4 ms·

> walled garden argument A watch is now a walled garden? Does Casio have to open its OS? Either these are not general computing devices or there's no line, a

> walled garden argument A watch is now a walled garden? Does Casio have to open its OS? Either these are not general computing devices or there's no line, a fridge or microwave or a console are general computing as well -- and device makers have no rights to make a product from digital parts as well as mechanical parts without having to make it open to digital fiddling, and secure it dragging in that new threat model.

jacquesm 5y ago
If you gatekeep applications on your device then it's a walled garden. Simple, no?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Razengan 5y ago
  So why has there never been a horde of torches and pitchforks outside Castle Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo yet? And don’t squeeze out that “cOnSoLeS aReNt cOmPuTeRs” bullshit. They’re closer to computers than a goddamn wristwatch.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I honestly could not tell you, but that's a 'whataboutism' argument, we are not talking about Xbox, PlayStation or Nintendo here. But to the extent that they determine what can and can not be shipped on their platform they are - to me - just as much a walled garden.
  - JohnTHaller 5y ago
    I'd wager a lot of it has to do with history. Gaming consoles were always proprietary hardware that could only do things approved by the manufacturer, and were purchased with that understanding, unless you did some hacking. Computers were always open platforms that you purchased and then could do what you wanted with, no hacking required. iOS was the first major market computing platform that broke this general understanding.
    - sircastor 5y ago
      > iOS was the first major market computing platform that broke this general understanding. I think the reason this worked, and the reason it’s still sort of confusing to people, is that the iPhone is a phone, and showed up at phone stores. People viewed as a super-powered iPod, not a computer.
      - JohnTHaller 5y ago
        The phone computers that came before it didn't have walled gardens either. Palm, for instance.
    - rasz 5y ago
      Consoles were pretty open at the beginning. 2600 had plenty of third party games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E2%80%931982) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E... and even crazy futuristic peripherals like modem (online game renting service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine. Same for Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade. Atari f** up on NES by committing blatant copyright infringement and scamming Patent Office <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_...> if not for the method they used it would of been fine too.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - windexh8er 5y ago
    It's a good point, but consoles were single purpose computers. They exist to play games. Now, I'll agree that the line is blurred these days, but they're still generally gaming machines. Nobody is buying an XBox to stream Netflix solely. I think the difference is that Apple wants people to buy these devices as your primary computing device. Are you OK when Apple locks down the Mac line? What if you couldn't use Brew to install open source software? For a not insignificant portion of their buyers that may be OK. I agree that consoles have their own anti-competitive issues, but they're not the same. Copy-cat games have always existed. The difference is that Sony's not going to pull a Rockstar game exclusively built for their platform to directly compete. So while I'm trying to see the parallel, it's not quite the same in my opinion.
    - pwinnski 5y ago
      You're talking about Macs. This thread is about watches. I'm struggling to see any argument about watches that doesn't apply at least as much to game consoles.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      It's not so much about copycat games per-se but about the ability to run whatever software you want on a device that you own, and in that respect those games consoles are quite good representations of the walled garden concept. In fact, the 'general purpose computer' will historically be seen as some kind of very stupid aberration, who ever thought that giving end users that kind of power was a good idea? /s
      - Terretta 5y ago
        Software is not different from hardware. Digital parts aren't magic, bring no magic rights, it's still just boring old parts someone invested in engineering into a product. Even in digital, beige box server, IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, FaaS, applications, devices, apps, screens... different waterlines, none of them magic. Which waterline do you have the right to "run whatever you want"? Which waterline is a business ok to say, from here down, it's my product? Anti-circumvention laws saying DRM means hands off altogether are different from saying a maker must take extra steps to make it easier for you to mod the device they invested R&D in, must allow your mod at potential harm to other mods on the device, or a maker must change their business model to facilitate malware and benevolent app devs alike. There's a market segment for beige boxes and Raspberry PIs. Not every device with digital parts supporting digital mods, plug-ins, add-ons, cartridges, apps, whatever you call them, has to be forced to be a Raspberry Pi. You have a right to remove the warning label from your mattress, or root your phone, but Sealy doesn't have to perforate the tag and Samsung doesn't have to give you a toggle.
  - sircastor 5y ago
    Arguably, there has been. It’s harder to see because the interface is different in those cases. It’s not as public. Developers have been trying to get around game console lock out for as long as it’s existed. Nintendo’s licensing was very restricted with the NES, and it really annoyed a lot of software developers. Same case with XBox and PS. You can’t willy nilly write a game for either platform. For some reason the unlicensed cartridge that always comes to mind for me is the powder blue Bible stories game.
    - salamandersauce 5y ago
      I feel like it was far more fair pre-OTA updates. EA for example famously strong armed Sega when they reverse engineered the Genesis allowing them the right to make their own cartridges (which is why EA games look different) and better terms than what they otherwise would have gotten. These days if a company tried that Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft would just laugh and issue a firmware update "improving system stability" three weeks later bricking any unlicensed games in the process. There was even a handful of unlicensed titles for PS2/GC.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        And this is now also brought to vehicles, TVs and many other devices, more often than not to fix broken business models or extract more revenue or spy on users instead of to fix bugs.
  - fsociety 5y ago
    Huh? Most console games today aren’t exclusives, developers have the freedom to release them on any platform they want with little restriction, and there is no risk in a console maker refusing to let you sell a game and then they go back and make the game themselves. Consoles are very different from Apple’s walled garden.
  - HelixEndeavor 5y ago
    1. Consoles are just as much computers as smart watches. 2. There isn't a horde of pitchforks because instead people's efforts with those consoles are focused towards jailbreaking them to run their arbitrary code instead of begging the company to do it - and Microsoft's Developer Mode on Xbox allows running of arbitrary code anyways, so the problems is basically solved there.
  - dding 5y ago
    It's not about if devices are general computing devices or if the device maker can moderate third-party apps on its platform. Apple invited other developers to sell apps on a market it created and regulates. It also competes with those developers in this market. And in this case, it used its power as the market's regulator to remove a competitor and promote its own app. Nintendo, Sony, etc also allow other developers to sell apps on markets they created, and they also compete with those developers. If Nintendo ever removes a platforming game for competing with the Mario series, we should also raise our pitchforks and protest against unfair abuse of power.
- Terretta 5y ago
  No. Half Life was not a walled garden before opening up to modders, and was not a walled garden after. It was just a game opened to modders. If we get over ourselves, and allow that there's new category of thing, devices made of mechanical and digital parts both, that the maker may or may not selectively open for mods as a legitimate part of their business model they're within their rights to choose, then we'd be less religiously militant in ways that harm innovation and consumers.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Half Life is not a device, modders are not application programmers targeting that device.
    - OneTimePetes 5y ago
      No, a device is more stable when it comes to APIs and Configurations.
    - Terretta 5y ago
      > [Software] is not a device. Then what are you engineering? --- Edit to elaborate: I'm convinced this is the essence of the debate that has intensified as parts that move at the speed of light are devouring physical parts. Switch, transistor, if statement -- a maker should be able to convert one type of part to another type of part without losing their rights, or accidentally triggering a "oh, look, general computing, therefore it's no longer up to you to decide!" flag of some sort. Ease of reconfiguring electrons shouldn't change right to design and distribute a product with whatever blend of physical and digital one wants, facilitating whatever purpose one wants, and not being forced to facilitate other purposes.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Sorry, but you really can't just define some arbitrary alternative universe and then expect the debate to take place on your terms.
atatatat 5y ago
I'd agree with you 100% conceptually, if not for the fact I've been personally left to improve the security on every phone and computer I've been offered by the market since my birth.
shawnz 5y ago
Why was AT&T forced to allow third party landline telephones on their network? Those aren't general purpose computing devices either, right?
kurikuri 5y ago
The line might be able to be drawn between devices which have support, or intend to have support and will accept applications/plans, for 3rd party software and those who don’t. By accepting third party software, the third party now becomes dependent upon (and in this case: a customer to) Apple. In these situations, the device producer has knowledge about and leverage over on-device application competitors which other third parties would not.

jacquesm 5y ago

If you gatekeep applications on your device then it's a walled garden. Simple, no?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Razengan 5y ago
So why has there never been a horde of torches and pitchforks outside Castle Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo yet? And don’t squeeze out that “cOnSoLeS aReNt cOmPuTeRs” bullshit. They’re closer to computers than a goddamn wristwatch.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I honestly could not tell you, but that's a 'whataboutism' argument, we are not talking about Xbox, PlayStation or Nintendo here. But to the extent that they determine what can and can not be shipped on their platform they are - to me - just as much a walled garden.
- JohnTHaller 5y ago
  I'd wager a lot of it has to do with history. Gaming consoles were always proprietary hardware that could only do things approved by the manufacturer, and were purchased with that understanding, unless you did some hacking. Computers were always open platforms that you purchased and then could do what you wanted with, no hacking required. iOS was the first major market computing platform that broke this general understanding.
  - sircastor 5y ago
    > iOS was the first major market computing platform that broke this general understanding. I think the reason this worked, and the reason it’s still sort of confusing to people, is that the iPhone is a phone, and showed up at phone stores. People viewed as a super-powered iPod, not a computer.
    - JohnTHaller 5y ago
      The phone computers that came before it didn't have walled gardens either. Palm, for instance.
  - rasz 5y ago
    Consoles were pretty open at the beginning. 2600 had plenty of third party games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E2%80%931982) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E... and even crazy futuristic peripherals like modem (online game renting service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine. Same for Genesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade. Atari f** up on NES by committing blatant copyright infringement and scamming Patent Office <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_...> if not for the method they used it would of been fine too.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- windexh8er 5y ago
  It's a good point, but consoles were single purpose computers. They exist to play games. Now, I'll agree that the line is blurred these days, but they're still generally gaming machines. Nobody is buying an XBox to stream Netflix solely. I think the difference is that Apple wants people to buy these devices as your primary computing device. Are you OK when Apple locks down the Mac line? What if you couldn't use Brew to install open source software? For a not insignificant portion of their buyers that may be OK. I agree that consoles have their own anti-competitive issues, but they're not the same. Copy-cat games have always existed. The difference is that Sony's not going to pull a Rockstar game exclusively built for their platform to directly compete. So while I'm trying to see the parallel, it's not quite the same in my opinion.
  - pwinnski 5y ago
    You're talking about Macs. This thread is about watches. I'm struggling to see any argument about watches that doesn't apply at least as much to game consoles.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    It's not so much about copycat games per-se but about the ability to run whatever software you want on a device that you own, and in that respect those games consoles are quite good representations of the walled garden concept. In fact, the 'general purpose computer' will historically be seen as some kind of very stupid aberration, who ever thought that giving end users that kind of power was a good idea? /s
    - Terretta 5y ago
      Software is not different from hardware. Digital parts aren't magic, bring no magic rights, it's still just boring old parts someone invested in engineering into a product. Even in digital, beige box server, IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, FaaS, applications, devices, apps, screens... different waterlines, none of them magic. Which waterline do you have the right to "run whatever you want"? Which waterline is a business ok to say, from here down, it's my product? Anti-circumvention laws saying DRM means hands off altogether are different from saying a maker must take extra steps to make it easier for you to mod the device they invested R&D in, must allow your mod at potential harm to other mods on the device, or a maker must change their business model to facilitate malware and benevolent app devs alike. There's a market segment for beige boxes and Raspberry PIs. Not every device with digital parts supporting digital mods, plug-ins, add-ons, cartridges, apps, whatever you call them, has to be forced to be a Raspberry Pi. You have a right to remove the warning label from your mattress, or root your phone, but Sealy doesn't have to perforate the tag and Samsung doesn't have to give you a toggle.
- sircastor 5y ago
  Arguably, there has been. It’s harder to see because the interface is different in those cases. It’s not as public. Developers have been trying to get around game console lock out for as long as it’s existed. Nintendo’s licensing was very restricted with the NES, and it really annoyed a lot of software developers. Same case with XBox and PS. You can’t willy nilly write a game for either platform. For some reason the unlicensed cartridge that always comes to mind for me is the powder blue Bible stories game.
  - salamandersauce 5y ago
    I feel like it was far more fair pre-OTA updates. EA for example famously strong armed Sega when they reverse engineered the Genesis allowing them the right to make their own cartridges (which is why EA games look different) and better terms than what they otherwise would have gotten. These days if a company tried that Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft would just laugh and issue a firmware update "improving system stability" three weeks later bricking any unlicensed games in the process. There was even a handful of unlicensed titles for PS2/GC.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      And this is now also brought to vehicles, TVs and many other devices, more often than not to fix broken business models or extract more revenue or spy on users instead of to fix bugs.
- fsociety 5y ago
  Huh? Most console games today aren’t exclusives, developers have the freedom to release them on any platform they want with little restriction, and there is no risk in a console maker refusing to let you sell a game and then they go back and make the game themselves. Consoles are very different from Apple’s walled garden.
- HelixEndeavor 5y ago
  1. Consoles are just as much computers as smart watches. 2. There isn't a horde of pitchforks because instead people's efforts with those consoles are focused towards jailbreaking them to run their arbitrary code instead of begging the company to do it - and Microsoft's Developer Mode on Xbox allows running of arbitrary code anyways, so the problems is basically solved there.
- dding 5y ago
  It's not about if devices are general computing devices or if the device maker can moderate third-party apps on its platform. Apple invited other developers to sell apps on a market it created and regulates. It also competes with those developers in this market. And in this case, it used its power as the market's regulator to remove a competitor and promote its own app. Nintendo, Sony, etc also allow other developers to sell apps on markets they created, and they also compete with those developers. If Nintendo ever removes a platforming game for competing with the Mario series, we should also raise our pitchforks and protest against unfair abuse of power.
Terretta 5y ago
No. Half Life was not a walled garden before opening up to modders, and was not a walled garden after. It was just a game opened to modders. If we get over ourselves, and allow that there's new category of thing, devices made of mechanical and digital parts both, that the maker may or may not selectively open for mods as a legitimate part of their business model they're within their rights to choose, then we'd be less religiously militant in ways that harm innovation and consumers.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Half Life is not a device, modders are not application programmers targeting that device.
  - OneTimePetes 5y ago
    No, a device is more stable when it comes to APIs and Configurations.
  - Terretta 5y ago
    > [Software] is not a device. Then what are you engineering? --- Edit to elaborate: I'm convinced this is the essence of the debate that has intensified as parts that move at the speed of light are devouring physical parts. Switch, transistor, if statement -- a maker should be able to convert one type of part to another type of part without losing their rights, or accidentally triggering a "oh, look, general computing, therefore it's no longer up to you to decide!" flag of some sort. Ease of reconfiguring electrons shouldn't change right to design and distribute a product with whatever blend of physical and digital one wants, facilitating whatever purpose one wants, and not being forced to facilitate other purposes.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Sorry, but you really can't just define some arbitrary alternative universe and then expect the debate to take place on your terms.

atatatat 5y ago

I'd agree with you 100% conceptually, if not for the fact I've been personally left to improve the security on every phone and computer I've been offered by the market since my birth.

shawnz 5y ago

Why was AT&T forced to allow third party landline telephones on their network? Those aren't general purpose computing devices either, right?

kurikuri 5y ago

The line might be able to be drawn between devices which have support, or intend to have support and will accept applications/plans, for 3rd party software and those who don’t. By accepting third party software, the third party now becomes dependent upon (and in this case: a customer to) Apple. In these situations, the device producer has knowledge about and leverage over on-device application competitors which other third parties would not.