4 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.

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.