I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: because they think it provides a better consumer experience. That, in turn, is what translates into more money and more sales. (I believe they said on their conference call earlier this week that don't make much off their cut of app sales).
The iPhone and iPad are not computers: they're extensible consumer electronics devices. The iPhone sells so well precisely because it just works, and it's really hard to screw it up relative to a computer. How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Because they're attracting developers to their closed system? How is this any more evil than Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft making their game consoles relatively closed systems?
We should all keep in mind that computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population who has no idea how to deal with viruses, install or remove software, resolve crashes or incompatibilities, or even navigate a file system so they don't lose their documents.
Maybe I'm too cynical about computers and give Apple too much of the benefit of the doubt, but their devices are good precisely because they exert so much end-to-end control, and computers are broken for so many people precisely because they're so open.
I think its important to realize what you miss out on as much as what you get. Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser.
Apple has explicitly disallowed any interpreter other than the one built into Safari, simply because it would be impossible to have a web browser without JS. Some would argue that they've severely crippled it by removing Flash, which demonstrates just how far they are willing to go.
Now imagine if the iPad had arrived before the browser. They would have never allowed this browser idea, with this crazy "javascript" thing, on the App Store. There would have been no special exception because it "might change the world". I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history, even if we had to do it at the cost of those confusing file systems and other side effects of open systems.
The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.
Its possible to create a great, easy to use system, that is also open. Arguably the web is precisely this. The web is also usable by my grandparents. The web can also eliminate the complexities of the file system (each web app stores its files). But the web is still open.
The core of the ChromeOS is open, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os....
Chrome OS is espousing a new style of computing which is all done through the web browser. Chrome OS has a standards based, no gatekeeper method of delivering new applications to users. It's called HTTP.
> Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser.
Assuming this had at some point become the only common model of computing, what would keep out newcomers from coming out with less locked-down systems? What about things like "many dealers started bundling the Apple II with VisiCalc" (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.htm...); if there's sufficiently useful software that won't run on your computer, you (or your employer) will buy a new, working, computer.
> The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.
General computing cannot be replaced by such devices, let alone by a single implementation of such a device by a single manufacturer.
The issue here is that in a world where this is the computing model, its not realistic for every new software idea to start with "let me ship my own surrounding system including hardware". If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness".
General computing cannot be replaced by...
This argument is just "closed systems are not bad because there are also open systems". My point is simply that if closed systems win, then they are bad. So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree.
> If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness".
But they do understand "that particular very useful software won't run on this machine".
> So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree.
That is what I'm saying. Some large fraction of software development is done in-house; closed platforms wouldn't allow this, and it's expensive enough that if it wasn't important it probably wouldn't be done now. In the past, sufficiently useful software has come with a bundled computer; if this had to be done regularly, someone would see an opportunity to sell an open computer that could run more than one kind of software.
> I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history
I really don't agree with that. In computer history, it had been preceded by generations of dumb terminals hooked up to networks, so as such it wasn't all that new. The HTTP protocol underlying it and the URL arguably are much more important developments, the browser is just a presentation layer on top of those.
As for human history, the wheel, the control of fire, penicillin, communications satellites, space travel and hundreds of other inventions were both done earlier and have had a much bigger impact on how we live than the browser ever will.
How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers?
I don't think the opportunity is lost, it's just that none of the big companies are taking advantage of it. Honestly, I think that's because they think it's too hard. Microsoft and Apple have been trying for decades at this point to make a computer that's open, easy to use for everyone, never crashes, etc. The open source community has been trying too. I don't see anyone as having succeeded there. It's not for lacking of wanting to succeed, or for a lack of trying, it's just a really hard problem, and by locking things down they can create things that work much more predictably and reliably.
I don't think the OLPC is a counter-example; it solves some issues in virtue of having a standardized hardware platform, and they've tried to do away with the file system (which sort of works and sort of doesn't), but I don't think they've completely solved all the other problems around versioning and installation and removal and viruses and third-party devices that need their own drivers, etc. I don't know a ton about it, so it's entirely possible there's something else innovative there that I'm missing. I also would argue that they haven't done it in a device that an average consumer would really want. They done all sorts of innovative things that I think are great, but I don't think they've solved those fundamental issues in a general way.
As for the moral obligation standpoint . . . I haven't read Zittrain's book, so I can't fully debate that argument. From my perspective, roughly, you have a moral obligation not to do X if doing X infringes on someone else's rights without their consent. So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow, and that just seems like a tough argument to make. I think the effect of something like the iPad on the future of computers, the internet, society as a whole, etc. is so hard to predict that I don't think you can fairly say that someone or some company has a moral obligation one way or the other. Maybe those devices will open up computing to people that currently couldn't use those devices, making their lives better. Maybe it will enable doctors to carry around a tablet that helps them avoid mistakes, saving lives. Maybe it will help small-time developers make more money selling their software. Or maybe it will kill innovation and put us at the mercy of an increasingly-paranoid government and law-enforcement community or put our information and privacy firmly in the hands of large corporations. It's so hard to say which way things will go that I just don't think you can say it's unethical.
> So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow
There is a not so far-fetched way to argue this: the device is ultra-closed. If its concept become successful enough, people which want to use open system may be denied the possibility. Not directly because of the success of closed platforms but because this success may allow regulation to happen without too many people complaining.
I have an actual example: how web mail harms me, even when I am not using it. Web mail is pervasive. The direct result was that many ISPs felt they could block the outgoing SMTP port (to stop evil spam). "Everyone" is using web mail or the mail of their ISP, so not too many people complain. Now, I can't set up SMTP server at home. Depending on the workaround, either my privacy or my wallet is harmed.
"trying for decades at this point to make a computer that's open, easy to use for everyone, never crashes, etc."
The last Mac I bought ran Tiger. Given reasonable maintenance, and good net hygiene, I had one software crash that I know of. It was the hardware that failed repeatedly ... screen, drive.
I've also been using Vista for a year. No significant events (I'm not pushing the envelope all that hard, do PM, net hygiene.)
I'm just saying that they've gotten pretty close to "never crashes" to be quitting now. But to give -many more- consumers the -stability- they need, and to protect them from the darkside of the net, there needs to be a degree of closedness.
There used to be a lot of wide-open platforms before mainstreaming boiled down options for most to PC/Mac. It was a chaotic period, and the narrowing down arguably made widespread adoption and economy of scale possible. If there were still 20 platforms ... well I don't even want to think about it. The complexity and cost, I suspect, would be an order of magnitude higher. So -we gained- from the mainstreaming.
I don't really grok the sense of anxiety here. The App store won't sell apps that aren't approved? But anyone who wants to can. Most people seem to want decisions made for them, because they're busy with the rest of their life. (See: US Congress.) Yes, you give up freedoms when other people are making choices for you. So long as I'm still free to choose for myself, what's the problem? I'm not going to roll my own OS ... so that decision's already in someone else's hands.
Well, OLPC has different goals. OLPC is meant to spark an interest in computers and teach people in third-world countries how to program so that they can deploy that skill to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. The ability to uncover complexity is therefore fundamental to the OLPC, and its design hints toward it.
iPad is for people who are content to use Facebook.
Lots of people are trying. Only Apple actually seems to be making forwards-edge progress? In order to compete with Apple, people need to try less and succeed more, otherwise Apple's superior user experience is going to steamroll any ideological benefits.
I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: it's a lock-in device. The more people buy these half-assed products that limit their choices and exclude 3rd party support and control of your own device, the more money they can funnel out of you. Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us. Oh, you want a program so you can be productive? You better hope we approved a recent version of it. Don't like it? Too bad, you already bought the hunk of metal and silicon, deal with it. Make no mistake: total vendor control is not in your best interests as a consumer. It never has been, never will be.
They certainly don't let other digital media sellers make it convenient for iPhone users. You have to go through their store (iTunes) in order to synchronize digital media from other stores to your phone.
The more I think about the iPad, the more it looks like a computer to me and one that would satisfy a large segment of the PC market. I'm just not sure why Apple isn't marketing it as one and selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers. It's a PC but one that you can easily take with you, turn on quickly, and do stuff on the go. In a weird way, the history of the Tablet seems to have them responding that it's not a Tablet PC. But I see no reason, practically, why it couldn't be exactly that.
Otherwise, I agree with you completely. And looking at their 8% market share of PCs, there's a lot of room for them to improve in that category and do very, very well. They've already shown that simplicity sells.
No. Please, no. I love my Mac to death for one simple reason: I can program it and distribute my apps to just about anyone without restrictions and without having to go through the abomination that is the AppStore. Why does the computing industry suddenly want to take the joy out of programming by pushing for closed devices?
No, I won't program for the web. Why? Because I don't want to write JavaScript. I want to write C, C++, Objective-C, Python, Perl, Haskell or any one of the thousands of programming languages I can run on my Mac today.
> selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard
I think many of those who are fine with it being their main computer will be fine without a keyboard. Also, it wouldn't be Apple's style. It reminds me of how the MacBook Air doesn't come with an optical drive.
package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers
There is a dock with a built in keyboard, and there is a plain dock. The iPad also supports Apple wireless keyboards, has a built in speaker, and both docks have audio jacks.
Also, you can buy iWork for it, so yes, may as well be a consumer computer. Don't expect XCode or Terminal apps though.
The thing is: Why not just sell this device as the next generation iMac? It could have had a sweet stand, a wireless keyboard, a remote, etc. Set the base price at $599. Heck, Jobs could have demoed it as a desktop, then grabbed it and unveiled all the Tablet features. (Of course, you still sell a version without the peripherals). But it seems to me many of the complaints come from an anchoring bias. If this were introduced as a desktop that you could easily (very easily) travel with, what would the complaints be? That it's not really a desktop? That would be the point! And at the price point, wouldn't they start to take business away from Dell and HP? Instead, now it seems like a luxury item where this could easily be an inexpensive family computer for doing homework, research, coach surfing, etc. Why does the marketing seem off?
Why not just sell this device as the next generation iMac?
Because it has a 1GHz single core CPU which is far slower than any other computer Apple sells, with an architecture that most likely won't run any existing programs.
The inability to change their products is directly tied to the restrictions in the problem space that let them make the defaults great. You're right, you can't change them. Which means you can't screw it up. Most people are not tech-savy enough to handle the choices, so instead of giving people something mediocre and saying it can be customized, Apple makes something great that is locked down. For most people, that's perfect. For those it isn't good enough for, they can get something else.
I completely agree. I find that especially older people simply do not understand computers or even the concept of multi-tasking. The iPad has been getting flack because it is basically just an iPhone and can't run multiple apps at once. Yet the problem I see is that a lot of non-tech people don't really seem to understand the idea of running multiple programs at once. To them the iPhone style of opening an app, using it, closing it, and then opening it to see it in the state that it was in when you closed it makes more sense. As long as app launching is kept extremely fast, almost instantaneous, it is no inconvenience either.
This is just one small example of the way the iPhone / Apple techniques seem to work well for people because they are simple and easy to use.
"That’s not to say the iPad won’t sell, or that I don’t want one. The scariest thing is that I think it probably will. ... I love Apple products. I’m a huge Apple fan. I’d buy an iPad right now if I could."
This is why Apple will continue to do what it is doing right now. People complain about its controlling policies. People call them "evil". But these very same people will not back up their words with action and continue to buy products made by an "evil" company.
As long as Apple continue to hit its peak in stock price, as long as it earns record-breaking profits, as long as it sells millions of products, it will not change its ways.
To the author, you can blog all you want about Apple's policies. The only thing that matters is for you to turn that into action. If you think Apple is "evil", don't buy its product. Stop patronizing "evil".
I am boycotting the iPhone/iPad (I have the open N900), but I don't have any illusions that it will change anything. In a world where 1% of the people create all the innovation, boycotts by innovators are pointless. For the past ~20 years the masses have been effectively subsidizing tinkerers/hackers/developers by buying open PCs even though they didn't really need them; now that has come to an end and it looks painful to those former beneficiaries.
It's not 'coming to an end.' Business users will still use laptops. No one is going to be writing novels or creating complex spreadsheets on an iPad. 'The masses' will need a computer that can do those other things well (for school or such), and they don't have the budget to buy a general-purpose PC/Mac + an iPad + an iPhone.
That's not as clear as it sounds. Most people don't write novels or complex spreadsheets. For short stories and simple spreadsheets, the dock plus a wireless keyboard And iWork Touch might suffice.
My hope that there will always be an open Mac is based on the thought that they need to sell something on which to write apps. Hopefully they keep one of these devices in laptop form factor.
What I think is funny, is that Apple has tried to encourage people to be their own content generators with things like iMovie, GarageBand, etc. People can't do those things with the iPad. The iPad (for the most part) relegates the user to just being a consumer.
In general though there will need to be an 'open' Mac for a number of things: audio editing, video editing, photo/video storage (I have 40Gb+ of photos and I only have a little point-and-shoot), photo editing, 3D modeling (for movies/design/engineering, etc.
This is not the death of the general purpose computer. Think of the number of amateur photographers out there, enabled by software like Photoshop/Aperture/LightRoom and the afford-ability/accessibility of DSLRs. Think of the number of people editing their own videos and/or music out there? They can't do this on an iPad. Granted, these people aren't a majority of the population, but there are a significant amount of younger people that are adopting these hobbies because they are so accessible now (thanks to the general purpose desktop computer).
A lot of people will buy one used, which doesn't add anything to Apple's bottom line. Although you could argue that Apple products' relatively high resale value drives some initial sales...
I don't know the answer to this, but have we seen evidence that Apple's commitment to OS X is waning? They seem to have discussed multiple product lines today, one of those being the "computer" market, and the others being part of their new "mobile device" markets, namely iPhone/iPod Touch and the new tablet.
I do know that as far as tech support, I've had to help my girlfriend out a ton with her MacBook (curse you spinning beach ball), but the extent of support I've had to provide for her iPhone has been, "switch it off and switch it on again."
Perhaps Apple is distinguishing between full-fledged computers (for those who have the technical skill and desire to tinker) and consumer devices that are, yes, tightly controlled but less likely to get screwed up by your average person who likes to email, browse the web and watch videos.
I think that's the key point - this is a great "computer for dummies". A machine your grandparents could use.
I don't need an iPad in the same way I don't need a car with built-in radar to help me reverse. But there are plenty of people who do need that help. I'm happy for the choice to be there, just as long as I can still buy an open machine. Personally, I don't see Apple giving up on that area.
I think people are confusing corporations succeeding in a capitalist market with "evil". This is AMERICA, where we compete for everything and anyone can do anything, as long as they can do it better than someone else. Apple is not evil. They're a company that likes to make money, and likes to make devices that people blow their loads over.
I worked at apple for a while... they gave me some cool things like a free bus pas ($50 in Hawaii) every month to encourage use of public transit. They're certainly not evil, not any more evil than Google, Microsoft, HP, IBM, the list goes on...
They're just the most successful. And it always sucks at the top, because everyone is trying to bring you down. Imagine all the companies that are trying to get at Apple's trade secrets, it's no wonder they have such intense security.
Who said anything about secrecy or getting at their trade secrets? Aaron is sad that Apple’s long-term strategy, as far as he can tell, is to build locked-down platforms where they take control away from device owners. This makes those of us who like to tinker – who believe in constructivist education and free culture and open systems and decentralized power – sad, because the more successful these devices are, the more they threaten to undermine those values.
Our lives are full of devices that could be general purpose, but were made more specialized for ease of use, maintenance, battery life, or w/e.
I don't understand why so many people are getting their panties in a knot because somebody is selling another non-general-use device with a processor.
And I know that hyperbolic rhetoric is fun, but let's be realistic. This is not undermining constructivist education, free culture, decentralized power or open systems in any meaningful way. If you really think it's accomplishing all that, go take your medication.
I don't understand why so many people are getting their panties in a knot because somebody is selling another non-general-use device with a processor.
They actually are general-purpose devices, just deliberately limited by Apple. And I'm sort of ok with that; I'm not ok with them actively trying to stop you from removing those limitations on your own device, and calling you a criminal if you do. A seller trying to control how you use a product after you've bought it is an attack on your property rights.
This is not undermining constructivist education, free culture, decentralized power or open systems in any meaningful way.
1) You've attacked "general-purpose" computers that are turned into controlled platforms.
Without moving from my chair, I can see the following "general-purpose" computers that have been turned into controlled platforms.
A Directv HD DVR. A Sony Playstation. A Nintendo Wii. A TomTom GPS. A Samsung Television. A Treadmill. A BlackBerry. An iPod Touch. A Logitech Remote Control.
Precisely when should I be outraged that a device's capabilities aren't as general-purpose as you'd prefer? Heck, some of those devices (the television, GPS, and treadmill) even run Linux, yet are "crippled" by their manufacturers.
2) I'm not ok with them actively trying to stop you from removing those limitations on your own device,
Every trade has two sides. If a seller says "I will sell this to you for X if you agree not to do Y", that's a trade that you can either accept or reject. I fail to see why you, as a buyer, should have a right to demand that all rights transfer for a particular price if the seller doesn't want to transfer them all for that price.
So long as it's reasonably clear, and disclosed, I fail to see the problem.
3) "calling you a criminal" ... "easier to enforce user-hostile laws like CBDTPA"
Blaming a specific, unreleased non-general computer for laws you don't like is almost comic. I say 'almost' because it's really kind of annoying that you want to strip the rights of innovators to make what they want, in the name of 'freedom'.
If I want to wrap a processor, input method and display up in a manner that precludes using it for general purpose computing, as a means to solve a problem, I should have every right to do it and sell it. And you can buy it or not buy it.
But claiming it's responsible for every law you don't like, that it's an assault on property rights, and that it's an attack on constructivist education, free culture or decentralized power is utter and complete rubbish.
No, the device itself is not an attack, and it is perfectly reasonable that all kinds of devices exist. The fear, however, is that this device, and others like it, will someday vastly reduce the market for general-purpose devices.
There is no particular person in the wrong, and I wouldn’t call it “evil,” exactly, that all of our devices are now impossible to repair for the average person, or even the enthusiastic hobbyist: clocks, cameras, radios, automobiles, telephones ... everything we use is becoming too complex for people to understand, except in a rough, schematic way.
This has tremendous benefits, as we can make more sophisticated devices, with useful features, and our lives become more comfortable. But you must admit it also has a down-side: we lose the ability to repair, to tinker, to reverse-engineer, to understand our surroundings, to personally implement incremental improvements, etc. Each user sacrifices a little bit of control for a little bit of comfort, incrementally.
The bit of knowledge we do have about science ends up coming from top-down mandated curricula, purely theoretical understanding learned through books, rather than from practical experience cooking our own meals, tending our own gardens, crafting our own furniture, fixing our own appliances.
I believe that computers are amazingly useful and powerful general-purpose devices, and understanding how to program them can be extremely empowering, because it allows people to solve their own problems. If all you have is an iPad and a DVR and a built-in car GPS and a cell phone, you can only use them on the problems that other people already solved, and if your problem is different, you’re shit out of luck.
if all I have is an iPad, I can write lots of potentially interesting software for it. They are still programmable, after all.
That said, the fact that you seem to think that cooking meals, gardening, woodworking, and appliance repair are also impossible indicates to me that you're not really railing about the iPad.
These are great days to tinker. Just a slightly different kind of tinkering, is all.
> if all I have is an iPad, I can write lots of potentially interesting software for it. They are still programmable, after all.
There is only 2 way such a thing is possible.
(1) By default, the iPad let you write, compile and run programs in it without requiring any external device (like a iMac with XCode). That would mean it is easy to distribute such programs without going through the App Store, just like with a plain old desktop computer. I don't believe it for a second.
(2) You had jailbroken it.
Therefore, it is safe to say that by default, the iPad is not programmable.
If you're afraid that general purpose computers are going to be destroyed by the iPad, you have far more faith in the level of success it can achieve than I do.
If you're not, jacobulous's ridiculous hypothetical scenario isn't worth treating seriously. And I treated it with all the lack of seriousness I believed it to deserve.
I'm not scared, but I think it is worth to look out, because this kind of scenario has already happened, for instance with web-based mail: webmail is convenient, limited, and pervasive. Plus, spam is evil. Result: most ISPs block the outgoing SMTP port without too much complaints.
Now, imagine that devices like the iPad are the majority (like Windows is now). Plus, viruses and netbots are evil. Result: Trusted Computing everywhere.
This is of course the extreme, very unlikely scenario. However, this is so serious that I think it is worth to watch out, even knowing that the odds are almost nil.
You cannot take the "it's not evil, it's just capitalism" argument all the way to its logical conclusion. Even a basic Economics 100 class will teach you that it's more complicated than that. Some levels of "good" and "evil" may have slippery and relative definitions, but it should be obvious that evil, as well as good, can exist in capitalism.
If you disagree with what is being called "evil", than you could be more specific. I don't think free bus passes for employees justifies a company to engage in anti-competitive behavior. Remember, legal != good.
Companies can be successful and making a lot of money without taking away their users' freedom.
It doesn't make them evil, but it makes me loose any interest in their products.
EDIT: Sorry somehow I thought this post had no URL, I was making these comments purely on the title. Must have accidentally clicked comments instead of the title.
I don’t know why they’re doing it. It’s hard to see how it makes them more money. (Curating all those apps must be expensive, not to mention the lost sales from the unapproved ones.)
It seems like a 30% cut of any app sold for your operating system would far outweigh the cost of approving those sales.
Apple, at least, claims they don't make much money there. Per their latest quarterly call: "iTunes and App Store are still running 'a bit over break-even.' We’re investing a lot in these stores – that’s where the revenue is going." http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/25/apple-q1-2010-results/
What happens when they stop needing to invest huge amounts of revenue into their stores? Major profits.
Example: I buy a B&B and use the revenue from my rentals to expand the property to get more rooms (IE higher revenue) and I invest that too. 10 years down the road I could have the biggest hotel in the country, making record revenues but nearly zero profit, and then I stop expanding. I'm then raking in multi-millions from one-stop sales and my business will have operated exactly the same as iTunes and the App store.
Apple has the potential to make huge amounts of money off of iTunes and the App store. They're just delaying this to expand their market hold and look benign. "How can Apple possibly be evil?" you hear people ask; "They barely profit off their stores," they say. 10 years down the line, when no one cares anymore, no one will bat an eyelid when Apple is taking in over a billion dollars from its iTunes and App store sales.
Wouldn't "W're investing a lot in these stores" translate into "lots of fixed costs are being spent building ourselves a platform to profit off of this?"
This control gives them veto power over every piece of software on the iPad lets them create a seamless user experience. People are used to computers crashing and being impossible to use. I think people will pay a lot of money for a computer that doesn't require a CS degree to operate. I'm sure Apple does too.
Agreed, Apple is certainly trying to close things down, but there's sufficient competition in the space that I don't see the "frightening future".
If pads take off now, there'll be a decent Android GoogPad, WinMo ZunePad, with Amazon selling no-DRM media, etc. and you can decide if you want a slightly less sexy design in exchange for device functionality/flexibility.
The are betting on their platform which should be more than enough for the average user, therefore the lack of Flash.
Whether that will fire-back to them remains to be seen. It probably wont for the time being.
But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash? Except playing videos (for which there are alternative) I don't see much other use.
The average user doesn't care what OS you give them as long as you are meeting their expectations. As long as Safari is full compliant with the web standards I don't care about anything else.
Anyhow, if this is going to be a successful product other hardware makers will follow and you will be able to install Windows.
But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash?
Two reasons:
1. It's Apple, everything is supposed to just work. As a web developer, I not a huge Flash fan. But if I'm on my iPhone or iPad and I get the "missing plugin" brick, I'm pissed: I'm missing out on content. Steve Jobs wasn't telling the whole truth when he said it was the "real internet".
and 2. Flash was introduced almost 15 years ago. The fact that Apple is today announcing a magical device with a touchscreen and a blazing fast mobile processor, but one that cannot run a plugin that my grey Gateway 2000 Pentium I desktop had no trouble with just seems backwards. I don't know if it's an Apple problem or an Adobe problem, but it's what you get when you mix two companies with closed software standards.
Your points are valid, but I don't see how they affect the average web user. I'd be iterated too if there was a missing plugin. But most pages don't depend on flash so the odds of that happening are less.
With the upcoming compilation of Flash to native applications developers will be able to tunnel their apps through the App Store. Not perfect but for Flash game developers it's not so bad.
How will developers create new applications for the iPhone OS without the Mac?
Just think about this question to see how this article is utterly nonsensical. Contrary to what the Apple apologists are saying Apple do not have "user experience" as it main concern. What is really happening is just a transition, Apple is becoming more and more a digital content distributor and less of the hardware/software company that it was in the past will remain, but it will not be obliterated, and the iPad is just a materialization of this police of a company that is trying to win more money in this market.
As long as Apple doesn't do anything to harm alternative platforms I admire their determination to provide the most elegant, usable, consumer devices possible. I want the most usable device possible and I'm willing to accept some limitations to get it. It's a choice that's just as valid as buying the most hardcore Linux/OSS device you can find because you want the maximum flexibility and freedom.
Any time there are ideological stakes and interests there are bound to be "evil" plans to preserve them. In the end it's going to be consumer choice and as long as Apple keeps their customers comfortably numb I don't think they are going to change their ways to be friendlier to the developer community.
It’s clear that Apple plans for the iPhone OS to be the future of its product line.
I don't like that they are making such a big push with the iPhone OS either, but how is it "clear" that Apple plans to make it the foundation of its future product line?
Thinking of it, I'm surprised that they haven't made more moves in that direction yet.
Can you think of anyone you know who would be better off with an Iphone like OS for their primary machine? Streamlined & controlled app installation. No file system access. No virtual desktop. No desktop at all.
I know several. The reality is that most people still feel awkward with computers. They have to ask for help. They qualify sentences with "I don't know computers." It's not just about what they can do (they can usually get their work done), it's about how that feels. It feels crap.
I seriously think that if you put an iMac sized iphone in front of them with a Word app and such, they would feel a lot better with it. They wouldn't need to ask for help. They wouldn't feel like they don't understand. They would be able to get their work done just as well. In fact, an iPad with 3g & a keyboard dock is almost there. Maybe it is there.
Why should Apple want the world of computing to look like this? They are good at that world.
The iPad and other closed systems (PS3, Xbox) don't magically make Windows PCs, Macs, Linux or the Web go away.
As developers we have more choices than we have had in a very long time in terms of picking the platforms we want to develop for. Every platform has its pros and cons, as a developer you get to choose what's important to you when picking a platform to target.
People who want to write software will always pick open systems. People who aren't techies or creatives just want technology to serve a purpose (users of information appliances), and just want things to work with the minimal amount of fuss. Locking things down simplifies a lot of things for end users.
The panic over every platform that gets released that isn't suitably open, just makes me think of this Alan Kay quote:
"In fact, let’s not even worry about Java. Let’s not complain about Microsoft. Let’s not worry about them because we know how to program computers, too, and in fact we know how to do it in a meta-way. We can set up an alternative point of view, and we’re not the only ones who do this, as you’re well aware."
What if they're simply aiming for a bigger slice of the PC market? They came to dominate smartphones (and Music distribution) well-after the fact by simplifying everything. I don't see why the PC market is any different. Apples were always supposed to be easy to use and they've made software installations and updates much easier by controlling the process. 8% of the market leaves plenty of room for improvement and I'd bet a majority of users would gladly give up freedom for simplicity.
The important thing to remember here: there will always need to be a platform to run your IDE on to develop the closed-platform apps. Even In a completely locked-down world, the platform SDK has to be running on something.
it’s not hard to imagine Apple doing their best to phase
out the Macintosh in the next decade, just as they phased
out OS 9
I completely disagree. There's a need for high end machines for image, sound, and other professionals who use these machines because they are really good. Sure, some people who would have bought a iMac will end up buying an iPad instead because really all they need to do is surf the web and check their mail. But from there to discontinuing Mac OS X altogether it's a big leap of the imagination which I find unfounded.
Do you mean antitrust scrutiny? It seems like Apple's cream-skimming strategy allows them to be really profitable without ever getting large market share.
They need a monopoly... which they are nowhere near having. Even then an AppStore isn't anti-competitive (if anything, it embraces and thrives on competition).
I don't think it would be long before somebody is able to root the device and install a version of linux or android on the device. The nook was rooted within days and the iPad would be definitely more tempting to hackers to tinker with.
The real evil I see with Apple is the App Store. It's very anti-competitive. Since you can only sell ipod/ipad applications through their store, they own a monopoly on it.
This is problematic because it's a model that will never
allow any competition. If I wanted to start a store that takes only a 5% or 10% commission of every ipod/ipad application sale, I am unable to do this.
Apple is preventing me from selling other people's software more competitively than they can. Imagine if Walmart told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to distribute through any other channel besides Walmart.
That's a bad analogy. A better analogy is, "Imagine if Microsoft told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to sell Xbox games without having them approved by...oh, wait."
(If console games were small enough for digital download to be feasible, do you really think Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo would let you buy them at every damn store? Would they even bother putting drives in the machines anymore?)
If they had done anything with the Mac, then maybe. But they haven't, and they have little reason to if only because they need to sell Macs to iPhone/iPad developers.
"And the iPhone OS will only run software that they specifically approve. No Flash or other alternate runtimes, no one-off apps or open source customizations. Just total control by Apple. It’s a frightening future.
I don’t know why they’re doing it."
I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience. And it works for them and their users. 99.999% doesn't give a shit about your concerns.
That's the reason why iPhone sales trumps Nexus One/Droid/etc.
> I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience.
If Apple applied their logic to the Universe (or at least Earth) we would all be living in an episode of Leave it to Beaver to 'improve the user experience.' What if you don't want to live in a Leave it to Beaver universe? Too bad.
When Apple starts paying off legislators and bribing judges to outlaw the possession of Linux- and Windows-based PCs, you'll have a point. I don't see that happening, do you? Nobody is forcing you to live in Leave It to Beaver-land; you're just bitching because your cable company added an oldies channel that carries it.
Huh? I just took Apple's logic and applied it to an extreme. I didn't say that the extreme example applies to the real world.
You have to scale down the extreme example to fit it into the real world. The 'universe/world' here the equivalent of the 'iPad/iPhone.' Trying to claim that I'm really saying that Apple is controlling the world is either disingenuous or the result of an ill-fitting tinfoil hat.
The iPhone and iPad are not computers: they're extensible consumer electronics devices. The iPhone sells so well precisely because it just works, and it's really hard to screw it up relative to a computer. How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Because they're attracting developers to their closed system? How is this any more evil than Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft making their game consoles relatively closed systems?
We should all keep in mind that computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population who has no idea how to deal with viruses, install or remove software, resolve crashes or incompatibilities, or even navigate a file system so they don't lose their documents.
Maybe I'm too cynical about computers and give Apple too much of the benefit of the doubt, but their devices are good precisely because they exert so much end-to-end control, and computers are broken for so many people precisely because they're so open.