Comments on: The Apple Paradox: How a Company That’s So Closed Can Foster So Much Open Innovation

By: Open Innovation » What Steve Jobs did (not do) for Open Innovation

Open Innovation » What Steve Jobs did (not do) for Open Innovation — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:34:36 +0000

[...] As well as the former two principles, also this one isn’t acknowledged by Steve Jobs: “To all outward appearances, Steve Jobs believes that knowledge and information confer power only if they are carefully guarded.” (Xconomy) [...]

By: Richard M Stallman

Richard M Stallman — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:21:48 +0000

The writer finds it incomprehensible, perhaps even tragic, that my
main computer is a netbook that gives me the freedom I have striven
for since September 1983. His conclusion reflects a lacuna in the
values that the whole article is based on. It values innovation and
creativity, but not freedom.

The article describes Apple as “closed”, but praises the “open
innovation” in the apps that Apple chooses to permit users to install.
I doubt the term “open” fits the censorship of the Apple app store.
But I think “open” vs “closed” is a secondary issue anyway. I want my
technology to respect my freedom; I want to use free software,
software that the users control. Apple is the pioneer in putting
chains on its users, and the only ethical use I know of for an iBad is
reverse engineering.

If the idea that freedom is at stake in our choice of software piques
your curiosity, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
and http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html for more information.

By: Il paradosso di Apple: cultura chiusa e fan del libero pensiero

Il paradosso di Apple: cultura chiusa e fan del libero pensiero — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:41:35 +0000

[...] in disaccordo con quella dei suoi clienti, avere così tanto successo? Wade Roush, con un saggio pubblicato su Xconomy, cerca di rispondere a questa domanda e nel farlo delinea tre possibili linee di [...]

By: Apple: The SWPL Computer Company » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

Apple: The SWPL Computer Company » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:17:56 +0000

[...] hog tie themselves to AT&T in the US) you’re out of luck. Some people will claim that Apple is associated with “free thinking creativity”. They’re wrong. All of the supposedly “free thinking” artists, musicians, [...]

By: Announcing Mass Mobile Month « Mass Mobile Month

Announcing Mass Mobile Month « Mass Mobile Month — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:11:46 +0000

[...] don’t mention the iPad just because I’m an Apple fan (though I am, with reservations). No less an authority than analyst Mary Meeker at Morgan Stanley argues that Apple is now setting [...]

By: How Apple fosters open innovation - zoia.org

How Apple fosters open innovation - zoia.org — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:31:58 +0000

[...] filed in General on Feb.09, 2010 Para los que tienen problemas para conciliar cómo abogan por software libre, pero están felices usando una Mac, les recomiendo este post de Wade Roush: The Apple Paradox: How a company that’s so colsed can foster so much open innovation. [...]

By: Youth Will Embrace, Loathe and Hack The iPad « Face Youth Lab

Youth Will Embrace, Loathe and Hack The iPad « Face Youth Lab — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:20:27 +0000

[...] One of the major gripes came from the fact that the operating system was identical to the iPhone. Although this means that some 140,000 iPhone apps can be used on the iPad, it doesn’t allow for using more than one application at the same time. This will surely be a major sticking point for many young people who naturally multitask on their laptops in behaviour such as writing a document and listening to music at the same time. However, having said this, it perhaps highlights a particular intention of the iPad, to fit into a multitasking lifestyle as opposed to a placing a multi-processing gadget into a multitasking lifestyle. As Charlie Brooker scathingly notes, the iPad is not quite a laptop and not quite a smart phone, but “a weird combination of portable and cumbersome: too small to replace your desktop, too big to fit in your pocket, unless you’re a clown.” Yet it’s easy to imagine young people using the iPad to casually read something while they’re engaging in other offline activities like watching TV or cooking. The casual space that the iPad attempts to place itself in is typical of Apple products released in the latter half of the last decade. Yet the closed nature of the iPad heavily reflects Apple’s status as a company that portrays itself to foster much open innovation but, in many ways,…. [...]

By: The Apple exception: where open innovation theory breaks down « Dark Matter Matters

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:51:48 +0000

[...] and culture, there is one incredibly successful holdout: Apple. Three articles on the subject here, here, and [...]

By: iPad reactions « work / life

iPad reactions « work / life — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:54:41 +0000

[...] Roush / Xconomy But with every Apple purchase, there’s a part of me that rebels at handing my money over to a [...]

By: Wade Roush

Wade Roush — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:36:35 +0000

Here’s another example, post-iPad announcement, of someone who apparently has the same queasy, ambivalent feelings I do about Apple’s need for control:

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ipad

By: Difference Operator » Paradosso Apple

Difference Operator » Paradosso Apple — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:27:44 +0000

[...] libero (il famoso think different) e avere un grosso seguito da parte di artisti (in senso lato): http://www.xconomy.com/national/2010/01/25/the-apple-paradox-how-a-company-thats-so-closed-can-foste…. Per quanto mi riguarda penso che gli utenti Apple siano dei borg senza volontà individuale, [...]

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:35:06 +0000

@Dennis Forbes: Defining innovation depends on your viewpoint. From the view of marketers, consumers, the press, and the general public, “execution” (building a sellable product that actually changes what people buy and what they use)” IS innovation, and building a prototype or an uninspiring product that no one wants to buy is NOT innovation.

Apple has a huge reputation with non-engineering, non-technical people precisely because Apple works and speaks more directly to their concerns.

By: Philos

Philos — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:27:04 +0000

As an artist who has been a mac enthusiast since the first one, I see Jobs' "vision" for his product is much like an artist's creation. He has an artist's sense of protecting his work, not wanting to be copied. And unlike some artists (DaVinci, Warhol, etc.) he can't just let some collaborator paint and then sign it. Jobs wants to do the underpainting, mix the colors and lay in as many brushstrokes as possible in his creations. What some see as odd, I see as perfectly sensible. Sharing leads to stealing. As for the way other creative types embrace his vision, I still don't see why you can't expand your viewpoint to see how his vision, his obsessive creative pursuit of excellence, fits perfectly with other art tools. You want the best brushes, or other tools, why not want the most visionary and obsessively perfected computing tool, as well?

By: Dennis Forbes

Dennis Forbes — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:42:03 +0000

“Apple-bashers deride Apple for putting as much thought into ”

Strawman. I even said before that Apple executes well. Apple knows how to polish a product and make it something that people lust after. Only a fool would deny that.

Executing very well (extremely well, even) is not the same thing as being innovative or original. Yet Apple-boasters always seem to fool themselves into thinking that Apple (which is the company that had to abandon their whole platform as a failure and “execute well” on top of PC hardware and FreeBSD) is some grand innovator.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:14:56 +0000

@Dennis Forbes: You really don’t get it. Apple isn’t innovative because they do things no one else has done before — they’re innovative because they take product concepts that other companies have executed poorly and turn them into products that real human beings want to buy and use.

Does anyone like Windows Mobile? In all the years that Windows Mobile has been out, have Windows Mobile phones ever sold as well as the iPhone?

Yes, Microsoft has been pimping tablet computers for years … to what effect? Who do you know who has a Tablet PC? Do you want one? Whereas the expectation from Apple, based on their track record, is that Apple simply would not produce a tablet unless they had a compelling idea of how and why ordinary people would use it.

Apple-bashers deride Apple for putting as much thought into design, interface ergonomics, and marketing as into engineering — which is like complaining about a general who puts just as much thought into logistics and supply as into combat tactics. You can’t have a successful company without considering every factor that affects sales, and Apple is successful because it sweats about factors of consumer psychology that other companies are only dimly aware exist.

By: costas

costas — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:46:45 +0000

Apple is so great that in 2010 can’t provide garbage collection in their programming language. Sure they’re innovative but they’re also over-hyped and in some areas their products are simply pathetic.

By: Dennis Forbes

Dennis Forbes — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:42:39 +0000

“@ Dennis Forbes – Dennis – do you really believe that the iPhone is a copy of Windows mobile??”

Did I say it was a copy? Is the Droid a “copy” of the iPhone? Hardly.

Apple zealots have some bizarre belief that everything Apple does is innovative and original. Yet there isn’t an Apple product that I’m aware of that isn’t standing on the shoulders of countless products that came before. Ooooh, a table computer…gee, I believe Microsoft was pimping those 10 years ago.

Apple executes very well, but they seldom blaze a path. There was a very strong smartphone market long before Apple came along. Apple made a utility into a trend, which I suppose they should be thanked for…

By: zato

zato — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:51:00 +0000

This article is possibly the rottenest anti-Apple propaganda I’ve seen in months.

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:16:01 +0000

Toxic, you’re really reaching.

Copland, Gershwin, and Pink. Pink was killed in 1995. Copland was killed in 1996. Gershwin was never really even a project; it was a name on planning charts. Since these projects died, Clinton was sworn in and served for a second term and Bush served for two full terms. Google went from a research project to a $175B company with a market cap.

If you want to talk about the Apple of today (hint: it’s the one run by Steve Jobs, not the one run by Gil Amelio), dredging up these ancient treasures is a stretch.

As for ZFS, it was a feature, not a product. The term “vaporware” is not generally used to describe a feature, particularly when the feature in question was just one of many enhancements that were going to be added to Mac OS X.

If that’s all you can dredge up, I think you’ve only reinforced Mr. Katt’s point.

By: links for 2010-01-25 - Nerdcore

links for 2010-01-25 - Nerdcore — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:07:33 +0000

[...] The Apple Paradox: How a Company That’s So Closed Can Foster So Much Open Innovation | Xconomy (tags: Apple) [...]