6 ms·

IPhone Apps: Why closed is better

6 points by tbgvi 17y ago

krainboltgreene 17y ago
One of the reasons I like iPhone/iPad. It's brought a mass purchased platform that developers can flock to, make money, and not have to worry about: * Operating System * Web Browser * Plugins * Resolution * Input * Connectivity * Libraries The rapid spread of platforms over the last ten years has really fucked developers. We have to spend 50% of our time making sure the product works on 3 different Operating Systems OR 5 different web browsers. Desktop/laptop computing has come to bite us in the ass.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  5 different web browsers It's more like 2 different web browsers. IE, and everything else.
- pavlov 17y ago
  What rapid spread? There were far more platforms before, with far more significant differences. In the late '80s, a popular game was commonly ported to half a dozen platforms: Amiga, Atari ST, Apple II, Commodore 64, PC+EGA, PC+VGA -- sometimes even Sinclair and MSX. Even the hardware was usually completely different between systems, e.g. the powerful custom graphics and audio chips on the Amiga. In the '90s, a cross-platform desktop application like Netscape would have to run on a range of very different systems: Windows 3.1 (16-bit), Windows 95 (32-bit with new UI), Windows NT (32-bit with old UI), Mac OS 7 (32-bit with no memory protection), Solaris, Linux, AIX, HP/UX... In comparison, Windows 7, Mac OS X and modern Linux are basically the same. It's easy to write cross-platform C applications using mostly UNIX APIs and deploy them on Windows using MinGW and a couple of lightweight libraries like pthread-win32. For cross-platform GUI applications, the Qt framework is available pretty much everywhere, even phones. This is pretty amazing. Essentially everything has become "UNIX-like" nowadays -- even the smartphone stalwart Symbian has given up trying to pretend it's something else.
ElliotH 17y ago
This doesn't really seem to match its own title though. It answers "why iphone apps are better" - but really makes no comment on why having it closed helps matters.
emanuer 17y ago
I thought about this just today. Closed systems like the iPhone allow for programs perfectly customized for the hardware, OS. This is great news for the users as the interfaces and other standards are rather consistent. What was the success of Microsoft in the 80s and 90s? I believe it was that they had an open system. They reached the critical mass, by letting everyone in. Today, being open is their fallacy, as it is hard for Microsoft to bring all their 3rd party programs into line. (Into line refers to interface, security, and other standards) To be successful a closed system, it must fulfill one point: It must have exceeded a critical mass of users. I guess open is better when you can't rely on a multi-billion marketing budget.
- gte910h 17y ago
  iPhone/Android developer here >Closed systems like the iPhone allow for programs perfectly customized for the hardware The closed nature of the platform doesn't help this at all. The fact there are only 5 iPhoneOS platforms, 4 of which are virtually spec identical (iPhone 2g, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs, iPodTouch[most different]), and now the iPad makes it easier to use fixed width layouts and screen mappings. The hardware variation between the handsets is only noticeable, not an impediment. However the fact all of them can run the latest iPhoneOS release means the platform is much more stable. The lack of fragmentation is what makes iPhone OS so powerful. If google makes it so all future phones have sufficent specs to handle all upgrades, then streamlines the upgrade process, then we're likely to see more inroads in android. Android's biggest weakness is that each phone is on a different OS version (and there are vast differences between these versions). Some of the phones (notably the G1) aren't ever going to be upgradeable to the current latest version (as said by engineers) due to the small onboard memory. The capabilities of these different OSes are very large. It would be the difference between running iPhoneOS2.0 vs iPhone OS3.2 (the new one that's on the iPad).
  - emanuer 17y ago
    As you have guessed right, I have absolutely NO idea about Software development. I was lead to believe that it is easy to write software for the iPhone by numerous articles and deduced it must be because the hardware is so similar. Thanks for correcting me. Still I do believe a closed system is favorable for the user as long as the one who controls the system does a great job. I am thinking of a windows were one can only install software which does not mess up the system resources, or causes other harm. It would reduce the PC troubles for inexperienced users dramatically.
eplanit 17y ago
Closed is never better. I guess it's like saying "If I eat _all_ my meals at McDonalds, the world would be oh so wonderfully predictable and consistent"
- krainboltgreene 17y ago
  Your analogy is off. Using an iPhone/iPad doesn't harm me. Eating all meals at McDonalds does harm you.
  - eplanit 17y ago
    You're misunderstanding the analogy. The writer is a fan of closed platforms. In the analogy, McDonalds = Closed Platform. And, yes, closed platforms are unhealthy. I know how to think. Thanks all the same.
- protomyth 17y ago
  The lessons from Atari and Nintendo would seem to indicate closed has been a better strategy in the past.
iamelgringo 17y ago
I find it ironic, that closed system iPad and iPhone advocates are propounding the same arguments that Microsoft advocates have used defending closed source programs and desktop computing. :) Closed vs Open is a techno-religious argument. There are intellectual merits to both sides of the argument, but ultimately people choose what aligns with their ideals and beliefs.
gte910h 17y ago
Hacker News Article: Why this should have been called "iPhone rich client implementations have better UX characteristics than web apps on the same web browser". It says nothing about openness or closed other than "other video games are closed platforms too".

6 points by tbgvi 17y ago

One of the reasons I like iPhone/iPad. It's brought a mass purchased platform that developers can flock to, make money, and not have to worry about: * Operating System * Web Browser * Plugins * Resolution * Input * Connectivity * Libraries The rapid spread of platforms over the last ten years has really fucked developers. We have to spend 50% of our time making sure the product works on 3 different Operating Systems OR 5 different web browsers. Desktop/laptop computing has come to bite us in the ass.

sailormoon 17y ago
5 different web browsers It's more like 2 different web browsers. IE, and everything else.
pavlov 17y ago
What rapid spread? There were far more platforms before, with far more significant differences. In the late '80s, a popular game was commonly ported to half a dozen platforms: Amiga, Atari ST, Apple II, Commodore 64, PC+EGA, PC+VGA -- sometimes even Sinclair and MSX. Even the hardware was usually completely different between systems, e.g. the powerful custom graphics and audio chips on the Amiga. In the '90s, a cross-platform desktop application like Netscape would have to run on a range of very different systems: Windows 3.1 (16-bit), Windows 95 (32-bit with new UI), Windows NT (32-bit with old UI), Mac OS 7 (32-bit with no memory protection), Solaris, Linux, AIX, HP/UX... In comparison, Windows 7, Mac OS X and modern Linux are basically the same. It's easy to write cross-platform C applications using mostly UNIX APIs and deploy them on Windows using MinGW and a couple of lightweight libraries like pthread-win32. For cross-platform GUI applications, the Qt framework is available pretty much everywhere, even phones. This is pretty amazing. Essentially everything has become "UNIX-like" nowadays -- even the smartphone stalwart Symbian has given up trying to pretend it's something else.

ElliotH 17y ago

This doesn't really seem to match its own title though. It answers "why iphone apps are better" - but really makes no comment on why having it closed helps matters.

emanuer 17y ago

I thought about this just today. Closed systems like the iPhone allow for programs perfectly customized for the hardware, OS. This is great news for the users as the interfaces and other standards are rather consistent. What was the success of Microsoft in the 80s and 90s? I believe it was that they had an open system. They reached the critical mass, by letting everyone in. Today, being open is their fallacy, as it is hard for Microsoft to bring all their 3rd party programs into line. (Into line refers to interface, security, and other standards) To be successful a closed system, it must fulfill one point: It must have exceeded a critical mass of users. I guess open is better when you can't rely on a multi-billion marketing budget.

gte910h 17y ago
iPhone/Android developer here >Closed systems like the iPhone allow for programs perfectly customized for the hardware The closed nature of the platform doesn't help this at all. The fact there are only 5 iPhoneOS platforms, 4 of which are virtually spec identical (iPhone 2g, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs, iPodTouch[most different]), and now the iPad makes it easier to use fixed width layouts and screen mappings. The hardware variation between the handsets is only noticeable, not an impediment. However the fact all of them can run the latest iPhoneOS release means the platform is much more stable. The lack of fragmentation is what makes iPhone OS so powerful. If google makes it so all future phones have sufficent specs to handle all upgrades, then streamlines the upgrade process, then we're likely to see more inroads in android. Android's biggest weakness is that each phone is on a different OS version (and there are vast differences between these versions). Some of the phones (notably the G1) aren't ever going to be upgradeable to the current latest version (as said by engineers) due to the small onboard memory. The capabilities of these different OSes are very large. It would be the difference between running iPhoneOS2.0 vs iPhone OS3.2 (the new one that's on the iPad).
- emanuer 17y ago
  As you have guessed right, I have absolutely NO idea about Software development. I was lead to believe that it is easy to write software for the iPhone by numerous articles and deduced it must be because the hardware is so similar. Thanks for correcting me. Still I do believe a closed system is favorable for the user as long as the one who controls the system does a great job. I am thinking of a windows were one can only install software which does not mess up the system resources, or causes other harm. It would reduce the PC troubles for inexperienced users dramatically.

eplanit 17y ago

Closed is never better. I guess it's like saying "If I eat _all_ my meals at McDonalds, the world would be oh so wonderfully predictable and consistent"

krainboltgreene 17y ago
Your analogy is off. Using an iPhone/iPad doesn't harm me. Eating all meals at McDonalds does harm you.
- eplanit 17y ago
  You're misunderstanding the analogy. The writer is a fan of closed platforms. In the analogy, McDonalds = Closed Platform. And, yes, closed platforms are unhealthy. I know how to think. Thanks all the same.
protomyth 17y ago
The lessons from Atari and Nintendo would seem to indicate closed has been a better strategy in the past.

iamelgringo 17y ago

I find it ironic, that closed system iPad and iPhone advocates are propounding the same arguments that Microsoft advocates have used defending closed source programs and desktop computing. :) Closed vs Open is a techno-religious argument. There are intellectual merits to both sides of the argument, but ultimately people choose what aligns with their ideals and beliefs.

gte910h 17y ago

Hacker News Article: Why this should have been called "iPhone rich client implementations have better UX characteristics than web apps on the same web browser". It says nothing about openness or closed other than "other video games are closed platforms too".