5 ms·

They could still do all this shit without the walled garden. To me, it suggests they aren't willing to compete. They're anti-competitive.

marrvelous 6y ago
With the walled garden, Apple can set enforceable timelines for the software ecosystem to adopt to architectural changes. Remember the transition to arm64? Apple forced everything on the App Store to ship universal binaries. Without the App Store walled garden, software isn’t required to keep up to date with architectural changes. Instead, keeping current is only a requirement to being featured on the App Store (which would just be a single way to install software, not the only method).
- danaris 6y ago
  Well, and on the Mac, it's not the only method. The walled garden here has big open gates. That said, all software on the Mac, post-Catalina, has to be 64-bit, whether it's distributed through the Mac App Store or not, because the 32-bit system libraries are no longer included at all.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Well, and on the Mac, it's not the only method. The walled garden here has big open gates. Gates are not incompatible with walled gardens. Most walled gardens have those. Plus, I mentioned the walled garden as a good thing. It's part of the Apple proposition (even if not alll get it), and part of what it enables it to move at the speed it does (whether in the right or wrong direction). But one can susbstitute "walled garden" with "tight control of the OS, hardware and imposed requirements on most of third party software, and willingness to enforce hard schedules (e.g. regarding removing 32-bit, OpenGL, etc) to all (or tons) of its developers at once.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    They are little tiny 6" tall walls that you can step over. Like micro-walls. Except for the bits where you have no walls at all. Like if you install literally any programming language, HomeBrew, or MacPorts. The walls in the walled garden only exist in the heads of people who never use a Mac.
  - astrange 6y ago
    32-bit Windows software is actually supported through WINE and works in Rosetta.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      This is about 32-bit OS X software/libs.
coldtea 6y ago
>They could still do all this shit without the walled garden With much slower adoption, pushback, and bike-shedding, like in the Microsoft and Linux world. >To me, it suggests they aren't willing to compete. Compete with what? With themselves? They compete with Windows (and to a degree Linux, though few care for that), and with Android. They'd compete with Windows Phone too if MS wasn't incompetent. But they didn't do anything to preclude others from making their OS/hardware and selling it to customers. In fact, they have nowhere near a monopoly in either the desktop (10% or less) or the mobile space (40% or less). Whereas MS for example, had 98% of the desktop (home and enterprise), and abused its power to threaten OEMs to do its bidding against Linux etc.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> They could still do all this shit without the walled garden. They do. MacOS isn't a walled garden. > They're anti-competitive Have you heard of this little company from Washington called Microsoft? They have something like 85% of the PC market. There is another OS called Linux. About 85-90% of the internet runs on it. I can understand a little where people get the idea the iPhone is anti-competitive, but we're talking about MacOS here.
- fartcannon 6y ago
  It's the same cowardly leadership that stewards both iOS and OSX. Ask Amphetamine about how open they are.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    I do wish people would keep the quasi-religious aspects out of things. Amphetamine is a perfect example of how the Mac isn't a walled garden. They always had the option top sell outside the App Store. That is fundamentally the difference between what makes a platform a walled garden. They might have lost some sales because they couldn't participate in the Mac App Store, but they could still sell their product. Some companies choose to avoid the Mac App Store because they don't like Apple's policies.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Ask Amphetamine about how open they are. That's neither here nor there. (a) Amphetamine could still be sold outside the Mac App Store. (b) An app name could be problematic even in FOSS land. It's just that instead of Amphetamine being the name that causes it, it will be something else. E.g. with the trend of banning/changing terms like "master" (as in replication primary master, not as in the owner of slaves), unfortunately named apps could be thrown out something or ask to be renamed to be included in a distros package manager or a project.
    - astrange 6y ago
      There are a lot of juvenile named open source projects that will definitely get in trouble or already have. GIMP and LAME are examples.

marrvelous 6y ago

With the walled garden, Apple can set enforceable timelines for the software ecosystem to adopt to architectural changes. Remember the transition to arm64? Apple forced everything on the App Store to ship universal binaries. Without the App Store walled garden, software isn’t required to keep up to date with architectural changes. Instead, keeping current is only a requirement to being featured on the App Store (which would just be a single way to install software, not the only method).

danaris 6y ago
Well, and on the Mac, it's not the only method. The walled garden here has big open gates. That said, all software on the Mac, post-Catalina, has to be 64-bit, whether it's distributed through the Mac App Store or not, because the 32-bit system libraries are no longer included at all.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Well, and on the Mac, it's not the only method. The walled garden here has big open gates. Gates are not incompatible with walled gardens. Most walled gardens have those. Plus, I mentioned the walled garden as a good thing. It's part of the Apple proposition (even if not alll get it), and part of what it enables it to move at the speed it does (whether in the right or wrong direction). But one can susbstitute "walled garden" with "tight control of the OS, hardware and imposed requirements on most of third party software, and willingness to enforce hard schedules (e.g. regarding removing 32-bit, OpenGL, etc) to all (or tons) of its developers at once.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  They are little tiny 6" tall walls that you can step over. Like micro-walls. Except for the bits where you have no walls at all. Like if you install literally any programming language, HomeBrew, or MacPorts. The walls in the walled garden only exist in the heads of people who never use a Mac.
- astrange 6y ago
  32-bit Windows software is actually supported through WINE and works in Rosetta.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    This is about 32-bit OS X software/libs.

coldtea 6y ago

>They could still do all this shit without the walled garden With much slower adoption, pushback, and bike-shedding, like in the Microsoft and Linux world. >To me, it suggests they aren't willing to compete. Compete with what? With themselves? They compete with Windows (and to a degree Linux, though few care for that), and with Android. They'd compete with Windows Phone too if MS wasn't incompetent. But they didn't do anything to preclude others from making their OS/hardware and selling it to customers. In fact, they have nowhere near a monopoly in either the desktop (10% or less) or the mobile space (40% or less). Whereas MS for example, had 98% of the desktop (home and enterprise), and abused its power to threaten OEMs to do its bidding against Linux etc.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> They could still do all this shit without the walled garden. They do. MacOS isn't a walled garden. > They're anti-competitive Have you heard of this little company from Washington called Microsoft? They have something like 85% of the PC market. There is another OS called Linux. About 85-90% of the internet runs on it. I can understand a little where people get the idea the iPhone is anti-competitive, but we're talking about MacOS here.

fartcannon 6y ago
It's the same cowardly leadership that stewards both iOS and OSX. Ask Amphetamine about how open they are.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  I do wish people would keep the quasi-religious aspects out of things. Amphetamine is a perfect example of how the Mac isn't a walled garden. They always had the option top sell outside the App Store. That is fundamentally the difference between what makes a platform a walled garden. They might have lost some sales because they couldn't participate in the Mac App Store, but they could still sell their product. Some companies choose to avoid the Mac App Store because they don't like Apple's policies.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Ask Amphetamine about how open they are. That's neither here nor there. (a) Amphetamine could still be sold outside the Mac App Store. (b) An app name could be problematic even in FOSS land. It's just that instead of Amphetamine being the name that causes it, it will be something else. E.g. with the trend of banning/changing terms like "master" (as in replication primary master, not as in the owner of slaves), unfortunately named apps could be thrown out something or ask to be renamed to be included in a distros package manager or a project.
  - astrange 6y ago
    There are a lot of juvenile named open source projects that will definitely get in trouble or already have. GIMP and LAME are examples.