[freshhawk]

Can you explain how open vs closed systems relate to user interface or experience issues? Those are orthogonal to each other, Apple made two choices here, not one.

I understand the reasons for the move towards closed systems. A combination of media provider demands, funding coming from advertising and user tracking and the standard walled garden land rush when a new market opens up.

> This argument ... is tired ... please stop whining

Oh, fuck you. Seriously. Your high school level libertarian argument about why you don't want a public discourse about the direction of technological openness and the cultural and market forces around it is remarkably silly considering you are posting this on Hacker News on the god damn World Wide Web.

[dextorious]

> Can you explain how open vs closed systems relate to user interface or experience issues? Those are orthogonal to each other

You can have a better UI and experience in a closed system. Multiple reasons:

1) A closed system is more tightly controlled. The user cannot fuck every aspect of it, and so he wont. You cannot assume the average users knows what he is doing or what he is installing on his device. Historically he has been shown unable to do so. This is why even stuff like Nigerian scams (something anybody on HN would laugh off), are successful against the general population.

2) "Design by committee" has not historically produced a good end user experience, and this is not by accident. Good UI design needs people to understand UI design and be able to say "no". And an OSS project is design by committee --it's very difficult to fence the UI from clueless people wanting to add the "kitchen sink", say. It's also difficult to keep it stable enough (hackers need to hack, they get bored easily).

[pyre]

  > This is why even stuff like Nigerian scams (something
  > anybody on HN would laugh off), are successful against
  > the general population

Nigerian scams are not a 'tech only' issue. Prior to email, these were sent through faxes or snail mail. The basic idea is that people can be stupid, especially when you put the possibility of a lot of money in front of them. This has nothing to do with a open vs. a closed system.

[freshhawk]

You're conflating open vs closed, customizable vs non-customizable and (strangely) open source development.

open/closed and customizability are at least commonly related in practice so I can see the train of thought there. Mentioning design by committee is just weird though, it's only related in that Apple has famously not done this as well as been closed and non-customizable.

I can only assume that you own a car you have modified with aftermarket parts all to hell and "fuck[ed] every aspect of" because it was possible and really wish someone had made it tinker proof to save you from yourself. Otherwise you sound like some arrogant technically literate person who feels that he or she knows what less technically competent people should be allowed to do with their own possessions because it's for their own good.

[dextorious]

>You're conflating open vs closed, customizable vs non-customizable and (strangely) open source development.

It's not me thats conflating those, it's what the history of FOSS development has done in practice so far. Theoretically, yes, those things could be separate. But only if in said theory you abstract away human nature, group dynamics and such. For example, if something is developed as FOSS the people involved tend to make it customizable to the extreme.

>I can only assume that you own a car you have modified with aftermarket parts all to hell and "fuck[ed] every aspect of" because it was possible and really wish someone had made it tinker proof to save you from yourself.

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

> Otherwise you sound like some arrogant technically literate person who feels that he or she knows what less technically competent people should be allowed to do with their own possessions because it's for their own good.

Yeah, the kind of arrogant technically literate person who has seen how less technically competent people use their products and what they ask of them. Ever noticed how the only people who give a flying duck about openness and modifiability in regards to iOS are a tiny minority of tinkerers, hobbyists, foss zealots and such? Oh, and press pundits of the calibre of Dvorak, Cringely etc looking for a headline.

[freshhawk]

How did FOSS come into this? You're all over the map here.

To remind you, this was a conversation about products that allow kids to learn through tinkering vs those that are completely locked down.

I don't particularily care to debate you on random semi-related topics especially when you aren't really debating with shit like this:

> When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

Ok, since my little rhetorical device gave you a smart ass way to evade the question let me put it another way:

You say "A closed system is more tightly controlled. The user cannot fuck every aspect of it, and so he wont. You cannot assume the average users knows what he is doing or what he is installing on his device. Historically he has been shown unable to do so."

Why does this problem not appear in any other industry? Normal people seem to do just fine with their cars, clothes, power tools, etc. All things that it is possible to tinker with and break doing so. People who take the risk and have some expertise do and those that don't just enjoy the purchase and leave that stuff to the experts. Historically they have been show to be able to do so.

I think we agree that forcing users to tweak all sorts of configurations either during setup or during normal use isn't the right way to design software. That's not related to whether it's possible to modify things if you want to.

Do you honestly not understand that this is a narrower subject than the Apple way (closed, novice centric simple UI, proprietary) vs. the Linux Way (open, expert centric UI, free)?

My points where only ever about open vs. closed, as was the article we commenting on.

[dlitz]

Both of those "advantages" of closed systems are best solved with reasonable defaults.