I really hope he's wrong about several of these things (no flash, only apps from an app store, full Apple lockdown of everything). Why would I want another iPhone, just with a bigger screen? Especially when it's not clear when I'd use it over an iPhone or my Macbook? I can only handle so much of the Apple totalitarianism, especially if the damn thing costs $1500 or something.
But that's just it...Apple's products vary widely in their degree of openness, from the iPod / iPhone / Apple TV on the end to their computers on the other end. So is this thing more like a computer (you buy it, you own it, hack it to hell and put anything you want on it), or an iPhone (you're basically renting this device from us, and we're going to dictate exactly what you can do with it)?
I think we're just lucky that the paradigm for a desktop computer is already settled.
Imagine if Apple started out as a company that distributes music and designs handheld devices before creating a computer. It's not hard to see a Mac OS that only lets you buy apps from an app store.
It's my understanding that the original reason behind the closed architecture of the iPhone was to keep the device secure on cell networks. Most of the restrictions are there to protect outside access, which is a good thing for the less savvy users. Plenty believe the App Store and SDK were an afterthought, added only after people grumbled about the restrictions of web-only apps, which were the simplest way to guarantee 3rd party software was safe.
Without the risk of an insecure cellular network, greed would be the only motivating factor in keeping this a closed device.
the original reason behind the closed architecture of the iPhone was to keep the device secure on cell networks
That's probably true for the iPhone, but it doesn't explain the closed nature of the iPod Touch. The two devices share the same core OS, but it wouldn't be difficult to let iPod Touch users download apps outside of the app store. So if its not about protecting the cellular networks, and it's not a technological barrier, what's left? I guess you could argue it's about control or about enforcing a consistent (and "safe") user experience. I'm hoping they don't apply the same thinking to the Tablet.
Without the risk of an insecure cellular network, greed would be the only motivating factor in keeping this a closed device.
What about the rumors that the Tablet will include nationwide 3G access, similar to the Kindle? I believe this is a necessary addition -- think about how useful the iPhone would be without Edge/3G access: not at all.
> "Why would I want another iPhone, just with a bigger screen?"
Maybe you wouldn't.
But I would. Because when I need mobile computing, I generally don't have a desk, or even a chair. Sometimes I'm actively walking around. And I don't need to use it for sessions of length or complexity that justify the overhead of the desktop computing model. And I don't need arbitrary pre-existing desktop apps.
I just need awesome core apps that I can get at in a couple seconds, use (literally) on the go and be able to get through a day without recharging or hassle (lock-ups). It doesn't have to replace my laptop. Just my dead-tree notebooks.
The iPhone has come far, far closer to working for me than conventional laptops, netbooks, or windows tablets. It just doesn't have quite enough screen real-estate for some tasks and the ergonomics aren't right for others.
