Open Source Apps Should Start Innovating - Not Recreating
cli.gs
cli.gs
OK, sorry, no more sarcasm. When I see that "open source monster" character I can be sure that the article will be superficial, boring and useless. Why put all software with a chain less license in a pile like its all the same - with a single author, company, business plan?
OK, so now a bit about the office suites:
Some people need an alternative to MS Office, so they come together with some other people who also need a alternative to MSOffice and pay a third group of people to make in (obviously sharing and thus lowering cost of developing the software). MS Office is a collection of clones of previous software, but that hasn't stopped it, right? Has it slowed down the adoption? Yet it seems to stop OO.o - it isn't "innovating" whatever that means. Maybe innovation means making a new shiny interface with colorful buttons to push? Yeah, the millions of people who just want to make a simple document with some bullet points and a page number on bottom will greatly appreciate the innovation. Although in my anecdotal experience "consumers" are more impressed by the ability to easily make a PDF..
Just because you opened up some code doesn’t mean anyone CARES. The consumer is all about flash, dazzle and speed. The newer the better… no matter what the price is. The iPhone/iPod are great examples of this.
Because everyone wants to play the Apple game, right? Maybe some people want to do their dirty job quickly and cheaply, especially during a recession and all, but given how confident the author and the shiny magazines are I'm really afraid to say it - please don't laugh at me.
Songbird is the exact same as iTunes th main difference is leveraging a plug-in platform.
Another gem - the author cannot "leverage" a modern innovation called spell-checking, but knows that Songbird is a iTunes clone with plug-in platform which means it will not "succeed"[1], unlike Firefox which "innovates" (of course Firefox is far more than a clone of a clone, but with a great extensions eco-system). I don't even use iTunes and I don't know what are the chances but I can see an obvious self-contradiction.
[1] What is "succeeding" anyway? Getting the most lip-service? Obviously that is the kind of world-domination we are talking about, since Firefox doesn't have the biggest market share and Google Chrome have even less, but they are succeeding.
I don't like Facebook and MySpace with all the conformism, small talk and general herd behavior displayed there and I'm starting to dislike blogs and even some aspects of forums (points, post-count, ranks).
I spend too much time in the Internet.. gotta do something useful, bye.
In particular, open source software tools provide platforms for experimentation that would not otherwise be available. For example, the Linux and BSD kernels made it possible for operating system researchers to try out lots of different ideas on everything from security to memory management with real hardware and real workloads. Without this open source software, your options are 1) write everything yourself, 2) license a kernel from someone, or 3) go work for a company that writes a kernel (e.g. Microsoft, Wind River, Green Hills).
For another example, the Valgrind memory checking tool includes a platform for binary analysis and translation. That platform has let people innovate by building tools that run on large, real Linux programs. I know of at least two academic theses that build on Valgrind (including mine), and there's now three community-contributed data race detection tools.
Both of these areas also have closed source software with innovations, of course. Still, they seem like cases where the open source software platform has lowered the barrier to entry and made it possible for a wider range of people to contribute, therefore spurring innovation.
So I don't buy the broad claim that "open source" software fails to innovate. Maybe we could talk about more specific segments, like office software or microblogging to focus the discussion?
(1) The question -- when properly understood -- is empirical by nature. One would need to select a random sample in both fields, measure the innovation within the samples for a given period of time, and publish the results. While this is not rocket science, the problem is in the details: What is innovation? How would one operationalize the term?
(2) In most cases when I've read such opinion articles, the discussion does not seem to be about innovation -- in the sense of "new way of doing something" (wikipedia). There are a million new ways to do something, but only a small fraction thereof is useful. That often seems to be the unsaid meaning to those who say Open Source is not innovating. Sure, nothing stops Open Source suppliers to innovate. However, they often don't care, simply because they don't profit by doing so. There's just one exception to the rule: Software by developers for developers. This is where Open Source shines because developers understand the needs of fellow developers (or technical people, in general). In general, however, Open Source developers don't care enought about common consumers to develop a new and useful product that helps them solve their problems. Thus, they just copy existing stuff.
(3) Slightly related to (2), another problem is attention and presentation: Innovation usually doesn't sell despite the glory of the term. See the "Myths of innovations" by Scott Berkun. The first chapter points to many examples and is free to download. To sell an innovative idea, one first needs the attention of the audience. Second, one needs to present the innvovation so that it's understood. Open Source developers often lack these skills, according to their own statements. A proprietary vendor can simple hire people with these skills but Open Source developers often cannot due to lack of income. Consequently, open source is often percieved to be less innovative, even when it is.
This is why I think, pointing to examples is pointless.
Open source should innovate where it can, but at the same time it should offer people that are locked in to certain vendors free and open alternatives to those solutions.
Breaking vendor lock in is an excellent reason to develop an open source package, even if that means that you are not 'innovating'.
Granted the interface is purposefully similar. Also it plays music. Outside of that though songbird is greatly different then any music player I have ever used. The entire idea behind songbird is to integrate music listening in with your browsing. For this purpose it works great.
I have used Songbird and while I do agree that it does offer some interesting features it borrows "A LOT" from iTunes.
Simply if I was a consumer I would look at that and say "why"? I have iTunes... it plays my music and works with my iPod... this looks exactly the same. Heck, even I thought that.
By it's very nature open source software is innovative. Twenty years ago the concept would have been unheard of (in the broader world than academia). Open source has pushed many boundaries and has also forced closed-source shops to "innovate". Granted, this loses it's influence over time and simply being open-source is not enough to be a unique piece of software.
You are cherry-picking the software to compare. Spend a good amount of time with the latest-and-greatest that's out there and you'll see the innovation. You have to pay attention though. By "pay attention" I don't mean just reading blogs and news aggregators.
I use Songbird when I'm not streaming directly from someone's own player (like last.fm, etc.). I have used iTunes in the past. Other than a similar presentation structure it's not similar to iTunes. I don't even see how iTunes has innovated outside of tying the consumer in to the iTunes store. Not really something I like either, hence one reason I don't use that product.
Thanks for reading and thank you for taking the time to voice your opinions on the matter.
I will reply throughout the day to all of your comments.