The Definition of Open Moves Toward Closed
May 4, 2011
With a broken leg and ankle, I am not chasing around the mobile velodrome. I am kicking back and thinking about the use of language in the high-technology world. The question I pondered this morning (May 3, 2011) was, “What is the definition of open?” The thought was sparked when I read “Google Plays Ball with Carriers to Kill Tethering Apps, Violates Spirit of the ‘Open Access’ It Bid $4.6B to Protect.” The story does a good and gentle job of explaining that Google is working to some degree with telecommunications companies to limit certain mobile access functions. The particular function is irrelevant. The two big points, in my opinion, are:
- Open means closed. Okay, that’s normal Orwellian activity.
- Google, if the story is spot on, is beginning to look like a traditional Fortune 100 company, not a spunky start up.
I did like this passage in the Play Ball article:
Allow me to leave you with a quote from Android boss Andy Rubin that he made nearly two years ago while vehemently denying that there was any Market rejection of a Skype app: “We also look forward to the day when consumers can access any application,including VoIP apps, from any device, on any network.” I couldn’t agree more, Andy.
So what’s next? I like the idea of renting equipment, not owning it. I also find intriguing the vertical integration of the original AT&T and just about everything. How different is Google since the management shift? Well, if you cannot control costs, you have to take steps to protect revenue. Changing the meaning of a word like “open” is small potatoes. Next up? Rapprochement with China, perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2011
Freebie unlike some mobile carriers’ services.
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
