I understand the positive arguments for keeping so many things about iOS closed. Examples: It provides a more consistant user experience. It lets Apple control more of the over all quality. Etc.. I also understand some of the negative arguments for keeping it closed. Apple makes money on the app store and media sales so why would they let a different bookstore, music store or app store in.
But I think there's a bigger picture argument. It goes something like this
Imagine it's say 1982. Imagine all the popular computers at that time were as ridged and closed as iOS is now. Imagine it stayed closed for 30 years. You're allowed to make apps but nothing that Apple says no to. How many innovations would we be living without?
Would mp3s and music services even exist? If I remember correctly the first mp3 player I ever used was Winamp in 1996-97. It came out long long before iTunes. If the lead computer companies never allowed anything other than the music apps that existed in 1982 would we have downloadable music now?
How about web browsers and the internet? Back in 1982 there were things like Compuserve. If the lead computer companies didn't allow any generic net browsing would the internet have ever even happened? Would we still be using terminal emulators as the only way to access the internet?
Would we even have internet at all? iOS doesn't allow external gadgets to connect directly to it that are usable by any apps. In 1982 personal computers didn't have networking. Networking was added over the course of the next 10-15 years mostly by 3rd party hardware. If computers has been as closed as iOS would networking on computers ever have happened?
How about browsers? Browsers didn't exist in 1982. Let's assume Apple decided to implement a single browser. Would it be anywhere near as powerful as today's browsers? Looking at the history of browsers it was the competition of IE, Netscape and then Firefox, Safari and Chrome that have brought us modern browsers. But arguably that would never have happened if, like iOS, all those computers banned making a browser.
How about all these languages. Perl, Python, C++, Java, Lua, Ruby. None of those languages existed in 1982. Yes, iOS allows you to use any language you want to make an app BUT....iOS does not allow you to make a programming environment. Imagine the computers for the last 30 years didn't allow you to make a programming environment. How would any of these languages even have come into being if they were outright banned as iOS bans them?
That's the problem with iOS's closed eco-system. It stifles innovation and prevents competition. We've seen how well that's worked in the past. Hint, it hasn't worked well.
Now, I certainly don't want an OS that's buggy with a crappy user interface and a poor experience. But I don't think that's a trade off Apple needs to make. I believe they can be open AND have the best user experience.
Let's hope they step up and embrace creativity. Even their co-founder thinks Apple needs to do this.
iTunes probably wouldn't have existed if there hadn't been a large collection of illicitly obtained and ripped MP3s. If everything was still CDs, then there would have been hardly any need for either an online music shop, or a digital music library
I disagree. iOS is not the only mobile platform. It's not even the most popular one. Apple keeps an eye on other platforms and when something works they implement a similar feature. Their customers get to skip the whole ugly process of trial & error that often fosters that innovation. That's exactly what Apple is good at. Some of us pay Apple to curate and manage the platform for us.
:( In a world where people believe Android (the only reasonable competitor I can imagine you are discussing) to be "open", we have arguably already lost. Apple has built an ecosystem that is so closed and so powerful that if a competitor even throws a simple bone like "can install applications that come from a non-market source" suddenly they are touted as "open", when you still can't make any of the interesting modifications to the system that you can make to a desktop computer, as you are limited behind the app boundary... you can't even build a reasonable alternative to Market (which requires special Google-only permissions to implement things like the "agree to permissions before download" interface).
Now, you can always make the argument that Android is open source and anyone can build a platform with it, but that means it is open for people who make phones: the actual consumers are still purchasing closed devices. The simple thing to remember: this is about hardware, not about software; it is a mistake to be thinking about this as operating systems battling one-another, when the security mechanisms are actually something controlled by the person making the increasingly tamper-proof hardware, not the person writing the software that runs on those devices (a line that is messy and confusing for many people, as the commonly-cited example of Apple has one company playing both roles).
iOS is arguably a big enough market share (especially in terms of apps sales) to influence developer thoughts about how mobile apps should work.
I would imagine most major app developments aim to target at least both iOS and android.
Therefor if you want to implement a feature that is allowed on android devices but not on iOS devices you won't be able to do that in a cross platform manor and are therefor likely to bin the idea altogether.
Windows (and MAC OS) has been a closed platform for more than 20 years, iOS for 5 years and so far we are all still alive, no doomsday apocalypse scenario with zombies and aliens!
Windows is a closed platform? It's obviously less open than Linux but it's hardly closed compared to iOS.
I can install anything I want on my Windows computer without approval from Microsoft. I can stop updates, limit updates, change the way my computer boots, and use (almost) any OS resources for anything I feel like. I can wipe my computer and install another OS if I feel like it. When I buy software, the company that makes it can keep updating it however they feel without any chance of the software being 'pulled' by Windows. I don't have to worry about a program I'm buying breaking Windows 'rules'. Windows doesn't control any purchases I make in any app and doesn't limit sexual content of my installs.
What iOS is doing is something entirely different from what Windows has ever done, and meaning of 'closed' is entirely different when discussing these platforms.
Not that I disagree with you about current Windows versions, but from what I heard about Windows 8, Microsoft is trying to be more like Apple with iOS here, with the locked UEFIs, not allowing rival browsers or making them unusable on purpose (exactly like Apple did on iOS), and the "oh and noone want's to use our new GUI so we make devtools that can be used with anything else cost extra" thing.
Looks like both MS and Apple have chosen different side in war on general purpose computing than (I would imagine and hope) any "hacker" would.
Allow me to be a little bit absurd, but this strikes me as similar to right-wingers who ask me to imagine what would happen if everyone were gay. Yes, society would cease to exist, but I don't think this scenario has much bearing to the matter at hand.
More to the point, as long as there are real viable alternatives in the market, open and closed ecosystems can be fantastic complements, actually producing a deeper diversity. Flash, though controlled far too much by one company, was an excellent bridge that showed people the possibilities of a future internet. iOS has always had some shocking limitations, but it's set standards of stability and interface quality that everyone benefited from. The videogame industry has thrived in every respect by being on both tightly controlled platforms (think Wii's tight hardware/software pairing) and wide-open platforms (think Minecraft). Vigilance is good, but this kind of mix looks optimal to me.
I agree with you there are alternatives in the market. I don't agree that therefore I shouldn't speak up if one player is doing something I don't agree with and that I'd like them to consider that if everyone acted like them the world would be a worse place.
You bring up another excellent example in Flash. We can add that to the list of things (a rich multi-media internet) that likely would not have happened if every computer since 1982 was as locked down as iOS.
I don't believe we have to chose between stability/interface quality and an open platform. I believe we can have both.
If one player is doing something you don't like, you don't purchase their device, it's as simple as that.
Also, the iPad/iPhone was never setup as a generic computer but as a single coherent experience. Comparing it with PC history is a little absurd. The iPad has more in common with a DVD/Blu-Ray player then a PC.
But I think there's a bigger picture argument. It goes something like this
Imagine it's say 1982. Imagine all the popular computers at that time were as ridged and closed as iOS is now. Imagine it stayed closed for 30 years. You're allowed to make apps but nothing that Apple says no to. How many innovations would we be living without?
Would mp3s and music services even exist? If I remember correctly the first mp3 player I ever used was Winamp in 1996-97. It came out long long before iTunes. If the lead computer companies never allowed anything other than the music apps that existed in 1982 would we have downloadable music now?
How about web browsers and the internet? Back in 1982 there were things like Compuserve. If the lead computer companies didn't allow any generic net browsing would the internet have ever even happened? Would we still be using terminal emulators as the only way to access the internet?
Would we even have internet at all? iOS doesn't allow external gadgets to connect directly to it that are usable by any apps. In 1982 personal computers didn't have networking. Networking was added over the course of the next 10-15 years mostly by 3rd party hardware. If computers has been as closed as iOS would networking on computers ever have happened?
How about browsers? Browsers didn't exist in 1982. Let's assume Apple decided to implement a single browser. Would it be anywhere near as powerful as today's browsers? Looking at the history of browsers it was the competition of IE, Netscape and then Firefox, Safari and Chrome that have brought us modern browsers. But arguably that would never have happened if, like iOS, all those computers banned making a browser.
How about all these languages. Perl, Python, C++, Java, Lua, Ruby. None of those languages existed in 1982. Yes, iOS allows you to use any language you want to make an app BUT....iOS does not allow you to make a programming environment. Imagine the computers for the last 30 years didn't allow you to make a programming environment. How would any of these languages even have come into being if they were outright banned as iOS bans them?
That's the problem with iOS's closed eco-system. It stifles innovation and prevents competition. We've seen how well that's worked in the past. Hint, it hasn't worked well.
Now, I certainly don't want an OS that's buggy with a crappy user interface and a poor experience. But I don't think that's a trade off Apple needs to make. I believe they can be open AND have the best user experience.
Let's hope they step up and embrace creativity. Even their co-founder thinks Apple needs to do this.