藍色情懷

開放真的比較好嗎？

An Open Question

- The success of Google's Android software doesn't prove that open is better

Google Android軟體的成功，並不能證明開放比較好。

撰文╱波哥（David Pogue）
翻譯／鍾樹人

大家都認為，蘋果搞砸了第一次稱霸資訊產業的機會，原因是系統太過封閉。這不光是字面上的意義（早期的麥金塔電腦真的封得很緊，讓玩家無從對內部零件下手），軟體授權也是如此；意思是，只有蘋果可以製造麥金塔作業系統的電腦。微軟則反其道而行，將視窗作業系統授權給所有電腦公司──今天，全球有90%的個人電腦採用視窗作業系統。

　　According to conventional wisdom, Apple blew its first chance to dominate the computer industry. It missed out on becoming the 800-pound PC gorilla because its systems were too closed. Not just in the literal sense—the original Macintosh computers were sealed tight, so tinkerers couldn't fool around with the guts—but in the licensing sense. That is, only Apple could make computers running the Mac operating system. Microsoft, on the other hand, licensed Windows to any old computer company—and today Windows runs 90 percent of the world's PCs.

但幾年後，第二次實驗展開了，這次是音樂播放器。兩方的做法和當年面對電腦時一模一樣，賈伯斯堅持iPod及其軟體只能獨家生產，微軟則提供了音樂播放軟體平台PlaysForSure，任何公司只要付授權費，都可使用。

　　But then, a few years later, a second experiment ran, this time involving music players. Here again, both Apple and Microsoft used precisely the same playbooks they had with computers. In this corner: Steve Jobs, insisting on being the sole creator of both the iPod and its software. In that corner: Microsoft, offering its music-player software platform, called PlaysForSure, to any company that paid the licensing fee.

這次結果卻逆轉了，專屬模式勝出，且成果驚人。iPod搶下了85%的音樂播放器市場。而微軟呢？親手處死了PlaysForSure。（後來微軟進行了第三次實驗，推出全新的音樂播放器Zune。讓人訝異的是，Zune採用了類似蘋果的封閉架構，但同樣失敗了。）所以，我們有好幾個對照組，但結果大相逕庭。到底哪種才正確？授權還是獨賣？

　　This time the results were reversed. The proprietary model triumphed—big time. The iPod gobbled up 85 percent of the music-player market. And Microsoft? It took PlaysForSure out behind the barn and shot it. (Microsoft then ran a third experiment. It introduced a completely new music-player system, called Zune, modeled, incredibly, on Apple's closed-architecture model. It failed, too.) So we have several controlled studies with contradictory results. Which is the right approach? To license? Or to control?

如今我們目睹了更大的市場戰爭，正在測試哪個模式才能稱霸。這是目前最大的實驗：智慧型手機之戰，由蘋果（專屬的iPhone）出戰Google（開放的Android）。

　　Now we are engaged in a great market war, testing which model assures market dominance. It is the biggest test yet: the app-phone battle. This time the war is between Apple (iPhone, proprietary) and Google (Android, open).

蘋果的策略同樣是獨家製造軟硬體，別無分號。Google採取類似微軟的開放原則，且更進一步──Android手機軟體不僅開放，還不用錢。任何公司都可免費使用Android來製造智慧型手機（或者平板電腦、電子書閱讀器），而且怎麼改造都行。

　　Once again, Apple's approach is to let only Apple make the hardware and software. Nobody else makes iPhones. Google, on the other hand, is taking the Microsoft “anyone can use our software” principle and running with it. Its Android phone software is not only open, it's free. Any company can make an app phone (or tablet or e-book reader) using Android, without paying Google anything, and even make changes to it.

實驗到目前為止效果不凡，全世界有許多公司推出Android手機，銷售總數已達3000萬支，且持續增加中。蘋果則已賣出7500萬支iPhone，但它比Google提早一年開賣。這樣的結果對Android手機來說非常成功，不過這項實驗其實設計不良。我們應該問：Android手機的吸引力有多少是來自它的開放？

　　So far the experiment is shaping up magnificently. Companies all over the globe are pumping out Android phones—30 million and counting. Apple has sold 75 million iPhones, but it had a year's head start on Google.That makes Android a fantastic success, but as an experiment, this one is poorly designed. The question is: How much of Android's appeal is its openness?

　　事實上，你可以說，這樣的「開放」反而讓消費者的生活變得難受。因為這表示AT&T和Verizon可在你的新手機上塞滿醜陋、昂貴的應用程式服務。（反觀蘋果，壓根沒想過讓別人預先安裝垃圾軟體在iPhone上。）

　　Truth is, you could argue that “open” makes the customer's life miserable. It means that AT&T or Verizon can junk up your new phone with icons for their own ugly, overpriced add-on services. (Apple would never dream of letting third parties preinstall junkware on an iPhone.)

　　更糟的是，開放代表Android不只一種。只要略微修改，版本就不同，它成了分裂的平台。當Adobe終於釋出必要的Android擴充軟體，讓Android手機能夠播放Flash影片時，多少使用者大感興奮，但只要問問他們就會發現，這個軟體只適用於某些Android手機。

　　Worse, open also means that there isn't one Android. It becomes a splintered platform of slightly modified versions. Just ask any owner of an Android phone who was excited by the possibility of playing Flash videos when Adobe finally released the necessary Android plug-in—and found that it would run only on a handful of Android models.

　　Google的應用程式商店也比蘋果開放，眾所周知，蘋果僱用了編輯來一一審核應用程式。這表示你可能在Android手機上看到色情軟體，但iPhone上則否。而且，蘋果的商店比較有條理，品質也比混亂的Android市場好。

　　Google's app store is more open than Apple's, too; Apple, notoriously, employs human editors to approve each app individually. Among other things, that means that you can get porn apps on an Android phone but not an iPhone. But that also means that Apple's store is better organized and higher quality than Google's chaotic Android marketplace.

　　雖然聽起來有點極端，但「開放」是否只是個看似雄偉的幌子？
　　This is going to sound radical. But could it be that “open” is a great big fat red herring?

　　對手機製造商來說，Android的吸引力真的是開放嗎？或者，更大的吸引力其實在於：Android是完整、成熟、優雅，又內建軟體庫的手機作業系統，而且製造商還不用花一毛錢？從消費者的角度來看，開放真有這麼重要？當有人走進Verizon的店裡時，會說：「我要Droid手機，因為我要徹底改造Android。」還是：「我要Droid手機，因為它很輕巧、速度快，而且是由Verizon提供服務。」？

　　From the perspective of phone makers, is the openness really the attraction to Android? Or could it be that the greater draw is that Android is a complete, polished, elegant phone OS with built-in software library—and it doesn't cost the phone maker a penny? And from the consumer's perspective, does the openness really matter? Has anyone ever marched into a Verizon store and said, “I want a Droid phone because I want to make cosmetic changes to Android” instead of “I want a Droid phone because it's thin, fast and runs on Verizon”?

　　或許我們需要的是一場終極科學實驗：讓封閉而專屬的系統（蘋果）與封閉而免費的系統（Google）比拚看看。把「免費」和「可修改」這兩個變數分開，才可能清楚看出Android成功的動力在哪。好吧，這實驗並不會發生，但這是瞭解「開放」真正價值的唯一方法。

　　Maybe what the world needs is one final grand scientific experiment: closed and proprietary (Apple) versus closed and free (Google). You know—somehow separate the variables “free” and “modifiable,” so we can see more clearly what's responsible for Android's momentum. Okay, that experiment isn't going to happen. But that's the only way to know the real value of “open.”