Red Hat

Red Hat may become the first billion dollar open-source software company in the world. Spurred by enormous growth over the past year and new cloud-computing offerings, Red Hat is well on its way to becoming a billion dollar competitor in an industry known for secrecy and locked down licencing. Red Hat is focused on what they like to call the "21st century business model" where they put emphasis on influence rather than control. Red Hat makes money based on providing support to its users of software that they licence as open-source. Red Hat focuses on organizing community and centralizing the development process in order to provide users with the best support possible. Red Hat also works to customize software solutions for the enterprise level markets. Many corporations may see an advantage to customizing open-source software but lack the time, money and resources that Red Hat can provide, for a fee. I believe that the future of software-development is headed towards a "Red Hat model" - Collaborate to form a base, then differentiate based on support, customization and innovation. Instead of focusing inward, and locking others out, companies like Red Hat will garner much more benefit from providing innovative solutions to businesses looking for software licencing cost reduction. This new software model will shake up the software industry and its big players, like Microsoft and Oracle. It won't completely destroy them but it will "spread around" some of the profits these companies have, for so long, controlled.

Diaspora - a future Facebook killer?

Diaspora has made news in the internet community with the release of their open-source software code for their Facebook clone. The news of the release has had mixed reviews in the development community. The whole idea of Diaspora is to give back the user control over the data that is contained within their profile. Diaspora works much like torrents do, a host "seed" is what contains the profile information, not one centralized server array like with Facebook. If you couldn't host your own seed, you could choose whom to entrust your information to, a tip-of-the-hat to more privacy concerned users.
Some developers have expressed concern over some of the choices in terms of the languages and databases Diaspora was developed in, but its still early in Diaspora's life. Hopefully the creators of Diaspora will figure out all the bugs and get this system up and running because in my mind the future of social-networking is user control.

Apple and Flash

Since the release of Apple’s iPhone consumers have been asking why Apple hasn’t allowed Flash to run on their devices. According to Adobe’s website their Flash player has presence on over 99% of the internet-enabled personal computers in the market. So why would Apple not even consider pre-building Flash player into their iOS devices? According to Steve Jobs there are 6 separate reasons: Openness, Modern-alternatives, Security, Battery Life, Touch technology, and Apple’s unwillingness to utilize 3rd party software for the basis of applications for use on its devices.

First there is the issue of Flash’s “openness”; can developers modify the basis of the Flash player in order to make their programs run correctly within the Flash environment? No they cannot, Adobe has complete control over all aspects of Flash and its development. Steve writes, “we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open” - thus partly explaining Apple’s stance on Flash, they don’t want the internet relying on a privatized software standard.

The second reason that Apple is unwilling to use Flash is the fact that many Flash based videos are also available in a more modern H.264 format that the iOS devices can play, so why add Flash? But Steve is referring to video, what about Flash-based online games? Well here is one area that Steve agrees with Adobe on, iOS devices cannot play online flash-games, and there is no alternative, but he does mention that the App Store has over 50,000 games available, so not to worry.

The third reason is how unsecured and unreliable the Flash platform is. According to Steve Flash is one of the main factors in causing a Mac to crash. Until Adobe can provide a secure, reliable platform Apple will not allow Flash to be pre-built into its’ iOS devices.

The fourth reason is the battery life that Flash takes up when it is playing video. Since the video you are seeing on the web is condensed in order to save server space, your video player needs to decode the signal and this takes quite some processing power using Flash. Some of the more modern standards work much more efficiently and therefore use less battery life. And on a mobile platform, battery life is everything.

The fifth reason is the ever increasing prevalence of touch technologies in the marketplace. Many websites based in Flash will need to be re-written in order to account for multi-touch interfaces instead of the old keyboard and mouse. Steve and Apple’s argument is why not re-write the code in a modern, open standard that will allow easier future collaboration and support.
The sixth reason is that Apple is highly opposed to utilizing and 3rd party software to “run” the device. Apple says it “has had issues in the past when a piece of software comes in between the platform and the developer”, as it usually ends up creating sub-standard applications that “hinder the performance of the platform”.

To me all of this sounds like a battle of the new standard “open” and the old “closed” system and way of software creation. Although Apple admits that it has proprietary software it argues that in order for the electronics to be assured in working condition, it must control the base-software. Apple is actively pushing more open standards all over, including in their iTunes music store with the iTunes Plus option which allows consumers to pay a little more in order to download a DRM-free song. I believe that what Steve wrote about the need for open-source standards on the internet hits the nail on the head. We need to keep the internet open, fair, and free for all to use.

Original post from Steve Jobs

Microsoft's Open Source Cloud

7 months ago Microsoft took their first step into the arena of "cloud computing" with the release of Windows Azure. Azure is a cloud platform that allows users to access Microsoft services from a remote location using the internet. Now, 7 months later Microsoft has taken another step towards open-source standards, releasing SDK's and Developer kits aimed at developers wanting to create for the Windows Azure platform. Microsoft believes that by allowing developers to "create on a cloud" businesses and consumers will be able to take full advantage of what the cloud computing has to offer. The 4 main foundational elements Microsoft is working with developers to create are Developer Choice, Data Portability, Standards, and Ease of Migration and Deployment.
Microsoft is working hard to allow the use of multiple languages to write code that will run on the Windows Azure platform. They have also spoken of the ability to incorporate features and services of Azure with other current cloud platforms.
By allowing developers to write their programs in different languages it makes the Azure platform much more appealing to business customers looking for a way to move into cloud computing without having to sacrifice their internal programs and systems. The ability to share new technologies and applications in an open environment is much more effective and efficient than the old, closed system that relied on proprietary software that only could be changed through patches and upgrades, rather then through a seamless cloud of information.
I think Microsoft has the right idea, Google has done it with their Android platform, Apple has slightly done it with their iOS SDKs so it's only right that the elephant in the room step up to the open-source plate.

Dell and Open Source

Dell recently released the "Streak", a new device that runs on Google's Android mobile operating system. The Streak is being sold along the same lines as the recently released iPad, although much smaller and about the same price as an iPhone (With a 2-year contract from AT&T). Dell's website claims its' "The perfectly-sized, go-anywhere entertainment, social connection and navigation device." Dell has positioned the Streak to take advantage of the ever-growing mobile communications craze that Apple and Google have created.
Google's Android mobile operating system is considered open-source but when companies like Dell sell devices like the Streak they like to modify some of the features in order to improve say the user-interface or to remove some of the functionality, they are bound by the General Public Licence (GPL) which requires companies to release the details of the modifications. Dell failed to release the details and is receiving criticism from consumers. Other companies have modified Android's code to include a different user interface, like HTC's Sense which provide users of their Android phones with a much nicer looking layout then the "stock" Android OS. I have the HTC Incredible and although I do like Sense I hate to see companies remove functionality to protect profits. For instance Google released an update for the Android platform on May 2oth, but it wasn't "pushed" to the Verizon customers until September 8th, and some of the functionality was stripped and repackaged for profit. Like the Wifi Hotspot feature, for Verizon customers that want to take advantage of being able to connect up to 5 wifi enabled devices and share your internet connection FROM YOUR PHONE, you have to pay an extra fee per month. There are ways around this, like rooting your phone, which will allow you to load programs that will bypass the restrictions placed on the phone by Verizon. But the point is that Google is releasing open-source (as in FREE) technology that is being used by AT&T and Verizon to make a profit. If these old-hag telecom companies want to keep up in this open-source market, they are going to have to take a serious look at their pricing structure. Customers only want to pay for what they feel is fair, and charging customers more for basically the same thing doesn't make much sense.
Watch out for open-source development, it's the future and it's definitely here to say, If I were AT&T and Verizon I'd be shaking in my boots because their unfair profiteering is going to end.