Hacker News Reader

Comment by jussij | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

For true. People have made noise about this since before OS X 10.2 Sherlocked Watson.

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.

Which isn't anywhere close to "without a murmur". People bitched for literally YEARS before caving.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

You are conflating, "Closed" with "Wide Availability of zero-cost toolchains."

Windows was as open as open can get, in the sense of, "Do I need to ask anyone's permissions to create, install, and sell a binary for this platform?"

a fair criticism. It was de facto closed. Keep in mind during the 90s, the internet was limited (for quite a bit of that time I didn't even have a 2400 baud modem). It wasn't until my second year in college that my friend introduced me to linux, and I still didn't actively start using linux until 2006-ish (I spent 1999-2003 in BeOS and 2004-2006 in FreeBSD)

i guess the part of my complaint that had the most to do with 'closed' was the MFC/developer licensing part. I knew enough to know there were APIs lying underneath that weren't exposed to me that I could do awesome stuff with if I was able to see it. At least with BeOS it "felt" like the most important part of the API were exposed - and with linux I know that they are in principle, even though I never use them.

There are plenty of free and open source toolchains and languages for Windows... in particular the same ones available on your Ubuntu installation (gcc, openjdk, python, etc.).

Microsoft sells and supports development toolkits, and they happen to be better than a lot of the free ones. I bought PyCharm for Linux -- that doesn't make it closed.

The only thing closed about Windows is the kernel source (and even that isn't that closed, start your reading here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963901).

true enough, but we're talking about the late 90s here.

Perhaps you're not understanding the parent's use of "closed system"? It means a proprietary environment with no access to the underlying source code.

> Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates.

Not if FireFoxOS gets enough support

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/partners/

Yes, and if Diaspora replaces Facebook. Fat chance.

About as much chance as Facebook replacing MySpace

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.

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.

I realize what you were referring to. What does FirefoxOS provide that users want?

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.

Which can already be done on Android with zero problems--and which statistically-nobody cares about.

Because when you think about it installing the app not from app store is the problem, not the other way around.

Not nothing. It offers aspects, which allow you to group your friends into different categories so you can easily choose who to share what content with. Google found them useful -- at least enough to rename them circles...

This is a very weak feature to be touting as a reason to move...

Aspects were not the feature they touted as the reason to move. That would be decentralization. But the parent post said there were literally no features besides privacy, and I wanted to point out that that isn't strictly true.

Especially as you can share with self-defined groups in FB.

What was the chance of FFx browser winning the browser race, when more than 95% computers already had IE pre-installed?

With FFxOS, web designer and developers can leverage their web design & development skills. All system calls are exposed via javascript API (aka open Web APIs). See more details here (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_OS)

  > What was the chance of FFx browser winning the browser
  > race, when more than 95% computers already had IE pre-
  > installed?

Pretty good, because IE development has stopped and the team deisbandled. The situation in mobile OS market is nothing like that.

Yes.

It wasn't so much that FF was good (although it was), but that IE sucked so unbelievably hard. The difference made the switch a given for anyone with a passing understanding of computers.

Firefox OS ? You mean that OS that basically doesn't allow to do anything at all outside of a browser?

Mozilla has ranted about Microsoft restrictions preventing them from making a decent competing browser in WP8. Well, go make a competing browser in FFOS...

Mozilla has tricked everybody into thinking "Web technologies" meant "open", but this is absolutely not true.

Oh, but maybe it will at least solve distribution of apps you can make? Because, you know, everybody knows there will be no distinctions between apps installed from their store and other places, right?

Yeah... Let me tell you how it actually works. Mozilla has finally figured that mobile security is hard, so they have decided to have permissions. There are two kinds of permissions. The first one is those that they think users can understand (for instance "use the camera"). For them, the device asks the user if they grant them, problem solved.

And then there is the second kind of permissions, those that they think are too hard to explain to the average user. For instance, "make a request to another domain" (systemXHR). For those your app has to be in their app store and validated by Mozilla. Does that ring a bell?

So no, Firefox OS is definitely not the answer. Android way is better on that front, actually. Another interesting project could be Sailfish.

> 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

3. Many of the devices are locked and can't be rooted

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.

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.

What is your preferred alternative?

Anyone who wants to install a non-Play Store app, can. If you're someone looking at a piece of software on the internet, the application's website can easily offer you instructions on how to download and install their software. This is exactly how Windows has always operated.

A perfect example of this working well on Android is the Amazon Appstore. Disregarding for a second the meta-ness of it being another app market, they do a great job of explaining to the average user how to download their software (by pushing it to them through email, text, etc.), "allow non-Market applications" and install the APK. Sure, not every user is capable of doing this, but I think anyone who has helped non-technical family can attest to the fact that the same is true on Windows.

Please note that I didn't say "Play", I said "app store" and my parent said "app store equivalent". Amazon Appstore falls under both umbrellas.

True, but I think you're missing the point that competition between app stores can mitigate the worst aspects of the app store model.

That is a very valid point, but it is not the point that was brought up in this thread.

The general public doesn't know how to side-load, just as they have no idea what apt-get is. Being blocked from the market is a sufficient barrier to effectively kill an app from broad distribution.

Which applies to any centralized 'marketplace' for apps that's popular enough; whether that's Apple's App Store, Google Play, Valve's Steam, or Ubuntu's Software Center (and all other linux package managers for that matter). So, I'm not entirely sure what the argument is here...? If people wan't to define that as 'closed', that's cool, conceptually I could see how that makes sense. But again, I never hear that term being used to describe Linux package managers like I mentioned above, so I'm not sure what the distinction might be between them and something as lenient for acceptance as the Play store. Is it the 'killswitch' that makes a system closed or what?

Windows never had a repository system so devs had to advertise and distribute their .exe's independently, giving the ecosystem that feel of 'open-ness'. But the second you have a semi-curated centralized repository system available like on Ubuntu or Android, the system becomes 'closed' because it effectively creates this 'barrier' you mentioned due to the new convenience. So is there no middle-ground here?

Yes but you can create your own App Store, and people do. There is nothing stopping new ones popping up if the Play Store starts rejecting a lot of apps.

Re 1: In the case of the general public, I don't see this as such a bad thing -- so long as the app store is free of malware. The point is that they can sideload apps if they desire to do so.

Re 3: Sad, yes, but it doesn't prevent sideloading as far as I know.

people are not stupid , if you tell them they can have stuffs for free outside the app store they will. People have softs to sync phones and desktop folders, dont worry, they know what is a apk.

> 1. The general public won't install an APK outside of an "App Store" equivalent

Oh Please. It doesn't mean the general public _cannot_ do it. And you don't even have to be a root.

But why should they need to?

The general public won't install an APK outside of an "App Store" equivalent

True as this may be, it's also not as bad as it sounds. Take a look at what Humble Bundle did -- a very lightweight appstore-like thing, with very clear instructions for installing it once. They seem to have done okay with that.

For starters, you have to be in the US or a select few other 1st world countries to be able to publish in the Play store.

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).

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.

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.

> 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.

*its

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

Hardly the same

Reply on news.ycombinator.com