IPhone Apps: Why closed is better
uxhero.com
uxhero.com
* Operating System
* Web Browser
* Plugins
* Resolution
* Input
* Connectivity
* Libraries
The rapid spread of platforms over the last ten years has really fucked developers. We have to spend 50% of our time making sure the product works on 3 different Operating Systems OR 5 different web browsers.
Desktop/laptop computing has come to bite us in the ass.
It's more like 2 different web browsers. IE, and everything else.
In the late '80s, a popular game was commonly ported to half a dozen platforms: Amiga, Atari ST, Apple II, Commodore 64, PC+EGA, PC+VGA -- sometimes even Sinclair and MSX. Even the hardware was usually completely different between systems, e.g. the powerful custom graphics and audio chips on the Amiga.
In the '90s, a cross-platform desktop application like Netscape would have to run on a range of very different systems: Windows 3.1 (16-bit), Windows 95 (32-bit with new UI), Windows NT (32-bit with old UI), Mac OS 7 (32-bit with no memory protection), Solaris, Linux, AIX, HP/UX...
In comparison, Windows 7, Mac OS X and modern Linux are basically the same. It's easy to write cross-platform C applications using mostly UNIX APIs and deploy them on Windows using MinGW and a couple of lightweight libraries like pthread-win32. For cross-platform GUI applications, the Qt framework is available pretty much everywhere, even phones.
This is pretty amazing. Essentially everything has become "UNIX-like" nowadays -- even the smartphone stalwart Symbian has given up trying to pretend it's something else.
Eating all meals at McDonalds does harm you.
I know how to think. Thanks all the same.
Closed vs Open is a techno-religious argument. There are intellectual merits to both sides of the argument, but ultimately people choose what aligns with their ideals and beliefs.
What was the success of Microsoft in the 80s and 90s? I believe it was that they had an open system. They reached the critical mass, by letting everyone in.
Today, being open is their fallacy, as it is hard for Microsoft to bring all their 3rd party programs into line. (Into line refers to interface, security, and other standards)
To be successful a closed system, it must fulfill one point: It must have exceeded a critical mass of users.
I guess open is better when you can't rely on a multi-billion marketing budget.
>Closed systems like the iPhone allow for programs perfectly customized for the hardware
The closed nature of the platform doesn't help this at all. The fact there are only 5 iPhoneOS platforms, 4 of which are virtually spec identical (iPhone 2g, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs, iPodTouch[most different]), and now the iPad makes it easier to use fixed width layouts and screen mappings. The hardware variation between the handsets is only noticeable, not an impediment. However the fact all of them can run the latest iPhoneOS release means the platform is much more stable. The lack of fragmentation is what makes iPhone OS so powerful. If google makes it so all future phones have sufficent specs to handle all upgrades, then streamlines the upgrade process, then we're likely to see more inroads in android.
Android's biggest weakness is that each phone is on a different OS version (and there are vast differences between these versions). Some of the phones (notably the G1) aren't ever going to be upgradeable to the current latest version (as said by engineers) due to the small onboard memory. The capabilities of these different OSes are very large. It would be the difference between running iPhoneOS2.0 vs iPhone OS3.2 (the new one that's on the iPad).
Still I do believe a closed system is favorable for the user as long as the one who controls the system does a great job. I am thinking of a windows were one can only install software which does not mess up the system resources, or causes other harm. It would reduce the PC troubles for inexperienced users dramatically.
Wow, I guess it would take Apple to make Microsoft look open. "Closed Is The New Open"... "Cathedral Is The New Bazaar". Sigh.