3 ms·

Whoever wrote the initial statement from Microsoft was just confused about what the Kinect "hacking" actually was. They thought someone was trying to mess with

Whoever wrote the initial statement from Microsoft was just confused about what the Kinect "hacking" actually was. They thought someone was trying to mess with how the Xbox processes the data, which is locked down, but they were just trying to access the Kinect's raw output stream, which is left open. Microsoft's stance didn't change, they just figured out what was going on. As long as the media isn't interested in the distinctions between hacking, jailbreaking, sideloading, reverse engineering, etc., this sort of confusion will persist. With Windows Phone, the stance and culture did change, but in the opposite direction to what you're suggesting. Up to 6.5 Windows Mobile was totally open (in the sense that a Windows PC is open), you were free to install whatever you wanted, change the OS settings etc. Consumers hated Windows Mobile and loved the iPhone so with WP7 they moved to a more locked-down iPhone-like model.

lwhi 16y ago
Consumers hated Windows Mobile and loved the iPhone so with WP7 they moved to a more locked-down iPhone-like model. That makes sense to me - but I think the reasoning might be more complex? I think UI simplicity and UX constraints helped to ensure the iPhone's interface became so successful. I don't think that this (well considered) simplicity should be confused for openness. In relation to openness, I'd imagine the main reasons for producing a more locked-down (closed) system, would have been the carrier's desire to control their customer's experience and Microsoft's desire to create a profitable mobile-app ecosystem. I still think it would be possible to create a pleasing UI and UX, for a (relatively) open OS like Android. I think such a thing could potentially please users as much the (closed) iPhone OS.
- contextfree 16y ago
  Yeah, I was being flippant. I certainly don't think openness and good UX are mutually exclusive, myself. Besides everything you mentioned I've seen rumors that one reason they're restricting third-party apps to a .NET bytecode sandbox is that they're planning to eventually swap out the current CE6 kernel for something different and incompatible (possibly NT-based), and they want to just be able to port the .NET environment rather than trying to persuade third-party devs to port their apps.

lwhi 16y ago

Consumers hated Windows Mobile and loved the iPhone so with WP7 they moved to a more locked-down iPhone-like model. That makes sense to me - but I think the reasoning might be more complex? I think UI simplicity and UX constraints helped to ensure the iPhone's interface became so successful. I don't think that this (well considered) simplicity should be confused for openness. In relation to openness, I'd imagine the main reasons for producing a more locked-down (closed) system, would have been the carrier's desire to control their customer's experience and Microsoft's desire to create a profitable mobile-app ecosystem. I still think it would be possible to create a pleasing UI and UX, for a (relatively) open OS like Android. I think such a thing could potentially please users as much the (closed) iPhone OS.

contextfree 16y ago
Yeah, I was being flippant. I certainly don't think openness and good UX are mutually exclusive, myself. Besides everything you mentioned I've seen rumors that one reason they're restricting third-party apps to a .NET bytecode sandbox is that they're planning to eventually swap out the current CE6 kernel for something different and incompatible (possibly NT-based), and they want to just be able to port the .NET environment rather than trying to persuade third-party devs to port their apps.