8 ms·

It always makes me sigh when I read stories like this. For decades Microsoft was bashed for offering up a closed system, yet the reality was Microsoft would le

by jussij 13y ago

It always makes me sigh when I read stories like this. For decades Microsoft was bashed for offering up a closed system, yet the reality was Microsoft would let you sell any type of software for Windows and they couldn't care less. Then along comes Apple with it's tightly closed, highly controlled platform and no one raises a murmur, but rather everyone seems to celebrate the idea. Watching on are the rest of the big players and they see how successful Apple has been, so they all start madly creating their own closed systems. The reality is none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system, but thanks to the success of Apple, those days are now gone :( Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates.

hipsterdouche 13y ago
What you said made 100% sense. However, it goes against the core values of the iphone-ipad-ishit-toting cat-gif-downloading html-programming black-rim-glasses-sporting self-described-nerd social-hacking steve-jobs-worshipping nauseating douchebags that infect "hacker" news like a plague.
Fomite 13y ago
You have an interesting definition of "no one raises a murmur".
- harlanlewis 13y ago
  For true. People have made noise about this since before OS X 10.2 Sherlocked Watson.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  When even the people who ought to care - the techies that know better - buy into it, I think it's fair to characterize an overall sense of acceptance.
  - shinratdr 13y ago
    Which isn't anywhere close to "without a murmur". People bitched for literally YEARS before caving.
    - gtirloni 13y ago
      People throw out their privacy for the ability to share cat pictures. I'm not surprised they would move from a bad platform (M$) to a worse one (Apple) because of shiny graphics.
enjo 13y ago
How is Android a "closed system" in this context?
- barredo 13y ago
  Google decides what goes and what does not in Google Play. It's not the only way to install things in Android. But technically, neither is the AppStore in iOS.
  - jsolson 13y ago
    Ok, but the barrier to putting other apps on an Android device is a good deal lower than on iOS. Typically just changing a setting. Hell, as Amazon has demonstrated, you can release entire other App Stores in this manner.
- mrmekon 13y ago
  1. The general public won't install an APK outside of an "App Store" equivalent 2. https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html 3. Many of the devices are locked and can't be rooted
  - mquander 13y ago
    You don't need root to install arbitrary APKs, and I don't understand #1. How is this any different from, e.g. apt-get? It's just a mechanism for easily obtaining and updating some vetted packages.
    - noodle 13y ago
      99%+ of people willing to pay money for software have no idea what an APK is, what apt-get is, etc.. "App stores" serve a purpose. They are software catalogs for the general public, and the vast majority of the time if your app isn't in one of the major app stores it means it won't get purchased/downloaded.
michaelwww 13y ago
> Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates. Not if FireFoxOS gets enough support http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/partners/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/partners/
- TylerE 13y ago
  Yes, and if Diaspora replaces Facebook. Fat chance.
  - michaelwww 13y ago
    About as much chance as Facebook replacing MySpace
    - eropple 13y ago
      No, it really isn't. Facebook offered something that users want that MySpace didn't. Diaspora offers nothing that users--not privacy advocates, users--want.
      - michaelwww 13y ago
        I was referring to FireFox OS competing with iOS or Android. It's a long shot. I don't know anything about Diaspora -- Facebook will probably do a FF OS version.
        eropple 13y ago
        I realize what you were referring to. What does FirefoxOS provide that users want?
        michaelwww 13y ago
        It offers a solution to the problem indicated in the post. FireFox OS users can install apps without going through a store. The only thing that Mozilla will maintain control over are apps that use the phone portion of the device.
alanthonyc 13y ago
Of all the criticisms of the Windows platform I recall, I don't remember anyone complaining it was "closed system". In fact, the opposite problem made it a haven for malware and viruses.
- reedlaw 13y ago
  Did you never hear of the Free Software movement? The closed, or non-free nature of Windows was one of the prime motivators for lots of open source projects. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    What was closed about Windows was the source code for the kernel as well as libraries and APIs. As a very strong supporter of Free Software, this was a huge part of what I railed (and still rail) against. In terms of the ability to run random bits of code on it, Windows was highly open. Perhaps too open when you take into account not only malware, viruses, and spyware, but the various crapware/bloatware OEMs would pile onto their Windows preloads. Arguably some Linux distros, with their comprehensive archives, though with rules for what could or couldn't be installed (based on licensing requirements) were more "locked down", though in truth you're more than open to install third party from sources, as binaries, or any other means you care. In practice, I prefer sticking largely to my distro's own archives and installation tools, precisely because the software is both more vetted and generally behaves far better. So, no, your criticism really isn't valid.
- dnautics 13y ago
  it was a closed system... I remember my dad shelling out $500 for MS Visual basic for me, and then $500 for MSVC++. Visual basic was fun, but I didn't do anything with it. I never got past MFC in VC++ and I wound up using borland's C++ instead for my science fair project. Now, I can put ubuntu linux on my machine - for free (or in my case, preloaded from DELL at a discount over windows) and get a million different toolchains with free documentation online.
craigyk 13y ago
You have a funny definition of "none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system" when MS was known to not just one-up third-party apps with built-ins, but to do so without actually ever producing said software (vaporware).
- jussij 13y ago
  I can't recall a single application Microsoft banned from being run/sold for the Windows platform. Can the same be said for Apple? That's the issue I'm referring to.
  - sbuk 13y ago
    Yes, it absolutely can. Apple may well have rejected software from their Mac App Store, but that doesn't stop an individual from installing any software on the platform. For Windows Phone, Microsoft have similar rules to Apple for their Windows Phone Store.
    - jussij 13y ago
      > Microsoft have similar rules to Apple for their Windows Phone Store. Only because Microsoft learnt from Apple's success and have moved away from their earlier open Windows model to their new Apple like closed Windows model.
mhw 13y ago
> Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates. Same as it ever was... Through the 90s and the early part of the 2000s, Microsoft had enough control of the market that it could often kill other vendor's products (or proposed products) simply by announcing that it was going to produce something in the same area of the market. So although the system was technically open, economically the market was controlled: there was only one platform that mattered at the time (Windows) and the prevailing view of the tech press, business buyers and consumers was that Microsoft produced the best software for Windows. So if Microsoft announced it was going to ship something in the future the general consensus was generally that the best decision was to wait and see what Microsoft shipped. It's fanciful to suggest there weren't issues with the old style Windows software market.
- fauigerzigerk 13y ago
  But you were allowed to compete and many did that very successfully. Having powerful competitors is fine, but having competitors who can legally block your access to the market is bad for everyone.
workbench 13y ago
Microsoft didn't handle payments, discovery or customer credit cards though… Hardly the same
mhartl 13y ago
*its

by jussij 13y ago

hipsterdouche 13y ago

What you said made 100% sense. However, it goes against the core values of the iphone-ipad-ishit-toting cat-gif-downloading html-programming black-rim-glasses-sporting self-described-nerd social-hacking steve-jobs-worshipping nauseating douchebags that infect "hacker" news like a plague.

Fomite 13y ago

You have an interesting definition of "no one raises a murmur".

harlanlewis 13y ago
For true. People have made noise about this since before OS X 10.2 Sherlocked Watson.
drivebyacct2 13y ago
When even the people who ought to care - the techies that know better - buy into it, I think it's fair to characterize an overall sense of acceptance.
- shinratdr 13y ago
  Which isn't anywhere close to "without a murmur". People bitched for literally YEARS before caving.
  - gtirloni 13y ago
    People throw out their privacy for the ability to share cat pictures. I'm not surprised they would move from a bad platform (M$) to a worse one (Apple) because of shiny graphics.

enjo 13y ago

How is Android a "closed system" in this context?

barredo 13y ago
Google decides what goes and what does not in Google Play. It's not the only way to install things in Android. But technically, neither is the AppStore in iOS.
- jsolson 13y ago
  Ok, but the barrier to putting other apps on an Android device is a good deal lower than on iOS. Typically just changing a setting. Hell, as Amazon has demonstrated, you can release entire other App Stores in this manner.
mrmekon 13y ago
1. The general public won't install an APK outside of an "App Store" equivalent 2. https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html 3. Many of the devices are locked and can't be rooted
- mquander 13y ago
  You don't need root to install arbitrary APKs, and I don't understand #1. How is this any different from, e.g. apt-get? It's just a mechanism for easily obtaining and updating some vetted packages.
  - noodle 13y ago
    99%+ of people willing to pay money for software have no idea what an APK is, what apt-get is, etc.. "App stores" serve a purpose. They are software catalogs for the general public, and the vast majority of the time if your app isn't in one of the major app stores it means it won't get purchased/downloaded.

michaelwww 13y ago

> Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates. Not if FireFoxOS gets enough support http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/partners/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/partners/

TylerE 13y ago
Yes, and if Diaspora replaces Facebook. Fat chance.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  About as much chance as Facebook replacing MySpace
  - eropple 13y ago
    No, it really isn't. Facebook offered something that users want that MySpace didn't. Diaspora offers nothing that users--not privacy advocates, users--want.
    - michaelwww 13y ago
      I was referring to FireFox OS competing with iOS or Android. It's a long shot. I don't know anything about Diaspora -- Facebook will probably do a FF OS version.
      - eropple 13y ago
        I realize what you were referring to. What does FirefoxOS provide that users want?
        michaelwww 13y ago
        It offers a solution to the problem indicated in the post. FireFox OS users can install apps without going through a store. The only thing that Mozilla will maintain control over are apps that use the phone portion of the device.

alanthonyc 13y ago

Of all the criticisms of the Windows platform I recall, I don't remember anyone complaining it was "closed system". In fact, the opposite problem made it a haven for malware and viruses.

reedlaw 13y ago
Did you never hear of the Free Software movement? The closed, or non-free nature of Windows was one of the prime motivators for lots of open source projects. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  What was closed about Windows was the source code for the kernel as well as libraries and APIs. As a very strong supporter of Free Software, this was a huge part of what I railed (and still rail) against. In terms of the ability to run random bits of code on it, Windows was highly open. Perhaps too open when you take into account not only malware, viruses, and spyware, but the various crapware/bloatware OEMs would pile onto their Windows preloads. Arguably some Linux distros, with their comprehensive archives, though with rules for what could or couldn't be installed (based on licensing requirements) were more "locked down", though in truth you're more than open to install third party from sources, as binaries, or any other means you care. In practice, I prefer sticking largely to my distro's own archives and installation tools, precisely because the software is both more vetted and generally behaves far better. So, no, your criticism really isn't valid.
dnautics 13y ago
it was a closed system... I remember my dad shelling out $500 for MS Visual basic for me, and then $500 for MSVC++. Visual basic was fun, but I didn't do anything with it. I never got past MFC in VC++ and I wound up using borland's C++ instead for my science fair project. Now, I can put ubuntu linux on my machine - for free (or in my case, preloaded from DELL at a discount over windows) and get a million different toolchains with free documentation online.

craigyk 13y ago

You have a funny definition of "none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system" when MS was known to not just one-up third-party apps with built-ins, but to do so without actually ever producing said software (vaporware).

jussij 13y ago
I can't recall a single application Microsoft banned from being run/sold for the Windows platform. Can the same be said for Apple? That's the issue I'm referring to.
- sbuk 13y ago
  Yes, it absolutely can. Apple may well have rejected software from their Mac App Store, but that doesn't stop an individual from installing any software on the platform. For Windows Phone, Microsoft have similar rules to Apple for their Windows Phone Store.
  - jussij 13y ago
    > Microsoft have similar rules to Apple for their Windows Phone Store. Only because Microsoft learnt from Apple's success and have moved away from their earlier open Windows model to their new Apple like closed Windows model.

mhw 13y ago

> Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates. Same as it ever was... Through the 90s and the early part of the 2000s, Microsoft had enough control of the market that it could often kill other vendor's products (or proposed products) simply by announcing that it was going to produce something in the same area of the market. So although the system was technically open, economically the market was controlled: there was only one platform that mattered at the time (Windows) and the prevailing view of the tech press, business buyers and consumers was that Microsoft produced the best software for Windows. So if Microsoft announced it was going to ship something in the future the general consensus was generally that the best decision was to wait and see what Microsoft shipped. It's fanciful to suggest there weren't issues with the old style Windows software market.

fauigerzigerk 13y ago
But you were allowed to compete and many did that very successfully. Having powerful competitors is fine, but having competitors who can legally block your access to the market is bad for everyone.

workbench 13y ago

Microsoft didn't handle payments, discovery or customer credit cards though… Hardly the same

mhartl 13y ago

*its