6 ms·

Keep hearing about “walled garden” as though it’s a bad thing — Archibald Craven doesn’t want Mary to play? The word “garden” suggests bespoke curation for app

Keep hearing about “walled garden” as though it’s a bad thing — Archibald Craven doesn’t want Mary to play? The word “garden” suggests bespoke curation for appreciation and abundance, while “walled” suggests within this boundary the experience is purposefully tended and safe. The Japanese put them in the middle of their homes. The British write children’s literature set in them. Just look — the very idea of a walled garden is lovely: In film: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5b/52/41/5b524125c48b35bfe0cae9dddf614410.png https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5b/52/41/5b524125c48b35bfe0ca... In life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Maytham_Hall#Gardens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Maytham_Hall#Gardens In my experiences with the non metaphorical variety, most anyone who can afford one prefers it.

llbeansandrice 5y ago
I think HN and similar value free (as in freedom) and openness of a system a lot more. So "walled garden" is a bit of a buzzword against those ideals. > bespoke curation...purposefully tended and safe These ideas are antithetical to what many on HN seem to want. I personally love Apple products, but walled gardens are great when you don't bump into the walls all the time, which a lot of other people seem to do. In these cases (wall bumping) I think it's reasonable to want alternatives. But there are fanatics and anti-fanatics that I think skew any discussion about Apple.
- simondotau 5y ago
  I realise this is a controversial view here, but in my opinion the real question is really whether you value Apple’s freedom to build what they believe is the best version of their product. You might not care about that, and that’s fair. Personally I think they should have that freedom. If Apple really had no competition, I would absolutely change my mind. But so long as Android exists, my view is that consumers deserve the right to choose Apple’s garden if they want. And they can choose to leave it. Millions of people do every year. Let the market decide.
  - ece 5y ago
    If it's anti-competitive at 95% market share, it's anti-competitive at 50%. Your position is hypocritical and wrong. Everyone should follow the same rules, not make up their own.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Apple did follow the rules as they currently exist. There is presently no rule against operating a walled gardens in the manner Apple does. If such a rule existed, we'd all know about it. You would have cited it. Apple's critics would be able to quote the rule verbatim. And Epic's case against Apple would have been a slam dunk. Don't be embarrassed to admit that you're the one wanting to make up new rules. It's okay to want new rules. Be honest about it. If you are interested in having your perspective challenged, the commentator for whom I most agree with on this is Hoeg Law, who has published extensive commentary on the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. If you are interested in hearing a view that differs from your own, I can commend his publications to you: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6irNK7kbZt-NY0O https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6ir...
      - movedx 5y ago
        Really well said. I believe Apple are doing what they think is best for everyone, including their shareholders, within the rules (which sometimes aren't clear and can be easy to break without realising it.)
      - ece 5y ago
        The Epic case is a slam dunk, Apple has monopolized the iOS app distribution market since the beginning of the iPhone. Epic is just the first one with motive and the money to bring a challenge against Apple. Yes, after a couple of decades of large companies which have consolidated platforms to a handful of sites and services that the majority of the population uses, yes it's time for some additional rules. I completely support the Cicilline bill. If you'd like to get out of your bubble, I'd read the open markets institute's briefs in the Epic case and the Cicilline bill. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games-antitrust-suit-against-apple-reveals-again-the-harms-of-tying https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games... https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/documents/American%20Innovation%20and%20Choice%20Online%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/...
gilbetron 5y ago
In terms of Apple, I consider it a bad thing, full stop. Although that doesn't mean there are some benefits to it, but overall, awful. Real walled gardens are a totally cool option. I vastly prefer natural forests and meadows, but I'm cool with people having what they want. Because they have a choice. I can't have Apple software anywhere but their walled garden, which sucks. I'll take the wild, chaotic natural environment over a walled garden any day of the week. So much more interesting, even though there is danger.
- movedx 5y ago
  > I can't have Apple software anywhere but their walled garden, which sucks. Which makes perfect sense, because you can't take the tree from an existing garden and plant it in your own without taking the roots and soil with you. Or put another way: you can take the tree, but you'll be leaving a hole for everyone else to fill in. It's a solution to a problem and everything is integrated. Not every solution has to be super modular, plug-and-play and work with everything, everywhere, forever, and allow the end user to self-repair, but not everyone wants that.
totetsu 5y ago
The problem is when many people you want to socialize are inside the garden and the walls don't let you talk to them, and the garden keeper actively works to shape peoples perceptions of outside the walls as scary and confusing, so you just get blank states when you try to suggest ways to talk to people who can't or won't go inside.
ksec 5y ago
Both Walled Garden in your example are owned by its home owner. Which makes all the difference.
drunkenmagician 5y ago
Disclosure: Heavy invested Apple user. A walled garden can indeed be a good thing, as long as it is tendered properly. Do we want the gardener always deciding which plants etc are allowed in? I'm in favour of curated experiences and strong security, but Apple has gone too far. 'Our' garden now has no gates and barbed wire on the walls :(

llbeansandrice 5y ago

I think HN and similar value free (as in freedom) and openness of a system a lot more. So "walled garden" is a bit of a buzzword against those ideals. > bespoke curation...purposefully tended and safe These ideas are antithetical to what many on HN seem to want. I personally love Apple products, but walled gardens are great when you don't bump into the walls all the time, which a lot of other people seem to do. In these cases (wall bumping) I think it's reasonable to want alternatives. But there are fanatics and anti-fanatics that I think skew any discussion about Apple.

simondotau 5y ago
I realise this is a controversial view here, but in my opinion the real question is really whether you value Apple’s freedom to build what they believe is the best version of their product. You might not care about that, and that’s fair. Personally I think they should have that freedom. If Apple really had no competition, I would absolutely change my mind. But so long as Android exists, my view is that consumers deserve the right to choose Apple’s garden if they want. And they can choose to leave it. Millions of people do every year. Let the market decide.
- ece 5y ago
  If it's anti-competitive at 95% market share, it's anti-competitive at 50%. Your position is hypocritical and wrong. Everyone should follow the same rules, not make up their own.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Apple did follow the rules as they currently exist. There is presently no rule against operating a walled gardens in the manner Apple does. If such a rule existed, we'd all know about it. You would have cited it. Apple's critics would be able to quote the rule verbatim. And Epic's case against Apple would have been a slam dunk. Don't be embarrassed to admit that you're the one wanting to make up new rules. It's okay to want new rules. Be honest about it. If you are interested in having your perspective challenged, the commentator for whom I most agree with on this is Hoeg Law, who has published extensive commentary on the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. If you are interested in hearing a view that differs from your own, I can commend his publications to you: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6irNK7kbZt-NY0O https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6ir...
    - movedx 5y ago
      Really well said. I believe Apple are doing what they think is best for everyone, including their shareholders, within the rules (which sometimes aren't clear and can be easy to break without realising it.)
    - ece 5y ago
      The Epic case is a slam dunk, Apple has monopolized the iOS app distribution market since the beginning of the iPhone. Epic is just the first one with motive and the money to bring a challenge against Apple. Yes, after a couple of decades of large companies which have consolidated platforms to a handful of sites and services that the majority of the population uses, yes it's time for some additional rules. I completely support the Cicilline bill. If you'd like to get out of your bubble, I'd read the open markets institute's briefs in the Epic case and the Cicilline bill. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games-antitrust-suit-against-apple-reveals-again-the-harms-of-tying https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games... https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/documents/American%20Innovation%20and%20Choice%20Online%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/...

gilbetron 5y ago

In terms of Apple, I consider it a bad thing, full stop. Although that doesn't mean there are some benefits to it, but overall, awful. Real walled gardens are a totally cool option. I vastly prefer natural forests and meadows, but I'm cool with people having what they want. Because they have a choice. I can't have Apple software anywhere but their walled garden, which sucks. I'll take the wild, chaotic natural environment over a walled garden any day of the week. So much more interesting, even though there is danger.

movedx 5y ago
> I can't have Apple software anywhere but their walled garden, which sucks. Which makes perfect sense, because you can't take the tree from an existing garden and plant it in your own without taking the roots and soil with you. Or put another way: you can take the tree, but you'll be leaving a hole for everyone else to fill in. It's a solution to a problem and everything is integrated. Not every solution has to be super modular, plug-and-play and work with everything, everywhere, forever, and allow the end user to self-repair, but not everyone wants that.

totetsu 5y ago

The problem is when many people you want to socialize are inside the garden and the walls don't let you talk to them, and the garden keeper actively works to shape peoples perceptions of outside the walls as scary and confusing, so you just get blank states when you try to suggest ways to talk to people who can't or won't go inside.

ksec 5y ago

Both Walled Garden in your example are owned by its home owner. Which makes all the difference.

drunkenmagician 5y ago

Disclosure: Heavy invested Apple user. A walled garden can indeed be a good thing, as long as it is tendered properly. Do we want the gardener always deciding which plants etc are allowed in? I'm in favour of curated experiences and strong security, but Apple has gone too far. 'Our' garden now has no gates and barbed wire on the walls :(