Led by University of Tokyo Professor Ken Sakamura in mid 1980’s,
supported by the Japanese government, and embraced by practically all of
the key players in the Japanese electronics industry, Japan, in a
project called TRON, succeeded in developing its own indigenous open
real-time operating system kernel. Subsequently, an Industrial TRON
(iTRON) derivative was born, becoming one of the most successful
operating systems in embedded systems such as cellphones, appliances and
sometimes even in cars in Japan.
Japan’s goal then was clear. A
nation needs its own operating system to create and control an ideal
computer architecture and network.
While I admit that I’m amazed at the success of iTRON, I think that China should pay attention to what happened next in Japan.
developed TRON to stem the onslaught of technologies coming from the
United States. But iTRON never penetrated the global market, and no
Japanese company saw significant gains by sticking their guns to iTRON. And
iTron ended up getting used only in products made by Japanese companies
for the Japanese market.
The hard lesson for Japan was that
“containment” is a strategy that might work in geopolitics, but it
rarely applies to technology and business fields. Advancements in
technology and discoveries in science happen regardless of national
Japan’s pursuit of proprietary technologies only helped
Japanese electronics companies to delay their embrace of operating
systems developed abroad (Windows, Symbian, Linux included) and
associated software applications. It also held back Japanese product
development for the overseas market – especially now in the burgeoning
China could argue that the sheer size of its domestic market will alter that picture.
might say that it’s not the Chinese who will suffer, but overseas
vendors coming to China who will be forced to license proprietary
technologies from China.
We’ve all heard that argument before.
again, name a Chinese technology that proves the Chinese technocrats’
argument. Ostensibly, TD-SCDMA, China’s alternative to W-CDMA, is a
possible example. Perhaps. But in the end, even China Mobile, the only
Chinese cellular network operator who embraced TD-SCDMA, ended up
requiring their next-generation LTE handsets to be compatible with not
just TD-LTE, but practically all flavors of global wireless standards.
In today’s well-connected global world, neither one country nor a single proprietary technology gets to be king of the world.
I think the modern-day model that works best is the one where any company or university interested in being at the leading edge of technology invest in participation in international forums. Because I agree that attemtping to wall off outside "influences" can only result in falling behind in your domestic industry.
There are simply too many smart people all over the world. Cannot be helpful to ignore all the ones outside one's own borders.
*Which* GUI? There are a number of them, and which default you get will depend on the distro you run.
I run Ubuntu, which defaults to a new interface they designed called Unity. I wasn't thrilled by it, and because it's Linux, I had alternatives. I prefer XFCe4, but Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment and a number of others exists and can be used.
"While the Android system is open-source, the core technology and technology roadmap is strictly controlled by Google,"
Since Android is opensource, Anyone can create their own roadmap.. like Amazon did. So whats the problem with too much dependency?
It is very difficult to believe dependency on Android is a bad move. Relying on Google's support to build a device might be.
The computer industry has become more open for years. Embracing open source is widely adopted. What Chinese's firms have to do is to be able to make their own device w/o any help from Google. In addition, they shall focus on developing apps. If they don't like Android, there is Ubuntu (generally speaking, Linux) to choose from. If GUI wasn't ready, put their hand on it to make it attractive. Really! In today's world, if OS is widely available from source code level, why spending extra effort to re-invent an OS? Efficiency is very important.
The worst case scenario is that someone feels so left out by Google's development that Android is forked. Not that big of a deal. It is just the typical government agency doing what they do best....drawing more attention (and funding) to themselves.