probably
less so, in fact) but its market share has gone up and Apple is now worth more
as a company than Microsoft - so who's lost there?

~~~
blinkingled
We are talking ubiquity here. And relative openness. Windows 7/Vista/XP are
ubiquitous OSes that are more open (put it on any piece of hardware you want
as long as it is x86{_64} etc.). Mac OS and OS X were open - but locked down
to hardware. Both Mac OS and OS X were and are less ubiquitous (i.e. 5% market
share vs. 95% for Windows for a long time now) than any version of Windows.
Apple making more money or Steve Ballmer's whims are not the contentions here
- ubiquity of products is.

~~~
archangel_one
No, sorry, I wasn't talking about ubiquity - I don't disagree that OSX runs on
less hardware than Windows. I simply didn't think it made sense to say that
OSX had "lost" since it had very little market share at first and has grown a
lot (I also disagree it's been holding steady at 5% for a long time), whereas
Windows started out as a monopoly with nearly 100% and has declined somewhat
since. That doesn't sound like any definition of "lost" I've ever heard.

If you want to include classic MacOS as well, I'd tend to agree more, but
originally you just said OSX.

------
merryandrew
If you want an interesting perspective on this idea, check The Master Switch,
written by Tim Wu.

[http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-
Vint...](http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-
Vintage/dp/0307390993/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321640163&sr=8-1)

Amazon Book Description: It is easy to forget that every development in the
history of the American information industry–from the telephone to radio to
film–once existed in an open and chaotic marketplace inhabited by
entrepreneurs and utopians, just as the Internet does today. Each of these,
however, grew to be dominated by a monopolist or cartel. In this pathbreaking
book, Tim Wu asks: will the Internet follow the same fate? Could the Web–the
entire flow of American information–come to be ruled by a corporate leviathan
in possession of "the master switch"?

Analyzing the strategic maneuvers of today’s great information powers–Apple,
Google, and an eerily resurgent AT&T–Wu uncovers a time-honored pattern in
which invention begets industry and industry begets empire. He shows how a
battle royale for Internet’s future is brewing, and this is one war we dare
not tune out.

------
jorgecastillo
I think Linus got it wrong.To me(I am no expert) technologies that work win.
People(companies, government, etc) don't really care about openness, they care
about usefulness. I believe that when it comes, to choosing a technology for a
certain task, the best technology for that task, will tend to win marketshare.

~~~
tikhonj
What I've found is that it isn't the best technology that wins every time: an
option that is good enough but is heavily marketed or backed by a virtual
monopoly is likely to beat out better technology.

------
noahlt
That's easy for him to say, but is there any evidence that this is, in fact,
true?

~~~
dredmorbius
Some. Interesting paper from some years ago on trends and missed opportunities
in the computer industry. Unfortunately, it leaves off just where things get
interesting: <http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwpio/9406003.htm>

The general trend is that the more general, more flexible, lower-cost, more
modular solution tends to win out in the long run. That's been different
solutions at different times, but "more open" is a good general rule.

------
Bdennyw
Linux on the desktop is a fantastic counter example.

~~~
sp332
You're cherry-picking an example. Linux in general is a counter-counter
example. In addition to running a large proportion of webservers (actually the
open-source Apache server hosts over 50% of all websites), Linux also runs on
the majority of smartphones sold.

~~~
jeffdavis
Another way of looking at it though is that businesses choose open technology
platforms, but consumers choose integrated/closed end products.

I'd like to believe that consumers will, in the end, choose open technology
(directly or indirectly). Maybe it has something to do with the rate of
technological change, and it's just a matter of time before the benefits of
open technology are demanded. But the evidence is not conclusive.

If anything tips the scales, it will be when consumers start to figure out
that they don't own their devices _or the content on them_. People are getting
a vague sense of that with locked-down mp3 players that make it hard to copy
songs around. It will be a bigger deal when the person that gives all their
books away because now they have electronic ones becomes furious when they
find out they are forever beholden to amazon (and its book-deleting whims) to
be able to read them.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Right before our eyes, consumers are choosing an open technology platform for
smartphones - Android - which had 52.5% market share on smartphone sales in Q3
2011. Compare 16.9% for Symbian, 15% for iOS, 11% for BB and 1.5% for Windows
Phone.

<http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1848514>

~~~
cmoscoso
Don't you think the manufacturers are choosing Android?

~~~
sp332
Manufacturers seem to like Windows Phone 7 too, but those phones aren't
selling very well.

------
jeffreymcmanus
The only question here is what "in the end" means.

I can make a bet that, say, OSX won't exist in its current form in twenty
years. But that doesn't inform any particular action I should take today. "The
end" can be a long time away, and in technology empires rise and fall in a
span of three to five years.

~~~
leot
Agree. Long run behavior is mostly useful when deciding between two competing
alternatives in which the short-term consequences are unimportant.

I'd assert that the widely-accepted "in the end" kinds notions are noxious,
and speak to a "happily ever after" narrative that has always been false. "In
the long run we're all dead."

Another such poisonous idea is "the truth will out" -- sure, maybe. But once
it does it could no longer matter, and there will likely be other far more
significant falsehoods to worry about. Similarly, "Markets can remain
irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent." When it comes to
knowledge, this might be translated as "populations can remain ignorant and
make stupid decisions long enough to have irreversible disastrous
consequences."

------
andos
Then¹:

 _I actually think secure boot makes a lot of sense. I think we should sign
our modules. I think we should use the technology to do cryptographic
signatures to add security; and at the same time inside the open source
community this is so unpopular that people haven't really worked on it._

Now:

 _I’m an optimist: openness is successful in the long run, secure boot is
another one of these passing fads._

Not implying that he is being incoherent or, even worse, that he cannot change
his mind. The passing fad of secure boot meant by Linus is probably using it
to lock down a device.

¹. <http://www.muktware.com/news/2865> and
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3196098>

------
ikeough
Mr. Torvalds is confusing market freedom with the freedom to install other
software on your devices. Market freedom is the ability to choose those
products which suit your needs. Given the growth of apple in the last few
years, it is quite obviously the case that the "free" market is working. I'm
also not entirely sure what he means by "losing in the end". Apple and
Micorosft have no responsibility other than to return value to their
shareholders. They are, most decidedly, winning in this regard. If he means,
losing simply based on adoption of a technology than only time will tell, but
even if Apple and Microsoft fall in the long term it will still be an example
of the free market at work.

------
shaggyfrog
"Most people want freedom". Yes. Also, most people want their technology to
just work. So how about we add: Complicated Technologies Lose in the End.

But we can use Occam's Razor to shave both statements down to the truth: most
_technologies_ lose in the end. Because most things go obsolete.

That includes open technologies.

------
jsz0
Hasn't hurt the gaming industry at all. That's probably where things are
heading for general purpose computing.

------
larrik
Secure Boot isn't a Windows 8 feature, it's an EFI feature that Windows 8 will
require. the concern being that Microsoft will convince manufacturers to lock
out non-Windows OS's from being installed.

I think that distinction is pretty important.

~~~
tankenmate
I don't think it is so much Microsoft convincing OEMs to lock out other OSes,
it's more like MS relying on OEMs being lazy and not putting the option to
load your own keys into the BIOS.

~~~
larrik
Maybe, maybe not. Microsoft DOES have a history of strong-arming OEMs into
being Windows-only. If they get lazy it'll only be because they don't see
Linux as a threat anymore.

------
rajpaul
Take what Linus says about locked down technologies losing in the long term
and consider that technology is often a "winner takes all" game and we have an
interesting scenario playing out for iOS in the future.

~~~
protomyth
Technology is not often a "winner take all" game. The PC industry is the
anomaly. Which other technology industries have one winner? Sure isn't
cellphones or TVs.

~~~
jiggy2011
In terms of interchangeable commodities there is space for many players. But
in terms of more fundamental standards such as Windows vs Mac , JS vs Flash ,
VHS vs Betamax there tends to be one strongly dominant winner. The Mac only
became really popular once it basically became a PC with a different GUI. In
terms of cellphones pre smart-phone most were basically interchangeable since
they were all capable of making voice calls and SMS over GSM , there was
limited interest in developing applications for them by 3rd parties.

The disadvantage that iOS has in terms of becoming dominant is that only apple
at present makes hardware which can run it (officially anyway) so it is in
Apple's interest to keep the hardware cost relatively high since they make
allot of money from selling it.

Once the it gets to the point where everybody wants a smartphone and tablet
computer there will be allot of pressure for low cost products which Apple has
no interest in providing. Android & similar can win bigger here because google
does not make money from the hardware. They make money from the advertising
etc so they are mostly interested in making sure that there are as many low
cost products as possible that can run their software.

~~~
protomyth
I still think if I listed every category of electronics, you could not find a
dominant player in the majority of them.

I find it interesting that you ignore Apple's behavior with the iPod. Apple
was more than willing to provide a low cost product. I really don't see why
people think that trend won't be repeated.

~~~
jiggy2011
You might not find a dominant _manufacturer_ but you would find dominant
standards where compatibility is concerned.

The iPod is an interesting example I agree, but it is still generally towards
the high end of the MP3 player market and it still supports the standard MP3
format making is compatible with all the music you already own.

So switching from another brand of MP3 player to iPod (or vice versa) is
pretty easy, there's no real case of having to choose.

If Apple had chosen a different audio format for the iPod for example , that
meant you would have to buy your music in a format that was only compatible
with it then I doubt it would have enjoyed the success.

The only reason the iPod is cheap anyway is market pressure from competing
manufacturers. If Apple had per my previous example gone with a different
audio format and been the only player in town they would have kept their
prices high and it would have become inevitable that a competitor would have
entered at some point with a lower cost product.

The only thing that would keep people from buying the competing product at
that point would be that all their music would be stuck with apple , making
them a defacto monopoly but over time the lower prices of the competitor would
either force their prices down or drive them out.

------
hello-trolls
<$

