Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #15 · What is APPLE made a camera!? | |
itai195 wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
In the context of software, the term open is not "squishy" nor non-defined at all. It's pretty commonly understood that a system that is neither licensed nor openly published and/ or based on open standards is considered a closed system whereas one based on open standards and which is published is considered open. There exists a distinct and specific distinction in the software world for "open" versus "closed" systems. Apple iOS is a closed system. Apple does not licence it for installation on non-Apple hardware. Apple maintains strict control as to what programs they allow a user to load and run on an iOS device. In contrast, Google Android is an open system. It is based on open standards and Google releases the Android code as open-source under the Apache license.
Yes, that is the literal definition of open source, but it's not the whole story. Things get much more subjective when you move beyond the literal definition. For example, parts of iOS are also open source. Some forks and versions of Android are not open source. OEMs must get Google approval for tweaks they make to the OS if they want support. Google often requires that OEMs use Google services on their devices if they want support. Many Android devices ship with crapware that can't easily be deleted And on and on... Is that open? Shades of gray...
And what's more, the real question is in what way has the purported openness of Android made it a superior product? In what ways has the closed nature of iOS made it an inferior product? I'd argue that 'open' has been turned into a meaningless marketing term that has no relevance for most consumers. The 'closed' iOS has revolutionized photography for millions of people -- it should be self-evident that the closed vs open argument is totally irrelevant. Maybe an Apple-made camera wouldn't be successful, who knows? But I doubt its success or failure in the market would be determined by whether or not it's 'open'.
Also, people who want to hack their devices in crazy ways will always be able to do so anyway, just as we're able to shoot a bunch of non-native lenses on 'closed' or simply incompatible mounts.
It's much easier to unlock the bootloader and root the majority of Android devices (some methods are literally one click procedures any novice can perform) as most manufacturers, as well as Google, do not actively prevent the owner/ user of the device from doing so with every software update ala Apple. That's one reason there are literally hundreds of available roms and very easy to perform system tweaks for Android. The crapware can be easily deleted with a rooted device. So, on Android, the hacking community enjoys encouragement and the blessing of Google. With Apple, they are considered the enemy, ripe for suing and other adversarial tactics. Big difference and one which epitomizes the contrast between an open versus a closed system.
There are pros and cons to both approaches. They often involve a give and take between functionality, security and possibly ease of use. I have mentioned some of the functional advantages a user can or has enjoyed first for Android earlier in this thread (which does add value to the end user) and others have mentioned the security/ ease of use advantages for Apple iOs. I think we are all much better off due to the existence of both systems.
I have no idea what your getting at with the "revolutionized photography" remark. Camera phones existed way before iPhones.
As this discussion relates to some sort of mythical/ theoretical Apple camera system, it would seem clear from the above that an Apple interchangeable lens system would be closed (though I doubt they would ever offer an interchangeable lens system to begin with). Not just like Canon or Nikon where they don't license their mounts (but cheap adapters are plentiful and third parties who reverse engineer them are not sued!) but closed to the extent that any time the camera sensed that a non Apple lens was mounted, it would shut down and become a paperweight for the user. Apple would also of course actively sue any party which produced adapters or lenses which tried to circumvent this. No, I don't think I would want that myself but I'm sure Apple would also innovate in other ways which would positively affect the whole industry.
|
(and when shooting an event, if you're bored and you don't want the client to think you're wasting time, you could stand in a corner holding the camera up and watch Netflix. Or Hulu. Or iTunes...).
