5 ms·

The problem is not that your premise is too complicated for others to understand, it's that the 'walled garden' is a trade-off which people disagree about. Wal

by nickff 6y ago

The problem is not that your premise is too complicated for others to understand, it's that the 'walled garden' is a trade-off which people disagree about. Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). Open platforms allow for more flexibility and innovation by new entrants. On top of this disagreement, we have the meta-issue of whether business model innovation should be allowed; the USA generally permits new business models, whereas European governments are more restrictive.

rbecker 6y ago
> Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps. It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.
- nickff 6y ago
  >"It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom." Well, I didn't claim it was the only way, but it does seem like the simplest and possibly the safest way.
  - chii 6y ago
    and also conveniently benefits apple financially and monopolistically.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 6y ago
  Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management. The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means breaches will occur. PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    > PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument. I downvoted you rather than giving you an argument. Here's why: You've edited your post at least four times. Three of those times was when I was trying to offer a counter-argument. The problem was, you kept changing yours. I'm honestly not sure what you believe, both because you changed it so many times, but also because you haven't defined your terms (e.g. whose freedom?). Finally, you make some bold claims, but you don't really support those claims with anything I find credible. In any case, the 'security' argument (and the associated 'reputation' argument you made in one your iterations) rings particularly hollow with me since Apple itself has already had—for decades—great success with a platform that is reasonably secure and relatively free compared to iOS: the Mac.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Objectively Mac OS has had more serious security issues than iOS, so at most you can say the trade off is worth it to you not that doesn’t exist. As to freedom, that was specifically used by the post I was responding to. But, if you’re unsure, consider it in terms of raw assembler vs python. Raw assembler allows more freedom, but that freedom comes at a clear cost. PS: And yes I edited to specific wording a few times for clarity. That’s a holdover from the days when hacker news would eat comments that where being edited for to long. Reputation is a major concern for Apple as a business, but outside of the scope of this discussion.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. Only if you interpret "freedom" as "freedom for apps" instead of "freedom for the user". None of what you said precludes the user (I won't say "owner") being able to override Apple, or take Apple's place in deciding what their device may do. In your mind, is a platform only "secure" when ultimate control is with the manufacturer, and not the user? How much more "secure" were Apple's users in Hong Kong, after Apple decided to disable the app they were using to track the police?
    - Retric 6y ago

by nickff 6y ago

rbecker 6y ago

> Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps. It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.

nickff 6y ago
>"It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom." Well, I didn't claim it was the only way, but it does seem like the simplest and possibly the safest way.
- chii 6y ago
  and also conveniently benefits apple financially and monopolistically.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Retric 6y ago
Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management. The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means breaches will occur. PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  > PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument. I downvoted you rather than giving you an argument. Here's why: You've edited your post at least four times. Three of those times was when I was trying to offer a counter-argument. The problem was, you kept changing yours. I'm honestly not sure what you believe, both because you changed it so many times, but also because you haven't defined your terms (e.g. whose freedom?). Finally, you make some bold claims, but you don't really support those claims with anything I find credible. In any case, the 'security' argument (and the associated 'reputation' argument you made in one your iterations) rings particularly hollow with me since Apple itself has already had—for decades—great success with a platform that is reasonably secure and relatively free compared to iOS: the Mac.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Objectively Mac OS has had more serious security issues than iOS, so at most you can say the trade off is worth it to you not that doesn’t exist. As to freedom, that was specifically used by the post I was responding to. But, if you’re unsure, consider it in terms of raw assembler vs python. Raw assembler allows more freedom, but that freedom comes at a clear cost. PS: And yes I edited to specific wording a few times for clarity. That’s a holdover from the days when hacker news would eat comments that where being edited for to long. Reputation is a major concern for Apple as a business, but outside of the scope of this discussion.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. Only if you interpret "freedom" as "freedom for apps" instead of "freedom for the user". None of what you said precludes the user (I won't say "owner") being able to override Apple, or take Apple's place in deciding what their device may do. In your mind, is a platform only "secure" when ultimate control is with the manufacturer, and not the user? How much more "secure" were Apple's users in Hong Kong, after Apple decided to disable the app they were using to track the police?
  - Retric 6y ago