Building a tool to enhance the experience of another service isn't the same as building or supporting a walled garden.
That's like saying "developing for iOS||Android||Windows Phone||Symbian is supporting a walled garden!" or "making a petrol||diesel||electric car is supporting a walled garden!"
No - it's like making something that improves something else, for a demographic that you've decided has some kind of benefit to you or your interests longer term.
Building a tool to enhance the experience of another service isn't the same as building or supporting a walled garden.
Building a tool that enhances a walled garden is supporting a walled garden.
That's like saying "developing for iOS||Android||Windows Phone||Symbian is supporting a walled garden!" or "making a petrol||diesel||electric car is supporting a walled garden!"
Where an operating system only allows you to run programs that the makers of that OS approve, then it is a walled garden, and writing software for it certainly is supporting a walled garden.
"making a petrol||diesel||electric car is supporting a walled garden!"
Bad analogy, since none of these things are monopolies of one company.
That's like saying "developing for iOS||Android||Windows Phone||Symbian is supporting a walled garden!"
How is it not though? One of the defining features of each mobile platform is its rich third party app ecosystem.
iOS was the mobile platform for a good period of time because the apps only it had. Therefore, those third party developers did in fact support the walled garden, you could even go as far to say that without these developers, the walled garden never would have been what it is today.
Very valid replies, I guess I'm being clumsy with the language a bit.
It seems odd to criticise Mailbox for only supporting limited services because where is the line to be drawn? If it extends to include Yahoo, Live, Outlook, does that cause it to lose its Walled Garden Supporter's badge? What about mail.com, hushmail, topmail, safe-mail, etc, etc, etc.
There is no possible way every feature could be delivered on every platform at launch (I already said this in another comment here), so I guess my point was that it seems unreasonable to bash Mailbox as a Walled Garden Supporter just because it started in one place. Everyone has to start somewhere - otherwise if the launch criteria is perfect, ubiquitous software there would be quite literally no software available.
You're missing the point. You don't need to build in support for Yahoo, Live, Outlook etc separately. We've got standards (like IMAP) which have been designed specifically to enable interoperability of software from different vendors.
Comments
Building a tool to enhance the experience of another service isn't the same as building or supporting a walled garden.
That's like saying "developing for iOS||Android||Windows Phone||Symbian is supporting a walled garden!" or "making a petrol||diesel||electric car is supporting a walled garden!"
No - it's like making something that improves something else, for a demographic that you've decided has some kind of benefit to you or your interests longer term.
Building a tool that enhances a walled garden is supporting a walled garden.
Where an operating system only allows you to run programs that the makers of that OS approve, then it is a walled garden, and writing software for it certainly is supporting a walled garden.
Bad analogy, since none of these things are monopolies of one company.
How is it not though? One of the defining features of each mobile platform is its rich third party app ecosystem.
iOS was the mobile platform for a good period of time because the apps only it had. Therefore, those third party developers did in fact support the walled garden, you could even go as far to say that without these developers, the walled garden never would have been what it is today.
In fact, that goes as far as Apple basing some of their TV campains entirely on apps they haven't developped. Even now.
Very valid replies, I guess I'm being clumsy with the language a bit.
It seems odd to criticise Mailbox for only supporting limited services because where is the line to be drawn? If it extends to include Yahoo, Live, Outlook, does that cause it to lose its Walled Garden Supporter's badge? What about mail.com, hushmail, topmail, safe-mail, etc, etc, etc.
There is no possible way every feature could be delivered on every platform at launch (I already said this in another comment here), so I guess my point was that it seems unreasonable to bash Mailbox as a Walled Garden Supporter just because it started in one place. Everyone has to start somewhere - otherwise if the launch criteria is perfect, ubiquitous software there would be quite literally no software available.
You're missing the point. You don't need to build in support for Yahoo, Live, Outlook etc separately. We've got standards (like IMAP) which have been designed specifically to enable interoperability of software from different vendors.
The tool supports a walled garden at any point it requires its' user to use such a platform to interface with it.