Macworld Forums: Remains of the Day: Tim of your life - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Remains of the Day: Tim of your life here

I'm sure it would be great if Apple could open its platforms and still be secure but it isn't very likely. Android is security nightmare as was Windows.

If there are so many people who want this, as I am told by my open-source friends, instead of trying to get Apple to change, why not lobby,en masse, some other manufacturer like Samsung to build the device you want, or at least as near as possible.

Dan Moren should wear more sweaters.

tfmeehan, on 31 May 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

There's a very bad part about being "open" with a mobile platform, and Android is proving this... It's "open" for everyone that isn't exactly the end user. OEMs and cell carriers are able to make changes as they see fit, not always benefiting the consumers. This openness leads to extremely late OS updates, as everyone who has a finger in the pie has to make their changes before it's finally pushed to the end user by the carrier, typically over a year later.

Some example of this: the bloatware carriers are allowed to install, but the customer can't remove without rooting. App markets can and have been restricted to only Google's market, leaving others unaccessible without rooting. Verizon has even blocked Google's turn-by-turn navigation in favor of its own vCast navigation in early Android phones.

I've had no problem being in Apple's ecosystem for the past 4.5 years. When an update comes along, I know I can have it the day it's released - no waiting or relying on anyone else to deliver it to my phone at a much later date. Yeah, there are things that it would be nice if we could do with the iPhone (custom themes, etc.), but it's nothing important. I've done the jailbreak thing in the past, and the themes grew just as old as not having themes. It was just a waste of money in the end. My needs (wants) for jailbreaking ended under the 4.x days. Everything I needed (wanted) was pretty much added during those days, and jailbreaking became a thing of the past for me.

The "walled garden" approach may have some minor limitations, but they're limitations I can definitely live with in order to have the best overall experience.

This post has been edited by redgeminipa: 31 May 2012 - 04:48 AM

tfmeehan, on 31 May 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

...or just run Windows or Linux in emulation on your Mac.

Love the Newhart reference!

flybynight, on 31 May 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

Always appreciate a Newhart reference, but not sure how waking up next to Suzanne Pleshette fits the article.

My first thought was Kelly LeBrock (Weird Science, the movie and hotter than hot)

This post has been edited by bigpics: 31 May 2012 - 06:19 AM

The problem with EFF's openness argument in respect to Apple is that, like most "open" evangelists, they take too little account of the disadvantages of an open platform. Or they are two-faced on the subject: The article points out respectfully that Linux has required signed certificates for years and that this is one reason it tends to be a more secure platform. Then they quibble with Gatekeeper for Mountain Lion because it will require - signed certificates for the same reason - security. Meanwhile they ignore the growing problem of malware for OS X, which can be expected to only get worse if Apple doesn't take steps to remediate it. Which is precisely what Gatekeeper is intended to do. The iOS is already almost totally secure, unlike its more open competitor, which is wide open to malware. To expect Apple to change the iOS to make it more like Android is just preposterous.

But the biggest problem with their argument about freedom is that they are actually advocating on behalf of a commercially insignificant niche market - people who like to be able to "tinker" with their computers. Yes, for them, the Apple ecosystem is restrictive and less free than they would like. But they are free to use some other platform with which they can tinker, and, indeed, such folks have done just that for decades.

Now there certainly are ways in which Apple's rules, particularly for the App Store, could be made more friendly for users and developers alike. A provision for trial software is at the top of my personal wish list. But I don't expect, nor would I wish, Apple to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Despite its inherent difficulties, the App Store has been an unprecedented success. The changes I hope to see in Apple's ecosystem have to do with ease of use, not with some hypothetical theory of freedom that may or may not apply to Apple's business model.

The downside of freedom is chaos. And nothing is worse for business than chaos. Android is proof of that, if you need any. There is, theoretically at least, a middle ground where creativity can flourish. Steve Jobs was a genius in finding that middle ground, nowhere more remarkably so than the work environment he built at Pixar. Apple, for various reasons, is somewhat less an open system. But the one thing Apple has not lacked, at least since Steve Jobs returned to the company, is creativity. Apple has mixed that creativity with commercial success in a way that is unrivaled anywhere. Creativity absolutely requires freedom, so they must be doing something right.

Still, while I quibble with the EFF's argument in respect to Apple, I won't suggest they don't make it. Apple is not above criticism. There is nothing divine (in the omniscient sense) in what they do. As has been seen with the Foxconn issue, Apple will respond to pressure and criticism when that criticism is justified.

The EFF article also raised concerns about Microsoft's efforts to close down Windows 8, especially in the tablet version. Here the EFF is on firmer ground. Microsoft has a long history of restraint of trade and anti-competitive practices. However, I expect the market to take care of the problem in this instance. In my opinion Windows on an ARM processor is a bad bargain and will do no better than Microsoft's previous ventures in tablet computing. They don't get the market, here, and the market is not going to buy them. Locking out competitor's web browsers will be just one of many reason for customers to steer clear of Windows RT.