The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs strongly outlines that this pattern is a problem of segregation in almost all communities. The best superficial designs are static and proprietary. The best, long living designs are open and engage with inevitable chaos at scale. High end segregated suburbs eventually die, as people move to open, less segregated environments that provide more serendipitous opportunity.
It seems to be natural in complex networks that proprietary systems that don't serve the entire population function better due to like-mindness, conservation of resources by the wealthy, and bias.
Apple is like a private community for those who can afford it. Systems and resources can be allocated centrally, and designed for a limited number of static requirements. Its great, until requirements change.
I would argue that Google should continue to support the open environment it is designed on. Its software is inherently linkable (you can link to documents, G+, youtube videos), it is mostly open to non-logged in experiences, and it is free for anyone.
It comes at great cost to support those ideas, sometimes in the form of money, and sometimes resources, but I think its absolutely worthwhile.
It seems to be natural in complex networks that proprietary systems that don't serve the entire population function better due to like-mindness, conservation of resources by the wealthy, and bias.
Apple is like a private community for those who can afford it. Systems and resources can be allocated centrally, and designed for a limited number of static requirements. Its great, until requirements change.
I would argue that Google should continue to support the open environment it is designed on. Its software is inherently linkable (you can link to documents, G+, youtube videos), it is mostly open to non-logged in experiences, and it is free for anyone.
It comes at great cost to support those ideas, sometimes in the form of money, and sometimes resources, but I think its absolutely worthwhile.