Miguel de Icaza on Samsung v Apple
plus.google.com
plus.google.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not yet. You're naive if you think Apple is done going after Android.
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.
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.
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.
I think it would be helpful to consider how it is that Samsung became the most successful Android vendor.
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.
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.
Because they make some of the highest performance, lightest, thinnest phones with the best screens?
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).