4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoIt's the same cowardly leadership that stewards both iOS and OSX. Ask Amphetamine about how open they are.
- ogre_codes 6y agoI 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 agoThere are a lot of juvenile named open source projects that will definitely get in trouble or already have. GIMP and LAME are examples.