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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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?

Sure, why not?

[John Hasler]

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

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.