3 ms·

I'd advocate a bit towards the opposite: why does it matter? The future of technology is probably going to wind up being entirely based on walled ecosystems an

I'd advocate a bit towards the opposite: why does it matter? The future of technology is probably going to wind up being entirely based on walled ecosystems anyway. If you own a MacBook, it's already very enticing to tie that in with an iPhone, etc. It's all about tight integration. I'd also say there is not a single existing system that exists yet which provides the kind of tight integration I'm dreaming of. I'm talking about the kind of system where you buy a home and every single piece of technology in it is integrated. Truly and completely integrated, not the pseudo lame stuff we have today. HN types love to rant against the Walled Garden™, as if it's by definition some terrible thing. The only reason negative aspects even exist today is because the walled gardens we have today are woefully incomprehensive. When the day comes that you can buy into an all-in-one ecosystem that actually takes care of everything you need, there will be no problem. I would happily "lock into a walled garden" if that garden contains every variety of plant known to mankind. Back to responding more directly to the parent. It just doesn't matter if someone knows Google and only Google. People use what works for them, and why shouldn't they? When the day comes that Google vanishes or word spreads that you shouldn't use it anymore, your average citizen will easily migrate to whatever other service is the most popular replacement. The average person does not need to know what SMTP is; they need a system that lets them type in their message and hit "send". This is a good thing, not some terrible sadness.

fny 10y ago
Part of the reason for the rant against the walled garden is that it threatens a developers ability to innovate without being threatened/limited/taxed/replaced by the gatekeeper. Whether that's better for consumers is debatable (plethora of choice isn't necessary a good thing), but devs definitely give up a lot of power and leverage to the landlord.
- developer2 10y ago
  This assumes an ecosystem based on apps from 3rd party developers. The real power is in having the company that is providing the system to also provide all the core functionality. Offloading the responsibility to "carry the platform" on 3rd party developers is a large part of the reason why no ecosystem provides an experience of integration that is satisfying. The first company to fully develop a system/platform that doesn't rely on 3rd party devs for basic development will be the first company that matches my vision of the future. "Apps" from a large arsenal of companies instantly throws away any concept of uniformity. My bet is that the future holds fully walled gardens. To the point where, for example, every game you play will be released by the company that created the platform you choose. Even if it's just ports of a base game, that port will be released by the system creator, not the game developer/publisher. We just need the creators of the ecosystem to prioritize developing the entire system itself, rather than the current situation where they rely on 3rd party devs and attempt to reign control over them. From what we've seen thus far, I am simply not confident that any platform will ever provide a fully immersive and integrated experience if it relies on SDKs and supposed "standards". The idea of a "standard" that actually gets followed to the letter is so far a mythical beast. I don't want my home automation system made up of devices from 20 different companies doing their "best" to interoperate properly. I want a single company to provide all the devices, and have them work flawlessly.
blub 10y ago
Naive. Word will not spread that one should not use Google/Facebook, they've turned milking their users for information into an art form. And the plentiful misguided sympathizers making up excuses for them are muddying up the waters even more. I see you're at the point where "walled gardens are good". That freedom does have a certain flavor of slavery, doesn't it?
- developer2 10y ago
  Just because existing walled gardens are not ideal does not mean they could not be made to be wonderful. The largest complaint against them is that you lose some freedom of choice. A really nice ecosystem wouldn't leave you missing out on anything. It can be done, it's just that no company has yet done it the right way.
  - Razengan 10y ago
    > It can be done, it's just that no company has yet done it the right way. Actually, look at game consoles. They have always been the original "walled gardens", but, they still allowed users to install third-party software through physical media. And people have been happy with that arrangement.

fny 10y ago

Part of the reason for the rant against the walled garden is that it threatens a developers ability to innovate without being threatened/limited/taxed/replaced by the gatekeeper. Whether that's better for consumers is debatable (plethora of choice isn't necessary a good thing), but devs definitely give up a lot of power and leverage to the landlord.

developer2 10y ago
This assumes an ecosystem based on apps from 3rd party developers. The real power is in having the company that is providing the system to also provide all the core functionality. Offloading the responsibility to "carry the platform" on 3rd party developers is a large part of the reason why no ecosystem provides an experience of integration that is satisfying. The first company to fully develop a system/platform that doesn't rely on 3rd party devs for basic development will be the first company that matches my vision of the future. "Apps" from a large arsenal of companies instantly throws away any concept of uniformity. My bet is that the future holds fully walled gardens. To the point where, for example, every game you play will be released by the company that created the platform you choose. Even if it's just ports of a base game, that port will be released by the system creator, not the game developer/publisher. We just need the creators of the ecosystem to prioritize developing the entire system itself, rather than the current situation where they rely on 3rd party devs and attempt to reign control over them. From what we've seen thus far, I am simply not confident that any platform will ever provide a fully immersive and integrated experience if it relies on SDKs and supposed "standards". The idea of a "standard" that actually gets followed to the letter is so far a mythical beast. I don't want my home automation system made up of devices from 20 different companies doing their "best" to interoperate properly. I want a single company to provide all the devices, and have them work flawlessly.

blub 10y ago

Naive. Word will not spread that one should not use Google/Facebook, they've turned milking their users for information into an art form. And the plentiful misguided sympathizers making up excuses for them are muddying up the waters even more. I see you're at the point where "walled gardens are good". That freedom does have a certain flavor of slavery, doesn't it?

developer2 10y ago
Just because existing walled gardens are not ideal does not mean they could not be made to be wonderful. The largest complaint against them is that you lose some freedom of choice. A really nice ecosystem wouldn't leave you missing out on anything. It can be done, it's just that no company has yet done it the right way.
- Razengan 10y ago
  > It can be done, it's just that no company has yet done it the right way. Actually, look at game consoles. They have always been the original "walled gardens", but, they still allowed users to install third-party software through physical media. And people have been happy with that arrangement.