The Commercialization of Open Source Mobile August 16, 2007Posted by matthewweber in abaporu, appropriation, cannibalism, cycle, iPhone, re-configuration.
add a comment
After a short recess, Abaporu is back – hey, we all need a break every now and then!
Over the summer I’ve noticed increasing talk of commercial open-source mobile phone ventures. What’s interesting about these ventures is they are growing out of the feedback of open-source mobile application developers. While traditionally US cell phones have been locked down by providers, there has always been a cannibalistic subset focused on cracking open the code unlocking phones for free open-source development. This is exactly the trend we all witnessed when the iPhone launched: within days developers were hard at work cracking into the depths of the iPhone source code. Out of this trend of cannibalization with the intent of distribution, a number of companies are now building commercial open-source mobile phones. In addition to Motorola offering a framework for open-source mobile phone development, the OpenMoko project is now selling two open source phones that allow users complete flexibility across networks and applications. The price of these phones is currently a bit prohibitive, but there’s a clear trend of open source development starting to emerge. Now that this once-niche form of appropriation is building towards mainstream, we’re hopeful that we’ll start to see a growth in applications and uses.
agon/antagon: appropriation as theater July 10, 2007Posted by François in agonistic, cannibalism, iPhone.
1 comment so far
This past weekend, 300 hackers gathered in San Francisco for iPhoneDevCamp. The camp was a first collective attempt to unlock the iPhone’s mysteries, prompted by Apple’s reluctance to publish details about its inner workings. The LA Times covered the event as if it were a military battle. The article describes how the DevCampers carefully prepared for combat, wearing “stickers classifying themselves as developers, hardware testers, designers or web coders.” It quoted organizers who said the event was “about killer participation”, “not just to create the killer app.”
On the surface, iPhoneDevCamp had all the hallmarks of antagonistic cannibalism. Apple resisted the assault by refusing to help or provide any basic information about its product. Hackers strategically deployed themselves to “bend the iPhone to their will” and “make it do things Apple might prefer it didn’t.”
But following Paul Duguid’s insights, we might choose an alternative reading. The displayed hostility may simply be appropriation theater, agonistic rather than antagonistic. Indeed on closer examination, the DevCamp battle looks a lot like a love fest. The hackers clearly relish the challenge laid out for them by their idol, and Apple must love the attention (if only because it presumably made at least $150,000 selling $500 iPhones to 300 hackers.) The result, one suspects, will be more iPhones sold to happier hackers.
Meanwhile, the show certainly is entertaining as we watch Apple playing hard-to-get, enjoying every cannibalistic nibble from its suitors.