Comment by pirateking | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pirateking | Hacker News Reader

What is to prevent the browsers from also eventually becoming walled gardens, as they reach the complexity of the increasingly locked down operating systems? We already are seeing multiple threats to even the open web with things like content pay walls, cloud services, and Facebook. Sure if things got really bad, we could fork WebKit, use Linux, and run our own mail server. The problem is that the majority will use what is simple and safe - what they can understand. Whether browser, operating system, hardware, cars, or any sufficiently advanced technology, that will always end up being a walled garden of some sort.

“Once you have something that grows faster than education grows, you’re always going to get a pop culture.” - Alan Kay

The problem with computing is not any particular platform or our tools. The problem is education. As tinkerers, we learned how to make computers do what we want, and eagerly raced ahead while leaving the majority of humanity in the dust. The direction computing is moving can only be attributed to our own selfishness.

We can now either accept the walled gardens as computing for the masses, or we can work to create doorways out for those trapped inside by simplifying access to computing and improving education.

Lay less bricks, build more doors.

This is true, you can already see with the iDevices restricting browsers to Safari only (and similar restrictions in Windows 8) that the web as an applications platform could be easily killed by the restrictions on the device.

I sometimes think there is a false dichotomy presented between usability/security and flexibility. This seems a little like suggesting that we should install a totalitarian dictator so that the masses don't have to worry about messy subjects like voting and politics.

I think that the popularization of "walled garden" computing really came with the iPhone. Since the iPhone was more usable than any other smartphone to date there was an assumption that everything apple did was right. When really it was just that other companies did (and continue to do) an inexcusably bad job on usability.

Let's assume that the iPhone had somewhat less restrictive policies about what was allowed onto the store (assuming that malware and scamware was still disallowed) and also allowed side loading onto the phone, would this have impacted it's popularity in a negative way?

The crucial difference is that nobody can stop you from using or building any web app you want (minus government censorship). There's no single central authority with unchallenged veto power.

Openness is about allowing alternatives, not guaranteeing their success.

Your device manufacturer , OS/Browser provider or ISP can all stop you from using any web app you want.

They can either flat out block it or leave your browsing software in such a state that it would be difficult to build anything significant for it (see IE6).

In the rare cases where something like this has happened it has been met with almost instant outrage and can almost always be hacked around trivially.

On the app stores this is just business as usual and happens all the time every day.

Wise words.

What's the sense in spewing out endless chunks of code when no one (even the authors later on) can take the time to read it and understand it?

Why not review the code that's already been written (like the open source code Apple and other walled gardens rely on to build their systems)? This is the sort of tinkering that will help us develop alternatives.

To find the doors, and build new ones, we have to read old code, not simply write new code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com