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."
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.
Microsoft should by all means copy Apple's walled garden model. Then they can both proceed straight to hell, holding hands.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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.
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.
In Android, there is no reason that CNET couldn't start their own app market.
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 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?
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.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
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.
Why complain if Microsoft wants to shoot itself in the head?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.