3 ms·

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 definitio

by 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.
        zepto 6y ago
        > Wikipedia page should not mention Mac OS in the table, because it has nothing to do with the topic? No - why would you imagine that? The article mentions MacOS and by it’s own definition the conclusion is that MacOS is not a walled garden. It would be weird to think that merely mentioning an operating system in a discussion about walled gardens makes it into a walled garden. > I cannot access my OS and all my applications after changing the hardware or using a VM. This is obvious bullshit. Your application and OS still work just fine. Nobody is telling you what you can and can’t run on the operating system, or on the hardware it is running on. That’s what the Wikipedia article defines as a walled garden, and has nothing to do with the licensing conditions of the operating system itself. As to needing to pay certain people for hardware repair, that is also simply not true, and is not relevant to the discussion about walled gardens. There is nothing preventing you from having your SSD repaired or replaced by anyone with the capability to do it. By your definition, Linux is a walled garden because you can only run Linux binaries on Linux. See how this makes no sense? There’s nothing wrong with you preferring GPL’d software. But that doesn’t mean that everything else is “walled garden”.

by zepto 6y ago

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.
      - zepto 6y ago
        > Wikipedia page should not mention Mac OS in the table, because it has nothing to do with the topic? No - why would you imagine that? The article mentions MacOS and by it’s own definition the conclusion is that MacOS is not a walled garden. It would be weird to think that merely mentioning an operating system in a discussion about walled gardens makes it into a walled garden. > I cannot access my OS and all my applications after changing the hardware or using a VM. This is obvious bullshit. Your application and OS still work just fine. Nobody is telling you what you can and can’t run on the operating system, or on the hardware it is running on. That’s what the Wikipedia article defines as a walled garden, and has nothing to do with the licensing conditions of the operating system itself. As to needing to pay certain people for hardware repair, that is also simply not true, and is not relevant to the discussion about walled gardens. There is nothing preventing you from having your SSD repaired or replaced by anyone with the capability to do it. By your definition, Linux is a walled garden because you can only run Linux binaries on Linux. See how this makes no sense? There’s nothing wrong with you preferring GPL’d software. But that doesn’t mean that everything else is “walled garden”.