Hacker News Reader

Comment by thetabyte | Hacker News Reader

What people here aren't getting with the references to XBox and iOS is that Notch's objections aren't to closed platforms. He objects to PCs as closed platforms. Minecraft was originally an indie game developed for PCs due to their open ecosystem. It was only able to reach closed markets like iOS and XBox because of its success as a side project on an open platform. Notch strongly believes that the computer should stay a bastion of openness in order to sustain a indie game community--indeed, the majority of my own games I play today are small, independent games that provide a unique experience that I would hate to lose due to higher barriers to entry.

View on HN

How would the existence of Windows 8 stopped the creation of Minecraft? He still could have developed with it (there's the desktop). He could have deployed his app, had it certified, etc... There doesn't seem to be anything that openness would have provided him.

Open platforms are good for a few classes of devs:

1) Devs at competing companies. Closed platforms make it easier for one company to shut out a competitor.

2) Malware creators.

3) HW tinkerers. This is probably the class I have the most empathy for. With that said Win8 has a complete desktop mode fully available for tinkering.

There is no way to do a truly large scale beta on iOS. Your options are to release it to a select group, or go though the review process are release to everyone. That's not to say all Closed platforms would have caused issues with Mincraft just some of them.

"had it certified"

Bam. I have no idea quite how intensive the review process is (I'm no Windows programmer, so the requirements don't mean much to me) but any additional barrier is something that holds back the finnicky and decentralized indie crowd. Not only will it present another technical barrier that they will have no interest in surpassing, but there will likely be a cultural and psychological backlash of having to certify their version 0 project with Microsoft. Not to mention how certification requirements would impact beta releases and feedback.

You have no experience dealing with a 3rd party that controls the marketplace.

Apple's behavior is not exceptional. It's how every monopolist behaves when they own the market. I dealt with the very same issues when I had my own business selling on eBay.

At the end of the day, when you have to move your product through someone's market, it's not your product, it's not your business, and those aren't your customers.

It's all theirs. Because if you do something they don't like, they will just turn you off ... or worse, they'll call you and tell you to change it.

> There doesn't seem to be anything that openness would have provided him.

It would have provided him the freedom of developing the product he wants, without compromise. It would have allowed him to take his vision directly to his customers. And nobody would be able to get in his way.

> With that said Win8 has a complete desktop mode fully available for tinkering.

Have you tried installing unsigned software on Windows 8? You get a huge window pretty much saying NO. Only after clicking on more info, do you get an option to override. I can only guess what will happen with Windows 9?

Signing the software is still different than getting it approved by Microsoft. I am guessing it's done by third party certificates?

I still don't understand what the concern is? The model you described is the app store model and though I partially agree with you the heavy handed behavior is only possible when you have a monopoly. I don't think Microsoft can afford that at this point.

> I still don't understand what the concern is?

Where do you buy your groceries? Do you go to a guy who sells tomatoes and then drive to the other side of town to get apples from a different guy?

Most of us just go to a market and buy all our groceries there.

Now tell me, Mr. Customer, what is the name of the guy who grows your tomatoes? What is the name of the farm? Do you consider yourself his customer or the customer of the market? If the tomatoes taste bad, who will you complain to?

Who are you loyal to? If the market starts buying tomatoes from a different guy ... will you shrug your shoulders and buy the new tomatoes ... or will you drive across town to get the original tomatoes?

I'm sure you see my point. The very same thing is happening to the software market.

Yes, we will make more money. But there is more to life than money!

We will no longer have any customers. We will become employees of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.

Mind you, not employees with benefits, no. Independent contractors who are "hired" and "fired" at whim.

Again, yes, we can all make more money. But if money is all we wanted, we would have chosen to work for the big boys to begin with!

This movement toward centralized markets is the fundamental reason I chose to go into web development and avoided app development like the plague. Each part of my stack is easily replaceable and my customers are my customers. I don't care if I make less money. I have the freedom to see my vision come to life and to see it being put to work by people I know and who know me.

Funny enough, the same push-back is happening in the food biz. The entire local food movement is based on a fairly similar desire.

>Funny enough, the same push-back is happening in the food biz. The entire local food movement is based on a fairly similar desire.

You do not have to go that far in your analogy. The music business is a great example of how more and more musicians are inclined to be "independent" of their monopolistic overlords.

At the end of the day, when you have to move your product through someone's market, it's not your product, it's not your business, and those aren't your customers.

It's all theirs. Because if you do something they don't like, they will just turn you off ... or worse, they'll call you and tell you to change it.

That can just as easily apply to the platform it was built on. Windows, OS X, or Android, can do this today if they were so inclined (well maybe not Windows due to anti-trust concerns -- but that has to do with market dominance, not openness).

What you're saying is that you must run on a full stack you completely build, from the foundary, CPU, on up (because Intel could break all Windows computers with firmware update if they were so inclined).

We've all built on something, giving away some degree of responsibility and ownership. Now maybe Notch's point is that this is where he draws the line. It seems like an odd place to draw it IMO, especially given how fast the game market tends to move (when was the last time someone asked you to play Words with Friends?).

But like I said before, more power to Notch wherever he goes. I'll miss not playing Minecraft as I move all my machines to Win8 (admittedly not much of a gamer though), but not for too long I'm sure.

Really, that's a complaint of yours? I actually which there was a setting to not let these install at all.

Android allows for third-party sources when installing software.

There are developers out there that distribute their software through other channels than Google Play. E.g. one of the Humble Indie Bundle that I bought had 4 Android games in it and distribution was through download links sent by email. And when publishing on Google Play, at least for now, there is no approval process.

And no, Windows and OS X cannot do this today, as long as installation of software from third-parties is still possible and your OS is not remotely controlled by them. Microsoft can't do anything today to ban an app on Windows. But it's increasingly clear that they want this capability.

For those of us familiar with the gaming industry since the nineties, we've experienced this same fight between PCs and gaming consoles and even though the PC wasn't a common household appliance until the mid nineties at least and even though the likes of Sega, Nintendo and later Sony looked poised to take over the world, most games were built for PCs first, because that's were the innovation was and because nobody could pull the rug from under your feet. Even the arguments were exactly the same as today - for consumers it was ease of use, no viruses/mallware and a better return on investment, while for developers it was the lack of piracy, promotion and a piece of a large pie where the competition was controlled.

And it's a pretty sad fact that this is precisely what Apple and now Microsoft are trying - the consolification of the PC. Well I for one do not think that consumers will buy into it. And I predict that Windows 8 will only have moderate success, while Windows 9 will be a total failure, just like Win Me and Windows Vista before it.

>Well I for one do not think that consumers will buy into it. And I predict that Windows 8 will only have moderate success, while Windows 9 will be a total failure, just like Win Me and Windows Vista before it

Perhaps Windows 8 and 9 may fail due to a multitude of reasons, but I don't think the inclusion of the app store from where one can safely download applications will be even a small reason for it. If anything, consumers will love it for that reason.

I'm not talking about the inclusion of an app store. I'm talking about the trend to make that app store the only distribution channel available.

iOS may have been a success, but that's only because it's good at what it does and because people don't need it to do much. Prior to smartphones, a phone was only good for making calls. And with tablets it's all good as long as it has a browser and some freebies.

The elephant in the room that nobody is talking about when speaking about closed platforms is ... piracy. Take away the ability of people to pirate stuff on their PC, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I agree. Piracy and porn and a long tail of other things. But I fear that 99% of the money to be made on software for consumers will be in the locked down part of the world. People who pay for stuff can be easily intimidated because they have something to lose.

" I'm talking about the trend to make that app store the only distribution channel available."

Indeed. I think Microsoft is retreating into an echo chamber. By making the app store the only practical way to distribute products, Microsoft is missing all the wild things that might catch on if they would only let them alone.

The browser comes to mind. Or the spreadsheet.

Just because android allows installing third-party softwares now doesn't mean it will remain like that forever. Remember when you could install chrome extensions the same way but now Google only allows you to install them from their store and the only other way is not so client friendly workaround?

This is true ; although Google has the disadvantage that they made Android open-source. This means in case the Google stewardship goes awry, companies and individuals will have the ability to fork.

This has happened before with other projects and Amazon has already forked Android just because they can. Also my Galaxy S came with an alternative, albeit shitty app store - which goes to show that phone makers are aware that they need some control over the platform.

I agree but it is ingenious of Google to tie their premium products around open-source that it becomes an inseparable feature. An android fork without the Marketplace, Maps, Siri like features just seems crippled (Amazon Kindle is an exception). Remember Google sent C&D to Cynogenmod a few months back forbidding them from including any of the apps above? Now think about convincing a handset manufacture to accept the fork or trying to teach a technologically impaired about rooting the phone and installing a fork. It may seem possible but sadly its not practical.

Today I noticed my chrome changed its icon from the wrench to the 3 bars, which atleast for now I find it hideous. However there is no easy way for me to fix it despite chrome being an open-source application (chromium - which I believe is not being actively developed anymore).

You're totally wrong about Chromium; the vast majority of Chrome functionality continues to be implemented in Chromium. You could fix it if you cared enough.

In addition, it's perfectly legal (and easy) to install the Google apps on Cyanogenmod or any other Android ROM yourself, so you're not missing out on anything by running it.

You should probably find some more compelling examples for your argument.

In this specific case, however, that is a highly relevant argument, as none of the mobile-specific parts of Chrome are available: you can't build Chromium for Android. Your snippiness thereby seems somewhat out of place.

That C&D was sent years not months ago. It doesn't mean that they can't use it only that they need to provide it as a separate package.

The ability to fork only exists in theory. In reality, Google already uses its dominant market position to prevent mobiles from being sold with non-blessed versions of android. The only ones who can realistically do anything to challenge this are the huge players like Amazon who can deliver their own hardware. That's not really 'open'.

I don't follow this. You say Google prevents the release of devices with non-blessed version of Android, but you then talk about Amazon who are in fact shipping a non-blessed version of Android right now. It's true that driver support for hardware doesn't make forking easy, but it is totally possible to fork Android and create a custom variant.

It's possible in the way that it's "possible" to compete with local ISPs - all you have to do is lay your own 50000 miles of cable! Well, Google, as a huge megacorp, actually has the resources to do this, but it hardly fosters a free and competitive environment.

Just because a company with a market cap in the hundreds of billions can do it doesn't mean it meets an average person's definition of "doable".

You can actually still install things from outside the store, but it's not as easy as clicking on it. With people clicking everything in browsers in general, this measure was sadly probably necessary.

If some gatekeeper standing between me and my customer has a veto on my product and sometimes even on my communications with my customer, calling it "some degree" of anything is an absurd euphemism. Particularly if there's only a handful of such gatekeepers world wide controlling entire industries.

> Really, that's a complaint of yours? I actually which there was a setting to not let these install at all.

That comment made me very sad :(

Frightening to think you are among a generation of computer users that doesn't view a platform on which anything can be installed as the default. I remind you just a few years ago, the idea of an OS vendor restricting software installation would have been confusing let alone normal as it is now.

  > Apple's behavior is not exceptional. It's how every
  > monopolist behaves when they own the market.

What is has to do with monopoly? Apple behaved the same way since the very beginning, I'd say it is even more relaxed now compared to few years ago.

> What is has to do with monopoly? Apple behaved the same way since the very beginning ...

Not true. How do I know? I was there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lutus

This is not to excuse what Apple has become, not by any means. But Apple wasn't always a cyber-octopus. I remember the idealism of a startup that briefly had a vast marketplace to itself.

Good for you. This still does not answer how Apple is a monopoly (which it is not), neither it makes fact that software for iOS was available only from AppStore since day one less a fact.

Maratd did not say Apple was a monopoly, he said Apple was a monopolist. Having the behavior of a thing and being the thing are two different things.

Technically, Apple is a Monopsony, in that they control the app store market. If you want to sell your app, you go through Apple, and they in turn sell it to their users.

The move by all the major vendors to control the market is great for the company (who wouldn't love to take 30% of every sale simply for being the middleman,) but it flies in the face of a free market economy, stifles innovation, creates barriers to entry, and encourages scammy behavior (I am rich app, "freemium" apps, paying for reviews, etc.)

Microsoft has no obligation to make their platform open, and as a business owner, I can't fault them for trying to leverage their platform to make money.

In this case, Microsoft came to Notch, so it's not like he set out to start a flame war, but I can't empathize with people who complain about operating systems being closed. The honest truth is that if you don't like it, and it's that important to you, then consider creating your own.

Of course I'm aware that this is not easy.

Wasn't there this big giant thing in the 90's where we decided that Microsoft did have to let other people develop for their OS?

> The honest truth is that if you don't like it, and it's that important to you, then consider creating your own.

That's a pretty good come back that you have here.

> I can only guess what will happen with Windows 9?

Don't major versions of Windows follow the same pattern as Star Trek movies? According to history, Windows 9 will be an acceptable release, and then Windows 10 will be ridiculous nonsense again.

Except they will do another marketing shift and it will surely be called something like "Windows Z" by then.

It's possible to have an open platform and keep malware out. It's possible to go as far as OS X-style sandboxing but allow certificate authentication by more than one CA.

But the track that Win and OS X are taking is to try and create monopolies and control the entire software experience. This is detrimental to the users as well as the developers; try to make a utility app that launches other apps, resizes windows, alters your network connections on a system-wide basis, or includes plugin functionality and put it in the App Store.

Trying to make an argument like "oh but users can change the settings and run untrusted apps" is just a huge cop-out because the average user is not going to do that ever.

I'm going to guess,

* Not being able to ship Minecraft in the Win8 store because it uses Java and Java doesn't (yet?) follow the rules required for the store. Store apps require you to use approved APIs, where as Java, being older, calls all kinds of stuff not allowed by store apps.

* Not being able to provide updates anytime you want as each update requires approval.

* Not being able to give away free copies of paid apps (need codes from MS)

* Not being able to bundle with other apps like the humble bundles as the store provides no way to bundle apps.

* Not being able to resell licenses (not sure if Minecraft supports that. If not they could decide to in the future. But not if they're in the Win8 store)

I'm sure others can list more things you can't do on the W8 store that you can do on an open platform.

None of this has anything to do with being certified. Certification basically verifies a publisher's identity and ensures users can do things like cleanly uninstall your program. For this, you get the have a link to your game or application in the Windows Store. Users can click on the link and download like normal. All the other stuff you said applies (may apply?) when Microsoft is hosting and distributing your app (Metro apps).

>here doesn't seem to be anything that openness would have provided him.

you are clearly not familiar with the history of minecraft, they have a long history, especially in the begging of pushing out features very rapidly, along with the bugfixes that inevitably come with rapid development, not to mention their recent weekly development builds anyone can run.

this kind of very rapid development/response was a big factor in the "viral" nature of minecraft, users could get excited about new features that might be comming tomorrow

How much of this would have been possible, while waiting for months for apple/etc approval?

not to mention the huge modding community that has grown up around minecraft, with virtually every multiplier server and most single player clients being heavily customized and modded.

That would be completely impossible under an iOS style system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com