I'm beginning to develop a phobia of the word 'open'. I wish people would stop using it when highlighting the benefits of X over Y.
Aliyun is an open-source based OS that is also an open ecosystem that allows others to host their mobile-enabled Web sites in our cloud and we make those Web sites available to users who use Aliyun OS phones. So we are an ecosystem that includes other Internet companies, whereas Android does not because it provides apps through downloads. It's the crux of the whole cloud vs. app debate. Cloud is open, apps system is closed because it is controlled by the operator of the apps marketplace. So you see: Two competing ecosystems, one that's open through the cloud, the other is closed and restricts users to only the apps that they want you to see.
What? Are you kidding me? .... Mr. Spelich did you miss the part where you say you 'host mobile-enabled web sites' for 'users who use Aliyun OS phones'.
OK so Mr. Spelich is a Buzzword Bingo douchebag but his use of 'open' is so common. Daily I hear 'X is open and Y is not' (especially from 'anti Apple' preachers).
I suppose the problem is myself. When I was growing up 'open' had a completely different meaning to us. 'Open' was synonymous to 'free' and 'free' equated to 'freedom' (libre). It is available to everyone as in it is public.
So by stating something was 'open' it meant that I would have the power and right to do, say, act the way I liked without hindrance.
I suppose the most telling observation is what I viewed the opposite to 'open' was. It was not 'closed' (closed being a temporary restriction on open) it was 'private' as anything that was not open was often marked as such:
invitational only (i.e. private invite only)
This is why I probably find the use of the word so jarring nowadays as in almost every case it is used to describe something that is quite obviously not open but private. They all abuse the word as they always require a given context be met.
The golf course is open to all with an invite
The golf course is open to all. There is a registration fee of $1M
The golf course is open to all with a holding bar of $1M on your creditcard.
The golf course is open to all between the hours of 0000h - 0500h. Golf course closes daily at 1000h - 0900h.
The restrictive context always governs the openness and if this restriction is permanent then in my eyes it's not open. After all what is really being said is:
Exclusive Golf course by invite only
Exclusive access to golf course. Registration fee of $1M
Exclusive access to golf course granted with a holding charge to your creditcard of $1M refundable on request.
Exclusive access to golf course only
So why don't people say it like it is. This is a 'private' club where membership is defined by these requirements. The problem seems to be that 'private clubs' are elitist, bad , not moral and wrong. While anything that states itself as 'open' is seen as virtuous, good and right.
Being part of a private club is so uncool.
OK my explanation might liberally define 'open' and as such this may lead to nothing being truly open BUT I do wonder if soon open will be synonymous with 'not X'.
* 'open house' a day a house is open for anyone and everyone to view. I know it as a selling technique used by real estate agents.
** 'free house' always used to tickled me as most patrons of such establishments would prefer the alternative adjective to the word 'free'.