6 ms·

Imagine of Microsoft had a similar store to Apple in 1995 with the same restrictions on downloading and executing external code. The web itself could have been

Imagine of Microsoft had a similar store to Apple in 1995 with the same restrictions on downloading and executing external code. The web itself could have been killed in the cradle on day one. The fact that you are here typing this reply right now is entirely because of the state of Windows during 98 and XP. It's a balance between security and freedom. You are arguing for the benefit of security while ignoring the effect that freedom has had on the last 30 years of computing.

kingaillas 8y ago
It's always hard to predict how things would have turned out given various alternate possibilities. The web could have been killed, or thrived anyway. Perhaps a locked-down Microsoft store would have had all kinds of ancillary benefits such as freeing up all the money spent padding their bottom line and dealing with externalities (malware cleanup, etc) and redirecting it towards having competitive open-source/GPL products for regular users. Perhaps all the forgotten OSes that died out due to Microsoft's dominant position would have found their fanbases and survived (OS/2 Warp, AmigaOS, BeOS, etc.) and the web would have avoided the IE6 problem that was due to Microsoft's prevalence. Microsoft may have brought computing to the masses in the 90's due to Windows prevalence in that era, but assuming the web wouldn't have happened without them is a bit much.
eunoia 8y ago
> We're never going to have average users fully technically aware. OP is establishing that there are different types of users with different usage requirements. You and Grandma are very different users. Grandma is probably much better served by an iPad and App Store than a true general computing device. Grandma is also not going to invent the next internet. Maybe we should embrace this dichotomy instead of pretending one size fits all. Interesting aside: How much innovation does the world miss out on if we raise the next generation of users on locked down "Grandma" interfaces?
- njarboe 8y ago
  At this point in time "Grandma" could have been involved in the creation of the internet and working on the next big thing. Maybe use the word expert or techie or something. Edit: :)
  - eunoia 8y ago
    True. I just wanted a nice folksy metaphor.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      Should have added a smiley or something to my comment. I meant it more as a history remimder then social commentary.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    That claim could be made at literally any point in history. Even in 1983, any employee at ARPA could have been a grandparent. Old people have been involved in technology since the very beginning. I'm not seeing your point.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      I was thinking the internet was started around 1970. Your point is correct, but any Grandma working on it then is very likely dead, so unlikely to be working on the next internet.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    You have completely twisted that point to mean something else. The point is that certain parts of our society are not technical and will never be technical. Despite the expectations and wishes of a tiny minority of technical people.
- wvenable 8y ago
  There are two problems with this: Both these types of users can't co-exist on the same device type or ecosystem. Grandma might not invent the next internet on an iPad but your kid is also never going to get that opportunity. And secondly, since you can't install the next internet on the iPad, Grandma is never going to get to use it.
  - shuntress 8y ago
    >Both these types of users can't co-exist on the same device type or ecosystem. This is false. An eco system can easily contain a locked down channel for installing programs as well as an open channel to side-load.
    - wvenable 8y ago
      The context here is that we're discussing fully locked down platforms.
      - solarkraft 8y ago
        But that's with the content ofthe argument that a functioning eco system needs to be locked down. It doesn't really.
  - eunoia 8y ago
    > Both these types of users can't co-exist on the same device type or ecosystem. That's my point though. One size fits all doesn't work all that well in practice. As a technologist you seem to prefer the freedom of general compute. As a fellow technologist, I agree. We are a minority though. The vast majority of people don't seem to want much more from their devices than a working browser. (and maybe Instagram). To them things like root access are more a liability than asset. > Grandma might not invent the next internet on an iPad but your kid is also never going to get that opportunity. This is a real concern to me. What happens when whole generations view computers as black boxes of consumption rather than tools of creation / something to tinker with? Probably nothing good.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  Quite a lot, if there's no easy way to step outside of the walled garden. You could argue that Apple does provide one with their developer efforts, but I'm not sure if that quite cuts it.
- scarface74 8y ago
  And how many unnecessary toolbar installs in IE, viruses, and ransomware do we avoid?
bluedino 8y ago
Imagine if AOL had created 'apps' you could run, only while connected to AOL? I mean they had games and things like being able to buy airline tickets, and chat rooms, but imagine if there were 3rd party access.
- ChrisClark 8y ago
  They did, they had 'sites' that were just AOL pages existing inside their own framework. They only added the broader internet access later. Same with CompuServe, all similar services like those had proprietary pages like a massive worldwide BBS system. You could not see AOL pages from CompuServe and vice versa.
  - badwolf 8y ago
    "Just search for AOL Keyword %n"
dunpeal 8y ago
> The web itself could have been killed in the cradle on day one. The web is such a killer app, that if MS blocked it, it would be a problem for MS, not the web, imho. Also IANAL, but given that MS launched a competing service - The Microsoft Network - this seems like a huge anti-trust issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up The combination of consumer demand for web access + anti-trust would probably crush MS, and it would have to provide access. Another factor is that Windows was always a target for hackers, so it's virtually certain there'd be some jailbreaking solution that everyone would use if MS started blocking access to killer apps like web access. MS was a near monopoly, but there were enough exceptions that people were aware how amazing the web is. Finally, if MS took the Walled Garden approach, it's easy to argue it wouldn't be the monopoly it was. MS benefited immensely from its platform being "free" (as in pirated) and "open" (as in hackable and insecure). There was a company who took the other approach. Its name is Apple and it wasn't doing too well against MS in 1995.
- wvenable 8y ago
  We are talking hypothetical here -- all things being equal. Apple doesn't have anti-trust problems, they've closed off hackers, etc. Apple might not have a monopoly but closed-platform mobile OS is basicaly the whole market. But that's all beside the point, the web was a killer app because it was available. Microsoft could have killed it with the same policies as iOS long before it was ever popular. And not by targeting it specifically for competitive reasons but just because it would have been against the very same rules we take for granted now. It wouldn't have even had to be conscious effort. You can't even get another web browser on iOS! We literally can't even invent the "next web" on mobile. There's no point even trying.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    > We literally can't even invent the "next web" on mobile. There's no point even trying. This right here. I wonder if anyone at Apple even cares. Maybe they’re so pompous they don’t think anyone other than them even could invent the next web. Whoever does, will have to invent their own hardware too I guess.
djsumdog 8y ago
That would have pushed Microsoft even further into the anit-trust shit they were in. Also you had more technical users back then as the majority of the base who really wouldn't have stood for that. Hell, most probably wouldn't have stood for mandatory OS activation via modem if Microsoft had required it.
toasterlovin 8y ago
Just want to point out that your scenario could not obtain because he App Store model depends on the Internet for distribution. Microsoft could not have strangled the web with an App Store for Windows because an App Store for Windows couldn’t exist without widespread internet adoption. And widespread internet adoption depended on the web.
pjmlp 8y ago
No, I would be typing this on comp.hackernews on a tiny 300 KB native app instead.

kingaillas 8y ago

It's always hard to predict how things would have turned out given various alternate possibilities. The web could have been killed, or thrived anyway. Perhaps a locked-down Microsoft store would have had all kinds of ancillary benefits such as freeing up all the money spent padding their bottom line and dealing with externalities (malware cleanup, etc) and redirecting it towards having competitive open-source/GPL products for regular users. Perhaps all the forgotten OSes that died out due to Microsoft's dominant position would have found their fanbases and survived (OS/2 Warp, AmigaOS, BeOS, etc.) and the web would have avoided the IE6 problem that was due to Microsoft's prevalence. Microsoft may have brought computing to the masses in the 90's due to Windows prevalence in that era, but assuming the web wouldn't have happened without them is a bit much.

eunoia 8y ago

> We're never going to have average users fully technically aware. OP is establishing that there are different types of users with different usage requirements. You and Grandma are very different users. Grandma is probably much better served by an iPad and App Store than a true general computing device. Grandma is also not going to invent the next internet. Maybe we should embrace this dichotomy instead of pretending one size fits all. Interesting aside: How much innovation does the world miss out on if we raise the next generation of users on locked down "Grandma" interfaces?

njarboe 8y ago
At this point in time "Grandma" could have been involved in the creation of the internet and working on the next big thing. Maybe use the word expert or techie or something. Edit: :)
- eunoia 8y ago
  True. I just wanted a nice folksy metaphor.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Should have added a smiley or something to my comment. I meant it more as a history remimder then social commentary.
- freehunter 8y ago
  That claim could be made at literally any point in history. Even in 1983, any employee at ARPA could have been a grandparent. Old people have been involved in technology since the very beginning. I'm not seeing your point.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    I was thinking the internet was started around 1970. Your point is correct, but any Grandma working on it then is very likely dead, so unlikely to be working on the next internet.
- threeseed 8y ago
  You have completely twisted that point to mean something else. The point is that certain parts of our society are not technical and will never be technical. Despite the expectations and wishes of a tiny minority of technical people.
wvenable 8y ago
There are two problems with this: Both these types of users can't co-exist on the same device type or ecosystem. Grandma might not invent the next internet on an iPad but your kid is also never going to get that opportunity. And secondly, since you can't install the next internet on the iPad, Grandma is never going to get to use it.
- shuntress 8y ago
  >Both these types of users can't co-exist on the same device type or ecosystem. This is false. An eco system can easily contain a locked down channel for installing programs as well as an open channel to side-load.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    The context here is that we're discussing fully locked down platforms.
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      But that's with the content ofthe argument that a functioning eco system needs to be locked down. It doesn't really.
- eunoia 8y ago
  > Both these types of users can't co-exist on the same device type or ecosystem. That's my point though. One size fits all doesn't work all that well in practice. As a technologist you seem to prefer the freedom of general compute. As a fellow technologist, I agree. We are a minority though. The vast majority of people don't seem to want much more from their devices than a working browser. (and maybe Instagram). To them things like root access are more a liability than asset. > Grandma might not invent the next internet on an iPad but your kid is also never going to get that opportunity. This is a real concern to me. What happens when whole generations view computers as black boxes of consumption rather than tools of creation / something to tinker with? Probably nothing good.
solarkraft 8y ago
Quite a lot, if there's no easy way to step outside of the walled garden. You could argue that Apple does provide one with their developer efforts, but I'm not sure if that quite cuts it.
scarface74 8y ago
And how many unnecessary toolbar installs in IE, viruses, and ransomware do we avoid?

bluedino 8y ago

Imagine if AOL had created 'apps' you could run, only while connected to AOL? I mean they had games and things like being able to buy airline tickets, and chat rooms, but imagine if there were 3rd party access.

ChrisClark 8y ago
They did, they had 'sites' that were just AOL pages existing inside their own framework. They only added the broader internet access later. Same with CompuServe, all similar services like those had proprietary pages like a massive worldwide BBS system. You could not see AOL pages from CompuServe and vice versa.
- badwolf 8y ago
  "Just search for AOL Keyword %n"

dunpeal 8y ago

> The web itself could have been killed in the cradle on day one. The web is such a killer app, that if MS blocked it, it would be a problem for MS, not the web, imho. Also IANAL, but given that MS launched a competing service - The Microsoft Network - this seems like a huge anti-trust issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up The combination of consumer demand for web access + anti-trust would probably crush MS, and it would have to provide access. Another factor is that Windows was always a target for hackers, so it's virtually certain there'd be some jailbreaking solution that everyone would use if MS started blocking access to killer apps like web access. MS was a near monopoly, but there were enough exceptions that people were aware how amazing the web is. Finally, if MS took the Walled Garden approach, it's easy to argue it wouldn't be the monopoly it was. MS benefited immensely from its platform being "free" (as in pirated) and "open" (as in hackable and insecure). There was a company who took the other approach. Its name is Apple and it wasn't doing too well against MS in 1995.

wvenable 8y ago
We are talking hypothetical here -- all things being equal. Apple doesn't have anti-trust problems, they've closed off hackers, etc. Apple might not have a monopoly but closed-platform mobile OS is basicaly the whole market. But that's all beside the point, the web was a killer app because it was available. Microsoft could have killed it with the same policies as iOS long before it was ever popular. And not by targeting it specifically for competitive reasons but just because it would have been against the very same rules we take for granted now. It wouldn't have even had to be conscious effort. You can't even get another web browser on iOS! We literally can't even invent the "next web" on mobile. There's no point even trying.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  > We literally can't even invent the "next web" on mobile. There's no point even trying. This right here. I wonder if anyone at Apple even cares. Maybe they’re so pompous they don’t think anyone other than them even could invent the next web. Whoever does, will have to invent their own hardware too I guess.

djsumdog 8y ago

That would have pushed Microsoft even further into the anit-trust shit they were in. Also you had more technical users back then as the majority of the base who really wouldn't have stood for that. Hell, most probably wouldn't have stood for mandatory OS activation via modem if Microsoft had required it.

toasterlovin 8y ago

Just want to point out that your scenario could not obtain because he App Store model depends on the Internet for distribution. Microsoft could not have strangled the web with an App Store for Windows because an App Store for Windows couldn’t exist without widespread internet adoption. And widespread internet adoption depended on the web.

pjmlp 8y ago

No, I would be typing this on comp.hackernews on a tiny 300 KB native app instead.