5 ms·

> Mass market internet capable consumer devices, with significant compute hardware used to run a wide range of software. That’s a rather narrow list of device c

> Mass market internet capable consumer devices, with significant compute hardware used to run a wide range of software. That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. I am not sure what you're trying to say. I asked you to elaborate on your claim: > Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious. Also > But, also things like driver compatibility, it’s simpler to develop software for well defined ecosystems which consoles provide. Many non exclusive ports don’t happen because it’s surprisingly expensive to port triple A games the PC. If you want to nitpick that then fine, Red Dead Redemption is on PS4 and XBox box, but never made the PC jump. Porting AAA games to PC is surprisingly expensive, even if getting it to almost work is cheap. But, it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it. Yes I agree that it can be expensive to port games to different platforms. Not sure how that goes to support your assertion that closed ecosystems are better. Platform makers want people to write stuff for their platform. It's the prerogative of the game/app makers to support the platforms based on their target demographic. All I am saying is that: > Limit what software can run and you vastly improve most people’s experience. Freedom is not just about letting people do anything, it’s also a question of what contracts they can enter. This doesn't make sense, and nothing you have thus far stated helps to further your argument. Apple has incentives outside the user experience to have a tight hold on the iPhone ecosystem. Were they to do the same thing to the Mac, they'd face a strong backlash. No platform maker wants to deny people access to their platform willy nilly.

Retric 7y ago
>> That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. > I am not sure what you're trying to say. Try listing out what fits that description. (Consoles, tablets, pc’s, and...). Then add a checkbox near the so called open platforms. My point is it’s a short list including PC’s, tablets/cellphones, consoles, and not much else. Smart TV’s are another possibility, though these tend to be even less open. Anyway, it’s not that it costs money, it’s that it costs more money to make the port. Consoles take a significant cut of every sale and it’s often not worth it to port to windows due to the bugs associated with arbitrary code running on a users machine. TLDR: Windows open nature results in more bugs and thus a worse user experience. It’s an inherent issue with open platforms relating to increased surface area for bugs to occur.
- computerex 7y ago
  > Windows open nature results in more bugs and thus a worse user experience. It’s an inherent issue with open platforms relating to increased surface area for bugs to occur. I think you are making an unsupported, and likely wrong, logical leap that windows' open nature results in a poorer user experience. I think by far the most likely reason an app/game maker wouldn't decide to support windows is the associated cost of supporting another platform. But many triple A titles do support windows and absorb the cost because in the long run it opens up the use of their product to a wider range of people. And Sony for instance is incentivized to not support windows in the games they produce because they have a competing platform, the play station. By making games exclusive to ps4, they incentivize users to buy their platform. But most games and apps are supported in windows because not supporting windows would result in missing out on a huge chunk of people. Also BTW Mac OS is also open, you can install stuff outside the app store. Why don't you mention that? Is osx also buggy and provides a bad user experience due to its open nature? I ultimately don't understand the argument at all because no one is forcing the user to install anything, they can pick and choose between apps that they want. There are bad actor apps out there, sure. But if the user only installs well known and reviewed apps the chances of malware are low. Also Windows defender also goes a long way in protecting the system from bad actor apps. Finally, the only reason why you might be more likely to encounter more bad actors in the windows ecosystem than osx for example is due to how popular and ubiquitous windows is. And so I just don't buy the argument that open ecosystems result in a poorer user experience. Even if you write off windows as buggy and terrible, osx is a great counterexample to this argument, imo. And finally, I'd pick the possibility of accidentally installing a shitty app on my computer over only being able to install apple/Microsoft approved apps any day of the year. This is primarily the reason I use android. Locking down the platform simply drives off a lot of users.

Retric 7y ago

>> That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. > I am not sure what you're trying to say. Try listing out what fits that description. (Consoles, tablets, pc’s, and...). Then add a checkbox near the so called open platforms. My point is it’s a short list including PC’s, tablets/cellphones, consoles, and not much else. Smart TV’s are another possibility, though these tend to be even less open. Anyway, it’s not that it costs money, it’s that it costs more money to make the port. Consoles take a significant cut of every sale and it’s often not worth it to port to windows due to the bugs associated with arbitrary code running on a users machine. TLDR: Windows open nature results in more bugs and thus a worse user experience. It’s an inherent issue with open platforms relating to increased surface area for bugs to occur.

computerex 7y ago
> Windows open nature results in more bugs and thus a worse user experience. It’s an inherent issue with open platforms relating to increased surface area for bugs to occur. I think you are making an unsupported, and likely wrong, logical leap that windows' open nature results in a poorer user experience. I think by far the most likely reason an app/game maker wouldn't decide to support windows is the associated cost of supporting another platform. But many triple A titles do support windows and absorb the cost because in the long run it opens up the use of their product to a wider range of people. And Sony for instance is incentivized to not support windows in the games they produce because they have a competing platform, the play station. By making games exclusive to ps4, they incentivize users to buy their platform. But most games and apps are supported in windows because not supporting windows would result in missing out on a huge chunk of people. Also BTW Mac OS is also open, you can install stuff outside the app store. Why don't you mention that? Is osx also buggy and provides a bad user experience due to its open nature? I ultimately don't understand the argument at all because no one is forcing the user to install anything, they can pick and choose between apps that they want. There are bad actor apps out there, sure. But if the user only installs well known and reviewed apps the chances of malware are low. Also Windows defender also goes a long way in protecting the system from bad actor apps. Finally, the only reason why you might be more likely to encounter more bad actors in the windows ecosystem than osx for example is due to how popular and ubiquitous windows is. And so I just don't buy the argument that open ecosystems result in a poorer user experience. Even if you write off windows as buggy and terrible, osx is a great counterexample to this argument, imo. And finally, I'd pick the possibility of accidentally installing a shitty app on my computer over only being able to install apple/Microsoft approved apps any day of the year. This is primarily the reason I use android. Locking down the platform simply drives off a lot of users.