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."
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.
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.
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.
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."