Casey Muratori dissects the consequences of Windows 8’s closed distribution model. “But how realistic is the assumption that the Windows desktop will still be a usable computing platform in the future? And what would be the consequences were it to disappear, leaving Windows users with only the closed software ecosystem introduced in Windows 8? To answer these questions, this volume of Critical Detail examines the immediate and future effects of Microsoft’s current certification requirements, explores in depth what history predicts for the lifespan of the classic Windows desktop, and takes a pragmatic look at whether an open or closed ecosystem would be better for Microsoft as a company.” The section that details how none – none – of this year’s greatest games (or last year’s fantastic Skyrim) and only one of this year’s Emmy-nominated TV shows pass Microsoft’s rules sent chills down my spine.
If ever there was a time for ReactOS to get their house in order and their product polished this is it.
What the world needs right now is an open windows compatible OS
I’d very much love ReactOS to become a viable competitor to Windows, but sadly I can’t see how that could ever happen as the ReactOS guys are chasing a moving target and with fewer resources too. Not to mention that it’s harder to reverse engineer APIs than it is to design them from scratch.
And lets be honest, even the ReactOS devs managed to defy all odds and release a stable, production-ready OS. Microsoft would just sue the project into oblivion (it’s impossible to write a clone without trespassing on some design patents).
Realistically I think we only have two options if we want an open platform:
1/ either push developers into supporting Linux, users on to Linux, and Linux distribution developers into making the switch over less painful.
2/ or campaign for governments to step in, preventing Microsoft from closing their platform. Given the scope of Windows, there maybe an anti-competitive argument to be made.
Personally I think both of those options stink.
1/ As a full time Linux user myself, I respect that some people prefer Windows because it’s Windows. If they wanted to run Linux then like already would be doing so. So forcing them onto a platform they don’t want to run isn’t much better than forcing them into a closed ecosystem they didn’t want to be part of.
2/ The moment you’re relying on the government to competition, then you’ve already lost. Particularly if the government in question belongs to the US.
As an ex Amiga user I am used to working with the least worst option in order to have a future and do things.
If Linux by default becomes that least worst option then I will move to Linux.
And that is why ReactOS is based in Russia…though Microsoft might just employ the Russian Mafia instead…
Certainly chasing a moving target hasnt helped, but if Windows 7 is to be the last ‘good’ windows, then the task becomes a little easier as they would no longer need to chase beyond that point.
Still a daunting task I’m sure, but their goal always was.
Why do you think it is a moving target ?
It seems Microsoft wants this RT and .Net universe or whatever it is.
That means Win32 is legacy, but that also means development on that API has pretty much stopped.
Thus it isn’t a moving target anymore.
I for one am looking forward to Win32 becoming legacy and say goodbye to Hungarian notation (which Microsoft nowadays admits it was an error to make use of).
If that really becomes true, and Windows Runtime becomes available for desktop applications as well, that would mean that C++ would be the only way to do native applications with Microsoft Languages.
Adding to that, Microsoft’s stance on C support, this means C is pretty much dead on Windows, at least from Microsoft’s point of view.
Looking to the past, they may take as many years as they took to get rid of MS-DOS, CP/M, Win16, Win32s APIs though.
[q]Looking to the past, they may take as many years as they took to get rid of MS-DOS, CP/M, Win16, Win32s APIs though.[/q>]
Maybe more, but that does mean the development of the Win32 API will stall, which is a good thing for Win32 API support in ReactOS and WINE.
Actually, if you look at DOS, Microsoft stopped supporting it, but dosemu and dosbox seems to deliver pretty good compatibility.
Actually Win32 development of basic APIs has stalled quite considerably since Windows XP release.
Most new Win32 APIs introduced with and after Windows XP, are actually COM objects.
I don’t do Windows programming, I did dable a bit 10 years ago or something like that, it just seems like waste of time.
But what I meant is Win32 and COM together as they are both not WinRT. With Win32 I meant legacy APIs.
And yes I understand that WinRT is basically build on COM ideas.
Edited 2012-10-17 11:12 UTC
That’s a pretty grim potential future outcome, but if that happened, couldn’t the ReactOS project take the LAME stance? As in, “we’re providing instructions (source code) on how to make something… we’re not providing any actual patent-infringing software?” It might take a long time to compile and be an annoyance, but they could provide some package that automatically takes the code and builds it and then generates an ISO with it…
Okay, probably overkill, and maybe it wouldn’t work across operating systems unless a compiler and iso generator (ie. for Windows) is provided too, and in general it would be a major pain in the ass… but it’d be an interesting solution. One or more scripts would automatically compile and then make an ISO file. It’d be interesting, but probably not very effective (especially at getting the OS to the masses).
But the real solution, I think, would be to get every single ReactOS mirror the hell out of the United States and into a country where such ridiculous laws don’t exist anyway. Then, those people from other countries where patents don’t apply, they still get to download and use the OS and it doesn’t die. Meanwhile, those people in “restricted” areas can choose whether or not they want to break some stupid little law or not.
Edited 2012-10-17 16:44 UTC
XP has drivers, everything supports it, it isn’t complex.
It has security holes, but rewriting it should patch them. Then people like Steve Gibson and I will simply switch to that and leave the Windows Bitrot entirely.
Or there’s WINE under Linux
.
It will probably fail but be long and drawn-out. Microsoft doesn’t have an ecosystem, but a series of isolated islands. And archipeligo. The Zune players couldn’t run Xbox stuff, which can’t run PC stuff, which can run Win8/ARM stuff.
Google/Android has players (Philips/Samsung), Phones (everybody), Tablets (almost everyone), all mostly can share apps even across versions wider than iOS2-6. They have ChromeBooks and the desktop but stuff is in the cloud but is accessed like a filesystem.
Apple is similar, though less desktop-filesystem legacy.
Microsoft is a mess with lots of isolated bits with few bridges.
If Windows 8 doesn’t fail spectacularly and we get a move back to sense and reason I will be doing the following.
– Sticking with Win7 for the medium term
– Hoping that Valve’s escape boat works, if so move to that
– If not see what alternatives are out there and move probably to a form of Linux.
For my own laziness I hope ME and Vista seem like good times for MS compared to 8.
Valve’s escape boat is Linux. =P
I just wonder if it will be an existing distro or their own.
Nobody but them know their future plans, but what we do know is the public beta’s are focusing on Ubuntu compatibility.
Yeah, it seems like lately MS has to screw up at least every other release of Windows.
2000 (Good) -> Me (Bad) -> XP (Good) -> Vista (Horible) -> 7 (Great) -> 8 (What Are You Thinking???)
Linux and Mac seem to always gain a little from these bad releases because they cause people to look at alternatives, but ultimately most people just use the last good version of Windows as an alternative.
I agree, but there is always that seed of doubt that the rubbish version of Windows won’t go away and you start planning your escape.
Okay, so this is the first valid argument I find against windows 8 and it’s a really scary one. I honestly think win8 has great potential, but only if it remains primarily open. It really suck if the only games available are Disney Universe, Rayman and Farmville.
I’m running Win8, no problems with games on the desktop. I run Steam there.
I really don’t see the desktop disappearing any time soon, if ever. It may (hopefully) change, but the Open ecosystem would never adopt Win8 Metro UI.
Yeah, it may change into ~Metro (Metro 2.0 or 3.0 should be very decent, just like Win 3.x was and took over by storm; many types of apps could be awesome – anything that manipulates images, audio, drawings (also CAD and such), for example)
All very true if only the formally known as Metro bit succeeds and I doubt it has a chance in hell. Apple somehow managed it but I have my doubts even that ecosystem will last. Certainly not twenty years of competition from Android, or whatever, and I just can’t see Microsoft being able to foist any ecosystem more closed than already exists. The opposite if anything. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it’ll be a “bad thing” if they do.
While microsoft and apple are the most visible corporate players today who are aiming to strip consumers of traditional software rights such as homebrew development, side-loading, self-modification, etc, their success (which remains to be seen in the long term) will only encourage others to adopt the same role of software gatekeepers. The closed ecosystems, over time, could snowball to include the majority of consumer devices in the future.
Even with android devices, which typically permit application distribution outside of app stores, there is already clear evidence of corporate pressure to ban end user sideloading.
http://crackberry.com/alec-saunders-clears-debate-future-side-loadi…
http://htcsource.com/2011/02/slideloading-apps-on-the-att-htc-inspi…
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Barnes-Noble-NOOK-Tablet-side-loading-A…
And this is just for sideloading of apps. We aren’t talking about the idea of root on one’s own hardware, where the battle is already lost even with android devices. Once the root exploits are fixed and hardware restrictions such as those in UEFI become more mature, the ability to root devices will forever be lost to history. “Is it true grandpa? You used to be able to install & run your own operating system?”
The thing I find really sad is that more knowledgeable people won’t stand up against sideloading bans on account of the existence of root exploits today. It’s a short term temporary “solution” to the long term problem which is corporate gatekeepers and walled gardens.
Edited 2012-10-16 20:07 UTC
With over a decade of experience it is shocking how little talent has gone into Windows 8. Perhaps Microsoft management consisting of apathetic old men is the gordian knot that needs to be removed before crap like this stops happening.
While I have been a Windows user over 20+ year, I am so utterly tired of the lack of refinement in the GUI. This is proverbial final nail in the coffin. I am flipping Microsoft the bird and choosing Mac OS X.
Fcuk this, I’m done.
Edited 2012-10-16 17:51 UTC
From an open/closed perspective, you’re no better off supporting Apple than Microsoft. However, I suspect both Windows and OS X are in the same situation. Both companies would love to close them completely off, but simply won’t be able to do so without losing 99% of their business customers. I certainly hope that Apple won’t be able to close off OS X like iOS, because I absolutely love OS X and really don’t have an alternative. At least, so far, Apple has known where to draw the line in both closing by default (Gatekeepr) and not to tabletify (if that’s not a word, I just coined it) their os too much. What features they have merged into OS X from iOS have actually been mostly complete and well thought out and, from both a keyboard and mouse perspective, OS X is simply a pleasure to use in my opinion. I’m sticking with OS X as long as possible, the nice GUI coupled with the Mach/BSD underpinnings is perfect for me. As long as Apple doesn’t go the Metro route, and keeps their os locked down to exactly how it is now, I’ll be happy for a good long while. Now, if only they’d open iOS up to the OS X level: yeah, it’s a pipe dream, but I can dream right?
And how is Mac OS X any different? Every new version brings the os closer to iOS. Furthermore, the last version brought out “Gatekeeper” which is a application that checks from where other apps can be installed in your mac. Right now it’s possible to say “allow from everywhere”, but there’s another saying “only from Mac App Store”, and the way things are going, it looks like it’ll be the only option 2 or 3 versions down the road.
But they are providing a way out. Plenty of osx developers and apps do not use the app store.
MS is pushing people hard to Metro by making the regular desktop paradigm harder to use, yet it isn’t providing a way out to create apps for an open system.
Apple is still providing a way out. But, as I said, who knows for how long. The way OS X is being dumbed down, I wouldn’t be surprised if a future OS X version forced to only install applications through the Mac App Store.
I don’t think we’ll ever get to a point where the Windows desktop becomes a completely closed ecosystem. If it did, it would utterly fail in the enterprise. Not to mention that some VSTs are bigger than 20gb; that wouldn’t exactly be convenient to download from the cloud.
If anything, Windows will probably become like Android is, and I believe OSX too – you will download mostly from the app store, with the option to side load. IMO, this is how it should be done. It keeps tech tards in the walled garden and away from the malware, but allows power users who know what they’re doing to venture outside the garden.
Now days with Windows, I will rarely ever install anything that is labeled ‘FREE’, since I don’t know what it will do to my system. Personally, I welcome the option of an app store. At least I know somebody has vetted the app before it goes live.
Well, it might not become closed down, but it might simply disappear at one release, leaving Metro and the Windows Store to become the new Windows desktop.
Even assuming you’re right, it’ll be 10 years at a MINIMUM before that happens, and I would guess more like 20. Remember, Windows’ bread and butter is its huge app ecosystem. Take that away, and watch its users disappear faster than a pizza at a Weight Watcher’s convention. Hell, we’re still trying to get businesses off of IE6.
I agree with all that, to a point.
The point is the censorship implications. Why should we allow MS (or Apple, or Google) to determine which apps are fit for market? That’s the area I’m concerned about.
There seems to be a lot of FUD here as well. Some WinRT API’s CAN be used for desktop development, there’s a list of them up on MSDN. I hope this list increases over time, and that the Market becomes less restrictive on editorial policy.
I believe we need app stores in order to protect the tech tards from themselves. I don’t even bother to install a lot of apps I’d like to try on Windows anymore, simply because I don’t know what they’re going to do. Things have gotten way out of hand with these ‘toolbars’ and such. Even Linux distros have distro repositories. And as long as these things exist, SOMEBODY has to decide what gets included, and users may not always agree with their decisions.
So I don’t have an issue with these stores, as long as you can side load. And currently you can side load on the desktop, which is the only part of Windows 8 that actually matters to me. As for Windows RT, well… that ain’t Windows 8
Edited 2012-10-17 17:45 UTC
WorknMan,
“So I don’t have an issue with these stores, as long as you can side load. And currently you can side load on the desktop, which is the only part of Windows 8 that actually matters to me. As for Windows RT, well… that ain’t Windows 8”
Agree, if sideloading is possible (along with competing stores, etc), I have no problem with software distribution stores.
The thing is, they desperately want to monopolise 3rd party software distribution, which they cannot do on the windows desktop. It’s technically impossible for microsoft to control the distribution of new desktop applications without breaking compatibility with existing ones. That’s a real catch-22 for microsoft. This is the reason MS is pushing the label of “legacy” for desktop and shoving us towards metro so hard, even to the point of making desktop usage less friendly.
If they sold a windows 8 standalone desktop (no bundled metro), I am positive it would sell very well, probably even better than with metro, but it wouldn’t help microsoft transform into the software gatekeepers they want to be.
Edited 2012-10-18 15:18 UTC
Well of course if being gatekeepers of an app store would make them more money, that’s what they’d want to do. They ARE a business, after all. And before they can officially ditch the desktop and make Metro the new thing, they first have to make Metro not suck. And we’re at LEAST 10 years away from that happening
WorknMan,
“Well of course if being gatekeepers of an app store would make them more money, that’s what they’d want to do. They ARE a business, after all.”
There’s no arguing that they want to do it, but I’m extremely worried about actively banning competing software distribution channels and consumers loosing access to software-only vendors who have no choice but to submit to microsoft’s gatekeepers in order to reach them. I guess since we already agree here, the debate becomes whether we believe government should step in and declare that all app stores must permit competing app stores. I think it would be in the public’s interest.
Oh HELL NO!! We are NEVER going to agree on that. Repeal the DMCA and get the government as FAR AWAY from tech as humanly possible. Not only is the idea of competing app stores impractical, but it can also be a pain in the ass for users. I’ve heard of horror stories on Android where the Google Play store and the Amazon app store were duking it out as to which one should be updating a certain app, when a user (either accidentally or on purpose) installs the same app from both stores. As an OS vendor, why should I have to support somebody else’s app store?
You might see MS (and other companies’) desire to rule the ecosystem as inherently evil and a power move to take over the world, but I see it as a business decision that also has practical benefits for them (such as added security). If the majority of consumers desire a walled garden, than it shall come to pass. If people want an alternative that is open, I think such an alternative will always exist. Unless these companies buy laws to outlaw anything that isn’t locked down. Which is exactly why I say keep the government OUT of the tech.
Edited 2012-10-19 18:40 UTC
WorknMan,
“Oh HELL NO!! We are NEVER going to agree on that. Repeal the DMCA and get the government as FAR AWAY from tech as humanly possible.”
Well, the DMCA was pushed into law by corporate pressure, I don’t even think there was a pretence of having been for the public good. If the law must be decided by corporate interests, then I’d agree that we’re better off not having it. In principal though, there ought to be rules to disallow anti-competitive tactics and enable the market to compete on merit. It wouldn’t be telling consumers what they can or can’t buy, it would be telling corporations that they cannot block consumers from choosing alternate distribution channels after the devices are sold. Of course the devil may be in the details, but I think unlike the laws which are passed by and for corporations (DMCA), it would be good to have some for consumers. Just my opinion, but I can accept that we’ll never agree.
“I’ve heard of horror stories on Android where the Google Play store and the Amazon app store were duking it out as to which one should be updating a certain app, when a user (either accidentally or on purpose) installs the same app from both stores.”
Technically wouldn’t whichever app store the app was downloaded from be responsible? At least they wouldn’t have to use a buggy app store if they didn’t want to, it’d be their own choice. They’ll get no argument from me if they are happy with the default one.
“As an OS vendor, why should I have to support somebody else’s app store?”
I hope you understand that’s not what I meant at all. They just couldn’t employ technological means to prohibit competitors, they wouldn’t have to provide any support.
“You might see MS (and other companies’) desire to rule the ecosystem as inherently evil and a power move to take over the world, but I see it as a business decision that also has practical benefits for them (such as added security)…If the majority of consumers desire a walled garden, than it shall come to pass.”
The only way that could be true is if you gave consumers a choice for each device: sold with the non-elective walled garden, or sold with an elective walled garden. Only then could you factually claim they desire a walled garden. However there’s every reason to indicate that consumers are buying them for other factors such as style, performance, capabilities, etc. I doubt a single iphone has been sold BECAUSE it was in a walled garden. We just cannot use device sales as evidence that consumers somehow want or benefit from walled gardens. It’s more a reflection of what corporations want to sell.
“If people want an alternative that is open, I think such an alternative will always exist.”
Perhaps, but if it becomes too marginalised there’s a serious risk that fewer and fewer consumers will have any access to independent software vendors. It would be the equivalent of a black hole, we’ll have no choice but to move into the walled gardens under the approval of some of the most powerful corporate gatekeepers, who are in fact competing against us in the software field. Hopefully it’s clear why this is bad for open computing. It might not be the end of the world if all consumer devices would be under corporate control, but it would be bleak.
“If people want an alternative that is open, I think such an alternative will always exist. Unless these companies buy laws to outlaw anything that isn’t locked down. Which is exactly why I say keep the government OUT of the tech.”
So, alternatives will always exist unless we have laws that ensure alternatives can exist? I’m not really sure what you are trying to say…but I’ll concede this: governments often screw up everything they touch. There’s no guaranteeing they wouldn’t screw this up as well. But if we don’t do anything to stop corporations from controlling our own devices, then we shouldn’t be surprised if that’s where we end up.
I’m saying that alternatives will probably always exist as long as corporations can’t buy laws which mandate that hardware cannot be sold without some sort of DRM that only allows people to install what corporations and/or the entertainment industry want. Like a law that forces motherboard vendors to sell boards with a protected bios where an open source OS cannot be installed. Right now, I think this is mandated by MS if you want to release a tablet with WinRT, but vendors are still free to release tablets with other operating systems.
It would be interesting to see though how many Android users have the ‘side load’ option turned on. I bet that number is comparatively low vs how many Android users there are. Hell, *I* don’t even have that option turned on.
Well, if it gets to that point, and there’s no mass revolt against it, then so be it. If there’s not a big enough demand for open platforms such that businesses find it cost-effective to build and support, then why the hell should they be forced to do so? It’s like if Pepsi released a variant of their soft drink that only a handful of the population cared for, and the government told Pepsi that they had to keep selling it.
The point being that if the mass population doesn’t give a shit about walled gardens, closed source, or locked-down platforms, then it is what it is, even though it might be a pain in the ass for some of us.
Yes, I am aware of many of the negative ramifications, but I don’t want to live in a nanny state where government is telling businesses what products they are allowed to sell, assuming the products are not causing people to get sick, die, etc. This is for the same reasons why I don’t want governments trying to control what sex acts consenting adults are allowed to perform behind closed doors.
Just have the government revoke the DMCA so that we can do whatever we want with the hardware we purchase, and keep them the hell out of it. Let people make up their own minds. If they want to take it up the ass from a vendor that wants to control what they are allowed to install, then I hope they have some Vaseline handy. Far be it from me to stand in their way.
Edited 2012-10-20 01:19 UTC
WorknMan,
“I’m saying that alternatives will probably always exist as long as corporations can’t buy laws which mandate that hardware cannot be sold without some sort of DRM that only allows people to install what corporations and/or the entertainment industry want.”
I read it wrong. Yes that would be bad.
“It would be interesting to see though how many Android users have the ‘side load’ option turned on. I bet that number is comparatively low vs how many Android users there are. Hell, *I* don’t even have that option turned on.”
Not what you asked for, but seems relevant here even if a bit dated:
http://www.iphonefreak.com/2009/08/jailbroken-stats-recent-survey-s…
“Well, if it gets to that point, and there’s no mass revolt against it, then so be it. If there’s not a big enough demand for open platforms such that businesses find it cost-effective to build and support, then why the hell should they be forced to do so?”
Like I said, manufacturers would not need to provide any support to 3rd party software channels. They’d just need to refrain from licenses and device restrictions that may prevent consumers from choosing from competing software sources. Microsoft and apple have never been responsible for 3rd party software installed on their operating systems, that would not have to change.
“The point being that if the mass population doesn’t give a shit about walled gardens, closed source, or locked-down platforms, then it is what it is, even though it might be a pain in the ass for some of us.”
There are many people who would opt for an unlocked device when given an explicit choice without compromising other factors (such as getting the device they want, etc). I suspect there are even more people who believe in having a choice even if they don’t exercise it themselves (you not enabling side-loading is not equal to you voting against having sideloading).
“Yes, I am aware of many of the negative ramifications, but I don’t want to live in a nanny state where government is telling businesses what products they are allowed to sell…”
I think your blowing the nanny government out of proportion with regards to this topic, which is permitting consumers to override default app stores and increase the viability of competition.
“Just have the government revoke the DMCA so that we can do whatever we want with the hardware we purchase, and keep them the hell out of it.”
That’s exactly the problem though, you are blaming the government when in fact it’s the corporations who are to blame for this, including the DMCA itself. If we remove government oversight and allow corporations to have carte blanche, there’s nothing to stop corporations abusing their power.
“Let people make up their own minds.”
That’s exactly what I want, people should have an explicit right to choose software distribution channels. If you allow corporations to forcefully bundle their software on consumer hardware, we’ll become a software-censored society where consumers can only have software approved by the manufacturer.
“If they want to take it up the ass from a vendor that wants to control what they are allowed to install, then I hope they have some Vaseline handy. Far be it from me to stand in their way.”
Unfortunately, if the growth of walled gardens continues unabated, then you WILL be affected too. As they pop up and the hardware enforcing them becomes more mature, it will be harder and harder to avoid them. More and more software developers will become dependent upon the hardware and consumers which have been sucked into one of the closed walled garden ecosystems. For future generations, the choice may not be whether they want a walled garden or not, but which walled garden they have to buy into.
This won’t happen over night, but if too many people remain passive on the issue and refuse to “stand in the way” of walled gardens, it will slowly but surely limit consumer choices that you and I have outside the walled gardens. Consumers must not buy into closed hardware and simply assume that their decision will not offset the open platforms they currently take for granted; corporate imposed devices restrictions are completely changing the dynamic between open and closed computing.
So that’s 90% of iOS users that don’t care enough about open ecosystems to jailbreak their phone, and probably a good portion of the ones that DID jailbreak did so for no other reason than to pirate apps. That’s why I said Android would be a better benchmark for this, since you don’t have to root to pirate.
People have to make decisions like this all the time. For example, if you want an Android phone that gets timely updates, you’re pretty much stuck with a Nexus phone, and they don’t currently make one of those with an SD card slot, forcing consumers to choose between having an SD card slot and having to wait 6 months or more for OS updates. So, should we then have the government force manufacturers to put an SD card slot into every phone, just because it would be more convenient for consumers? I mean, I’m sure folks would WANT an SD card slot in their phone if they had a choice. Of course, SD card slots are becoming less and less common these days, so if you wanted an SD card slot in your phone, you will be affected. Thus, some sort of government action is obviously needed here …
‘But’, I hear you say,’The absence of an SD card slot is not the same as a locked down ecosystem.’ Well, yeah it is. It’s just that being able to install apps outside of an app store is really important to you PERSONALLY. Others wouldn’t give a rat’s ass, and in fact would choose to pass up a phone that was completely open just because the camera might be sub-par. Why? Because a good camera is their ‘killer feature’. For others, it might be a good maps package, or even a good Twitter app. You can’t just take your own personal preferences and try to force the government to do your bidding, just because you don’t agree with the decisions that other people are making.
*rubbing my eyes* Ok, wait… you’re saying it’s because of corporations’ abuse of the government that we have these dumb laws such as the DMCA, software patents, over-restrictive licenses, etc. So what would be different without government interference, since the corporations are pretty much doing what they want anyway? The difference would be that they could use technological measures to try and restrict what we can do with the devices (which is entirely their right, since it is their products), but they couldn’t pass laws to enforce their efforts, as they do now. Maybe you would like to have a form of Big Government that isn’t corrupt and couldn’t be sold to the highest bidder? Yeah, good luck with that one
It’s like if the corporations had a bully that was beating your ass every day, and you said, ‘we can’t get rid of the bully, because then the corporations could do what they want’. It’s not like you can get the bully to work for you instead; you don’t have that much money
lol
Yes, I understand this. I am negatively impacted every day by the stupid decisions that other people make. It is one of the unfortunate side-effects of living in a free society, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Edited 2012-10-20 19:55 UTC
WorknMan,
“So that’s 90% of iOS users that don’t care enough about open ecosystems to jailbreak their phone, and probably a good portion of the ones that DID jailbreak did so for no other reason than to pirate apps.”
I could be wrong, but I think the advocates of open computing are standing behind more fundamental principals like freedom, and not simply the ability to pirate apps.
“People have to make decisions like this all the time…So, should we then have the government force manufacturers to put an SD card slot into every phone, just because it would be more convenient for consumers?”
This is absolutely not my view, but I think you know that
“‘But’, I hear you say,’The absence of an SD card slot is not the same as a locked down ecosystem.’ Well, yeah it is.”
That’s really stretching the truth, IMHO. Adding/removing hardware features is not at all the same thing as intentionally restricting what owners can do with the device after it’s sold.
“It’s just that being able to install apps outside of an app store is really important to you PERSONALLY.”
Well, economics tells us that access to competition is actually very important to all consumers. I’ve never advocated forcing a choice upon consumers, only ensuring that they can electively choose competing app stores on their hardware after it’s been sold. From the consumer’s perspective, having a choice should not be controversial at all. It’s only from the corporation’s point of view that they’ll loose their freedom to ban competing app stores. My own opinion is that the consumer’s freedom to have competing app stores on devices is more fundamental than corporate freedom to ban them. Maybe we can agree on that?
“Maybe you would like to have a form of Big Government that isn’t corrupt and couldn’t be sold to the highest bidder? Yeah, good luck with that one”
You’re right, corporate corruption within governments is a huge problem and it’s tainted our laws more times than anybody can count. But history shows again and again that no regulation is the worst possible solution, it puts the reigns in the very hands of the bullies who cause the most social damages. Even this recession is the largely the result of bush-era deregulation of private corporations on a massive scale.
This is getting overly political, and I’d rather agree to disagree than to debate politics right now. I hope my drive to ban walled gardens is stronger than your drive to allow them
I don’t think comments will be open much longer, so thanks for the discussion!
IMO, I think that is too narrow of a discussion. As long as you allow side-loading, you can have other app stores by default. Do I think this should be manditory? No.
Obviously, we’re never going to settle this without getting into more broad political discussions, which as you said, is beyond the scope of this thread.
For what it’s worth though, this is the most civil discussion I think I’ve had with anyone on the topic. It has been fun
It kind of makes me wonder why we even bother to debate tech on sites like this, when obviously there’s a much deeper divide at work here that goes way beyond tech.
RobG,
“The point is the censorship implications. Why should we allow MS (or Apple, or Google) to determine which apps are fit for market? That’s the area I’m concerned about.”
Exactly! There’s tremendous concern with allowing these corporations control consumer access to software.
Yet weirdly you’d install Iron over Chromium? :p
I do get what you mean though, I tend to prefer open source software on Windows when downloading free applications because even though I wouldn’t personally vet the code, I can sympathise more with why the application is free. I know it doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference and that my A/V should catch most nasties, but psychologically I feel “safer” with GPL over freeware binaries.
I understand the author’s point and agree with it. It’s just the gaming example really doesn’t resonate.
Does anyone seriously believe Microsoft is going to ban all adult games? More than likely, they are bringing in their app-store and are unsure what to do with adult content. Do they have parental controls? Is there a separate repository for sensitive content…? What are the legal consequences…? All unanswered questions that I’m sure they’re going through and will make available in due time. They don’t NEED to do it now as they have a compatibility mode for current applications. You really don’t want to allow things, and then break them later.
I think it is clear that Microsoft is moving towards a more controlled eco-system. Getting it right will be just as determining as the technology itself.
But I think the author is jumping the gun a bit. We’re not even at the first version of Windows 8. They could certainly screw it up. They could also find a nice balance.
Microsoft answer to gaming is simple:
xbox.
Because we certainly know that whatever guidelines these folks come up with are CAST IN STONE FOREVER AND EVER.
That they never react to market forces, that they never listen to customer input, that they never consider what happens when their rules first hit the wide scary world of reality. Never. NEVER!
MS is going to draw a line in the sand right now. I am 100% confident that MS’s policies will not change ONE IOTA in 20 years. It’ll never happen.
We all know how Apple never changed any of its policies. Apple is an oak and doesn’t bend to anyone. Every guideline and store policy that was chiseled in to sacred tablets back in 2007 has remained stoic and resolved and unchanged.
Woe is us.
Well, what about inserting a Steam-like app into the Windows Store, which in turn would allow in-app purchases of all kinds of games and content? How would current Windows Store rules apply to such an app?
It would not be allowed under the rules of elligibility.
I don’t think the Windows desktop will disappear, or become closed.
There are way too many use cases where Metro absolutely won’t cut it. In many of these situations, Linux is already a good fit. In some, it is even an excellent fit.
It’s possible Microsoft is willing to sacrifice a few desktop licenses in exchange for a larger share of the tablet market, but I doubt it. These desktop installs are what necessitates Windows in the server room. If your core business can’t use Windows, it becomes less necessary on the periphery.
A few licenses? My company alone is equal to 200k and more will follow, now take $100 – 150 per and multiply that lost revenue.
We are deciding which Linux distro to support and will put all that money into that one.
Edited 2012-10-16 22:02 UTC
the impetus difference between the old way of doing things and the new way is convenience. the convenient digital stores built into every new operating system are great. that they’re closed and proprietary is a bonus exploit by the businesses concerned.
to me that means the new way provides less selection and allows less competition. to me, there needs to be separation between content and delivery, just like there should be with media and data connections. the way you acquire software should not be so completely controlled by the device you use it on.
what I’m talking about isn’t radical. having to choose where to get your stuff is the way the physical world works. digital tech allows a tighter stranglehold on people than this physical world we enjoy. thus the netscape antitrust case forcing microsoft to make access to other browsers convenient in windows. thus net neutrality forcing businesses to treat you the same as someone they like better than you.
to me, digital stores built into operating systems are an antitrust problem.
It is a problem in proprietary operating systems. Centralised software solutions have been a stock feature in FOSS systems for years and they haven’t been accompanied with arbitrary exclusionary policies.
Simply do not buy Windows 8 or any machine that is preloaded with it, there are many sources to buy clean machines.
But, what happens when Microsoft stops selling licenses for Windows 7 and earlier? That “clean” machine you just bought is now limited to Windows 8+ for a Microsoft OS.
I don’t disagree with you; indeed I prefer to buy off-lease business machines for the reliability, and so that I can install what I want. But there will come a time when Microsoft will no longer offer licenses for Windows 7, and it may be sooner than you think given their aggressive push to version 8.
That will happen soon enough ? In a year ?
Because this is their deadline:
Mainstream support until January 13, 2015
You may be right. For Vista, end of retail sales was nearly two years before end of mainstream support. For XP, it was less than a year.
So far Microsoft says “to be determined” for an end of sales date for 7, but based on their current pattern, I can see them dropping sales of 7 any day now.
Then again, they know for a fact that 7 is the best OS they’ve ever put out, and while they may be betting the farm on 8, I have a feeling they may keep 7 alive long enough to gauge the market for 8. We may still be able to purchase 7 for a few more years yet.
Edit: Source: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/products/lifecycle
Edited 2012-10-17 04:35 UTC
Anyone who thinks the desktop is going to disappear any time soon is a complete fool and anyone with any common sense already knows that.
ilovebeer,
“Anyone who thinks the desktop is going to disappear any time soon is a complete fool and anyone with any common sense already knows that.”
Define “soon”, the article is actually looking some 20 years ahead. The article is really worth reading in it’s entirety since it gives a lot of historical context that should not be ignored, but the following quote seems especially relevant here:
“Now, clearly any prediction about the future is uncertain. Many people out there probably don’t believe there’s any way the future of desktop computing looks like a much-revised-and-refined version of the new Windows 8 UI. But if you take a step back and realize that people thought the same thing about Windows 3.0 when it came out, I hope you can appreciate how real a possibility it is.”
I didn’t reference the article specifically as my comment was intended to be taken in general. Some people seem to think the Windows desktop could and will vanish at any point. Also, I can’t imagine why the definition of “soon” would need to be clarified but I guess I’ll play along:
ilovebeer,
“I didn’t reference the article specifically as my comment was intended to be taken in general. Some people seem to think the Windows desktop could and will vanish at any point.”
Your post had no context, if not the author of the article, then who are you talking about? I don’t think anybody here said the desktop would get dropped any time “soon”.
I said very clearly “my comment was intended to be taken in general”. By doing so I am giving you the context. Also, this is not a new discussion.. It’s been said many times over in many threads by various individuals that the Windows desktop is being killed, dropped, or is already dead. Let’s not pretend this is the first you’re hearing it… Do you honestly have no clue how that relates? ……………….
ilovebeer,
Fine, if you don’t want to give context then don’t, but that means your post was a straw-man: you posted a counter-argument to a fictitious argument which was never made.
Why are you playing these games.. I’ll go ahead and quote my previous post, bolding all the relevant text.
Now, if you think anything about that is fictitious then you’re either very very new here, or you’re basically just trolling….
ilovebeer,
“Why are you playing these games.. I’ll go ahead and quote my previous post, bolding all the relevant text.”
Please don’t repeat yourself, I realise that you weren’t addressing anyone, that is my point. You love to criticise and insult the image you have of an enemy, even when there is no enemy there.
“Now, if you think anything about that is fictitious then you’re either very very new here, or you’re basically just trolling….”
Maybe we (you and I both) just need to work on laughing things off better. With this in mind, here’s a joke about an engineer, physicist, and mathematician:
http://www.ahajokes.com/m018.html
Edited 2012-10-19 04:45 UTC
I think the article is interesting and raises some valid points but is marred by the general portrayal of the app store model as being somehow fundamentally bad. In reality the huge success Apple’s app store, which pretty much set the whole big app store dynamic in motion, is a very good thing for consumers and developers. Consumers were, and are, far more worried about their computers crashing due to crappy software and getting infected by malicious code than anything else. For consumers the effect of the app store has been to vastly increase the amount of cheap, useful, imaginative, and above all safe, software for their devices. For developers the app store, at least Apple’s one, has been a huge success, triggering revenues counted in billions and opening up the process to many new developers.
The article descends into absurdity when a link labelled “haphazard and capricious permission of Apple.” leads to someone moaning about the lack of Flash on iOS in a two year old article. Flash is a failed technology on mobile platforms which Adobe itself has abandoned and which Apple had the courage to be the first to call out as crap it didn’t want on it’s devices. If Flash was so great and if consumers were crying out for it then it would be thriving on non-Apple devices: it isn’t.
Trying to portray the curation mechanism of the app store as generally dysfunctional weakens the valid arguments in the article because it is untrue hyperbole. The Apple app store curation generally works pretty well given how rapidly it had to scale to a monumental size due to the success of the App Store model.
Having exhausted all other options, Microsoft will do the right thing.
Whether it means allowing free market competition between both software delivery models or sticking to the windows store model, but making the best of a controlled environment and not being a restrictive douchebag.
On the other hand. In 5 years time, I can’t imagine businesses running business class metro apps on windows servers and workstations. They will have to be normal apps and I trust this being a constant force for a reality check for Microsoft.
Excellent thoughtful article. Thanks for posting the link.