
IPhone Apps: Why closed is better - tbgvi
http://uxhero.com/ux-theory/iphone-apps-why-closed-is-better/
======
ElliotH
This doesn't really seem to match its own title though. It answers "why iphone
apps are better" - but really makes no comment on why having it closed helps
matters.

------
krainboltgreene
One of the reasons I like iPhone/iPad. It's brought a mass purchased platform
that developers can flock to, make money, and not have to worry about:

* Operating System

* Web Browser

* Plugins

* Resolution

* Input

* Connectivity

* Libraries

The rapid spread of platforms over the last ten years has really fucked
developers. We have to spend 50% of our time making sure the product works on
3 different Operating Systems OR 5 different web browsers.

Desktop/laptop computing has come to bite us in the ass.

~~~
pavlov
What rapid spread? There were far more platforms before, with far more
significant differences.

In the late '80s, a popular game was commonly ported to half a dozen
platforms: Amiga, Atari ST, Apple II, Commodore 64, PC+EGA, PC+VGA --
sometimes even Sinclair and MSX. Even the hardware was usually completely
different between systems, e.g. the powerful custom graphics and audio chips
on the Amiga.

In the '90s, a cross-platform desktop application like Netscape would have to
run on a range of very different systems: Windows 3.1 (16-bit), Windows 95
(32-bit with new UI), Windows NT (32-bit with old UI), Mac OS 7 (32-bit with
no memory protection), Solaris, Linux, AIX, HP/UX...

In comparison, Windows 7, Mac OS X and modern Linux are basically the same.
It's easy to write cross-platform C applications using mostly UNIX APIs and
deploy them on Windows using MinGW and a couple of lightweight libraries like
pthread-win32. For cross-platform GUI applications, the Qt framework is
available pretty much everywhere, even phones.

This is pretty amazing. Essentially everything has become "UNIX-like" nowadays
-- even the smartphone stalwart Symbian has given up trying to pretend it's
something else.

------
eplanit
Closed is never better. I guess it's like saying "If I eat _all_ my meals at
McDonalds, the world would be oh so wonderfully predictable and consistent"

~~~
krainboltgreene
Your analogy is off. Using an iPhone/iPad doesn't harm me.

Eating all meals at McDonalds does harm you.

~~~
eplanit
You're misunderstanding the analogy. The writer is a fan of closed platforms.
In the analogy, McDonalds = Closed Platform. And, yes, closed platforms are
unhealthy.

I know how to think. Thanks all the same.

------
iamelgringo
I find it ironic, that closed system iPad and iPhone advocates are propounding
the same arguments that Microsoft advocates have used defending closed source
programs and desktop computing. :)

Closed vs Open is a techno-religious argument. There are intellectual merits
to both sides of the argument, but ultimately people choose what aligns with
their ideals and beliefs.

------
emanuer
I thought about this just today. Closed systems like the iPhone allow for
programs perfectly customized for the hardware, OS. This is great news for the
users as the interfaces and other standards are rather consistent.

What was the success of Microsoft in the 80s and 90s? I believe it was that
they had an open system. They reached the critical mass, by letting everyone
in.

Today, being open is their fallacy, as it is hard for Microsoft to bring all
their 3rd party programs into line. (Into line refers to interface, security,
and other standards)

To be successful a closed system, it must fulfill one point: It must have
exceeded a critical mass of users.

I guess open is better when you can't rely on a multi-billion marketing
budget.

~~~
gte910h
iPhone/Android developer here

>Closed systems like the iPhone allow for programs perfectly customized for
the hardware

The closed nature of the platform doesn't help this at all. The fact there are
only 5 iPhoneOS platforms, 4 of which are virtually spec identical (iPhone 2g,
iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs, iPodTouch[most different]), and now the iPad makes it
easier to use fixed width layouts and screen mappings. The hardware variation
between the handsets is only noticeable, not an impediment. However the fact
all of them can run the latest iPhoneOS release means the _platform_ is much
more stable. The lack of fragmentation is what makes iPhone OS so powerful. If
google makes it so all future phones have sufficent specs to handle all
upgrades, then streamlines the upgrade process, then we're likely to see more
inroads in android.

Android's biggest weakness is that each phone is on a different OS version
(and there are vast differences between these versions). Some of the phones
(notably the G1) aren't ever going to be upgradeable to the current latest
version (as said by engineers) due to the small onboard memory. The
capabilities of these different OSes are very large. It would be the
difference between running iPhoneOS2.0 vs iPhone OS3.2 (the new one that's on
the iPad).

~~~
emanuer
As you have guessed right, I have absolutely NO idea about Software
development. I was lead to believe that it is easy to write software for the
iPhone by numerous articles and deduced it must be because the hardware is so
similar. Thanks for correcting me.

Still I do believe a closed system is favorable for the user as long as the
one who controls the system does a great job. I am thinking of a windows were
one can only install software which does not mess up the system resources, or
causes other harm. It would reduce the PC troubles for inexperienced users
dramatically.

------
gte910h
Hacker News Article: Why this should have been called "iPhone rich client
implementations have better UX characteristics than web apps on the same web
browser". It says nothing about openness or closed other than "other video
games are closed platforms too".

