6 ms·

They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good. I've spent 20 years playing t

They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good. I've spent 20 years playing tech support to friends and family who have accidentally fubar'd their open computing devices. IME that has done far more to convince folks that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good moreso than anything Apple's done. The conflict is framed as "open" vs "closed" but once someone can do "open done right for non-techies" that's where the industry will go.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
goblin89 15y ago
Totally agree. I used to think that yes, Apple makes neat things, but it's still evil because it locks us down. But consider, for example, how trivial it is to install OS X on a PC. There certainly are many ways Apple could go to prevent that, but they don't and will even give away updates for such installations. This makes me think that Apple has consciously made its top priority delivering the smooth experience and working device/software. For that, Apple chose to sacrifice breadth for the sake of depth—focusing on fewer use cases, but better working them through. This means fewer features and poorer extensibility. We tend to perceive that as restrictions, but it limits the non-technical users' ability to shoot themselves in the foot, and allows for better quality.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  True to a point, although I think this is a but of a false dichotomy. I'm not 100% sure having to do slightly less tech support is really worth the cost of giving one company complete control of our computing experiences anyway. For years the most common cause of people's computer issues was a combination of the terrible security or MS operating systems circa Windows 95 - XP and overly complex programs with badly designed UIs. I'm sure it is possible to create a platform where one can install whatever software you like but not run a huge risk of malware. For example you can run applications in a sandbox which will stop them from damaging the system. Applications would then only be able to break out by exploiting the OS itself, so you build it on top of something like OpenBSD.
  - goblin89 15y ago
    So you can avoid security problems without complete control, but you also mentioned the UI, and it is just one part of the overall experience. E.g., today most people don't really differentiate parts of their experience defined by the OS from those defined by application makers. So you have to control the ways your users install software, if you want users to not hate your product because of some crappy app. To be honest, I doubt that without such complete control there would exist a computer / tablet I could recommend to, say, my non-technical mother, and be more or less sure that she won't hate all computer-related things afterwards.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

goblin89 15y ago

Totally agree. I used to think that yes, Apple makes neat things, but it's still evil because it locks us down. But consider, for example, how trivial it is to install OS X on a PC. There certainly are many ways Apple could go to prevent that, but they don't and will even give away updates for such installations. This makes me think that Apple has consciously made its top priority delivering the smooth experience and working device/software. For that, Apple chose to sacrifice breadth for the sake of depth—focusing on fewer use cases, but better working them through. This means fewer features and poorer extensibility. We tend to perceive that as restrictions, but it limits the non-technical users' ability to shoot themselves in the foot, and allows for better quality.

jiggy2011 15y ago
True to a point, although I think this is a but of a false dichotomy. I'm not 100% sure having to do slightly less tech support is really worth the cost of giving one company complete control of our computing experiences anyway. For years the most common cause of people's computer issues was a combination of the terrible security or MS operating systems circa Windows 95 - XP and overly complex programs with badly designed UIs. I'm sure it is possible to create a platform where one can install whatever software you like but not run a huge risk of malware. For example you can run applications in a sandbox which will stop them from damaging the system. Applications would then only be able to break out by exploiting the OS itself, so you build it on top of something like OpenBSD.
- goblin89 15y ago
  So you can avoid security problems without complete control, but you also mentioned the UI, and it is just one part of the overall experience. E.g., today most people don't really differentiate parts of their experience defined by the OS from those defined by application makers. So you have to control the ways your users install software, if you want users to not hate your product because of some crappy app. To be honest, I doubt that without such complete control there would exist a computer / tablet I could recommend to, say, my non-technical mother, and be more or less sure that she won't hate all computer-related things afterwards.