A closed platform is an operating system/ development environment that is very strict in what programmers are allowed to do, usually in respects to SDK access and functionality restrictions. An example of this would be the platform created by Apple for the iPhone/ iPad/ and iTouch. Essentially, Apple are the gate keepers in the fact that there are strict rules and limitations on what parts of the software development kit you can access and utilize, and they also control which applications get approved or denied for their app store. Speaking of which, Apple forces developers to use their official App Store, thus forcing developers to abide by their standards and rules if they want to develop applications for their platform.

At the very beginning of the emergence of operating systems, many platforms were fairly closed in that the creators of the platforms were the only ones who could actually edit, change, or create content for the OS. As time evolved however, two approaches to development were created. Microsoft really cashed in on the open platform ideal, as instead of focusing on hardware + software like many of its competitors, it strictly focused on creating the Operating System for many types of hardware and allowed any one to create applications for it. While there have been quite a few security concerns with this approach, Windows has around 90% market penetration compared to the competition. In the mobile market however, the closed platform idea seems to be much more feasible and competitive towards the open approach. Currently, Apple and Research In Motion (both closed platform approaches mostly) have a higher percentage than Android, although Androids adoption is accelerating rapidly. Microsoft itself has even moved towards more of a closed approach with its App Store for its new Windows Phone 7 OS, as many of the applications floating around for its previous models were junk and greatly impaired the phones performance and thus consumer satisfaction. As of today, Microsoft still leads with its relatively open Windows OS while Apple is trying to bring its successful mobile strategy as far as a closed, controlled App Store to the desktop with the introduction of a computer side App Store to get approved applications through. It should be interesting to see how this develops and whether this closed approach can make any headway against a dominant open approach in the desktop market.

Closed Platforms have a myriad of pros and cons attributed to them. By strictly controlling what developers can access and use, platforms can ensure that no malicious or rogue applications find their way into the app stores and thus on consumers devices. This can be especially beneficial when it comes to computing technology being used for vote counting purposes. Since many of the early voting machines were based off of the Windows Kernel, many of these machines are susceptible to trojans, viruses, malware, and spyware. Developing a closed ecosystem from the beginning to go with the voting machine hardware would allow a tight, locked down operating system that is much more secure than its Windows counterpart.

The downside to closed platforms is that they can stifle innovation and slow down the evolution and advancement of platforms. An example of this would be the iPhone. For the first part of the iPhones time on the market, many basic functionalities that could be created by third partys for the phone were absent, thus diminishing the product. Functionalities such as Video Recording, multi tasking, copy and paste, were absent and native applications by companies like Google (Gtalk, gmail etc) and Opera (Opera mobile) were refused from the App Store. As a result, the iPhone lacked many basic features other smart phones touted and thus its growth was stunted until Apple finally opened up their platform a little bit to developers.

Closed Platform

• iPhone
• Blackberry

Open Platform

• Android
• Chrome OS
• Windows
• Linux