The world will be a better place when more refuse to play a zero-sum game. How have computing platforms been changing the games? How may those inspirations be useful to redefine a better game?
A means to collaborate
In 1997 Macworld, Steve Jobs named Microsoft (MS) as a meaningful partner when MS saved Apple with a $150 million investment & bring the hero apps: Office 98 & Internet Explorer to Mac. MS could use another bleeding-edge computer to push the limits of its flagship apps. And with productivity apps available, users have more reasons to buy Apple. Even, Apple vs MS continues to compete on every front still. Nevertheless, the world is indeed a better place since.
Recently, MS has become much more open mind again. In 2019, MS admits its mistakes on open source & Linux and adds Windows Subsystem for Linux from Windows 10. This May, MS just starts beta testing Android 12.1 on Windows 11. After all, it’s not a platform if there is only one product. Kudos to MS, one step forward on “building the platform for platform creators” as the vision of Satya Nadella, chairman & CEO at MS.
Product, platform or both
“That’s why it’s called ANDroid, not ORdroid. Because if we are deciding between two alternative, we always pick both.”-Product vs Platform, Androids: The Team that Built the Android Operating System
Are we building a product or a platform? It’s a common question fueling countless debates in the valley. Both may be the simple answer. It is not easy thing to do. And also, it takes a lot of investment & serendipity for mass adoption. Somehow, Android found its balance with Nexus products + Android Open Source Project (AOSP). It’s just the right things, at the right place and at the right time. Want to know more about how Android came to be? Androids: The Team that Built the Android Operating System is a such book. Not only, there’re many history & insights. But also, it’s a fun read.
An uncommon measure
“Software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification.” — The Open-Closed Principle.
The value of a creator platform is a multiple of the number of the products. And, one more bonus is the variety of choices. Nowadays, there’s no secret open sourcing can lower the barrier of device supply, aka the hard side to solve The Cold Start Problem. Also because of that, MS can build Windows Subsystems for Linux & Android without permission.
Less control makes permissionless innovation easier, and so is fragmentation. Android mitigates the problem with Android Compatibility Program & Compatibility Test Suite (CTS). So that, device makers can ensure their device implementations still run Android apps properly.
Unfortunately, the variety also multiply the complexity, and quality is the usual casualty. Can there be an easier way to do design decisions betters at scale? Changes in a platform over time, and even across the implementation may help. So that, platform developers can design better based on quantitative feedback. And, device developers can plan the upgrade & manage risk better for the changes from the upstream.
For example, change_report.py compares two versions of a codebase for changes in lines of code. Many questions may be answered better by analyzing such a dataset. It’s easier to design better in a data-informed style. There are other ways to extract more information & even knowledge from the data at scale 🦾. If more dots can be connected, a digital transformation of creator platform development may go above & beyond the 3rd wave 🦿.
Full Disclosure
The opinions stated here are my own, not those of my company. They are mostly extrapolations from public information. I don’t have insider knowledge of those companies, nor a whatever expert.
