‘The meaning of open’ by Google

Written by

How are those FBI agents treating you guys at Google?



  • Jake Newkem

    How is your closed, shitty iOS device treating you?

  • Mother Hydra

    How is it people aren’t called out for being bananas? Seriously. This guy, Jonathan, just spent a kajillion words pontificating on some ideal that is as far from “standard operating procedure” for Google as space travel is for me. Is Jonathan around people that never offer thoughtful and constructive criticisms and counter-arguments? He rarely presents any real meat in the form of proof and successes while skillfully choosing NOT to touch on any of the myriad of evidence that shows google as the hungry, privacy-trampling corporate monster it has become lately. If Apple apologists are decried as illegitimate, this guy would sit squarely in Google’s camp of people that pump the company and don’t let things like facts and reality dictate their thoughts and opinions. Reality be damned eh?

  • Incredulous

    Definitely not be the best comparison, but I like to view the “open” vs. “closed” debate a bit like the preparation of wild fugu (pufferfish, look up on Wikipedia) in Japan. Some parts of the fish contain an extremely potent toxin, so it takes skill to prepare it safely, and only those with extensive training are allowed to do so legally.

    Would you prefer to go to a restaurant that proudly proclaimed the training and expertise of its chefs, and pay a premium for it? At the same time, the chefs are somewhat limited by the government-mandated rules on what is and isn’t safe for you. This is “closed”. You’re going to get a good experience, but there’s less “freedom” for the preparer (developer) and you won’t pay bargain prices.

    Would you prefer to go to an unlicensed establishment with chefs who may or may not have had the same training regimen? You’ll pay a lot less, but have no guarantee that you’ll be leaving alive. This is “open”. There’s a good chance that you’ll be fine, there’s more room for creativity on the part of the preparer, and it’s cheaper, but you go in with the knowledge that something awful could happen. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the risk at all is a fool.

    The “open” approach is a perfectly valid business plan, but consumers need to be aware of the potential dangers vs. the potential restrictions, and be prepared to live (or not) with the outcome of their choices.

  • tylernol

    Google is being very hypocritical every time they talk about “open”. The things they make “open” are things they want to commodify. Operating Systems, both mobile and desktop are a prime example of this. Chrome OS and Android commodify what does not really matter to Google’s core business — search and advertising. But commodifying OS’s and computer hardware weaken Apple and Microsoft, Google’s two main competitors. As the Google blogger briefly mentions but does not really defend in the last paragraph, Google search is closed. Until Google opens the source code for their search algorithms and adSense, they have no credibility talking about open source.

    • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

      So the point is: 100% open or shut up?

      I 100% disagree w/ that notion.

      • Techpm

        You are right, marketing is rarely 100% correct.

        However it is unfortunate that Google has lowered the meaning of the real “open” so much by way of their marketing.

        • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

          I wasn’t speaking on marketing.

          It isn’t uncommon for open source projects to have proprietary projects implemented.

          I’m not saying they have it 100% open sourced either but to say Search isn’t open so they are hypocrites is ludicrous.

  • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

    It’s a pretty good read: http://thinkwithgoogle.com/quarterly/open/the-future-is-open.html.

    Very well written article. Open is doing quite well, if you read all the ways Google uses it.