My response to an article about walled-garden systems (I love this analogy).

Yes. You're right. A system under the control of a single entity can produce some amazing results and make things far more convenient for consumers. I say this because I am a console gamer.

Games consoles have always been designed as closed systems. The games that appear on them are designed to run on exactly that system, with exactly those specifications. The distinction between console and computer is a little hazier than it used to be, but for the most part they remain closed systems. And they work wonderfully. Switch it on, level up, switch it off. Done. Lovely.

And playing games consoles did make me want to grow up to be a games developer, so it's certainly true that you don't need an open system to be inspired. I was writing my own text-adventures on our DOS machine within a year or two of beginning my console-playing life, and I absolutely loved nutting out why something wasn't working, and understanding the root reasons why things behaved as they did.

So I agree. Walled gardens are lovely.

But I still prefer oceans.

If I buy a pot-plant for my walled garden - actually, let's make it a Golden Wattle bonsai, I've always wanted one of those - and manage not to kill it, it will slowly grow and look stunning in my little walled garden.

Then I get a new job in a distant city, and need to move house. I try to take my beautiful Golden Wattle mini-tree of awesomeness with me, but I can't. It's perfectly self-contained, and it will thrive in the new environment as well as the old one - in fact, my new place has a larger garden and a nice shaded space that will be perfect for the tree - but I can't take it with me. I'm not allowed. I purchased it for this garden, and I can't take it with me elsewhere if I decide to move.

To me it feels like the Walled Gardens article is attacking the least significant part of the argument against closed systems. I think that the key concerns supporters of open systems have are not that they cannot modify them and tinker at will. It's that You Can't Take It With You. That's the fear of the closed system.

It's the problem the Kindle has, and why I'm planning on buying a BeBook later in the year. It's why I never used iTunes until they removed the DRM protection on music files.

If someone builds a better garden, I want to visit it. But closed formats mean I have to buy all my plants all over again. This has been a woe of console gamers for years - once their old 1980s NES dies, that’s it for their old cartridges.

I would love to read Fray magazine on something like an iPad. But if one day a competitor creates an eMaxiPad that is more powerful, elegant, and can read any non-proprietary format - I won't be able to take my earlier copies of the magazine with me.

Unless… unless someone implements a separate  system which tracks and tallies all your purchases across all mediums, and therefore authorises you to download copies of something you already paid for so that it can be played across a different machine.

Another solution that requires less collaboration of closed-system companies would be to have the individual vendors to store your purchases of their products, and then give you a license to download whatever version of their product will run on your machine of choice forever. That way I could download a different closed or open format of the same magazine rather than losing my ability to read it once the hardware changes.

That would make things much simpler.

I love oceans. I love the network of rivers that lead to estuaries feeding them. Water, free to evaporate, condense, and rain down on any point in the world. Including my beautifully designed walled garden.