評論
打印
The comparison between what Microsoft wrought in the 1980s and what Google was trying to do in 2010 was not exact,
將微軟在20世紀80年代的所做和谷歌在2010年的所為放在一起比較雖不恰當，
but it was close enough to be unsettling -- and infuriating.
但也足以令人不安和憤怒。
It exemplified the great debate of the digital age: closed versus open, or as Jobs framed it, integrated versus fragmented.
這體現了數字時代的大辯論：封閉還是開放，或者用喬布斯的話來說，一體化還是碎片化。
Was it better, as Apple believed and as Jobs's own controlling perfectionism almost compelled,
是像蘋果所主張的以及喬布斯自身完美主義的控制欲所推動的那樣，
to tie the hardware and software and content handling into one tidy system that assured a simple user experience?
將硬件、軟件和內容都整合在一個干凈漂亮的系統中以確保簡潔的用戶體驗？
Or was it better to give users and manufacturers more choice and free up avenues for more innovation,
還是通過創造能夠在不同設備上修改使用的軟件系統，
by creating software systems that could be modified and used on different devices?
讓用戶和制造商都擁有更多選擇并釋放更多創新？
"Steve has a particular way that he wants to run Apple,
“史蒂夫管理蘋果有其獨特的方式，
and it's the same as it was twenty years ago, which is that Apple is a brilliant innovator of closed systems," Schmidt later told me.
和20年前一樣，蘋果是封閉系統的優秀創新者，”施密特后來對我說。
"They don't want people to be on their platform without permission. The benefits of a closed platform is control.
“他們不希望別人在未經許可的情況下進入自己的平臺。封閉平臺的好處就是控制。
But Google has a specific belief that open is the better approach, because it leads to more options and competition and consumer choice."
但是谷歌相信，開放是更好的方式，因為這能帶來更多可能性和競爭，并給予消費者更多選擇。”
