3 ms·

I think its important to realize what you miss out on as much as what you get. Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may h

I think its important to realize what you miss out on as much as what you get. Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. Apple has explicitly disallowed any interpreter other than the one built into Safari, simply because it would be impossible to have a web browser without JS. Some would argue that they've severely crippled it by removing Flash, which demonstrates just how far they are willing to go. Now imagine if the iPad had arrived before the browser. They would have never allowed this browser idea, with this crazy "javascript" thing, on the App Store. There would have been no special exception because it "might change the world". I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history, even if we had to do it at the cost of those confusing file systems and other side effects of open systems. The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first. Its possible to create a great, easy to use system, that is also open. Arguably the web is precisely this. The web is also usable by my grandparents. The web can also eliminate the complexities of the file system (each web app stores its files). But the web is still open.

tbrownaw 17y ago
> Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. Assuming this had at some point become the only common model of computing, what would keep out newcomers from coming out with less locked-down systems? What about things like "many dealers started bundling the Apple II with VisiCalc" (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.html http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.htm...); if there's sufficiently useful software that won't run on your computer, you (or your employer) will buy a new, working, computer. > The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first. General computing cannot be replaced by such devices, let alone by a single implementation of such a device by a single manufacturer.
- tolmasky 17y ago
  Assuming this had at some point become the... The issue here is that in a world where this is the computing model, its not realistic for every new software idea to start with "let me ship my own surrounding system including hardware". If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness". General computing cannot be replaced by... This argument is just "closed systems are not bad because there are also open systems". My point is simply that if closed systems win, then they are bad. So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree.
  - tbrownaw 17y ago
    > If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness". But they do understand "that particular very useful software won't run on this machine". > So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree. That is what I'm saying. Some large fraction of software development is done in-house; closed platforms wouldn't allow this, and it's expensive enough that if it wasn't important it probably wouldn't be done now. In the past, sufficiently useful software has come with a bundled computer; if this had to be done regularly, someone would see an opportunity to sell an open computer that could run more than one kind of software.
gaius 17y ago
Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. That's a really weird thing to say because it did. Atari 2600 anyone? But Apple have never even pretended the iPhone et al were "open" computing devices. Contrast that to the just-as-limited ChromeOS.
- grhino 17y ago
  The core of the ChromeOS is open, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os-open-source.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os.... Chrome OS is espousing a new style of computing which is all done through the web browser. Chrome OS has a standards based, no gatekeeper method of delivering new applications to users. It's called HTTP.
jacquesm 17y ago
> I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history I really don't agree with that. In computer history, it had been preceded by generations of dumb terminals hooked up to networks, so as such it wasn't all that new. The HTTP protocol underlying it and the URL arguably are much more important developments, the browser is just a presentation layer on top of those. As for human history, the wheel, the control of fire, penicillin, communications satellites, space travel and hundreds of other inventions were both done earlier and have had a much bigger impact on how we live than the browser ever will. The mobile phone, maybe. The browser ? No way.

tbrownaw 17y ago

> Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. Assuming this had at some point become the only common model of computing, what would keep out newcomers from coming out with less locked-down systems? What about things like "many dealers started bundling the Apple II with VisiCalc" (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.html http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.htm...); if there's sufficiently useful software that won't run on your computer, you (or your employer) will buy a new, working, computer. > The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first. General computing cannot be replaced by such devices, let alone by a single implementation of such a device by a single manufacturer.

tolmasky 17y ago
Assuming this had at some point become the... The issue here is that in a world where this is the computing model, its not realistic for every new software idea to start with "let me ship my own surrounding system including hardware". If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness". General computing cannot be replaced by... This argument is just "closed systems are not bad because there are also open systems". My point is simply that if closed systems win, then they are bad. So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree.
- tbrownaw 17y ago
  > If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness". But they do understand "that particular very useful software won't run on this machine". > So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree. That is what I'm saying. Some large fraction of software development is done in-house; closed platforms wouldn't allow this, and it's expensive enough that if it wasn't important it probably wouldn't be done now. In the past, sufficiently useful software has come with a bundled computer; if this had to be done regularly, someone would see an opportunity to sell an open computer that could run more than one kind of software.

gaius 17y ago

Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. That's a really weird thing to say because it did. Atari 2600 anyone? But Apple have never even pretended the iPhone et al were "open" computing devices. Contrast that to the just-as-limited ChromeOS.

grhino 17y ago
The core of the ChromeOS is open, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os-open-source.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os.... Chrome OS is espousing a new style of computing which is all done through the web browser. Chrome OS has a standards based, no gatekeeper method of delivering new applications to users. It's called HTTP.

jacquesm 17y ago

> I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history I really don't agree with that. In computer history, it had been preceded by generations of dumb terminals hooked up to networks, so as such it wasn't all that new. The HTTP protocol underlying it and the URL arguably are much more important developments, the browser is just a presentation layer on top of those. As for human history, the wheel, the control of fire, penicillin, communications satellites, space travel and hundreds of other inventions were both done earlier and have had a much bigger impact on how we live than the browser ever will. The mobile phone, maybe. The browser ? No way.