Speaker 1: Get in touch with technology with tech Stuff from how
Speaker 1: stuff works dot com. Hey there, and welcome to text Stuff.
Speaker 1: I am your host, Jonathan Strickland. I am an executive
Speaker 1: producer at how Stuff Works in a lot of all
Speaker 1: things tech, and today we're going to bring you another
Speaker 1: classic episode of tech Stuff. Years ago, my original co
Speaker 1: host Chris Pallette and I sat down and we decided
Speaker 1: to have kind of an artificial debate about open systems
Speaker 1: versus closed systems. And in this episode you're going to
Speaker 1: learn what that means. What is an open system versus
Speaker 1: a closed system? What are the arguments for each model,
Speaker 1: and why is it that you can't easily say one
Speaker 1: is automatically better than the other. It's all a matter
Speaker 1: of perspective. So let's listen to this classic episode. So
Speaker 1: today we're going to have a goofy little debate about
Speaker 1: open systems versus closed systems. We just decided that we're
Speaker 1: going to experiment with this. We've never done one of
Speaker 1: these before, and in fact, we decided on it about
Speaker 1: thirty seconds before we started recording, and so to determine
Speaker 1: who would represent which side, we did the most scientific
Speaker 1: thing we could think of. We flipped a coin. It's
Speaker 1: the quarter United States Quarter for those of you who
Speaker 1: think that matters. Uh. And it turns out that did
Speaker 1: it come from, um, you know what. I put it
Speaker 1: back in my pocket, So I don't know. But but
Speaker 1: Mr Chris rigged. Mr Chris Philett will be representing the
Speaker 1: open system side and I shall be representing the closed
Speaker 1: system side. So I think that proves it wasn't rigged.
Speaker 1: Look at the kind of phone I'm using. So anyway,
Speaker 1: I think I think in order to really understand what
Speaker 1: we're talking about, first we have to establish what we
Speaker 1: mean by an open versus a closed system. So let
Speaker 1: me tell you what a closed system is. Closed systems
Speaker 1: quality people. That's what a closed system is. Closed system
Speaker 1: is where you create a and infrastructure. Uh, an ecosystem,
Speaker 1: if you will, where you control as many of the
Speaker 1: factors as you possibly can, and you don't allow outside
Speaker 1: influences to change your system. So an example of a
Speaker 1: company that takes the closed system approach is Apple. That's
Speaker 1: not to say that Apple only does the closed off approach.
Speaker 1: If it did, then you would never be able to
Speaker 1: run any other kind of software or app on Apple products.
Speaker 1: You would only be able to run Apple created stuff.
Speaker 1: But it's an example of a system because it's more
Speaker 1: closed than it is open. And there are various reasons
Speaker 1: for doing this, but we'll get into that in the debate.
Speaker 1: But that that's kind of what how I define a
Speaker 1: closed system. It's one where you're trying to control as
Speaker 1: much as possible and it's all coming from or as
Speaker 1: much of it as possible is coming from a single
Speaker 1: source and the outside stuff is shut away. Yes, And
Speaker 1: and I think as we talk about this, our listeners
Speaker 1: will realize that there are a few absolute in this discussion.
Speaker 1: Very true, Okay. So open source information wants to be free,
Speaker 1: and the ore are computing devices should too. It's the
Speaker 1: only way to be uh, you know, free to be
Speaker 1: you and me? Um, okay, hippie. No. An open system
Speaker 1: is is something that is not made for corporate gain.
Speaker 1: It is out there for the public to use. Anybody
Speaker 1: who wants to make a contribution to it. Can people
Speaker 1: can use it, uh if they want to, and there
Speaker 1: is it's it's there as offered as a public service. Um.
Speaker 1: And is therefore the people of the people, by the people,
Speaker 1: and you closed system punks should leave us alone because
Speaker 1: this is the way it really should be and trying
Speaker 1: to make a buck off that is wrong. So if
Speaker 1: you think of it, uh, an open system is sort
Speaker 1: of democratic and that anyone can really contribute to it
Speaker 1: and and change it. And also we should point out
Speaker 1: before we really get into this debate, uh, that it
Speaker 1: is possible to have a a product probably that's for sale,
Speaker 1: either that's an open system or a closed system. Open
Speaker 1: and closed does not mean that one is free and
Speaker 1: one is is you charge for Yeah, I was, I did. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a good point. I should have pointed out that
Speaker 1: sort of the quote unquote ideal when when a lot
Speaker 1: of people talk about open source, right, if you're going
Speaker 1: the ultimate open source, like the utopian version of open source,
Speaker 1: that's cool. That's cool, yeah, because there there really is
Speaker 1: a spectrum here. But we're gonna try and be like hardcore.
Speaker 1: So Malanie, explain why I think that closed systems are
Speaker 1: superior to open systems. So with a closed system and
Speaker 1: with with with with everything coming from a single source.
Speaker 1: So in this case, let's say it's a company. A
Speaker 1: company is creating a product that is closed off, no
Speaker 1: other outside influence can can come into this product. It
Speaker 1: means that there's an expectation of quality cont role that
Speaker 1: you don't have with open systems. You actually contest everything,
Speaker 1: make sure everything works properly on the hardware. So if
Speaker 1: we're talking about a computer, we know that the software
Speaker 1: will work on the computer because the software and hardware
Speaker 1: have been developed together from the ground up. It means
Speaker 1: that you don't have to worry about some weird incompatibility
Speaker 1: issue when you try and install a program onto this device,
Speaker 1: because again, everything is coming from the same source and
Speaker 1: was made to work together. Now this can go beyond
Speaker 1: just a computer. Let's say that you have a computer
Speaker 1: and a smartphone and a tablet and they're all part
Speaker 1: of the same closed system. It means that you can
Speaker 1: expect a fairly uniform experience across these three platforms, and
Speaker 1: maybe even be able to port your experience from one
Speaker 1: to the other. And what I mean by that is,
Speaker 1: let's say I'm watching a movie on my smartphone and
Speaker 1: then I decide, you know what, I really want to
Speaker 1: look at this on a bigger screen, and I tap
Speaker 1: it over to my tablet, and the tablet starts playing
Speaker 1: the movie exactly where I left off, and it all
Speaker 1: works seamlessly because it's all running on the same platform
Speaker 1: that's meant to work together. That is one of the
Speaker 1: big benefits of a closed system is that you have
Speaker 1: a uniformity in the experience and an expectation of things
Speaker 1: are just gonna work because it was all built together
Speaker 1: and meant to work together. Why are you taking away
Speaker 1: my choice? If I want to have a different video
Speaker 1: card than the one you stuck in my computer, I
Speaker 1: want to be able to remove it and stick a
Speaker 1: different one in there, you know what. And it's and
Speaker 1: it's frustrating because any time I want to change a
Speaker 1: component on my computer or I want something a little different. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I have to deal with all the complications
Speaker 1: that you're closed off. Uh. System is is taking away
Speaker 1: and the problem is that, Uh, you're also restricting competition
Speaker 1: because in your closed system, there's only one way to
Speaker 1: go for a tablet, and there's one way to go
Speaker 1: for an MP three player, and there's one way to
Speaker 1: go for a smartphone. There's one way to go for
Speaker 1: a computer. And I want I want choice. I want
Speaker 1: to be able to customize my my computing experience. I
Speaker 1: want to be able to buy something cheaper because competition
Speaker 1: is driving down the cost of these products. So I
Speaker 1: could go to your store and buy the one computer
Speaker 1: you've got, or I could go to this store over
Speaker 1: here and buy fifty different computers, and all of them
Speaker 1: are cheaper than yours, and some of them even outperform yours. Well,
Speaker 1: so what do you say to that? Here's what I
Speaker 1: say to that. Sure, it might be cheaper. And even
Speaker 1: if you have a device, a particular individual device that
Speaker 1: performs better than one of my particular individual devices, if
Speaker 1: you are trying to have an experience that spans multiple devices,
Speaker 1: then you're going to start encountering things where the compatibility
Speaker 1: issues come into play, and you may have um things
Speaker 1: like software crashes because it's not designed to work together
Speaker 1: seamlessly like a closed system is. So you might spend
Speaker 1: less money initially when you first purchase your vast array
Speaker 1: of choice here and you've got let you know, your
Speaker 1: ultimate price tag is lower than you would if you
Speaker 1: have bought everything from my superior closed system store. But
Speaker 1: the amount of frustration you're going to have as that
Speaker 1: experience is unsatisfactory because the various pieces are not playing
Speaker 1: together properly is far going to outweigh the miniscule additional
Speaker 1: investment you would have to make if you had purchased
Speaker 1: it all from me in the first place. And yeah,
Speaker 1: you're one individual device might behave better or perform better
Speaker 1: than why one individual device, but collectively the experience is
Speaker 1: much more satisfying on my end than it is on yours,
Speaker 1: because it's yours is piecemeal. And also, my system is
Speaker 1: designed to just work. Your system is designed to make
Speaker 1: me have to have a computer science degree if I
Speaker 1: want to figure out how to do the same thing
Speaker 1: on one device as I'm doing on another device. Ha, superior,
Speaker 1: You say, yes, I don't think that word means what
Speaker 1: you think. Well, here, let me put it to you
Speaker 1: another way. Let's let's let's take a look at the
Speaker 1: way a closed system versus an open system attacks the
Speaker 1: problem of malware because they have very different approaches. Right, So,
Speaker 1: if we're talking about the perfect closed system, ideally there's
Speaker 1: no malware because nothing from outside is being introduced into
Speaker 1: the system unless there's some you know, disgruntled employee that
Speaker 1: I've bullied out of out of their sanity. We don't
Speaker 1: have to worry about malware entering into the closed system
Speaker 1: because everything is made by this one entity and it's
Speaker 1: all made to work together so you don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about some sort of virus perpetuating itself through your system.
Speaker 1: Now that's different from the way open systems attack malware. Well,
Speaker 1: see the open systems, you could have other people, multiple
Speaker 1: people working on solutions to things like vulnerabilities in the
Speaker 1: operating system, and people who are working on uh anti
Speaker 1: malware software for your system. So the thing is, that's
Speaker 1: a small price to pay for the ability to hack
Speaker 1: into the system and change whatever you want to change
Speaker 1: about the system. If you want to, UH, get into
Speaker 1: the operating system and see what makes it tick and
Speaker 1: learn more about what what programs and what functions are
Speaker 1: going on in the background. For example, you could be
Speaker 1: monitoring everything I do, but if you're in your closed system,
Speaker 1: I can't get into the background to see that. Then
Speaker 1: you know you could be doing this all without my knowledge.
Speaker 1: Um So with an open system, I I'm free to
Speaker 1: install any software I want to, or remove any software
Speaker 1: I want to from my device. And I could even
Speaker 1: write my own because you know it's open and UH
Speaker 1: it gives me the opportunity to hack in and play
Speaker 1: with it and make it my own instead of make
Speaker 1: it what your vision is because what if your closed vision,
Speaker 1: you're closed off, walled off little garden isn't what I
Speaker 1: think of as being the best experience for me, because hey,
Speaker 1: everybody's an individual, right Well, first of all, we know
Speaker 1: what you want even when you don't see That's the
Speaker 1: thing is, we know what you want. You don't know
Speaker 1: what you want, but we know what you want. You
Speaker 1: think you know what you want, but until you've actually
Speaker 1: bought into our our closed system, you really haven't haven't
Speaker 1: experienced it. And we're going to go back into the
Speaker 1: quality issue. Let's talk about the quality of and we're
Speaker 1: talking about computing systems here, let's talk about the quality
Speaker 1: of the programs that you're running on your system. Again,
Speaker 1: with the closed system approach, those programs have been built
Speaker 1: for a very specific set of hardware, which does not
Speaker 1: change from what you know that if I buy my
Speaker 1: computer from this closed system and someone else buys their
Speaker 1: computer from the same closed system, those two computers are
Speaker 1: going to be identical in every meaningful way. So we
Speaker 1: know that the software is going to work equally well
Speaker 1: on my system as it is on their system. Whereas
Speaker 1: if we both just go into a computer store and
Speaker 1: we each just buy a computer from various you know, manufacturers.
Speaker 1: There's no guarantee that the same kind of software is
Speaker 1: going to work just as well on my machine as
Speaker 1: it is on their machine, even if the two machines
Speaker 1: are running the same operating system, because we have difficulties
Speaker 1: introduced by things like device drivers and hardware differences. With
Speaker 1: the closed system, you've eliminated that you don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about that so much. So that means that the
Speaker 1: quality of the experience of the software put aside the
Speaker 1: quality of the software itself, but the experience of using
Speaker 1: it is going to be less frustrating. Uh the you know,
Speaker 1: you might say that there's a downside with the whole
Speaker 1: choice factor, but at the same time, you don't have
Speaker 1: to worry about it crashing all the time or just
Speaker 1: not behaving the proper way. I think. Sure sometimes things happen,
Speaker 1: but on a much less frequent basis than on these
Speaker 1: these little open systems out there that that just well,
Speaker 1: I don't know, they they they just they just are
Speaker 1: like every anything goes. Guys. We have more to say
Speaker 1: about open versus closed systems in just a second, but
Speaker 1: before we get to that, let's take a quick break
Speaker 1: to thank our sponsor. With open source software, you have
Speaker 1: to pretend a limitless potential of applications that could be
Speaker 1: run for it. The more open you become, the greater
Speaker 1: the possibilities. Um. You know, so you you can have
Speaker 1: your closed system and have things that run specifically on
Speaker 1: that hardware. But you know, programmers like their choices too,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna go where where the wealth of software is,
Speaker 1: and that's going to attract more users, and vice versa
Speaker 1: and verse visa and something. I disagree with that because users,
Speaker 1: most users don't want to be curators. And if you
Speaker 1: are a user of an open system, you have to
Speaker 1: be a curator because there's so much that you're talking about,
Speaker 1: so much variety and so much choice, that it's overwhelming
Speaker 1: to the average user. You sit down and you see
Speaker 1: like there's it's like walking into a library and you
Speaker 1: have no idea what book you want to read. You
Speaker 1: just know you want to read a book, and you
Speaker 1: walk into an enormous library and you have no idea
Speaker 1: where to go. It's too confusing, Whereas in a closed
Speaker 1: system it's been curated for you. Your choices are limited,
Speaker 1: but at the same time you don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about going through eight thousand different word processing programs in
Speaker 1: order to find one that suits your needs. There's really
Speaker 1: only one choice. And if it suits your needs, that's awesome. Jonathan,
Speaker 1: You ignorance ha ha ha oh Saturday Night Life. I
Speaker 1: bet you they cut that. Um anyhow uh well, see,
Speaker 1: there's one thing that that you're leaving out here, the market,
Speaker 1: because what happens here is the market helps people whittle
Speaker 1: down their choices. When you have something the the word
Speaker 1: processor of choice, the one that that more people are
Speaker 1: using than people understand, it's the best seller phenomenon. It's
Speaker 1: like you, you you look at the best seller lists and
Speaker 1: you and you say, you know what, these books are
Speaker 1: very popular. I bet you anything that if I if
Speaker 1: I read it, I'm you know, I will at least
Speaker 1: look at these first because I know lots of people
Speaker 1: like them, and that helps people make choices. As far
Speaker 1: as software is concerned, and you know, there's always a
Speaker 1: new programmer coming online to develop new software and you
Speaker 1: can always help be the kingmaker for the next generation
Speaker 1: of software too, But not in the closed system where
Speaker 1: you know your choices are somewhat limited. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of a best selling open source
Speaker 1: software example, and it's really hard. Well, you know, in
Speaker 1: a lot of cases open source software can be free
Speaker 1: or donationware, and a donationware world, people pay what they
Speaker 1: what it's worth to them. And sure some people are
Speaker 1: gonna pay a quarter, and there are also people who
Speaker 1: pay a hundred dollars for the same piece of software
Speaker 1: because it means more to them and it's important to
Speaker 1: them to donate to the community. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: not found that out? How did how did minecraft? Just?
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's a thing. Yeah, but I still
Speaker 1: think that the closed system is the way to go.
Speaker 1: It's a sustainable business model. It means that you once
Speaker 1: you develop your your your line of devotees, you're good
Speaker 1: to go. I mean because you've you've created that expectation
Speaker 1: of that quality of experience that you deliver upon consistently,
Speaker 1: and by doing that, you know that you know, as
Speaker 1: long as you maintain that level of quality, that you
Speaker 1: will have a customer base moving forward. Whereas with this
Speaker 1: open source approach, I don't see how you're going to be,
Speaker 1: you know, really making a sustainable business out of that.
Speaker 1: And while the ideals are wonderful and fantastic and and
Speaker 1: and and and and happy and all that mess. Um,
Speaker 1: I just don't see it, you know, perpetuating itself after
Speaker 1: a certain amount, and you know, eventually a guy's got
Speaker 1: to eat well. And and that's why I think, uh,
Speaker 1: that's why I think openness is sort of a bell curve. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because the one end you have the clothe the the
Speaker 1: completely closed off system with fewer fewer users, which you know,
Speaker 1: we should point out again there's not really that many
Speaker 1: that I can't think of any company that would be
Speaker 1: though I could point to that say absolutely, is this
Speaker 1: like even the systems that we think of as closed,
Speaker 1: like Apple and Nintendo aren't really that closed. Otherwise no
Speaker 1: third party developer would ever be able to create anything
Speaker 1: for their platforms. Right. And then at the other side, Um,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of somebody who is really completely
Speaker 1: open as far as open source, but as close as
Speaker 1: you can get. Yeah. And the thing is, as Jonathan
Speaker 1: pointed out earlier, um Lenox is free, and it's you know,
Speaker 1: the sources open, which is in the guts of the
Speaker 1: operating system, are open for people to use. And there
Speaker 1: are distributions of Linux that are completely free for people
Speaker 1: to use, and there are others that. Uh. There is
Speaker 1: a purchase price because it is tailored to specific needs
Speaker 1: and usually has some support level of support built into that.
Speaker 1: So if you buy the software, then you can expect
Speaker 1: to have someone to call if you've got a problem. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's not the software itself that's that's got the
Speaker 1: price tag, it's the support. So for example, Ubuntu is
Speaker 1: that way you can you can get a free version
Speaker 1: of a Buntu and install it on your computer. By
Speaker 1: the way, the debate part of this podcast is over
Speaker 1: in case you hadn't realized that we're now getting into
Speaker 1: the more informational side. Um. Yeah, the the and I
Speaker 1: think that went rather well them. But Aubuntu, you you
Speaker 1: can get that for free and install that on a
Speaker 1: machine for free. Uh. But if you want to have
Speaker 1: professional level support, then you can pay a certain amount
Speaker 1: of money and then you will have access to um
Speaker 1: support staff, which could be anything from UM, my computer
Speaker 1: isn't behaving properly, what is the what is the source
Speaker 1: of this problem? How do I fix it too? I'm
Speaker 1: running an actual close network of machines in this one business,
Speaker 1: and I need to know how to set this up
Speaker 1: so that everything is secure that kind of it's it's
Speaker 1: all levels of support. Uh. And and you know, there
Speaker 1: are definitely arguments both for and against the closed and
Speaker 1: open systems, as we were demonstrating earlier. And it's not
Speaker 1: that one system is inherently better or worse than the other.
Speaker 1: They're just different philosophies on how to provide um goods
Speaker 1: and services. Yeah, really they are the arguments we were making.
Speaker 1: I think, Um, you know, there were good arguments on
Speaker 1: both sides. I think the it works better. There are
Speaker 1: arguments I've heard sort of like the ones the debate
Speaker 1: we just had that we're far more heated than that
Speaker 1: to get the when you're actually thinking about both sides
Speaker 1: and not taking a side, it it kind of works
Speaker 1: better because really there are some benefits with with clothes,
Speaker 1: you do have things that just work, um. But with
Speaker 1: open you do have a lot more choice and the
Speaker 1: ability to tinker more with it. And it's sort of
Speaker 1: really I think depends on what you're looking for. So,
Speaker 1: which is why so many people use Windows, because it's
Speaker 1: sort of an open closed system. You know, Windows is
Speaker 1: Windows is sort of the middle ground. Uh, It's it's
Speaker 1: it leans closed, Yeah, it leans closed, but it has
Speaker 1: a lot of flexibility for people to build applications that
Speaker 1: run on Windows. So in that that sense, it's open
Speaker 1: in the in the way that you know, again, third
Speaker 1: party developers create the vast majority of software that runs
Speaker 1: on Windows based PCs. You know, very a small percentage
Speaker 1: of the software that runs on Windows based PCs comes
Speaker 1: from Microsoft. There there's there are very important applications that
Speaker 1: are on a typical Windows based PC that are from Microsoft.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you're like, if you're going to
Speaker 1: some video gamers house and you're looking at his rig
Speaker 1: then or her rig, I should say, because you know,
Speaker 1: I've met some lead female video gamers who could wipe
Speaker 1: the floor with me in any game I shows, which
Speaker 1: is very they're staring at you now as a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, Yeah, well I'll probably end up seeing some
Speaker 1: of them in ces uh, and they'll again I won't
Speaker 1: challenge them that I already know how I would turn
Speaker 1: out anyway. So you but you go on, you look
Speaker 1: at the software on that person's uh computer, and you're
Speaker 1: gonna see that there's a ton of stuff on there
Speaker 1: that never came out of Microsoft. Uh. And same the
Speaker 1: same sort of thing applies to Apple it's not. There's
Speaker 1: not as much software as far as just you know,
Speaker 1: sheer numbers as you would find for a Windows based PC.
Speaker 1: But you know, even Apple, which we think of as
Speaker 1: a really like a walled garden or a closed system,
Speaker 1: depends heavily on third party developers. If it didn't, the
Speaker 1: app store for the iPhone and iPad and and iPod
Speaker 1: Touch would be empty. You know, there would be very
Speaker 1: few apps that you could run because Apple only provides
Speaker 1: a few, um but you know, they they they lean
Speaker 1: very heavily on third party developers. Not at the same time,
Speaker 1: third party developers have to go through a very rigorous
Speaker 1: UH routine in order to submit an app and have
Speaker 1: it featured in the App Store. And of course if
Speaker 1: it's not in the app store, technically you can't load
Speaker 1: it on an Apple device unless you've gone through the
Speaker 1: process of jail breaking it. But using it unaltered an
Speaker 1: unaltered Apple device, you can only load things that are
Speaker 1: through the the Apple's official app store, So in that
Speaker 1: sense it's closed off because if it's not approved, then
Speaker 1: it doesn't go on. The same thing with Nintendo, you know,
Speaker 1: they would certify the games that would go on their
Speaker 1: systems and if it didn't get Nintendo certification, it didn't,
Speaker 1: it didn't get made, didn't become available on the Nintendo. So, uh,
Speaker 1: that's a closed way of looking at and again that
Speaker 1: goes to that sort of quality control argument where the
Speaker 1: closed the company perpetuating this closed system could argue that
Speaker 1: this means that we only have applications of a certain
Speaker 1: quality that we know are going to run properly on
Speaker 1: our hardware. They're not going to cause any problems with
Speaker 1: anything else running on our hardware, and they're going to
Speaker 1: deliver an experience that we you know, it reaches a
Speaker 1: certain level that we have come to expect with our
Speaker 1: our products. Um, Whereas if you go with an open system,
Speaker 1: it's more like we want anyone to be able to
Speaker 1: potentially run anything on this system that's been designed for it,
Speaker 1: and we don't want to limit that at all. We
Speaker 1: don't want to put our biases against certain kinds of applications,
Speaker 1: are certain ways of creating stuff in play. We want
Speaker 1: it to be an open playground for everybody. We have
Speaker 1: a little bit more to say about this whole concept
Speaker 1: of how do you present your systems? Do you go
Speaker 1: with the open model or the closed model? But before
Speaker 1: we jump into that last bit, let's take another quick
Speaker 1: break to thank our sponsor. Well, uh, you know, for
Speaker 1: for Windows, you can argue, you can make the hardware argument, Well,
Speaker 1: I can go and build my own system from the
Speaker 1: components that I can get in my my corner electronics store,
Speaker 1: and I can make my own system and install Windows
Speaker 1: on it, and it's gonna work. Uh. Of course, chances
Speaker 1: are that the there are drivers for the video card,
Speaker 1: and there are drivers for all the devices that you're
Speaker 1: going to do because you're running Windows on it, and
Speaker 1: and you would also have to take considerations like, uh,
Speaker 1: which kind of motherboard are you using? Because only certain
Speaker 1: motherboards will support certain processors but not other processors. So yeah,
Speaker 1: you've got limitations on on. You know, It's not like
Speaker 1: even building a PC from scratch is not totally open
Speaker 1: because some components are going to limit which other components
Speaker 1: you can actually put into your machine. In other words,
Speaker 1: not everything is compatible with everything else, which is uh
Speaker 1: for for people who are interested in dabbling with Linux,
Speaker 1: that can be frustrating because, um, the drivers come around.
Speaker 1: Some some component manufacturers will write a driver for Lenox
Speaker 1: for their card or or device, but not all of
Speaker 1: them will, and so it relies on the community to
Speaker 1: put one in there. And for people who go, you
Speaker 1: know what, I really want to try I want to
Speaker 1: or you know Linux meant or you know any of
Speaker 1: the others, and I want to try this out. So
Speaker 1: they put it the disk in there, they reboot their machines,
Speaker 1: and they'll find out that parts of their system don't
Speaker 1: don't quite work. Yeah, and the more odds, the more
Speaker 1: frustrating for people who are just playing around with Yeah,
Speaker 1: the more obscure the elements are inside your machine, the
Speaker 1: less likely you're gonna find support. Just off the top
Speaker 1: of the bat. I mean, if it's something that's a
Speaker 1: really popular component, then you can it's a pretty safe
Speaker 1: bet that someone out there has created a driver for
Speaker 1: it for an open source operating system, just because you
Speaker 1: know law of averages, you've got a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are using the same kind of hardware, then there's
Speaker 1: a good chance someone has designed something so that that
Speaker 1: hardware will work properly with an open source operating system.
Speaker 1: But if you've got you know, some cheap sound card
Speaker 1: that you found that it is made by someone that
Speaker 1: hardly anyone knows about, it may not have the support
Speaker 1: there in an open source operating system. But then you know,
Speaker 1: the same thing is true with if you if you
Speaker 1: upgrade a Windows based PC and you go to the
Speaker 1: new form of Windows, often you will find that one
Speaker 1: of the big problems is that you'll lose um support
Speaker 1: for certain kinds of peripherals. The drivers will not update,
Speaker 1: or they aren't compatible with the new operating system, and
Speaker 1: sometimes they gets patched, or sometimes the device manufacturers will
Speaker 1: release a new driver that works specifically with a new
Speaker 1: operating system. But you can't get stuck that way too,
Speaker 1: So it's not like it's only with open source. In fact,
Speaker 1: that was one of the big problems that people were
Speaker 1: reporting with Mac OS ten lion was that, you know,
Speaker 1: if you upgraded that, which is a closed system. You know,
Speaker 1: you're talking about a known quantity with Apple hardware, but
Speaker 1: if you upgraded, there were certain peripherals that they didn't
Speaker 1: have driver support anymore, and you know, or certain software
Speaker 1: that had no no longer had support, and it was
Speaker 1: software that was designed to run on the Mac operating
Speaker 1: system and yet could not run this newest version of
Speaker 1: the OS. Uh So it's not like it's a problem
Speaker 1: that's unique to open source. It can all will happen
Speaker 1: in a closed system. Um. You know, the people who
Speaker 1: create closed systems would probably argue what happens less frequently,
Speaker 1: or that you might not have to wait as long.
Speaker 1: But that's you know, splitting hairs. Yeah, that's um that's
Speaker 1: another thing too, for for operating systems that are designed
Speaker 1: by the community. UM, there's you know, it may be
Speaker 1: difficult to find a particular driver or piece of software
Speaker 1: simply because somebody may not necessarily be working on it,
Speaker 1: depending on if there are vulnerabilities in the operating system there. Uh.
Speaker 1: Generally something like that is going to draw the attention
Speaker 1: of the community and will be fixed more quickly. Apple
Speaker 1: gets criticized from time to time when they find vulnerabilities
Speaker 1: in the operating system that could open the machine up
Speaker 1: to uh uh possible attack. Um, you know, for not
Speaker 1: acting on it as quickly as Microsoft does with its patches. Um.
Speaker 1: You know. So there's there's a trade off there, Um,
Speaker 1: but there is. I think there is some benefit in
Speaker 1: a way of being that more hybrid system because um,
Speaker 1: you know, that attracts the most users. I want some flexibility,
Speaker 1: but I want most mostly I want it to work. Um.
Speaker 1: So you get that sort of combo uh system. And
Speaker 1: that's really sort of what Android is really when you
Speaker 1: get down to it, because Android works on a multitude
Speaker 1: of different phones, whereas iOS. Apple's iOS system works on
Speaker 1: Apple branded phones and those only UM and some of
Speaker 1: the others do to the the web os worked on
Speaker 1: the on the Palm phones. UM, you know those are
Speaker 1: those are closed systems. UM Windows works on a on
Speaker 1: a variety of different phones. But the problem is for developers,
Speaker 1: and they find this with a variety of systems too,
Speaker 1: that U um uh closed system is an easier target
Speaker 1: for them to hit. UM. One of the complaints I've
Speaker 1: heard from Android developers is that, uh, they have difficulty
Speaker 1: writing software that will work with all the different versions
Speaker 1: of the operating system they're out there, and all all
Speaker 1: these different phones, with all these different hard hardware components.
Speaker 1: Something being a part of the problem being the carriers,
Speaker 1: because they're not the ones not pushing out the operating
Speaker 1: system updates for the different phones. Some of the older
Speaker 1: updates are just lingering on. I'm not looking at you
Speaker 1: people who won't update my phone months after Jonathan's got
Speaker 1: his anyway, UM anyhow, Yes, I'm beating the desk of
Speaker 1: my candy because I'm angry with them. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean that's a it's a problem for developers a closed system. Hey,
Speaker 1: you know you have a specific range of components. You
Speaker 1: know what kind of processor in general is going to
Speaker 1: be in there. You have a pretty good idea what
Speaker 1: the operating system entails. You know, it's it's an easy
Speaker 1: target to hit. But the problem with in the Mac cases,
Speaker 1: fewer people are using it, so it's less it's a
Speaker 1: less desirable target to hit because there are fewer dollars
Speaker 1: to be made by writing software for it to trade off.
Speaker 1: Getting back to the idea of the closed versus open
Speaker 1: and I'll bring system updates. Uh so let's let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and we'll talk about Apple versus Google, because that's
Speaker 1: that's pretty easy. And even then again, Apple is not
Speaker 1: totally a closed system and Google Google is certainly not
Speaker 1: totally an open system. But it's a different approach. Right,
Speaker 1: Like you were saying, Uh, the iOS is only going
Speaker 1: to appear on iPhones, You're not going to find that
Speaker 1: another hardware. Um, it's because the iPhone was designed to
Speaker 1: do it. That that's the way Apple once it done.
Speaker 1: It's and that's how it's intended. So yeah, sticking with
Speaker 1: phones because that makes it it's it makes illustration, makes
Speaker 1: talking easy illustration. Uh So, then on the Android side,
Speaker 1: Android can theoretically be added to like a manufacturer can
Speaker 1: choose to partner with Google and create an Android phone.
Speaker 1: It's free, it's pretty them. They can they can just build.
Speaker 1: All I have to do is build hardware that is
Speaker 1: capable of supporting Android, and then they are allowed to
Speaker 1: have Android as the operating system for that smartphone. So
Speaker 1: two different approaches. Um Now with Apple, when there's an
Speaker 1: OS update for iOS, Apple can push that out to
Speaker 1: all the different devices that can still support that iOS.
Speaker 1: But there's still going to be some to get left
Speaker 1: behind eventually, just because the physical limitations of the hardware
Speaker 1: will be reached, you won't be able to go beyond this.
Speaker 1: So if you have a first generation iPhone, it's only
Speaker 1: going to run iOS up to a certain point, and
Speaker 1: after that you're never gonna get an update again because
Speaker 1: you've reached the capacity of what that hardware is capable
Speaker 1: of achieving without having a completely unsatisfying experience using that iPhone. Well,
Speaker 1: they could just never make a newer one, except then
Speaker 1: everyone would have what they were going to buy, and
Speaker 1: there wouldn't be any reason for them upgrade. So anyway,
Speaker 1: Uh but yeah, but but if you have a fairly
Speaker 1: recent like usually it's within for the last three generations,
Speaker 1: the latest one, the one right before that, and maybe
Speaker 1: the one before that, you typically are able to get
Speaker 1: the latest UM software upgrade. You might eventually get left behind,
Speaker 1: like the three GS is probably getting pretty close to
Speaker 1: its upper limits right now. But uh, you know, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: when you go over to the Android side, you have
Speaker 1: all these different carriers and they're all having they all
Speaker 1: have handsets with different capabilities, and uh, you know, some
Speaker 1: of those handsets might be able to run the Lace
Speaker 1: version of Android, and some of them might not, you know,
Speaker 1: or if they were to run the last version of Android,
Speaker 1: the hands that might get really hot and the battery
Speaker 1: might drain really quickly, so you would have a very
Speaker 1: unhappy experience you're seeing it, even if you had the
Speaker 1: Lace version, Like, well, I've got the Lace version, but
Speaker 1: my phone lasts for two hours, then it's dead, and
Speaker 1: at the whole time it feels like it's gonna set
Speaker 1: my pants on fire. UM, make all excuses you want,
Speaker 1: they still haven't pushed you out to my phone. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: for some people like Chris setting your pants on fire,
Speaker 1: apparently it's a feature, not a bug. Um, but what
Speaker 1: kills the bugs there? You go, okay, well, we've all
Speaker 1: learned something new about christal Um. So yeah, the the
Speaker 1: that is that is one of the downsides. Now again,
Speaker 1: like Chris was saying, you've got a lot more choice
Speaker 1: with the open system. So if you want a phone
Speaker 1: that has a certain processor in it or has a
Speaker 1: certain kind of camera in it, you've got a lot
Speaker 1: more choice than you would if you are on the
Speaker 1: other side of the closed system. Got you know, with
Speaker 1: the closest me essentially have the latest version of it,
Speaker 1: and usually the one directly before it, and maybe the
Speaker 1: one before that. And uh yeah, I mean you have
Speaker 1: all the people that have adopted and and Android numbers
Speaker 1: that we've that have been coming out as of about
Speaker 1: the time that we're recording this, in very very late um,
Speaker 1: android numbers are taking off. They're far outstripping apples, uh,
Speaker 1: iPhone new customers even as fast as the iPhone sales.
Speaker 1: And I think there are two big reasons. But I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Well I was gonna say, is that. Well,
Speaker 1: go ahead. Well, the two big reasons I see is
Speaker 1: one there's way more choice, yeah right, so you've got
Speaker 1: like all these different options. And two there are a
Speaker 1: lot more lower cost options out there, Like with the
Speaker 1: iPhone you've got. You know, you've got the latest version
Speaker 1: which is going to be pretty expensive, and then the
Speaker 1: older version, which is slightly less expensive. But you're not
Speaker 1: gonna find any like bargain bin type stuff. You're not
Speaker 1: gonna come across. I don't know if anyone who's ever
Speaker 1: offered like a free iPhone with a two year contract,
Speaker 1: but there have been Android phones that the older ones yeah, um,
Speaker 1: actually low cost I guess maybe not free. Um. Well,
Speaker 1: the thing is that now that that Android is becoming
Speaker 1: the big target for developers in its class, um, you know,
Speaker 1: there are all kinds of apps that are out there
Speaker 1: and available for it. Um. There are also all kinds
Speaker 1: of app stores that you can use to You don't
Speaker 1: have to go through just the Google marketplace if you
Speaker 1: don't want to, although you do have to change a
Speaker 1: setting on your phone in order to be able to
Speaker 1: access them. That that's correct. Um. The thing is, though,
Speaker 1: the bigger the target, the more people the developers of
Speaker 1: all kinds, including malware developers. It attracts that um not
Speaker 1: you know, this has nothing to do with the quality
Speaker 1: of the operating system or the security measures inherent in
Speaker 1: the operating system. It's just a bigger target and therefore
Speaker 1: it's a um a juicier place to strike for the
Speaker 1: person and in the legit people too. I mean, hey,
Speaker 1: I can I can sell my app in this app
Speaker 1: store and reach five thousand people. I can sell my
Speaker 1: app in this app store and reach five million people?
Speaker 1: Yea itself far more over here. The thing is, though,
Speaker 1: it also UH and I would argue that this is
Speaker 1: the case for any tech that has reached that kind
Speaker 1: of UH adoption rate, that it also inspires a lot
Speaker 1: of junk. I mean we saw it with Atari when
Speaker 1: opened up the platform and allowed other people to write
Speaker 1: software for it, they were all kind of that's what
Speaker 1: caused the video game, correct, which is where I was
Speaker 1: getting into the whole curation argument in the debate. If
Speaker 1: you are using an open system, then you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a lot more choice with when it comes to not
Speaker 1: just you know, options, but but apps that you can run.
Speaker 1: But that also means that with the good comes a
Speaker 1: lot of bad not that the closed systems necessarily you know,
Speaker 1: it's not that Apple is free of bad apps. There
Speaker 1: are plenty of bad apps in the Apple app Store. Okay,
Speaker 1: so I don't mean to say that, but no, no,
Speaker 1: But because is that there's not necessarily like there's no
Speaker 1: qualifier to create an app for Google, and you can
Speaker 1: submit to the Google Marketplace, or you can even host
Speaker 1: it somewhere else if you want to, and not even
Speaker 1: go through the the process of submitting it to Google
Speaker 1: market and people can still find it and download it
Speaker 1: to their shorts or tablets, you know, mobile devices. Um.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that curation becomes a problem because then if
Speaker 1: you've got that much choice and there's no like, there's
Speaker 1: no one out there who's kind of curating this for you,
Speaker 1: it all falls on your shoulders. And uh, that can
Speaker 1: just get exhausting. I mean, I mean looking through just
Speaker 1: the list of applications, uh just you know, going page
Speaker 1: by page. You sit there and think, well, I could
Speaker 1: look at the ones that are the most popular and
Speaker 1: use that as kind of a guide of curation, but
Speaker 1: it may very well be that the app that really
Speaker 1: meets my needs is eight pages down. And you know
Speaker 1: that gets kind of frustrating after a while. Um yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's it's it's funny too, because one of the
Speaker 1: things that some people have said against Lenox. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've I've used a couple of different flavors of Linux.
Speaker 1: I really like the operating system. I Um, I don't
Speaker 1: like that there are fewer people writing software for it,
Speaker 1: but I still I love the idea, and I like
Speaker 1: the operating system an awful lot um and the more
Speaker 1: I play with it, the more I've enjoyed using it.
Speaker 1: But the thing is, some people have said that the
Speaker 1: fact that it's free is a problem because it sort
Speaker 1: of encourages people to think that it's not actually worth anything. Right,
Speaker 1: it should have money. It gives it gives a It
Speaker 1: gives some people the feeling that, well, if it's free,
Speaker 1: it must not be very good. Yeah, because you know,
Speaker 1: if it were good, I'd have to pay money for it,
Speaker 1: which is untrue. Which is funny because if you had
Speaker 1: to pay money for it, people will be trying to
Speaker 1: find a way around having to pay money for it.
Speaker 1: Now you're you're making my brain hurt. Here's the crazy Okay,
Speaker 1: stereotypical computer user, stereotypical Internet savvy computer user. All Right,
Speaker 1: if something doesn't cost money, then it's not worth having.
Speaker 1: If it's If something costs money, it's worth having, but
Speaker 1: you shouldn't pay for it. Yeah, like you are a
Speaker 1: messed up person, typical computer user. You need to re
Speaker 1: examine your priorities. Yeah, yeah, well I think. And by
Speaker 1: the way, I was once like you, Well, I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: ideally to me anyway, And I think it does come
Speaker 1: down to personal choice. I think ideally, Um, I do
Speaker 1: prefer a hybrid. I do want I don't want to
Speaker 1: have to. I like the idea of being able to
Speaker 1: hack into things and being able to make choices and
Speaker 1: fool around with stuff. But I wanted at the end,
Speaker 1: I wanted to be able to work. I don't want
Speaker 1: to spend all my time hacking with it. I was like, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm done now. I want to close the hood and
Speaker 1: play on it. And I can't. Kind of broke it.
Speaker 1: And we both own devices that run Android, and we
Speaker 1: both own devices that run Apple operating systems, so we
Speaker 1: both own Windows computers. Yeah. So, I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: not like it's not like we're saying this as fan
Speaker 1: boys of one system versus another, even though we played
Speaker 1: that in the debate. UM, I mean I I own
Speaker 1: an Android fund my wife has an i phone, and
Speaker 1: we are both very happy with our devices for very
Speaker 1: different reasons. It meets exactly what she wants in a smartphone,
Speaker 1: but for me it would probably be it's a beautiful
Speaker 1: device and it has a great interface, but it probably
Speaker 1: would be more frustrating to me than my Android phone,
Speaker 1: which meets my needs. Whereas the Android phone, I know
Speaker 1: for a fact, would annoy and irritate my wife because
Speaker 1: she used to have one and she doesn't anymore and
Speaker 1: she never will again because she's very happy with her iPhone.
Speaker 1: So again, it's too just two different people and two
Speaker 1: different uh, preferences for the operating system. It's it's not
Speaker 1: that one is inherently better or worse than the other.
Speaker 1: It's just that it suits mine you know, one suits
Speaker 1: my needs and one suit serves Yeah. Yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: it all comes down to the stuff that matters to
Speaker 1: the individual. Um And in the end, I think it's
Speaker 1: it's uh. Most people sort of go for the mix
Speaker 1: of things. Well, I want this part to just work,
Speaker 1: but the rest of it, I want to be able
Speaker 1: to fool around with and I think that's another one
Speaker 1: of the appeals of Windows. It's sort of that middle ground. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, like we like I said, we all own
Speaker 1: the various devices, and we all see the value and
Speaker 1: and the limitations of each system. Um. I think I
Speaker 1: think it really you know, if if, however you're going
Speaker 1: about it, if you're dedicated to making the best possible
Speaker 1: product or service that you that you possibly can, whether
Speaker 1: it's as a member of the community of the open
Speaker 1: source world, or if it's you know, a closed system,
Speaker 1: I think that is what's most important. And to me,
Speaker 1: the whole open versus closed is just a general philosophy
Speaker 1: that guides your your development process. It's not something that
Speaker 1: you know, I should definitely be you know, uh endorsed
Speaker 1: or or or scorned. Well, it frustrates me listening to
Speaker 1: people talk about it and seeing comments online from people
Speaker 1: who are so devoted to one side or the other
Speaker 1: that they will scream and call names and use profanity
Speaker 1: to definite side and going. But I mean, I see,
Speaker 1: I see arguments for both sides, and yeah, I think
Speaker 1: are valid points for both. Yeah. And it's it is
Speaker 1: a dangerous thing because once you get once you become
Speaker 1: a fan of a certain way of doing things, then uh,
Speaker 1: it almost feels like if someone else praises a different
Speaker 1: way of doing it that it's somehow an Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: an attack against what you like, which isn't necessarily the case.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, no, it's definitely not fair. But it does
Speaker 1: happen all the time. I see it all the time
Speaker 1: where someone will praise one system and someone else takes
Speaker 1: that as Hey, you're saying that the system I like sucks,
Speaker 1: and no, that's not what I said. I just said
Speaker 1: that this system was also good. I didn't even mention
Speaker 1: your system. Please don't yell at me trolls. So if
Speaker 1: you want to know more about that, listen to our
Speaker 1: podcast on how trolls work East Jonathan Strickland in the
Speaker 1: operating system you like stinks? Right? Yeah? Okay, Well that
Speaker 1: that's a good summary. This was fun. Well, guys, that
Speaker 1: wraps up that classic episode. It sure was nice hearing
Speaker 1: Chris's voice again, wasn't it. If you guys have any
Speaker 1: suggestions for future episodes of tech Stuff, whether it's a technology,
Speaker 1: a company, maybe there's a person I should cover, let
Speaker 1: me know. Send me an email. The address is tech
Speaker 1: Stuff at how stuff works dot com, or you can
Speaker 1: drop me a line on Facebook or Twitter. The handle
Speaker 1: for both Facebook and Twitter is tech Stuff h s W. Also,
Speaker 1: don't forget to follow us on Instagram. I'd love to
Speaker 1: see you on there and I'll talk to you again
Speaker 1: really soon. For more on this and thousands of other topics,
Speaker 1: is it how stuff works dot com