I will try to argue why the current discussion on open vs closed source is a non sense for the final user. Honestly I am try trying to figure out why Apple and its steersman sometimes bring the topic up. They usually care of design. I am not the first to say that Apple is a design company. There is no mention of technical specs in Job’s presentations. Devices have to the be disassembled to find out components. So I wonder why Jobs mentioned this “low level” topic about closed vs open source. Probably it is a marketing technique.
My first (and almost only) claim is that end users care of experience. I am trying to put myself in their shoes. When they enter a shop they want to buy something that works and that they like. When they ask a friend a suggestion about a phone/tablet, they wanna know whether it works, it is fast/reliable. Probably the only low level detail that is worth asking is the memory, but not in terms of gigabytes. A common user usually asks: “how many pictures/songs I can put in there?” If you are a developer this is non sense to you, but I mentioned it exactly to give you an idea of how far we are from the open/close source topic.
MacOSX is based on an open source kernel. Try asking an Apple maniac why he bought a Mac. I am pretty sure the answer won’t be “because the source code of the kernel is available”.
Experience is a relation between a user and a tool. A great user experience can be achieved regardless of the availability of the source code. In this case Apple looks (and just looks) as a contradiction: MacOSX has success and it is partly based on open source code. The iPhone has success and it is based on closed source code.
Another example: Ubuntu. The adoption of Linux on the desktop is growing and it started growing when somebody put effort on its user experience. Remember how was KDE 2? Check it out know.
So the question “is open better?” has many answers. If I need to set up a fast, secure and reliable server to build my next killer project the answer is “yes”. Yes, because I can check the code to detect flaws, to tune it to my hardware, etc. In this case I am not an end-user, I am a developer or a system administrator. If I am a masseuse from Brooklyn and I want a smart tool to make calls, browse the web, listen to my music and take pictures the answer to “is open better?” is “I don’t know/care”. I will never try to recompile the OS, at most I can install some application, so I am not really interested if my geeky neighbor can change the behavior of my phone.
Now a few words about open. I am an insider and I like open source. I have released some opensource code and I use opensource code almost daily. In my career I have learned that there is “Open” and “open”. This is a very inspiring post about this difference. In general open does not mean that everybody can get in. The door of a hotel is usually open but there is a concierge. If you are staying there you can get in, otherwise you can’t. The Linux kernel repository has a well-know doorman: you can write patches/modifications but if he does not approve them you are not in. Open is a very overrated term, sometimes used to make a good impression. Like when there is a party but you cannot get in, let’s say you can stare at an open door/window.
Moreover, those who can get it are not allowed to do whatever they want. For example the Android OS has a governance philosophy, so you have to adhere to a compatibility program. This is great. I am sure that anarchy would not lead anywhere. My only objection is: the focus of that document is just on compatibility, not experience. You are not allowed to change the scheduling of threds as you like, but you can do whatever you want with user experience!
I am not saying that to achieve a great user experience you have to close your source. I am saying that “do whatever you want” is not a good strategy to achieve it. To build user experience you need focus, vision, discipline, measurements.
For example one of the features of experience is recognizability (the ability to recognize an object and its intended usage). I am not saying that the iPhone and iTunes store are the only/best way to distribute applications. I am saying that they are consistent and recognizable. So after a few interactions I get familiar with them and if Apple does not revolutionize their interface I will feel familiar also with next versions. Can we say the same of the Android ecosystem?
My conclusion is: an open source product is better only when it can compete with the user experience of its closed source counterpart.
Similar Posts
- Android’s throat is now exposed
- Code or not in your spare time? Does it really matter?
- Don’t Upgrade to Mac OS Lion! (Not yet)
I’ve never actually thought about it in that light, but you’re spot on. The user just wants something that works, doesn’t require a high level of maintenance, and is cool. The only time I mention MacOSX being based on UNIX is when I’m boasting about it’s better security. ;)
The thing about UX is it is subjective. The UX that appeals to a developer, and the UX that appeals to a hairdresser may be different. When talking about the phones/mp3 players, it is an appliance – UX wins hands down. When talking general purpose computing, I am glad there is an open source core to OSX – I can use grep, pipes, sed, shell commands, a familiar compiler (gcc) and so on. To a developer the shell and pipes are extremely useful and can be used to do great things. That said – OSX comes with automator – a pretty cool toy, which has shell/python script modules for developers to drop stuff in and then integrate with the UI with little or no fuss.
Even an hairdresser can use grep and friends. The point is UX matters regardless of open or closed source.
Leave a Reply