Linus Torvalds: Locked Down Technologies Lose in the End

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".

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.”

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...

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.

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.

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

Linux on the desktop is a fantastic counter example.

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

<$