4 ms·

Well, Microsoft never set itself up as the gateway to install third-party software, or as the authority on taste and acceptable content, or on taking a cut on c

Well, Microsoft never set itself up as the gateway to install third-party software, or as the authority on taste and acceptable content, or on taking a cut on commercial activity taking place on its platform.

ashishgandhi 15y ago
Yeah, they did not do that. But that's not the only way to be responsible (consciously or not) for killing smaller developers. > authority on taste and acceptable content I don't know about that. If I want something that Apple doesn't approve for their store - say Grooveshark, for plausible legal complications in the future - I get the Grooveshark app anyway, from some other store that's legal (hint: jailbreak). Personally speaking: I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. In practice, I've never missed something on the App Store (iPad 2 that I bought a few months ago) although I miss a lot of stuff on the Android Market (Nexus One that I own since a few years now). I got an Android before I got an iOS device going by such arguments from the couch. But I'm glad I can choose my phone, and it's going to be iPhone 4S when it launches here. I'm glad you can choose your phone, I presume that'll be an Android. That way, both of us can be happy.
- derleth 15y ago
  > I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. Hello, apt-get and yum. Curated software doesn't have to lead to locked-down systems you can only use at the sufferance of the curators. For example, look at the processes behind Linux distros. The people who put Linux distros together have been doing this for nigh on twenty years now, with the big caveat that you don't need to 'jailbreak' a Linux machine to install your own software under /usr/local or on your home directory. Even Slackware has packages; the main thing it lacks is dependency-tracking package management. And, yes, there are filtering processes and even bug-fixing processes in place; Debian, for example, has a lot of people who more-or-less 'own' certain packages to the extent they get the source distributions from the original developers, test them, and modify them to fix bugs and bring them in line with the Debian World Order. All or practically all Debian-derived distros leverage this, Ubuntu foremost among them.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    First off, excellent post. Honestly, I find it quite baffling that people think (or imply) that you need some commercially backed, locked down system to assure software quality. It's simply not true, it's quite the opposite actually. The open alternatives are infinitely superior. Furthermore, many packet managers (Arch's pacman, for example) offer the ability to rather easily create and install your own packages and manage them with the same system, allowing you to benefit from the advantages of a packet managing system without having to rely only on the curated repositories.
  - ashishgandhi 15y ago
    Lock-down? Open? If by open you mean extensible, that's what all those APIs are for. If by open you mean open source, that's a different debate all together - an easy argument against it would be Linux. If by open you mean where you can take the battery out and put in SD cards - I have a Nexus One and I've never done those things on it, although I could, but never had to take the battery out (and do what?). And no I don't have an iPhone or any other phone that I use. If by open you mean access to Apple's repo (App Store) against Apple's will, then well, that's not what I can say much about. (Jailbreak. If you say not many people do that and it shrinks your market, probably many people don't feel the need to do it. I don't think they don't know about it because it's been in the news so much.) If by open your mean something else, I would genuinely like to know.
    - derleth 15y ago
      > Lock-down? Open? Linux doesn't have the concept of 'jailbreak'. That's what I mean.
  - cageface 15y ago
    To be fair though, the quality of almost all of the end-user software available via apt-get is far below that of the iOS or Mac app store. Developers and users have voted with their wallets for Apple's model. Ideologically I'd prefer that this were not the case but it's hard to argue with the numbers.
    - 15y ago
- adabsurdo 15y ago
  jailbreaking is indeed a way to get around the apple store, but how many people do this? Must be a tiny fraction of the market. I would like to know of a company that has made serious money targeting it. there are a whole bunch of apps that you are either not seeing at all (eg, anything that involves shopping), or are seriously crippled through removal of the subscription / buy button: think kindle, netflix, etc. these guys are ok, because they are already established, but what happens if you are just starting up? what happens if/when the web has become a backwater that people just don't want to use anymore, and there's no easy way to make them subscribe to your service? note also how the 30% cut that apple takes from transactions gives their own alternatives a huge advantage to provide the same service.
Argorak 15y ago
Never? I would argue that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft actually made that model popular - on their consoles. They just never managed to push it into the rest of the consumer space.

ashishgandhi 15y ago

Yeah, they did not do that. But that's not the only way to be responsible (consciously or not) for killing smaller developers. > authority on taste and acceptable content I don't know about that. If I want something that Apple doesn't approve for their store - say Grooveshark, for plausible legal complications in the future - I get the Grooveshark app anyway, from some other store that's legal (hint: jailbreak). Personally speaking: I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. In practice, I've never missed something on the App Store (iPad 2 that I bought a few months ago) although I miss a lot of stuff on the Android Market (Nexus One that I own since a few years now). I got an Android before I got an iOS device going by such arguments from the couch. But I'm glad I can choose my phone, and it's going to be iPhone 4S when it launches here. I'm glad you can choose your phone, I presume that'll be an Android. That way, both of us can be happy.

derleth 15y ago
> I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. Hello, apt-get and yum. Curated software doesn't have to lead to locked-down systems you can only use at the sufferance of the curators. For example, look at the processes behind Linux distros. The people who put Linux distros together have been doing this for nigh on twenty years now, with the big caveat that you don't need to 'jailbreak' a Linux machine to install your own software under /usr/local or on your home directory. Even Slackware has packages; the main thing it lacks is dependency-tracking package management. And, yes, there are filtering processes and even bug-fixing processes in place; Debian, for example, has a lot of people who more-or-less 'own' certain packages to the extent they get the source distributions from the original developers, test them, and modify them to fix bugs and bring them in line with the Debian World Order. All or practically all Debian-derived distros leverage this, Ubuntu foremost among them.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  First off, excellent post. Honestly, I find it quite baffling that people think (or imply) that you need some commercially backed, locked down system to assure software quality. It's simply not true, it's quite the opposite actually. The open alternatives are infinitely superior. Furthermore, many packet managers (Arch's pacman, for example) offer the ability to rather easily create and install your own packages and manage them with the same system, allowing you to benefit from the advantages of a packet managing system without having to rely only on the curated repositories.
- ashishgandhi 15y ago
  Lock-down? Open? If by open you mean extensible, that's what all those APIs are for. If by open you mean open source, that's a different debate all together - an easy argument against it would be Linux. If by open you mean where you can take the battery out and put in SD cards - I have a Nexus One and I've never done those things on it, although I could, but never had to take the battery out (and do what?). And no I don't have an iPhone or any other phone that I use. If by open you mean access to Apple's repo (App Store) against Apple's will, then well, that's not what I can say much about. (Jailbreak. If you say not many people do that and it shrinks your market, probably many people don't feel the need to do it. I don't think they don't know about it because it's been in the news so much.) If by open your mean something else, I would genuinely like to know.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > Lock-down? Open? Linux doesn't have the concept of 'jailbreak'. That's what I mean.
- cageface 15y ago
  To be fair though, the quality of almost all of the end-user software available via apt-get is far below that of the iOS or Mac app store. Developers and users have voted with their wallets for Apple's model. Ideologically I'd prefer that this were not the case but it's hard to argue with the numbers.
  - 15y ago
adabsurdo 15y ago
jailbreaking is indeed a way to get around the apple store, but how many people do this? Must be a tiny fraction of the market. I would like to know of a company that has made serious money targeting it. there are a whole bunch of apps that you are either not seeing at all (eg, anything that involves shopping), or are seriously crippled through removal of the subscription / buy button: think kindle, netflix, etc. these guys are ok, because they are already established, but what happens if you are just starting up? what happens if/when the web has become a backwater that people just don't want to use anymore, and there's no easy way to make them subscribe to your service? note also how the 30% cut that apple takes from transactions gives their own alternatives a huge advantage to provide the same service.

Argorak 15y ago

Never? I would argue that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft actually made that model popular - on their consoles. They just never managed to push it into the rest of the consumer space.