Six Basic Truths of Free APIs: “Amazon and Google have recently shattered a common misconception: that free APIs are a commons of goodies to be built on top of for fun and profit, like open source software.”
Web 2.0 is killing open source. We too often equate free tools with open tools. Not the case at all. Google offers great software tools to make money and capture market share. Not because they adhere to a higher ideal of a better world. The ideals of open source software (and related concerns, including content) are usurped by ease of software use (hmm, install squirrelmail or use Gmail? Set up WordPress or use Blogger? Setup Mediawiki or use Wikispaces?). Google and many other web 2.0 providers are “functionally” open, not idealistically open. At such a time as financial circumstances are not favorable, the rules and software change. Ask long term flickr users. Or developers who have built their tools on APIs that can suddenly be shutdown when the graces of the provider turn to other interests.
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
3 Comments
Hello, George,
Web 2.0 and open source are related but separate entities — I wrote about this in a couple posts last year — http://www.funnymonkey.com/free-service-open-api and http://www.funnymonkey.com/best-things-are-free –
This difference is very clear to many open source developers, but not always so clear to end users, who equate the type of “free” as embodied by GMail with the type of “free” as exemplified in code that can be freely downloaded and modified.
The challenge before us is to articulate the advantages of FOSS tools with regards to privacy, functionality, flexibility, reliability, and, unltimatelt, total cost of ownership. As many early adopters get frustrated with the lack of flexibility inherent in apps like Blogger, the advantages of more flexible, customizable open source apps become apparent.
Cheers,
Bill
George – you make a good distinction between ‘free’ tools and ‘open’ tools. Companies like MS, Yahoo, and Google are out to maximize profit, and giving away some free services assists them in doing so. As long as these services continue to drive the adoption of their paid services, they will continue to be supported. If this is not the case, don’t expect the service to be around for long.
Your comment about ‘Web 2.0 killing open source’ isn’t something I’d agree with. Difficulties in interfacing with loosely coupled, disparate APIs is not something unique to open-source. No matter what development environment you’re using, there are always versioning and coupling issues.
The open source movement is still very strong. In this month’s Canadian Business magazine, Don Tapscott references that there are over 125,000 open source projects current under way – and this number continues to grow. As a newcomer to open source (in the form of a Ruby on Rails coder), I can say that this is a movement that only seems to be gaining in momentum. This year’s RoR conference sold out the 1600+ seats in the matter of a few days.
A FOSS tool is only better than one that is simply free if that tool delivers better utility.
The philosophy (or “idealism” if you will) of FOSS serves developers, not users; it encourages them to contribute to something because they hope other developers will also act philanthropically.
In the end, the “free” in FOSS is not about software; it is simply free developer effort. It doesn’t matter if a tool is FOSS; if it goes stagnant, it rapidly becomes worthless and so the fact that it is “free” has little value.