[walrus01]

Whilen I entirely agree with your point, I don't think that a comparison between the Apple and Twitter is suitable. One is a company that publishes an operating system, which is locked down and requires software installation through their Monopoly App Store ( which I find highly distasteful), the other one is a web-based social media thing. iOS as a product is in no way similar to twitter.

[jenga22]

It's the same thing. iOS is controlled by Apple. Twitter's API is controlled by Twitter. Both invite developers to develop on their platform so they can reap the benefit of increased user functionality.

[walrus01]

An API and an operating system that runs on bare metal are in no way similar. One has a bootloader, a kernel, a filesystem, etc. The other is just a set of apis. The freedom to run your own choice of software on the OS that you boot on the hardware you own is important. It's a very different philosophical choice from being able to, or not being able to make use of one company's social media publishing API via https.

If my operating system has a rootkit or APT I am boned. If twitter is hacked I couldn't give a fuck, it doesn't affect my equipment or how I use my computers.

[jenga22]

Sure, one is an operating system and one is an API. In the literal sense you are correct.

However, You're completely arguing a point that is different from what the entire discussion is about. We're talking about proprietary control points. The iOS operating system is proprietary and the App store dictates who and who can't publish on it.

The same is the case with Twitter. It has APIs and they control who and who can't use them to make apps.

Both companies have invited developers to make apps. Both companies have benefited from having those apps make their services/devices useful.

[walrus01]

I guess what I am trying to say is that having a walled garden operating system is a magnitude worse than a walled garden social media API. Mostly because the OS is the gatekeeper to literally everything else. Twitter is a gatekeeper to hearing the latest ramblings of a Kardashian.

[y_molodtsov]

What’s distasteful about that? That’s their key differentiator that enabled a lot of their advantages. And there's also Android anyone could use if they’d want to.

[syshum]

>What’s distasteful about that?

The fact that if you do not control the product you do not actually own the product.

You never buy a Apple device, you pay alot of money for the permission to use the device temporarily

That is distasteful to many people.

>That’s their key differentiator that enabled a lot of their advantages.

This is complete rubbish, there is no reason Apple could not have the App Store, have all the their "advantages" and by default lock their OS down, but still have a path for people that choose to break out of the wall garden, to do so.