4 ms·

That is nobody’s definition of a walled garden. You can run whatever you like on Mac Hardware. You can run whatever software you like on Mac OS. Installing M

by zepto 6y ago

That is nobody’s definition of a walled garden. You can run whatever you like on Mac Hardware. You can run whatever software you like on Mac OS. Installing MacOS on computers you haven’t licensed it for is just that. It’s not free software. It is commercial software. You are conflating the concept of commercial software with the concept of a walled garden.

fsflover 6y ago
> You are conflating the concept of commercial software with the concept of a walled garden. Commercial software is the software for which developers get money. It can include free software, too. It has nothing to do with the license or the topic we are discussing. You are conflating the concepts here. Walled garden in general is a convenient system, from which a user can hardly escape when the users wants to. This is exactly what Mac license does. Wikipedia has Mac OS as an example of a walled garden. I did not make it up myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walled_garden_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walled_garden_(te...
- zepto 6y ago
  That seems to be just false. The Wikipedia article does mention Mac OS, but does not, anywhere, use it as an example of a walled garden. Here is the definition from the page you link: “A closed platform, walled garden, or closed ecosystem[1][2] is a software system wherein the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media, and restricts convenient access to non-approved applicants or content. This is in contrast to an open platform, wherein consumers generally have unrestricted access to applications and content.“ This definition is simply not true of Mac OS.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Did you even read the article I linked? I quote for you: A 2008 Harvard Business School working paper, entitled "Opening Platforms: How, When and Why?", differentiated a platform's openness/closedness by four aspects and gave example platforms. Platform provider (hardware/operating system (OS) bundle), Mac OS: closed Platform sponsor (design & intellectual property (IP) rights owner), Mac OS: closed Tl;dr: It's not a walled garden in all aspects, but it definitely restricts users in a significant way, depending on your use case.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I did read it. What you are quoting has nothing to do with the definition of a walled garden on that page. Notably for some reason you chose not to include the part where they also say about Mac OS: Demand-side use (end-user): open Supply-side user (application developer): open It is not a walled garden in any way that they define a walled garden. Here is the definition from the page you link: “A closed platform, walled garden, or closed ecosystem[1][2] is a software system wherein the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media, and restricts convenient access to non-approved applicants or content. This is in contrast to an open platform, wherein consumers generally have unrestricted access to applications and content.“ It doesn’t apply to Mac OS. Restricting installation of the operating system itself on other hardware just isn’t part of the definition. No matter how much you selectively copy and paste from a Wikipedia page, it will not say what you claim it is saying. Trying to say any restriction of use means a walled garden is akin to saying any software that isn’t completely free is a walled garden. That just isn’t what the term means.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        By the definition you quoted, Mac OS is also not an open platform. This is exactly what I am saying: in some aspects, it's a walled garden. Depending on your use case, it may be essential.
        zepto 6y ago
        No. You are simply misreading the definition, or perhaps misunderstanding it. By the definition I quoted MacOS is an open platform. The provider of MacOS (Apple) doesn’t have control over access to applications and content. It is not a walled garden in any aspect, even by the definition you yourself provided. Installing OS itself is restricted by commercial license. But the platform is open. You are trying to make the definition fit, but it just doesn’t.
        fsflover 6y ago
        Are you suggesting that the Wikipedia page should not mention Mac OS in the table, because it has nothing to do with the topic? But it comes from the cited paper. You should probably read it. I cannot access my OS and all my applications after changing the hardware or using a VM. Do you call it “unrestricted access to applications”? How is this unrestricted if there are restrictions? This is not an open platform by the original Wikipedia definition, more so by my definition. One cannot escape from Mac OS after using it, because all apps will not work (without the legal OS). My SSD dies, I cannot event replace it. All I can do is to pay $$$ to Apple to help me.

by zepto 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago

> You are conflating the concept of commercial software with the concept of a walled garden. Commercial software is the software for which developers get money. It can include free software, too. It has nothing to do with the license or the topic we are discussing. You are conflating the concepts here. Walled garden in general is a convenient system, from which a user can hardly escape when the users wants to. This is exactly what Mac license does. Wikipedia has Mac OS as an example of a walled garden. I did not make it up myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walled_garden_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walled_garden_(te...

zepto 6y ago
That seems to be just false. The Wikipedia article does mention Mac OS, but does not, anywhere, use it as an example of a walled garden. Here is the definition from the page you link: “A closed platform, walled garden, or closed ecosystem[1][2] is a software system wherein the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media, and restricts convenient access to non-approved applicants or content. This is in contrast to an open platform, wherein consumers generally have unrestricted access to applications and content.“ This definition is simply not true of Mac OS.
- fsflover 6y ago
  Did you even read the article I linked? I quote for you: A 2008 Harvard Business School working paper, entitled "Opening Platforms: How, When and Why?", differentiated a platform's openness/closedness by four aspects and gave example platforms. Platform provider (hardware/operating system (OS) bundle), Mac OS: closed Platform sponsor (design & intellectual property (IP) rights owner), Mac OS: closed Tl;dr: It's not a walled garden in all aspects, but it definitely restricts users in a significant way, depending on your use case.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I did read it. What you are quoting has nothing to do with the definition of a walled garden on that page. Notably for some reason you chose not to include the part where they also say about Mac OS: Demand-side use (end-user): open Supply-side user (application developer): open It is not a walled garden in any way that they define a walled garden. Here is the definition from the page you link: “A closed platform, walled garden, or closed ecosystem[1][2] is a software system wherein the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media, and restricts convenient access to non-approved applicants or content. This is in contrast to an open platform, wherein consumers generally have unrestricted access to applications and content.“ It doesn’t apply to Mac OS. Restricting installation of the operating system itself on other hardware just isn’t part of the definition. No matter how much you selectively copy and paste from a Wikipedia page, it will not say what you claim it is saying. Trying to say any restriction of use means a walled garden is akin to saying any software that isn’t completely free is a walled garden. That just isn’t what the term means.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      By the definition you quoted, Mac OS is also not an open platform. This is exactly what I am saying: in some aspects, it's a walled garden. Depending on your use case, it may be essential.
      - zepto 6y ago
        No. You are simply misreading the definition, or perhaps misunderstanding it. By the definition I quoted MacOS is an open platform. The provider of MacOS (Apple) doesn’t have control over access to applications and content. It is not a walled garden in any aspect, even by the definition you yourself provided. Installing OS itself is restricted by commercial license. But the platform is open. You are trying to make the definition fit, but it just doesn’t.
        fsflover 6y ago
        Are you suggesting that the Wikipedia page should not mention Mac OS in the table, because it has nothing to do with the topic? But it comes from the cited paper. You should probably read it. I cannot access my OS and all my applications after changing the hardware or using a VM. Do you call it “unrestricted access to applications”? How is this unrestricted if there are restrictions? This is not an open platform by the original Wikipedia definition, more so by my definition. One cannot escape from Mac OS after using it, because all apps will not work (without the legal OS). My SSD dies, I cannot event replace it. All I can do is to pay $$$ to Apple to help me.