Why Microsoft Shouldn't Copy Apple's iOS Walled Garden 244
Kethinov writes "Will the computers of the future be tools for freedom or for censorship? An insightful Ars editorial examines this question in depth, concluding that Apple's walled garden approach to iOS is fundamentally flawed and thus Microsoft should reconsider their plans to apply the same model to WinRT. The authors are careful to present a nuanced analysis that adequately weighs the competing interests of security, convenience, and user freedom, ultimately concluding that Mac OS X and Android offer better models because while their walled gardens are on by default, they offer supported mechanisms to opt-out if desired, thereby offering users the same security and convenience benefits without sacrificing user freedom in the process."
A similar article by software engineer Casey Muratori looks at the effect Windows 8's closed distribution system will have on game development. The restrictions involved in getting approval for the Windows Store would preclude 2011's game of the year, Skyrim, from appearing there, as well as 2012's top candidates. The requirements contain clauses that would cut out huge swathes of the video game industry, like this one: "Your app must not contain content or functionality that encourages, facilitates, or glamorizes illegal activity."
The only thing Windows needs to do (Score:4, Interesting)
Viruses can't do a whole lot if they can't get to system files, can't modify anything but themselves.
Windows would suddenly catch up with this whole Internet fad if they secured their OS from viruses finally.
Sure allow trusted legacy aps an option to be run, but aps for the future should be basically sandboxed.
I believe if Microsoft made their OS secure against viruses, they'd actually be a step ahead of Apple. The main old reason Apple doesn't have a lot of viruses is that it had a lower market share for a long time.
Catch 22 (Score:5, Interesting)
If I read the passages about why Steve Jobs was against Apps in the first place, he had the fear that it could lead to tainting the user friendly experience in which they invested a lot. Which I think - after seeing my share of bad designed software - was a valid fear.
I have an Android smartphone as I find iPhones ridiculous expensive. But if I look at the quality difference between what is available in the Google Play store on my smartphone & the iOS store on my iPad, there is a difference. And I do - personally - think that this is because Apple does run a very strict ship in guidelines, how an app should work, what you expect as behavior, etc. I don't think it is because iOS developers are so much more talented then their android counterparts.
This may come over as a nightmare for those who like to tinker or loves freedom to design or develop an app like they want it, but reality is that when it comes in designing good and consequent interfaces, 90% of the developers can't do it even if their live depended on it. Give them to much room and you really get some of the horrendous software available on the Google play store. Sometimes I find it a pity that Google doesn't enforce some basic guidelines because it is the only way some developers would put some sense in what they are developing.
So no is not the iOS concept that is flawed, it is that stubborn idea that a lot of techies have that they have the same needs or mindset as the general public.
Re:This is what Microsoft wants (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I agree but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The only thing Windows needs to do (Score:4, Interesting)
The registry was an abortion from the first day it came out. I can't really think of any benefit of having it over .ini files.
Apps are free to do whatever they want including writing .ini files... that soo many have chosen to use the registry for configuration should speak for itself.
I can think of several possible advantages:
Central configuration store with a common access experience for all applications. .ini files...xml files...binary files...
Configuration store is automatically safe against concurrent access..try rewriting a .ini file by multiple apps at the same time and let me know how it goes. Today bulk registry operations can be fully transactional thanks to windows KTM.
Security ACLs per entry. .ini file security as far as the operating system is concerned is for the whole file.
Common set of tools "regedit" to modify, backup, monitor, restore and search configuration across participating apps.
I love classic centrally controlled systems and I love compartmentalized jails where all configuration and file access is localized. There is no right answer only the best tool for the job at hand after careful consideration of competing tradeoffs.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is what Microsoft wants (Score:3, Interesting)
The other XBox precedent is tying. They bought up Bungie and Halo which was going to be Mac and PC and made it XBox exclusive at a point when Halo was likely to be smash hit and the XBox's viability was still in doubt. So Halo essentially made the XBox a viable console.
Admittedly they did release a PC version a year later, but a year old video game is like reheated lunch. Halo 2 was a Vista exclusive and was released two years after the Xbox version.
In fact this is an amusing example of how tying is self defeating. Halo 2 was tied to the XBox initially. By that point the XBox was going to be a success with or without tying. Still they kept Halo 2 XBox only for two years. Vista was at that point in serious trouble with poor reviews and low uptake. Halo 2 was then tweaked to be Direct X 10 only, which meant Vista only. But a two year old videogame (and Halo 2 was dated graphically even when it was released, so it never really needed Direct X 10) wasn't going to make Vista a success. It sold so poorly it was used as an excuse for Halo 3 to be XBox only.
So you wonder how long before Skype becomes Windows Phone only. Of course Skype has been getting worse for years so in practice all that means is that people will move to whatever Google's solution for video chatting is. And the thing is that given Windows Phone 7's poor market share and lack of support for C++, there was no chance that Skype would have supported it without being bought by Microsoft. WP8 does support native code, but it still seems like it will have poor market share and a lack of apps. That means the platform has a sort of chicken and egg problem as low market share discourages app development but a poor selection of apps discourages customers.
Now people will say that Android had the same sort of problems. That's true but Android was competing against Symbian which was already dying and iOS which was always going to be a premium and Apple exclusive brand, not a mass market one that was licensed to everyone. So HTC, Samsung et al didn't really have a choice between iOS and Android. Rather they had a choice between Symbian and Android. Google could win that. Also Google got a Native SDK out relatively quickly and that meant that cross platform stuff that uses native libraries got ported over.
WP7 never had native code and never will. WP8 will, but it completely replaces the WP7 ecosystem with an incompatible one. Announcing it means that people will drop WP7 development like a hot potato.
tl;dr - Microsoft are fucked here. Incidentally it's sort of funny that back when Vista was released I remember reading here that it would mean people would flee to Linux and I point out the reasons that would not happen. I.e. the consensus seemed to be that MS was in deep trouble. Now, curiously, when I point out that MS is in deep trouble over mobile the consensus seems to be that they are not.
Of course MS brought out Windows 7 which is as good as XP and its Vista woes subsided. And MS never really lost market share on the desktop - it has always had ~90% of the market. On mobile its market share peaked with Windows Mobile at about 12%. It has now dropped below 1%. I.e. on mobile it has Linux like market shares. Apple and Google are the ones with 90% market share. Most apps seem to launch on iOS and Android and not on Windows Phone. There is no real sign that their customers are likely to move en masse for a platform with far less applications.