4 ms·

> You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms. Sometimes I wonder what today’s computers would be like if Microsof

> You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms. Sometimes I wonder what today’s computers would be like if Microsoft had exerted that level of control over DOS and Windows. Forget downloading some random exe you found online, only approved programs can be installed. Would there have been a booming software industry? Would there be so much malware? Would Microsoft have allowed things like the first web browsers? No comment on the merits of operating systems as walled gardens. I just find it fascinating (and difficult) to imagine how things might have been.

thegrimmest 5y ago
I just think we should allow both options to compete and flourish. As you point out, each has their merits. If users end up preferring walled gardens and appliance-style devices, then shouldn't that be what they get?
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  The choice needs to be independent of the rest of the stack. If Apple wants to make an option where you can lock your iPhone to only installing apps from Apple's store and taking it out of that mode requires a factory reset, that's fine, because the customer has a choice. Tying that choice to the choice of hardware and operating system is anti-competitive.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Why is tying software to hardware anti-competitive? It's commonplace in literally everywhere, from washing machines to televisions to game consoles to CNC machines to cars to tractors. An overwhelming majority of hardware is sold with software included, and is designed to work with that software alone. Why are we trying to force iPhones into a special, narrow category they are actively avoiding? Why do we need to make the distinction at all?
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Because iPhones specifically allow installation of other software, and are advertised as such?
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        Yes, other software approved by Apple, on the Apple Store, subject to Apple security and UX review (also advertised as such).
  - threeseed 5y ago
    > Tying that choice to the choice of hardware and operating system is anti-competitive. Except you've just invented that arbitrary distinction. You can't seriously suggest that a Microwave, Treadmill, Car, Calculator, Thermometer etc would all need to invest the ridiculous amounts of time/money in supporting users wishing to install alternate operating systems.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      One is not like the others. Modern mobile phones are pocket computers. And for some people the only device through which they can access more and more tools of modern life. Even the browser choice is severely limited.
- ellen364 5y ago
  Having the choice is great. It’s nice to use walled gardens sometimes (I’m writing this on an iPad) and to have options like Linux for more control and some tinkering. It just blows my mind a little when I imagine the walled garden approach being applied more broadly and earlier. E.g. if the creators of web browsers and search engines had all decided they want a cut of sales from websites. (I mean a cut of sales from organic search, not just ads. And all sales made using the browser.) Those “what might have been” scenarios tend to make me less comfortable with my iPad and my Android phone. But I still have them because I like them.
musicale 5y ago
> Sometimes I wonder what today’s computers would be like if Microsoft had exerted that level of control over DOS and Windows www.xbox.com The iPhone is largely a game machine as well, as some 70% of Apple's revenue from the App Store is from games.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > The iPhone is largely a game machine as well I use my phone much more than my computer. Pretty much everything I used to do on computer I now do on my phone.
threeseed 5y ago
> Would there have been a booming software industry? Yes. Maybe even more so. Because Apple has shown that having a safe, secure and profitable platform results in consumers choosing to spend more.
- 6510 5y ago
  And fewer developers creates profitable scarcity.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  For anyone downvoting, consider iOS vs Android. iOS is more profitable for most developers even though Android has more users.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ellen364 5y ago
  Interesting point. Comments elsewhere in the thread mention console gaming. That seems like another good argument for closed ecosystems being able to support a big software industry.
greiskul 5y ago
I think a good comparison is to look at gaming. Most consoles have been walled gardens, ever since Nintendo revitalized the market. You end up with centralized power in the hand of a few big companies. While in pc gaming, small indie studios can create entire new genres, like Factorio did, some which go on to grow and become giants themselves, like Minecraft.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Actually for a while Nintendo's control was circumvented by 3rd party publishers. Modern consoles have the DMCA to thank for maintaining an iron grip on who and what can run on the machines they sell.
abecedarius 5y ago
MS would never have got anywhere if they'd tried. There was an 80s home computer like that: the TI 99/4A. Though even it didn't try to restrict BASIC programs.

thegrimmest 5y ago

I just think we should allow both options to compete and flourish. As you point out, each has their merits. If users end up preferring walled gardens and appliance-style devices, then shouldn't that be what they get?

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
The choice needs to be independent of the rest of the stack. If Apple wants to make an option where you can lock your iPhone to only installing apps from Apple's store and taking it out of that mode requires a factory reset, that's fine, because the customer has a choice. Tying that choice to the choice of hardware and operating system is anti-competitive.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Why is tying software to hardware anti-competitive? It's commonplace in literally everywhere, from washing machines to televisions to game consoles to CNC machines to cars to tractors. An overwhelming majority of hardware is sold with software included, and is designed to work with that software alone. Why are we trying to force iPhones into a special, narrow category they are actively avoiding? Why do we need to make the distinction at all?
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Because iPhones specifically allow installation of other software, and are advertised as such?
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      Yes, other software approved by Apple, on the Apple Store, subject to Apple security and UX review (also advertised as such).
- threeseed 5y ago
  > Tying that choice to the choice of hardware and operating system is anti-competitive. Except you've just invented that arbitrary distinction. You can't seriously suggest that a Microwave, Treadmill, Car, Calculator, Thermometer etc would all need to invest the ridiculous amounts of time/money in supporting users wishing to install alternate operating systems.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    One is not like the others. Modern mobile phones are pocket computers. And for some people the only device through which they can access more and more tools of modern life. Even the browser choice is severely limited.
ellen364 5y ago
Having the choice is great. It’s nice to use walled gardens sometimes (I’m writing this on an iPad) and to have options like Linux for more control and some tinkering. It just blows my mind a little when I imagine the walled garden approach being applied more broadly and earlier. E.g. if the creators of web browsers and search engines had all decided they want a cut of sales from websites. (I mean a cut of sales from organic search, not just ads. And all sales made using the browser.) Those “what might have been” scenarios tend to make me less comfortable with my iPad and my Android phone. But I still have them because I like them.

musicale 5y ago

> Sometimes I wonder what today’s computers would be like if Microsoft had exerted that level of control over DOS and Windows www.xbox.com The iPhone is largely a game machine as well, as some 70% of Apple's revenue from the App Store is from games.

colinmhayes 5y ago
> The iPhone is largely a game machine as well I use my phone much more than my computer. Pretty much everything I used to do on computer I now do on my phone.

threeseed 5y ago

> Would there have been a booming software industry? Yes. Maybe even more so. Because Apple has shown that having a safe, secure and profitable platform results in consumers choosing to spend more.

6510 5y ago
And fewer developers creates profitable scarcity.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
For anyone downvoting, consider iOS vs Android. iOS is more profitable for most developers even though Android has more users.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ellen364 5y ago
Interesting point. Comments elsewhere in the thread mention console gaming. That seems like another good argument for closed ecosystems being able to support a big software industry.

greiskul 5y ago

I think a good comparison is to look at gaming. Most consoles have been walled gardens, ever since Nintendo revitalized the market. You end up with centralized power in the hand of a few big companies. While in pc gaming, small indie studios can create entire new genres, like Factorio did, some which go on to grow and become giants themselves, like Minecraft.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Actually for a while Nintendo's control was circumvented by 3rd party publishers. Modern consoles have the DMCA to thank for maintaining an iron grip on who and what can run on the machines they sell.

abecedarius 5y ago

MS would never have got anywhere if they'd tried. There was an 80s home computer like that: the TI 99/4A. Though even it didn't try to restrict BASIC programs.