I find this trend of platforms becoming walled gardens very unpleasant. The whole idea that some entity has control over what you can run on your own hardware just doesn't feel right --- and more so, the fact that most people seem to be completely fine with it.

Windows, and DOS before it, used to be very open. Anyone could just download a compiler and create a binary, then use it themselves or share with everyone else. In fact you could even use the built-in debugger (DEBUG) to write tiny assembly-language utilities, and computer magazines --- not even developer ones, but regular ones like PC Mag --- would publish source code listings. Advanced users were also programmers, but there was no real distinction.

Now it seems even getting started writing some sort of program for your own system requires going through a huge amount of bureaucracy and could involve payment. The customary way of installing software has been termed "sideloading" and recommended against. There is a rising wall between "users" and "developers", making it harder for the former to become the latter.

I suppose Linux is more open, but there is still the very noticeable centralisation of app-store-like repositories, the discouragement of installing software via other means, and the bureaucratic process of getting software into those repositories.

Ostensibly, the whole reason for this is security, but it's easy to see other motivations. The idea that almost all users are completely stupid idiots who can't decide for themselves, and effectively locking them up so they can't do anything, is horrible for the continued advancement of computer literacy.

Certainly before and outside of these closed platforms there is malware and other threats, but there is also something closed platforms don't have, and which I think is also very important --- freedom.

Relevant story: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html