Why Microsoft Shouldn't Copy Apple's iOS Walled Garden

Kethinov writes "Will the computers of the future be tools for freedom or for censorship? An insightful Ars editorial examines this question in depth, concluding that Apple's walled garden approach to iOS is fundamentally flawed and thus Microsoft should reconsider their plans to apply the same model to WinRT. The authors are careful to present a nuanced analysis that adequately weighs the competing interests of security, convenience, and user freedom, ultimately concluding that Mac OS X and Android offer better models because while their walled gardens are on by default, they offer supported mechanisms to opt-out if desired, thereby offering users the same security and convenience benefits without sacrificing user freedom in the process." A similar article by software engineer Casey Muratori looks at the effect Windows 8's closed distribution system will have on game development. The restrictions involved in getting approval for the Windows Store would preclude 2011's game of the year, Skyrim, from appearing there, as well as 2012's top candidates. The requirements contain clauses that would cut out huge swathes of the video game industry, like this one: "Your app must not contain content or functionality that encourages, facilitates, or glamorizes illegal activity."

Comments

This is what Microsoft wants

[Anonymous Coward]

Go buy an XBox if you want to play games. Microsoft doesn't really care if you can't play top-shelf titles on Windows 8, and would probably prefer the hassle of not supporting DirectX for the general PC class systems. They'd be much happier selling you an XBox. Not only does it lock you into their console, it helps lock game developers into their console too.

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[lightknight]

Dude, it's a heavy handed attempt at controlling the market, and Microsoft is going to FEEL the magnitude of its mistake here. Even Apple isn't feeling so hot, as without S. Jobs's charisma field, the company is suddenly sitting out in the open with a target on its back.

MS wants to copy Apple in that respect, which would be fine, except MS isn't Apple. Ballmer doesn't have charisma, and certainly doesn't have S. Jobs's ability to bend reality around 'The Chosen.' As such, he's making a hideous mistake (this is going to hurt, like a blow to the solar plexus).

Between their sad attempts at market segregation (Windows 7 with its dozen or so editions, just spreading confusion), and now their attempt to dictate to developers what will and will not run on their OS (that'll end well), I would short MS's stock immediately after their Windows 8 blowout (I imagine the stock will rise for a few months, after they mention that it now accounts for 80% of their OS sales or something (nevermind that the OEMs will be using the downgrade clause), after which some news report will mention that people hate it, with a sudden drop in stock price, as the bad news press really starts rolling).

MS had a choice between investing in DRM, a wonky GUI, and a walled garden, or a better GUI, better communications, and moving everything out of unmanaged land. Guess which one it chose? If you are thinking "money grab," you would be correct.

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[Anonymous Coward]

... instead it promotes shipping buggy or broken games and not patching them later, or delaying the patch for as long as you can in case some new bug gets uncovered.

There is but one question from Microsoft.

[SuricouRaven]

Of all the approaches available to them, which would make Microsoft the most money? Including both direct profits, and any future benefits which might be had by increasing Microsoft's effective influence to further profit in related areas.

That is what the executives at Microsoft are asking. They don't care about openness, or user freedom, or anything else like that - except in so far as it affects the success of the company. So work out the answer to that question, and you can predict Microsoft's future actions.

The answer looks clear to me. A manditory app store would not only make Microsoft a fortune, but save them from the problem of needing to run an eternal upgrade cycle to keep users constantly buying new software. The power it gave them would also open up untold opportunity in other areas - they could use it to mandate support or lack of support for specific technologies (eg, no OpenGL-compatible games permitted), or prohibit software that could compete with Microsoft's own.

Re:There is but one question from Microsoft.

[FranTaylor]

STRAW MAN WARNING!

The argument is NOT about the PRESENCE of a garden but rather the WALLS around the garden.

WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT?

Re:I agree but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, but Apple has changed things a bit, there still has to be a central marketplace for the average user to find things...that's what Apple changed.

Apple has changed nothing, because such "central marketplaces" already existed with Linux distros (and other mobile devices) in both paid stores and free repositories, years before Apple tried it.

Re:I agree but...

[Githaron]

In Android, there is no reason that CNET couldn't start their own app market.

Skyrim would never appear in the Windows Store...

[Aphrika]

That's for Metro apps. Skyrim is a Win32 app. Sure, the Metro bit is a walled garden, but the Win32 bit is still as open as ever on x86, you simply just avoid ARM based Win RT devices... job done.

Re:I agree but...

[mjwx]

I actually have seen the 'Walled Garden' in action. I had to root my brother's phone when he found out that AT&T had removed the option to allow 3rd party app installs.

How is this Android "walled garden"?

I have a GNex (bought outright) on Telstra (Australia), previously I've had a HTC Dream, Moto Milestone and HTC Desire Z (all bought outright) and I've never seen the restrictions you speak of.

You even said that the restrictions disappeared when he installed CM9 which would indicate it's not Androids "walled garden" but AT&T's "walled garden".