OSNews

How is it 'closed' when it has never been open? Sure, the Windows RT device is locked down but how is that any different to what else is out there? they're merely going with what the market expects and for most people the tablet is a device that allows them to get from point A to point B with the idea of tweaking being of no real concern to the average user or even power users. When it comes to openness there are two aspects that need to be looked at - openness when it comes to OEM's (the ability to dual boot, tweak at the lowest level etc) and openness when it comes to the platform itself and I doubt very much we're going to see the sorts of asshole behaviour like we see with Apple and their AppStore. In the case of Microsoft, as long as your software doesn't scam the end user, install a virus or blow up the computer they'll let you onto their marketplace which pales in comparison to Apple and their paranoia of rejecting applications for trivial reasons. Heck, compare the process of submitting applications - in the Microsoft Marketplace you actually get a website where you can track your submission, where it is in the submission process and if the application is rejected (for what ever reason) you're actually provided with useful feedback rather than trying to guess as to why it was rejected.



There are swings and roundabouts to the idea of openness as can cause problems if at a later date you find the standard limiting to what you wish to accomplish but are bound to using them even if it limits future growth. We only need to look at the HTML5 standardisation process and the sabotaging by the likes of Adobe every step of the way as to ensure that there is some life left in the dead carcass that is Flash. So even if you have the best of intentions you're going to end up being screwed over so in the end do you even bother trying to work within many of these open standards bodies that at times seem to be politically charged rather than debates occurring with a basis on sound reasoning.



It is all about choosing the level of crappiness you're happy to deal with - computers that are have planned obsolesce by the said vendor when it comes too much of a hassle to support or a software vendor who bends over backwards to get you to run their operating system on your computer but in return you have to deal with proprietary forms and protocols. I was happy to deal with the hardware/software lock in return for open protocols when I went for my first Mac 8-10 years ago but these days it just isn't worth it in the end when you're dealing with what seems to be a business (Apple) that is hell bent on turning a computer into little more than a consumer gadget - god help you if you're in my boat and actually want to use a computer for something productive! so here we are at a cross roads between Windows and Mac OS X where Apple seem to be hell bent on focusing on a yearly release cycle to cater to the people who want a disposable device and on the other side we have Microsoft who creates an operating system that attempts to cater for the consumer as well as the professional that needs the computer get things done. The biggest issue will be the third parties - will they keep bending to the will of Apple or will we start to see with the exodus of professionals from Apple's traditional marketplaces to the Windows platform that will lead the way to the likes of Adobe winding down their professional side of the business in favour of making it Windows only and simply treating Mac OS X as a platform for their 'Elements' consumer software range.

It appears that although the backbone of Apple in the past was the creative sectors the changes in the last decade have moved Apple from being a niche that dominates certain segments to now a consumer company where those once 'back bone' of the company are seen as secondary priority in favour of tapping into the i-device user base. If that is Apple's future direction then I wish them well because I know that I and many others realise that this is the moment we get off the Apple bus and rejoin Microsoft.

Edited 2012-07-29 12:38 UTC

So, ~"OSX is considerably more open except in one of the most important areas" (if not the most important area)
Also, Apple has more of an "our way or the highway" approach with OSX, its frameworks...


That is some sort of weird joke, right? Sure, Apple took some standards for use in Facetime ...and subsequently totally closed the results - Facetime is completely locked to Apple ecosystem.

Meanwhile, Microsoft Skype is available for... pretty much anything, including Linux. And even contributes to some open standards, releasing SILK for example.


Not nearly the only reason - you know, regulation does work ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_c... ). And BTW, saner support for standards was a contributing factor for IE victory in the first browser war (its main fault was that the winning version lived too long afterwards)

Edited 2012-08-04 23:51 UTC