I can’t help but see a similarity between these two face-offs.  The iPhone and Windows offering fully commercial OS’s, locked down systems in which (generally) software has to have full access to install, with limited control of the system by the user.  Registration keys, product activation, DRM, and on and on.

Android & Linux offer free solutions, open ended, open source, allowing unlimited dabbling and customisation to those who are interested.  Allowing anyone in the world to play, edit, create and modify.   An open system in which anyone can lend their knowledge.  One system on a mobile device, one on a desktop/laptop.

The question is, is there a clear winner? Is there a right or a wrong way to implement a software system? Will two of these solutions be doomed to failure in 30 years time and two succeed for world domination of their market?

I think it can be categorised much clearer – open vs. closed software systems.  In these cases, the software is the OS of the device.  Socialism vs. Capitalism?

Windows as we know already has a massive head start over Linux, but that’s not to say Linux isn’t making some good headway.   There is still a long way to go, but I can’t help but think that on an unlimited timeline, the open source, free solution will always win.  Why should we continue to put up with one company’s buggy, delayed, and lacking solution, when a solution that hundreds of companies and individuals can all work on will always perform much better.

The fight between the iPhone and Android is going to be a little closer.  With much closer release dates, there isn’t the sweeping dominance of one solution over the other – Android uptake is beginning to increase and as more and more handsets become available it’s likely to be massive – why limit yourself to one locked OS and one handset when you can have the choice of 15 android handsets and be able to customise it as you please?

It seems to me these locked systems are doomed to failure.  As well as having to turn out a considerable profit in order to be sustained (luckily Microsoft have has massive dominance for this), they need to sell themselves as something better, when in fact the systems are much more restrictive, if (at present) a little more ‘gimmicky cool’.

Open ended systems in which anyone can tinker and optimise, take on and invest in, on an unlimited timeline will always result in a better solution – a system everyone can have the opportunity to contribute to for free, as opposed to a few hundred or thousand individuals within a company which needs to pay it’s employees.