As noted in the Ubuntu Forums post announcing the survey, the question isn't about which apps are included by default in the operating system, but which apps should be worked on to be easily installed from Ubuntu's official software sources. There are, to be sure, third-party, not-entirely-open apps available in the optional repositories you can enable from Ubuntu's settings, but by asking whether apps like iTunes, Photoshop, and Spotify should be made easy to emulate and install on your Ubuntu system, the developer community is showing a real focus on expanding Linux use beyond the seasoned geek crowd.
Hit the link to drop your thoughts on which apps should be easily installed in Ubuntu, and tell us here what kind of apps should be available in the open source OS.
Sponsor
Respondents were also asked about their plans to purchase a smartphone in the future. Among those who planned to purchase within the next 90 days, 21% said they would now choose Android. In September, that figure was only 6%. At that time, Android was tied with Palm as the least-preferred mobile operating system but by December's survey, it became the second-most preferred. (Palm, sadly, has dropped to least-preferred).
Apparently, some of Android's growth has come at the expense of the iPhone. While still the most popular mobile OS to date, those saying they would prefer to own the Apple device over any other smartphone dropped from 32% to 28% over the past three months (September - November 2009). However, Apple's overall share of the market has increased one percentage point to 31%, notes the survey. Research in Motion (makers of Blackberry phones) retains a 39% share and Palm has slipped to a 6% share.
While this seems like promising news for Android, let's not forget the recent figures regarding sales of the Nexus One, Google's self-sold Android smartphone. Once positioned as a potential "iPhone killer," the N1's first week sales fell short of expectations with just 20,000 sold since its January 5th launch date. So while consumer sentiment may be on the rise regarding the Android OS, the mobile OS still has quite a ways to go before it catches up with the iPhone 3GS (which, incidentally, sold 1.6 million devices in its first week).
However, positioning the N1 against the iPhone isn't really a valid comparison -the N1 is only one of many Android handsets on the market today. Other Android-enabled phones like the myTouch 3G and the Droid also have significant and growing install bases. Combined, the overall marketshare for Android is on the rise. This growth is benefitting both Motorola and HTC, each who offer a version of the Droid smartphone. (HTC is also the maker of the N1). Since September, Motorola has increased 12 percentage points in terms of future buying, the first increase ChangeWave Research has seen for the company in three years. HTC has also increased from 5% to 9% in the same time frame, a change prompted both by the N1 release and the November release of the Droid Eris model.
Discuss
Maybe I've been writing about the business world for too long, but my first thought was -– hmm, Google has turned civil disobedience into a business strategy.
To be clear, civil disobedience is substantially different for a company than it is for individual citizens. Google will never face the triumvirate risks that many people who defy oppressive governments do: jail, torture, death. Instead, Google will likely have to shut down its offices in China, a move that could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue this year alone.
But judging from some of the ideas that shaped Thoreau's use of the term back in the 1840s — the refusal to resign consciences to governments or to become agents of injustice –- Google is in fact acting out of civil disobedience. It's certainly not the first company to do so; those that voluntarily divested from South Africa and other countries with appalling policies were doing the same. But Google is the first company I can think of to act on such a large scale.
Does that mean Google is acting from self-interest or altruism? My guess is both, but I'll let that debate simmer on other web pages. I'm willing to accept that Sergey Brin is doing what he believes is right. But Google is a corporation, not a person, and its interests and motives are by definition much more complex.
Whether to practice civil disobedience is less and less of a marginal issue for companies in a global economy. The question of whether to practice it is an especially pertinent one for Internet companies to ask now –- if for no other reason than the fact that the Internet is an ideal platform for supporting protests. Back in 1998, Stefan Wray wrote an essay on electronic civil disobedience in which he foresaw how the Internet and civil disobedience would be closely enmeshed, noting that:
While it may be partially true…that participation in street actions has become increasingly meaningless and futile and that future resistance must become primarily nomadic, electronic, and cyberspacial, it is doubtful that physical street actions, involving real people on the ground, will end any time soon. What is more likely is that we will see electronic civil disobedience continue to be phased in as a component of or as a complement to traditional civil disobedience.
Call it cynical or practical, but Google, whose business is done entirely on the Internet, recognizes that evolution. Google is forced to choose sides in a battle that has been unfolding for some time – China vs. the Internet – and the side it's chosen will win in the long run. The risks, though, lie in how long it will take for that victory to arrive, and what it will cost Google in the meantime.
