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

[v1]

the xbox's walled garden makes a good statement about what MS does with walled gardens. drives the devs insane. charging devs to push updates. good idea! lets discourage bug fixes and updates! *sigh*

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[AK Marc]

What about the AV companies? If every program is scanned and explicitly approved, what do you need virus scanning for?

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[viperidaenz]

Too bad they've built the OS shell on top of DirectX then. Must be a huge hassle. Must be horrible for the XBox team to have a pretty solid, reliable, tested and supported by major hardware vendors 2D/3D/Audio/Input software stack to work with.

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[ILongForDarkness]

Perhaps because new exploits in existing software are found? Sometimes data has a virus payload etc. Win 8 still has a full blown desktop OS in it that doesn't have a walled garden and has all the registry and other circa 1990 stuff we've all grown to love. MS app compatibility story extends to virus writers :)

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[grantek]

This is actually a good point - Microsoft have gone through decades of pain being the target of malware, have suffered through it, and at this point have something of an immune system developed with Security Essentials and the ecosystem of third-party anti-malware. It's definitely an advantage over Apple, whether or not it's the best way to go.

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.

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[Hal_Porter]

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.

Re:This is what Microsoft wants

[Jesus_666]

Note that as the second FA has pointed out, sideloading is only supported in the following scenarios:

1. Windows 8 Enterprise computer joined to a domain with the "Allow all trusted apps to install" group policy set if the app is signed by a locally-trusted CA
2. Windows Server 2012 computer joined to a domain with the "Allow all trusted apps to install" group policy set if the app is signed by a locally-trusted CA
3. Windows 8 Enterprise computer with an MAK (Volume Licensing Multiple Activation Key)
4. Windows 8 Pro computer with an MAK
5. Windows RT computer with an MAK
6. Any Windows 8 computer with a developer license

MAKs are available under the following circumstances

Medium or enterprise sized customers with Software Assurance for Windows or Windows VDA subscriptions in the following Volume Licensing programs will be granted Enterprise Sideloading rights and provided with the MAK keys as an SA benefit at no additional cost. Product keys for Enterprise Sideloading will be made available through the Volume License Service Center (VLSC).

Time-limited developer licenses are available for free for the purpose of testing your own software and...

Microsoft can detect fraudulent use of a developer license on a registered machine. If Microsoft detects fraudulent use or another violation of the software license terms, we might revoke your developer license. The monitoring process helps ensure the overall health of the app marketplace.

In other words, in order to sideload you're either an enterprise customer, you run your own AD setup at home or you use a time-limited developer license that's not intended to be used for sideloading and that can be revoked if Microsoft finds out you use it for sideloading. Which, according to TFA, Microsoft monitors.

Either you're wrong or TFA is and TFA has links to Microsoft as its sources.

MS shouldn't copy Apple

[fustakrakich]

They will do it poorly, but it might be very profitable. And who cares about all that 'freedom' crap? 'Freedom' doesn't sell. It's a very tiny fringe market.

On the contrary

[Tough Love]

Microsoft should by all means copy Apple's walled garden model. Then they can both proceed straight to hell, holding hands.

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: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.

The only thing Windows needs to do

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

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.

Re:The only thing Windows needs to do

[cbhacking]

Erm, the registry ha sa number of advantages over text config files (.INI or any other kind).

It's centralized. You don't have to search the whole disk, just the registry itself, which is pretty fast.

It's strongly typed. Strings are strings, integers are integers (well, DWORDs), and while arbitrary binary data is permitted, it's not the default.

It's compact. Text files are wasteful of space in several ways (representing numbers as unicode characters, filesystem entries, etc.).

It's hierarchical. A registry key can both contain values and sub-keys. Text config files are flat; unless you use the filesystem itself to provide hierarchy (which then means you have a large number of files potentially per application) you either end up with a long and structureless list, or with a structured file that a slight mistake in editing can break.

It's a standard format. .INI is only one way to store config data; there's other forms of flat files, plus XML and so on. With the registry, you don't have to worry about whether the file needs to have a specific type of newline character or what the character to separate value names from data should be or anything like that.

It's fast. Because registry values are stored with known types and lengths, parsing them is faster than parsing numbers, hex values, etc. out of text files. Back when the registry was first designed (when the 386 was a new and fancy CPU), this mattered more than it does today, but it's still a valid technical point in the registry's favor.

To be sure, the registry has its issues, too. It's definitely less visible than text files are (although settings files are typically marked Hidden...), and it's slightly harder to back up. It also is much harder to find software for general-purpose registry editing than for general-purpose text file editing. Don't pretend that there is no point to the registry, though.

Re:The only thing Windows needs to do

[WaffleMonster]

The registry was an abortion from the first day it came out. I can't really think of any benefit of having it over .ini files.

Apps are free to do whatever they want including writing .ini files... that soo many have chosen to use the registry for configuration should speak for itself.

I can think of several possible advantages:

Central configuration store with a common access experience for all applications. .ini files...xml files...binary files...

Configuration store is automatically safe against concurrent access..try rewriting a .ini file by multiple apps at the same time and let me know how it goes. Today bulk registry operations can be fully transactional thanks to windows KTM.

Security ACLs per entry. .ini file security as far as the operating system is concerned is for the whole file.

Common set of tools "regedit" to modify, backup, monitor, restore and search configuration across participating apps.

I love classic centrally controlled systems and I love compartmentalized jails where all configuration and file access is localized. There is no right answer only the best tool for the job at hand after careful consideration of competing tradeoffs.

Re:The only thing Windows needs to do

[cbhacking]

NT permissions are actually much more fine-grained than POSIX; you can for example permit all logged-in users to read, and all users of a specific group to write as well, but deny one specific user (who might even be a member of the aforementioned group) the right to do anything at all with the file. Write, append, and delete are different permissions. The same permission can be applied to multiple users and/or groups. The owner of a file (or other securable object; in POSIX these would all be files so I might as well call them that) can overwrite any permissions, as you'd expect, and the Administrator ("root") can take ownership of any file, but it's also possible to allow multiple users/groups the ability to take ownership of files. By default, directories use inherited permissions, but it's possible to add additional permissions (or to deny permissions, which overrides "allow" behavior), and it's possible to disable permission inheritance on a directory or file entirely.

Re:The only thing Windows needs to do

[cbhacking]

Point #1: You just described AppArmor or SELinux. These already exist. They're a pain to configure, but they do what you want.

Point #2: This is, in fact, one of the things that "Metro-style" apps do. It's not just a "touch-first" UI; it's also a per-app sandbox with restrictions on the locations and access that each app has, independent of other apps or of the permissions of the logged-in user.

Re:The only thing Windows needs to do

[Andreas Mayer]

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.

Now I'm confused.

You state that Microsoft would be ahead of Apple if they did what you listed above - do you not realize that this is exactly what Apple is doing right now?

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Security/Conceptual/AppSandboxDesignGuide/

Re:Skyrim would never appear in the Windows Store.

[Githaron]

One step at a time. If Microsoft can get people entrenched into the Windows Metro OSes by Windows 9 or 10, they will force all apps to come from the Microsoft's store. From a greedy bastard standpoint, they have no reason not to.

Catch 22

[SilenceBE]

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.

Re:Catch 22

[fermion]

This really has nothing to do with open and not open, nor the freedom to develop of design. The phone is closed system. The number of people who buy a computer and actually tinker with the insides is small. The number of people who write code for their computer is tiny. This has to do with overall cost and easy availability of free applications, which is why MS beats *nix on the desktop, and Android beats iPhone on the mobile.

Writing code for the Mac has been free since around 2000. Visual studio express has been available only since 2005, and is still very limited. Yet the PC is considered more open than MS. The SCSI and USB and Firewire port has allowed driver free installation of common devices for ever, yet Windows XP which still needed to install a driver for USB drivers is considered more open.

I think if we have a free IDE and open standards, that is open. After that it is pretty much about whether you need every application one can imagine, or can live with a more limited selection. This is why a closed garden is a mistake for MS. MS customers do not expect limitation in choice, only limitations in what MS will let them install. Further, MS is not likely to do the job Apple does in vetting Apps, so it will be more likely that malware slips though, which negates the consumer benefit to the walled garden.

Re:I agree but...

[englishknnigits]

What is all this nonsense about Android being a walled garden? Have you never heard of the Amazon app store for Android? Have you never heard of loading any app you find on the internet onto your Android device? There must be something huge I'm missing here because there have been several articles popping up lately talking about Google's "walled garden" and it has me horribly confused. Will someone please enlighten me?

Just deserts

[Dreamlandlocal]

This is probably very obvious, but the market is ultimately going to decide what is and what isn't a good idea. If the "walled garden" will be generating more profit for Microsoft than the (relatively) unrestricted status quo, then it flourishes and continues. If enough people reject the approach and go looking elsewhere for an OS, then perhaps Microsoft learn their lesson and revert.

I doubt that enough people are going to be annoyed by the restrictions and move to another platform. "It really isn't worth the hassle."

Nevertheless, if the gamer crowd can provide enough support for commercial linux game deveopment, my selfish self will be more than satisfied with the freedoms (or lack thereof) granted by Windows 8.

Re:I agree but...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

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. He's now happily running CM9, but I was astounded to find out that the option was permanently grayed out.

Re:Timing

[Microlith]

People were complaining about this a year ago as well. It's just taken a long time for the naysayers to realize that, yes, Microsoft is going the iOS route with WinRT.

Re:I agree but...

[bhcompy]

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.

Sure, why not?

[John Hasler]

Why complain if Microsoft wants to shoot itself in the head?

Re:I agree but...

[stephanruby]

I wish there was some alternative, where maybe Microsoft would merely control people who have other marketplaces, and it would be up to say..CNET to insure that their download was safe, etc.

I certainly would hope not. CNET/download.com is already one of the worst free software curators in the world.

It already takes free (and sometimes open source) software that's already available elsewhere on the internet for free, and most of which is already free of spyware and free of marketing toolbars, and wraps them inside their own installer that installs their own spyware and installs poorly-worded half-hidden opt-out internet browser toolbars.

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".

Re:Apple's walled garden approach to iOS is...

[mjwx]

Apple is like a supermodel. It (she) may be flawed, but nerds will always come back for more.

Microsoft is like the eldest daughter. The king has to pay some schmuck to marry her (so the knight in shining armor can sweep the hot younger sister away).

Apple is like an ordinary girl who thinks she's a supermodel. Not that hot but has a terrible attitude, (princess/superiority complex). You pretty much cant ask her to do anything without a huge argument.

Microsoft is the girl with a serious self esteem problem. May not be good looking but wont say no to anything you want.

Linux is like a girl from SE Asia. Good attitude, good looks and reliable but occasionally can be very hard to understand.

Re:They should copy the walled garden

[Jesus_666]

To be honest, having your graphics card lag a year behind is perfectly acceptable unless you absolutely need to play the latest games on top settings (or do heavy CAD, I guess, but I think that market operates differently from the consumer market I know so I can't comment on it).

I'm currently using a Geforce 8800 GTS. Yes, 8800. From 2007. It still does modern games reasonably well and if it wasn't so RAM-starved I'd keep using it for another year. When I'll upgrade my gaming rig at the end of the month I'll put in a card with a six times the RAM, which should last for another four to five years.

Yes, a videophile would argue that playing on anything less than 2560x1440 with 16xAA and all setting maxed out is an insult to human eyes but the opinion of any -phile only vaguely applies to normal users. I'm perfectly fine with "mere" 2xAA at 1080p; the gameplay is more important than the graphics anyway. (Case in point: Due to RAM starvation I play Borderlands 2 with fairly bad texture quality but the fact that I can't read Roland's Facebook post doesn't keep me from enjoying the game.)

Couldn't get a license in the first place

[tepples]

[Forced curation] discourages developers from shipping buggy or broken games with the mentality that it will get patched later.

Instead, developers end up not shipping them at all because the developer couldn't get a license in the first place. Remember Bob's Game? Under forced curation, how is someone who has never been to Austin, Boston, or Seattle supposed to build his company to the point where it qualifies for a license?