The ideal walled garden would be one that blocks spammy apps and malware - but not information. I think it's reasonable to support walled gardens in principle but be critical of some aspects of the Apple implementation.
I really despise the usage of a "Slippery Slope" claim, but I think that this really embodies the idea.
We have enough problems as is with anti-malware software throwing false positives, so who is to say that Apple can do any better? Likewise, "spammy apps" and "malware" are terms subject to definitions given by the curator. If we use past history as any indicator, then it seems Apple has already proven that the company has it's own definitions for these terms.
The logical fallacy here is the assumption that the guidelines imposed by apple won't lead to straight up draconian rules, which they almost already have. There is a reason why utopias do not exist.
Jeez louis, who's making that logical fallacy? Don't put your interpretation into other people's mouths. The moment Apple crosses a line, I'll bail. But I disagree that it has. It's just a fucking phone, for Christ's sake. And you can still do this app as a web app.
It's a question of two imperfect approaches. Google's "open" Android market (it isn't quite totally open is it?) is far from utopia too, no? All that malware sucks for non-technical users. Why not allow users the choice between both approaches? Or shall we follow your "draconian rule" and disallow this choice?
You should get an actual (and logical) understanding of "logical fallacy" and then review your comments above. Sigh.
One point to make: I didn't give you any downmods, because I can't and refuse to do so.
Let me see if I can explain this in more detail. I'm not saying the android market is perfect, nor am I saying that the iOS market is an ideal solution. My point is that the original statement:
> The ideal walled garden would be one that blocks spammy apps and malware - but not information
is a logical fallacy. Information is a very broad term, so the assumption that an overlord curator can perform their job in a non-invasive manner while magically defining what "bad" means is a road to hell. What we need is effectively the reddit of app stores; one curated by the community instead of a black box of employees. The tyranny of the democratic majority is still an issue, but it seems that this is a far more fair solution than what exists now.
It is an effort in futility to find the perfect end all solution, because that utopia can't exist. I would, however, rather have the risk of getting coal instead of diamonds instead of just what a company tells me is a diamond.
There's a lot more at stake here than that. These kinds of devices are quickly becoming the primary or even the only means of accessing the internet for a lot of people.
Sure, in theory a well curated walled garden is the perfect solution. In practice, though, there will always be disagreements between what should and shouldn't be outside those walls. And this is just my opinion, but a walled garden run by a giant corporation will always be seriously flawed.
