Apple and Microsoft: A Comparative Study on Openness in Their Operating Systems
The history of mobile operating systems is marked by a fascinating contrast between two giants: Apple and Microsoft. While Apple started with a closed operating system (iOS) with the introduction of the iPhone, Microsoft began with a command-line interface and later with a proprietary closed OS (Windows). This article delves into the nuances of openness in these operating systems and explores the implications for developers and users alike.
The Early Days of iOS
When Apple launched iOS in 2007, the landscape of mobile operating systems was quite different. Smartphones like the BlackBerry Storm and the Danger Hiptop were on the market, each with their own operating systems and ecosystems. Windows Mobile was also around but was not as widely adopted as iOS is today. The iOS operating system, like its Android counterpart, was designed to be closed by default, with accessibility to third-party applications through a centralized and official app store.
The Evolution of Windows
Microsoft, facing competition from Apple and the rise of Android, had to adapt and innovate. The release of Windows 1.0 was just a command-line interface, and it longed for graphical interfaces and third-party software. When Windows 3.0 came, it started to resemble Apple's operating system in terms of functionality and user interface. However, unlike Apple, Microsoft's Windows operating system was proprietary, with source code restricted and not publicly accessible. This was a common pattern for Windows, which remained closed, despite efforts to make it more open.
Openness in Modern Operating Systems
Today, the question of whether an operating system is open or closed is a nuanced one. Both iOS and Android, which was introduced in 2008, are closed by design, with the exception of jailbroken phones or unofficial app stores. Third-party software is tightly controlled by central app stores, much like the App Store on iOS and Google Play on Android. The same goes for Windows, which is a closed system, although developers can still access the Windows API for certain functionalities.
Impact on Developers and End Users
The closed nature of iOS and Windows has significant implications for developers and end users. For developers, third-party software and apps are often restricted, which can limit innovation and flexibility. However, this ecosystem ensures a degree of security and stability. On the other hand, users benefit from a curated and secure environment but might miss out on certain features that are available only through third-party apps.
Comparing Openness: iOS vs. Windows
Apple's iOS is often touted as a secured mobile operating system, distinct from its desktop counterpart macOS (which also uses Darwin as its core). While macOS is more open, iOS remains closed, with no direct path to modify the operating system's internals without significant jailbreaking and risks.
Windows, despite being a PC operating system, has historically been more open compared to iOS and Android. However, it is still far from being an open-source operating system. The rise of open-source initiatives like Linux and the WINE project (which allows Windows applications to run on Linux) has created a more open ecosystem around Windows. Nevertheless, Microsoft's source code is not publicly available, which limits the degree of openness.
Conclusion
The comparison between Apple's iOS and Microsoft's Windows highlights the dynamics of openness in operating systems. While iOS and Windows are closed by design, they have different contexts and implications. Understanding these differences is crucial for developers, users, and even policymakers in shaping the future of operating systems and software development.