I have a confession and a question.
This discussion on Oracle has made me realize something (other than the fact that the technology is way beyond my understanding)...I don't get it about the most basic building block of Gorilla Game thinking: what exactly is meant by proprietary open architecture? I thought I got it, but not now. More accurately, whenever I read or heard about Microsoft or Cisco or the Q having POA (a new acronym), I would nod wisely and think "Of course they do."
Now I'm confused. I just reread the relevant portions of the RFM and that didn't clear it up. I actually understand it with regards to the Q and CDMA, but to take Microsoft for example:
How is their architecture open? I thought they haven't ever revealed their source code, so how is it open? Does it mean that they've revealed just enough to allow developers to write software for Windows, but not enough to let anyone else clone Windows? The authors use Intel licensing their chip architecture to other sources (e.g., AMD) as an example of how opening up an architecture was a key to achieving gorillahood. So in light of that, if Microsoft hasn't revealed their source code, is it open?
As for proprietary, is it proprietary because they own patents on Windows architecture? Or because they haven't revealed the architecture, so it's all theirs? Because if it's that they haven't revealed it, then it's not open, as I understand it.
Here's my attempt to answer my own question. They became the standard OS, because of the market forces described in the manual. Once entrenched, they had gorilla power and the value chain needed them to stay entrenched. So their architecture - their OS - became the de facto standard.
But that leads me back to the original question: they are the standard, but I don't understand how their architecture is open and proprietary. If they keep it proprietary (don't reveal the code) then it seems it isn't open. If they open it up, isn't it no longer proprietary?
I'm not trying to pick nits here. I just don't understand POA as well as I thought I did. I think I've revealed a little more than I should have about the convolutions of what passes for my reasoning process...but could someone give me a very basic primer in this?
Thanks in advance, and sorry about the barrage of questions.
Sam |
