Miguel de Icaza on Samsung v Apple(plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Miguel de Icaza on Samsung v Apple
https://plus.google.com/105179816987111146812/posts/bSMQYbMya82
5 comments
People can contribute to Free Software without holding mindsets that are so extreme in one end as those of rms. Perhaps de Icaza has just gradually shifted his views to the other end.
I don't think there has been any shift for him at all. Ive always found his views on things refreshingly pragmatic.
I completely agree, I have just read that Icaza was awarded the "Advancement of Open Source Software" a while back. I'm just curious as someone who has made such commitments to the open source and also to the Linux eco system, can use another platform so enthusiastically.
He still contributes open source all the time. He's just not an open source fanatic. He'll use an Apple because it's a nice computer, and he'll write open source on it.
I used to be a Gnome contributor as well, I worked on Ubuntu at Canonical. Now I use a Mac. Does that mean I'm not allowed to work on open source now?
It's not a fucking religion.
I used to be a Gnome contributor as well, I worked on Ubuntu at Canonical. Now I use a Mac. Does that mean I'm not allowed to work on open source now?
It's not a fucking religion.
Since when does becoming an advocate for open source make that advocacy exclusive?
Thats not what I'm saying nor am I criticizing him for it. From prior experience, when I make something I can use on a daily basis, I would find it hard to use something different.
Also being an advocate for open source software would make it more difficult to transfer to being a closed source software user. I'm not saying its not possible or wrong, I just feel his case is a curious one.
He is effectively a self proclaimed Apple fanboy on Twitter etc, and I would like to know more about the circumstances.
Also being an advocate for open source software would make it more difficult to transfer to being a closed source software user. I'm not saying its not possible or wrong, I just feel his case is a curious one.
He is effectively a self proclaimed Apple fanboy on Twitter etc, and I would like to know more about the circumstances.
>From prior experience, when I make something I can use on a daily basis, I would find it hard to use something different.
Well, I think he feels that Gnome failed to build something he can use on a daily basis. Back in 1998 it was all about overtaking Windows and building the platform for the future. That didn't pan out that well -- Windows are still dominant, and OS X is more prevalent and useful as a desktop system than Gnome is. Nowadays Gnome is bleeding developers (GTK, the very core toolkit of Gnome has like 1 maintainer) and mainstream distros even think of switching away from it.
You tend to get disappointed from such outcomes.
Well, I think he feels that Gnome failed to build something he can use on a daily basis. Back in 1998 it was all about overtaking Windows and building the platform for the future. That didn't pan out that well -- Windows are still dominant, and OS X is more prevalent and useful as a desktop system than Gnome is. Nowadays Gnome is bleeding developers (GTK, the very core toolkit of Gnome has like 1 maintainer) and mainstream distros even think of switching away from it.
You tend to get disappointed from such outcomes.
MonoTouch and Mono for Android are they main reason, that Mono is in such a good shape, after the near death experience when Novell fell apart. Both products are the primary source of income for most people working on Mono and both products would not stand a chance if open source. Why? Because they target developers (who can compile their shit from sources) and open sourcing them completely would remove any incentive to pay. (And no, selling support would not generate significant income.) The core (Mono, MonoDevelop and MonoMac, which is very similiar to MonoTouch) are already open source. Open sourcing the rest would probably kill Xamarin and take half of Mono down with it.
On a different note, I disagree with Miguels opinion regarding patents. I also think that he has shifted slightly on the political spectrum over the last decade (a small movement towards the center from the far left), as well as that of software politics. He has always been pragmatic, though and even now, I think, his moderate opposition is a good reminder to somtimes step out of the echo chamber and avoid the mistake of falling into extremist views.
On a different note, I disagree with Miguels opinion regarding patents. I also think that he has shifted slightly on the political spectrum over the last decade (a small movement towards the center from the far left), as well as that of software politics. He has always been pragmatic, though and even now, I think, his moderate opposition is a good reminder to somtimes step out of the echo chamber and avoid the mistake of falling into extremist views.
I despise Apple's practices, but I'm typing that on my MBP. In all fairness it is a company machine and my main reason for having it is that we do some iOS development. That being said, it's still one of the nicest laptops (as far as form factor and hardware) around so I wouldn't fault anyone for choosing their hardware. I would personally, however, choose a linux variant in a heartbeat if I could somehow solve the iOS development issue.
>This is slightly off topic, but I don't really understand Miguel de Icaza.
It might be that you have a narrow view of free/open source software. The idea behind it is not all about GNU or Linux or anything. iTerm 2 is a mighty fine open source software -- for OS X.
Open source is not incompatible with Apple or Windows. Nor it is a religion/principle thing to everyone, some see it more casually.
>I appreciate that his company xamarin are working solidly on Mono which is open source, but a number of their products are not open source such as Mono Touch and Mono for Android.
Well, he also has to make money. He tried the open source non commercial approach with Evolution et al, and it didn't work very well for them (or for the Nautilus guys). If it wasn't for Novell buying them they would have nothing to show for today.
It might be that you have a narrow view of free/open source software. The idea behind it is not all about GNU or Linux or anything. iTerm 2 is a mighty fine open source software -- for OS X.
Open source is not incompatible with Apple or Windows. Nor it is a religion/principle thing to everyone, some see it more casually.
>I appreciate that his company xamarin are working solidly on Mono which is open source, but a number of their products are not open source such as Mono Touch and Mono for Android.
Well, he also has to make money. He tried the open source non commercial approach with Evolution et al, and it didn't work very well for them (or for the Nautilus guys). If it wasn't for Novell buying them they would have nothing to show for today.
Despite all the outrage around patents being bad, at the end of the day, what is clear is that Android products that did not set out themselves to copy everything Apple had did not find themselves in trouble.
Not yet. You're naive if you think Apple is done going after Android.
Not yet. You're naive if you think Apple is done going after Android.
Didn't apple recently win a sales injunction against google over the galaxy nexus, because it included a search box on the homescreen that dared to search multiple sources of content at the same time? That seems to disprove Miguel's point that if you don't blatantly rip off apple, you have nothing to fear.
> Despite all the outrage around patents being bad, at the end of the day, what is clear is that Android products that did not set out themselves to copy everything Apple had did not find themselves in trouble
Is that clear, or is he just being cute? Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"?
And if legal trouble is the only criteria we need here, what does Apple's settlement with Nokia mean about Apple?
> I would love an Android with bouncy scrolling
Well that just about sums up how stupid the situation is. Sorry, bouncy scrolling. Apple has a 20 year monopoly on you. Nevermind how you're implemented! We don't need pesky implementation details, just knowing that you're a rubber-banding scrolling view on a computing device with touch sensitive display is enough.
> It is clearly possible to create fresh new OS that does not copy the iPhone. Windows Phone, the Palm Pre and Blackberry's new OS show that it is possible.
Saurik summed this up perfectly earlier today:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302
People who say this haven't actually tried these phones or they're practicing some powerful cognitive dissonance (or they're fans of the "they're copycats, so I'm just happy they lost" legal approach).
The utility patents that Samsung lost on today weren't magical iphone-making ones, they were things like pinch to zoom. Those other phones "copy" these things too, they just happen to have patent licensing for historical reasoning, or a reasonable threat of serious mutual destruction.
> I agree that many software patents set the bar too low, and I think we should work towards making that bar useful, instead of outright dismissing the whole thing.
People really don't seem to remember that software patents did not exist not too long ago. They are a legal fiction of only the last decade or two, and the sooner the supreme court takes them back on and shuts them down, the better.
Ars has a good take on it, when the EFF started their campaign for at least reforming the software patent system:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-shoul...
Bilski was our last chance, but they ruled narrowly. Hopefully next time...
Edit: Incidentally, Apple had plenty of protections here without the utility patents. There could be no such thing as software patents and Samsung would still have been handed a very large bill for their products. Bullshit patents are not necessary for trademark, trade dress, and copyright protection.
Is that clear, or is he just being cute? Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"?
And if legal trouble is the only criteria we need here, what does Apple's settlement with Nokia mean about Apple?
> I would love an Android with bouncy scrolling
Well that just about sums up how stupid the situation is. Sorry, bouncy scrolling. Apple has a 20 year monopoly on you. Nevermind how you're implemented! We don't need pesky implementation details, just knowing that you're a rubber-banding scrolling view on a computing device with touch sensitive display is enough.
> It is clearly possible to create fresh new OS that does not copy the iPhone. Windows Phone, the Palm Pre and Blackberry's new OS show that it is possible.
Saurik summed this up perfectly earlier today:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302
People who say this haven't actually tried these phones or they're practicing some powerful cognitive dissonance (or they're fans of the "they're copycats, so I'm just happy they lost" legal approach).
The utility patents that Samsung lost on today weren't magical iphone-making ones, they were things like pinch to zoom. Those other phones "copy" these things too, they just happen to have patent licensing for historical reasoning, or a reasonable threat of serious mutual destruction.
> I agree that many software patents set the bar too low, and I think we should work towards making that bar useful, instead of outright dismissing the whole thing.
People really don't seem to remember that software patents did not exist not too long ago. They are a legal fiction of only the last decade or two, and the sooner the supreme court takes them back on and shuts them down, the better.
Ars has a good take on it, when the EFF started their campaign for at least reforming the software patent system:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-shoul...
Bilski was our last chance, but they ruled narrowly. Hopefully next time...
Edit: Incidentally, Apple had plenty of protections here without the utility patents. There could be no such thing as software patents and Samsung would still have been handed a very large bill for their products. Bullshit patents are not necessary for trademark, trade dress, and copyright protection.
"Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"?"
Apple's message is that it only pursued Samsung because they so blatantly copied them. I think they have a good point on the copying part; IMO, it was more than 'being inspired by the iPad'. Only time will tell whether the former is true.
And yes, I agree that it would be better if patents on how things look and feel would not have played a role in this case.
Apple's message is that it only pursued Samsung because they so blatantly copied them. I think they have a good point on the copying part; IMO, it was more than 'being inspired by the iPad'. Only time will tell whether the former is true.
And yes, I agree that it would be better if patents on how things look and feel would not have played a role in this case.
Apple's message is that it only pursued Samsung because they so blatantly copied them.
That's what they say, but realistically Samsung is the most successful Android vendor and thus the biggest threat to Apple.
The lawsuit found the Nexus S to be at fault. That's a device running vanilla Android, co-developed with Google.
Let's not pretend this is "only" about Samsung's designs vs Apple's designs. They won win patents that would cause all Android devices to infringe, as far as I can tell.
That's what they say, but realistically Samsung is the most successful Android vendor and thus the biggest threat to Apple.
The lawsuit found the Nexus S to be at fault. That's a device running vanilla Android, co-developed with Google.
Let's not pretend this is "only" about Samsung's designs vs Apple's designs. They won win patents that would cause all Android devices to infringe, as far as I can tell.
Yes. Not only Nexus S was found to be at fault, Apple is also going after the Galaxy Nexus. Icaza disappointed me because when people started pointing these out in the comments, he deleted them and turned off commenting to the post.
> That's what they say, but realistically Samsung is the most successful Android vendor and thus the biggest threat to Apple.
I think it would be helpful to consider how it is that Samsung became the most successful Android vendor.
I think it would be helpful to consider how it is that Samsung became the most successful Android vendor.
By making great phones. Lets not pretend here that Samsung copying the sunflower icon for the photo app and having a connector that looks like the apple one had a major impact on anyone's sales.
Edit: downvotes... you guys honestly think that the reason why Samsung has been successful is because of touchwiz? Most people don't even like Samsung's modifications to stock Android. It was stupid of them to make the changes they did, and they deserve a fine, but it certainly didn't help them much in terms of sales.
Edit: downvotes... you guys honestly think that the reason why Samsung has been successful is because of touchwiz? Most people don't even like Samsung's modifications to stock Android. It was stupid of them to make the changes they did, and they deserve a fine, but it certainly didn't help them much in terms of sales.
You are right though. Even though Touchwiz was an abomination compared to the smooth and slick iOS, Samsung's Galaxy S phone was a step ahead in every direction compared to the iPhone. At the time, it was the thinnest, lightest and the most powerful phone. Not the mention, the gorgeous display it had. Samsung innovated on every platform except the homescreen UI (sadly, many people don't see this).
But above all, their marketing and advertising strategy was unparalleled. I saw a Galaxy ad literally on every road, every TV show, every soccer match and what not! The success was not surprising given how much they effort they put.
But above all, their marketing and advertising strategy was unparalleled. I saw a Galaxy ad literally on every road, every TV show, every soccer match and what not! The success was not surprising given how much they effort they put.
Do you really think the best selling Android phones must be those looking closest to the iPhone? Maybe Samsung became the most successful Android vendor by making the best Android phones?
I think it would be helpful to consider how it is that Samsung became the most successful Android vendor.
Because they make some of the highest performance, lightest, thinnest phones with the best screens?
Because they make some of the highest performance, lightest, thinnest phones with the best screens?
A sane voice. Trademark/copyright is enough to protect your product, only in rare cases should a patent be awarded for an algorithm (think RSA).
RSA is more clearly maths (which should be unpatentable) than a UI patent like the scroll bounce which is defined by an imperative if this then do that process and directly affects the world state (by causing light to be projected into it).
I think for software patents do more harm than good but it is incredibly hard and dangerous to try to carve out special rules to keep the few good ones (even if we could agree on which those are).
I think for software patents do more harm than good but it is incredibly hard and dangerous to try to carve out special rules to keep the few good ones (even if we could agree on which those are).
There shouldn't be any patents for algorithms - algorithms are math, and math is not patentable.
He is a "free software programmer" according to Wikipedia, and I really value his contributions to both the GNOME and MONO projects.
I am not trying to in anyway put down his acheivements but his comments on social media (G+ and twitter) are often about ordering truckloads of Apple products.
Was there a falling out with the Gnome project or why is he such an avid supporter of the Apple brand? Perhaps its just a case that he has moved on from his free software roots. I appreciate that his company xamarin are working solidly on Mono which is open source, but a number of their products are not open source such as Mono Touch and Mono for Android.
I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to sell software but I am curious what has caused this shift in philosophy or perhaps his involvement with the free and open source software was simply about producing code rather than the free principles behind it.