Submitted by The beauty of the internet is such that every opinion has become worthless; this goes doubly so for those with publish buttons on (relatively, we’re humble) major websites. For every opinion, there’s a matching counter-opinion, and that’s great. Yesterday, we linked to an article by Mark Pilgrim about tinkerers and the iPad, and of course, someone was bound to disagree with that one.
In a piece on Gizmodo called “iPad Snivelers: Put Up or Shut Up“, author Joel Johnson rather colourfully disagrees with Mark Pilgrim. “You learned to love technology by tinkering? That’s great!” Johnson writes, “Please explain to me how a closed ecosystem like Apple’s will impede a curious child’s ability to explore in the least way. It’s not 1980. It doesn’t cost a month’s salary to buy a computer. And as long as it takes code to make programs, there will still be plenty of ‘real’ computers around.”
He’s obviously right that there currently are plenty of computers around. I think the fear we’re seeing here is that this model, where you do not own the software on your computer, where you do not even own the computer you just bought, is the model that will become dominant. The quote in Pilgrim’s article about DVD Jon really says it all. Which computer did he break into? His own.
Will that model become dominant? No one knows for sure, but it sure seems like Apple is busy going down that route. I rarely make predictions (since most predictions on the web are pulled out of behinds, and mine would be no different), but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mac OS X going the way of the iPhone OS. It’s in Apple’s mindset, its DNA.
During the creation of the original Macintosh, Andy Hertzfeld implemented a pattern editor in the control panel which allowed you to change the pattern displayed on the background of the Macintosh’ desktop. This was met with great resistance from other people in the Mac team.
Bill Atkinson complained to me that it was a mistake to allow users to specify their own desktop patterns, because it was harder to make a nice one than it looked, and led directly to ugly desktops. But I thought that users should be free to do as they pleased, since it was their desktop, and it was easy to revert to one of the built-in patterns. Bill cared most about MacPaint, and didn’t want a potentially ugly desktop pattern marring his creation. So he made MacPaint allocate a window that was the size of the screen when it started up, and filled it with the standard 50% gray pattern, making his own desktop covering up the real one, thus protecting the poor users from their rash esthetic blunders, at least within the friendly confines of MacPaint.
This is the mindset that is currently quite prevalent in Apple. You can see it in the iPhone, and you can see it already in the iPad. Apple believes that users cannot be trusted, and treats them accordingly. Don’t assume that just because the Mac is “open” now, that it will remain so; only a few years ago, we couldn’t even imagine the closed and restrictive way Apple manages the iPhone – yet today, we all accept it as normal, as the defining ingredient.
That‘s what many people are afraid of, and I think it’s a very reasonable fear.
“Consider a path that will truly inspire the coming generations of tinkerers and engineers,” Johnson finishes his article, “Working your ass off to make a product that competes with Apple on every count that matters – design, ease-of-use, a simple marketplace, customer satisfaction; you know, everything – and does it with the open-source licenses and values you claim to believe in.”
I think it’s most certainly possible. I’m still trying really, really hard to get my hands on a Pre (maybe the Pre Plus if a GSM version arrives), but when I do, we’ll see if openness and freedom are really impairing for a user experience. The current available set of reviews for the webOS seem to suggest otherwise.
Not that Apple cares about one user, but if OS X itself is closed to match the iPhone ecosystem, then no matter how nice I think OS X is (and I really do like it) I’m definitely done with it for good. I can put up with the app store ecosystem on my phone even though I don’t like it, but on my computer? No way.
I suspect Apple knows they’d lose almost all of their Mac users by doing this. My guess is they’ll keep the Mac as it is, since to do otherwise is likely to lose them a legion of fans. A lot of iPhone users aren’t Mac users, and a lot of Mac users hate the iPhone because of the app store issues. I think Apple is smart enough to realize this (say whatever else you might about them, but they’re not stupid) and I doubt they’ll pull an iPhone on the Mac. If they’re dumb enough to try, then they deserve to lose their Mac products altogether.
Yeah, OS X already has a small enough software library without apple helping it out…..
Us humans revolt at sudden change, but usually adapt and accept it when it’s gradual. It’s like that with social norms, politics and it’s the same thing with technology.
At the palm of my hand, I have a nice looking piece of metal, plastic and silicon which gives me access to the largest collection of human knowledge, just with a few taps while lying in the bed. It even changes orientation to make it more comfortable for me. Quarter a century ago I would not have dreamed of it, but today I don’t even feel special, it’s like it’s always been like this. I accepted it as the way things are. This is a good example of course.
As you say turning OSX into iPhone OS will cause an uproar and it is true, but the uproar will come from you and I who are experiencing it the way it is today, the open multi-purpose multi-user multi-tasking operating system. On the other hand, another generation is growing up with iPhones (and very soon iPads) as their main “computing” device; step into a high school and see for yourself.
Case in point, the other day a non-techie colleague of mine sent me some 6 emails, each containing a single link to a webpage using Safari on her iPhone. This is of course the approach Apple recommended (enforced) when there was no copy-paste in iPhone OS. You could click on the “Mail Link to This Page” button in Mobile Safari and email the link, one email per each link. My colleague of course didn’t know about copy-paste and saw nothing absurd with this much more time and energy consuming workflow. Even though copy-paste is now provided, the non-techies will go the old way because Apple told them it’s good enough.
I see a lot of similar cases everyday and think of how much productivity will improve if people could take as much advantage of their phones as I do of my jailbroken iPhone. The problem here is of course two fold: the general ambivalence toward technology and the limited functionality “appliance” view of technology spearheaded by Apple.
The point I’m trying to make is that while we love and much more importantly expect and demand openness, if the phenomenal growth of iPhones and iPads continue (which all evidence point at it being true) the future generations would not only not demand openness but also wouldn’t even know that such a thing as open computing is a possibility. They would live “happily” with an App Store as the single gateway to software and entertainment on their phones, tablets and even laptops.
Lastly, I don’t want to lay the blame with Apple alone, as if it were not for Apple we would not have had the recent surge of innovation in mobile market. They do scare competitors and inspire innovation. I just hope their competition survives and continues to provide alternatives, that is more open alternatives so we won’t forget what computing is about.
Edited 2010-02-03 03:13 UTC
I am one of those, I love macs but I neither have an iPod (my girlfriend has one though) nor an iPhone nor will I get the iPad. The reason simply is I despise the draconian locks apple has put on those devices left and right.
Copy music on and off the device, iPod doesn^A't my Android phone does. Use the device as USB stick without having to reserve an extra partition, my phone does, Apples doesn^A't. Allow to install third party programs without going through the app store…
The list goes on and on, and those are not even the technical deficits just the ones being pushed onto the user by Apples politics. But nevertheless I have two macs while alternatives are cheaper, but the Macs serve me better (mainly due to their os, but besides that they are solid) and I still buy them.
But it would mean, if Apple would pull an iPod on their computers, they would loose me and a load of others who jumped onto the platform because it is a good and solid Unix workstation. And developers are a huge market for Apple nowadays. Go to a java centric conference you will see 30-50% macs in the hands of the people there. The others have to use what their companies enforce them to.
I think the developers market for Apple nowadays is bigger than the one from the Ads agencies and graphics artists (which have to some degree already switched to Windows for cost reasons)
Not sure if Apple is aware of that however.
Although there is certainly a crossover between the two, the target audience for the iPhone, iTouch, iPad is different to that of OSX. OSX is for users who require the full gamut of applications and resources provided by a “desktop” operating system whereas the iPhone, iTouch and iPad operating systems are targeted at devices and users that require only a subset of applications, connectivity and functions as well as tools that aren’t suited to a “desktop” OS.
Take, for example, my mother-in-law. We gave her my old 17″ PowerBook. She uses it for some email, web access and playing a few games. Occasionally she prints some stuff that she types up in AppleWorks word processor or spreadsheet. On numerous occasions she has come across Mac apps – mainly games – on the ‘net that caught her eye, and a few times has downloaded them only to find the machine doesn’t meet the required specs. The App Store solves this for the iPad – which would be a perfect device for her – and could even alleviate this problem for Mac apps – iTunes has access to the machine’s hardware so “knows” whether a particular app will run or not. So for this audience, those who aren’t in any way technologically minded, this method is a godsend.
So the two are completely different, and although I can see Apple making a move to allow the purchase and download of Mac applications through the App Store – this would be a valid and prudent business move for them – I don’t believe they will tie the OS to it. I agree it would be suicide to do so, and I also believe they know that. For the consumer market though, the App Store (as has been proven by it’s target audience) is an incredible success, whether some people like it or not.
Mrhasbeen hit the nail on the head. The hours I will save by not having to do the free family/friends technical support due to the iPad!
We are not the target audience, but many who are will feel liberated by such a device. Now we need other companies to release similar product so there are alternatives for this target audience.
The author is whining more than anyone else I’ve heard. He’s a pragmatist who’s willing to compromise. Nothing really wrong with that, we need people like that. But, he’s trashing the whole notion of idealism (talk about grandiose), and that’s just wrong. There are times when even avowed idealists have to compromise. That doesn’t mean that they cannot have ideals and try to change the world to fit those ideals. They just shouldn’t give up because the world doesn’t adhere to their idea of what it should be.
No he is pointing out that there are plenty of gadgets to tinker with.
There are in fact far more computing devices to tinker with than there were in the 80’s. So this idea that Apple is starting a war against tinkerers is just plain silly.
You can get a tablet pc that runs Linux. You can get a toy robot that runs Linux. Apple computers have always been locked up, I barely learned anything with them as a kid. I learned far more taking my pc apart and making custom autoexec.bat and config.sys files so my games would work.
Kids have all kinds of options these days to learn how computers work. Most don’t care just as most adults don’t care. Some people seem to have a hard time with this reality.
And you seem to have a hard time with the reality that we are NOT talking about now, but about the future. A lot of people – me included – fear where this is going to, not where it is now.
Hmmm I kind remember the title being Apple has declared war on tinkerers, not will declare war in the future.
I don’t see why people should be upset with this anymore than with a game console. It isn’t making standard computers disappear.
What I see are a bunch of people that are upset that Apple isn’t catering to them. Too bad.
Apple has never been about tinkering anyways. They don’t even want you replacing the hard drive on the iMAC. They expect you to lug the thing down to the genius bar. This is what happens when you buy Apple, nothing new.
Spot on, Thom. As you say, the enlightening quote is the one you pointed out regards DVD Jon.
From your introduction:
My own computer is actually an “upgrade kit”. It consisted originally of a motherboard, a CPU, some RAM sticks, a video card, a blank hard disk drive, a CD/DVD burner, and a case and power supply (some of these pieces were purchased seperately). I assembled these components, I turned it on, I set the BIOS to load an OS from a CD as first preference, and I put an Arch Linux install CD in the CD drive. All of the software and data that is now on that system I have added from there, this system has never seen any commercial EULA-restricted software installed on it at any time.
How on earth would I be deemed to have “broken into” my own system that I bought and then tinkered myself?
Yet doubtless this would be the attitude of the Apple’s of this world. Control freaks extraordinaire. Anti-freedom in every sense.
The latest push from the control-freak set seems to be to try and subvert HTML5 so that the video codec is h264, not Theora.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_controversy#Opposition
Nokia’s objection seems to be that the open Theora codecs that everyone is indeed “both able and permitted to use without restrictions” is not a proprietary codec! Really!
Well der.
Apple’s objection was pure FUD:
… FUD obviously motivated by Apple’s self-interest, since Apple are members of MPEG-LA.
The comment from Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group makes no sense at all, because it applies the least to Theora of all possible candidate codecs:
(Ogg Theora is royalty-free covered by its own patents, and these are the oldest patents of any codec that was proposed).
Apple in particular is almost blatantly “advertising” for anyone to come forward who may have such a currently-mythical unkown patent, in an ill-disguised attempt to stop Theora adoption. Fortunately, no-one seems to actually have anything even resembling such a patent, thereby effectively disproving the WHATWG objection.
This is relevant because the iPad, delivered as it is with no Flash, has no support at all for web video other than HTML5/h264.
So the control freaks are out in force, and applying spin, spin and evermore spin trying to assert their control over what YOU may or may not do on YOUR OWN COMPUTER.
That is unbelieveable chutzpah.
Edited 2010-02-03 02:41 UTC
OH MY GOD.
I just plugged a keyboard into the usb port on my xbox 360 and it didn’t let me browse the system directories.
Oh wait that’s right I bought the xbox 360 to play games so I could care less.
Completely open consumer devices only lead to piracy. Most users in fact support locking down consumer devices since most of them are against pirates and freeloaders. Most game developers support them as well.
How is the game situation on Linux going? Completely open and yet virtually empty. These are consumer entertainment devices, not toy unix boxes. If they take away root from OSX then you’ll have reason to be upset. Until then relax and let people buy the ipad. We’ll probably have some nice Linux based tablets in the next few years so be glad this is an avenue where Linux can compete.
Fantastic
You’ve just stated the ideological frame work for locking everything down and preventing users from doing anything on there box that the manufactures and IP holders didn’t intend.
now all we need is to complete the legal frame work, something like modifying the hardware or software environment in any way that is not intended by the manufacturer or IP holders is a civil and or criminal offense. Oh and all pervasive patents and IP right to the rich and powerful to complete the picture.
Perhaps you would like to see stickers on all boxes – Opening this device by anyone other than an authorized dealer will invalidate the warranty and may result in criminal prosecution and on the front installing or loading any unauthorized optical disc into this device may invalidate the warranty and result in criminal prosecution.
I yes you just want to play games – so just go and play GTA an be a real dude in a fantasy world after all the real world doesn’t matter.
Do you think people should be allowed to turn back the odometer on their cars since they own them? How about removing the catalytic converter?
Society sets limits all the time with ownership. No I don’t think opening your xbox should result in criminal prosecution but I glad that it invalidates the warranty since there needs to be more deterrents against piracy.
In pc gaming there is no deterrent and games are pirated like crazy. The problem is not with device manufacturers but with people. There are too many people that will skip out on the bill if they know that they can get away with it. I don’t like this reality anymore than you but it is one that I have seen first hand.
Games are a break from the real world. You know, entertainment?
Edited 2010-02-03 07:04 UTC
I suppose the analogy is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands – but if we’re using an automotive analogy. I suppose the closest analogy to “winding back the odometer” would be trying to pass off a dual-core as a quad-core and is hardly relevant here. The catalytic converter there is no relevance here.
However, do I think someone should be allowed to open the bonnet (hood) and change the carburetor, fit bigger valves and skim the head – absolutely. My guess you think not as it might encourage them to break the speed limit.
no, winding back the odometer does not affect performance. It’s just a misrepresentation of what you are selling.
Saying it’s a quad core, but only selling a dual core is a performance difference…
Who said anything about selling? You’re not allowed to turn back the odometer even if you keep your car in the woods. Tampering with it is against the law.
Why does the catalytic converter have no relevance? It’s another part you are not allowed to remove. The point is that society already sets limits on ownership for a greater good. It isn’t anything new.
WTF? I can remove the catalytic converter on my car whenever I want. There is no rule about owning a car that says it must have a catalytic converter. There is no lock or preventative measure to prevent me from removing it – the car will still function.
I just can’t legally drive my car on California’s public roads without one (unless an exemption is obtained, which do exist for certain purposes). Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right, which is also why I must have a license to do so, and my vehicle must meet certain requirements. Otherwise I can drive my car on private roads, offroad, and on racetracks all day long without it. I can ultimately turn my car into anything I want.
Likewise, if I want to use my computer for purposes not previously intended by the manufacturer, I can do so. If it locks me out of privileged services provided by the manufacturer for those who follow the rules, that’s great – but please don’t restrict my freedom to use it outside of those privileged services.
Like using draconian restrictions on legally purchased computer hardware to prop up old business models. The greater good of the few.
Also wrong… wow, you really do live in a strange world.
I can remove the odometer from my car entirely if I want… and I can even drive it publicly like that – or even sell it as such! If I wind back the odometer on my car, I must disclose this to a buyer if it is going to be registered with the DMV. There is even a place on the title transfer form to disclose that the odometer reading is known to be incorrect by the seller. If I fail to do this, it is considered fraud during the sale, which is a completely different crime than we’re talking about here.
I suppose you also believe that every car out there must be registered and the owner must have a title proving their ownership. This is untrue if you don’t plan to drive it on public roads. I have a feeling you’ve been brainwashed into believing the only use for a car is to drive it on public roads.
Owning your own private road is a rare thing (save for a small driveway), so many people tend to forget that when we’re talking private roads, you’re pretty much allowed to do with a car whatever you want – no safety belt, no lights, whatever. It’s basically why a track car can lack all sorts of things a road car must have.
Computers are going a different route. In my own home (the private road, or track, if you will), I must be allowed to do with my computer whatever the hell I want. If I want to write a script that sets my Iphone to vibrate every five minutes and shove it up my ass, I should be allowed to do so – whether Apple likes it or not.
The problem here is that computer and software makers are trying to take those rights away – and that is a very, very slippery slope, and I just can’t believe people do not see (or refuse to see) the danger that lies in giving companies control over the products you buy.
I am a firm believer in personal responsibility. If I jailbreak my Iphone, write that script and shove it up my ass, and it explodes because of it (now there’s a visual you thought you’d never experience), then that’s my own goddamn fault. It’s not the job of Apple, the government, or any other company to protect MYSELF against my own stupidity.
Maybe it’s a Dutch thing, I don’t know. It’s the same with drugs. We have liberal drug laws, and we have them for a reason. I don’t do drugs (never have, actually), but I believe that every person should be able to do to his body whatever the hell he wants – including taking toxins and what not. It is their choice – not mine, not yours, and not the government’s.
As long as it doesn’t harm others, you should be able to do whatever you want with the products you buy, the software you use, or the body you’ve been given.
As a society, we really, REALLY need to move away from this nanny attitude. “Oh, let’s protect all the ignorant and stupid people from themselves! Oh my gosh, these people are too stupid to handle a computer, so let’s protect them by locking everything down, and making it illegal to circumvent those protections!” Fcuking arrogance.
Gosh we need Clarkson as overlord.
Sorry, got a little carried away there.
Edited 2010-02-03 19:54 UTC
If you’re technically competent enough you can do that to the iPhone or iPad. Apple is going to drop your warranty, but so would a car manufacturer if you cracked open the case of your new transmission and bricked it.
I just don’t get the hysteria. Where are the extraction teams from Apple’s black helicopters? Where are the dungeons Apple is sequestering “tinkerers” to?
The only way Apple will go after me is if I start trying to mass market jail broken phones… That’s a major distinction and is never made by the alarmists.
When I buy a product from anyone I am buying it to their standards. They don’t design the product to my standards and I wouldn’t expect them to. They are making decisions for me from the get go. Why are their decisions not applied to the same scrutiny as Apple’s? Google’s mining of our identities is much more 1984 than Apple will ever be, and yet we laud their products and give them a pass when they do anything questionable (Why does Chrome install a background updater in Mac OS X? What else is it doing?)
The iPhone/iPad is just a device and one that will have only a small percentage of the entire market. And yet, Apple has mythically doomed the world to slavery.
The sad reality though is that we live in a world where people DO blame the manufacturer for shit like that, and get massive settlements because of it. Those court cases are part of the reason more restrictions are put in place. It’s like a government introducing laws to raise the legal age for driving or alcohol consumption or sex in order to combat problems like speeding, drunkenness and teen pregnancies. Does it have any impact? Not on your life – if anything it makes the problems worse.
And neither does imposing these OS restrictions stop people from turning their iPhone into an exploding anal vibrator. But it DOES make it look like the companies (or governments) are trying to do something to combat the problem, and from a legal liability standpoint that’s what they’re interested in. If they’ve made it really really difficult for you to built your dis-arse-trous (sorry, I had to) device you’re less likely to be able to sue them successfully when it rips you a new one. At the end of the day its all about covering their own arses, and making more profit. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Adobe – and any others you care to name – they all have the same goal at the end of the day.
And what if you don’t live in the US? I’m sorry, but the fact that the US legal system is fcuked up is none of my concern. It’s no excuse to pretend to be selling products, while in fact, they’re only renting them out.
I doubt, though, that that has a whole lot to do with it. Even without a fcuked up legal system, they’d still impose ever more restrictions. Large companies like Microsoft write their EULAs on a per-country basis, and our EULA is very different from the American one. We have no messed up legal system (when it comes to massive legal claims, at least, we have enough other problems), yet we more or less get the same kind of restrictions imposed upon us.
The reason for Apple’s behaviour is to make more money. That’s fine, they should be doing everything to make money. However, we live in a very sad world where laws are skewed towards companies, and not towards citizens. The fact that jailbreaking “your” phone is punishable by a jail sentence really, really says it all.
Who’s computer did DVD Jon break into? His own.
Just a minor point to clarify, unless something’s changed that I’m not aware of, just jailbreaking your own phone, while it will void your warranty, is not actually illegal in the U.S., for precisely the reason that you do own the hardware.
Apple did push for legislation to make it illegal a few months ago, with their reasons being that jailbroken phones could be used to attack the cell network. I don’t think that’s gonna get anywhere — at least, I haven’t heard anything about that since, and I really, really hope U.S. legislators have the common sense to figure out what Apple’s real motives are. (Not like it’s not obvious.)
Edited 2010-02-04 00:00 UTC
No, they are pushing to KEEP it illegal. It is currently illegal under the DMCA, but the EFF is trying to gain an exemption.
I’m not entirely sure about that: you’d have to somehow argue that the phone itself is a “protected work.” Which seems like a case that could be argued, but not a position that could just be assumed. Do you have good reason to think that that is definitely a DMCA violation — like, has Apple already sued someone successfully over it?
I can’t run over someone with my computer and kill them due to faulty maintenance.
Computers aren’t cars, deal with it. This is a discussion about apple locking everything down, not about discussing idiotic “straw man” things.
Edited 2010-02-03 15:36 UTC
It really has nothing to do with cars. The point is that society sometimes imposes limits on ownership for a greater good. Everyone is for some of these limits to a degree. Total freedom is chaos.
But one can turn back the odomiter or remove teh converter if they want. They are fully within there rights to invalidate there car’s road certification.
Mind you, both of these have very real safety implications that can result in loss of life. The imposed limitations on computers through draconian EULA and such have little to do with safety of the operator or others. If I loosen the steering on my computer, my mouse will be wobbly but I’m not going to be wrapping my computer around a tree and three pedestrians am I?
Rational limitations imposed to protect public safety; worth considering.
Use limitations imposed to protect unimaginative business models; BS.
You also continue to blindly believe that opening one’s Xbox will lead directly to piracy. Gosh, surely nothing to do with good parenting or ethics involved; it’s purely because little johnny could open his Xbox without criminal charges.
Edited 2010-02-03 19:12 UTC
Have you lost all connection with reality? “Most users support locking down consumer devices?” So, if I asked Random Joe Computer User if he’d like to control his own computer, he’d say, “Oh, God, no! If I controlled my computer, I’d just pirate things! Please, take away my ability to load software on it, or change any of its settings.”
Most people I know very much want to control their own devices, at least in the abstract. The problem is, they also don’t want to worry about administering their devices, which they view as a onerous cost to using the device, which should be minimized; they don’t realize that, in opting for a clean, simplified, configuration-free environment, with minimal or no control nobs and administration levers, they’ve also sacrificed their control of their hardware. They don’t realize they’re making a trade-off there.
Hell, Classic Mac OS, and I think OS X, had a “simple interface mode”, which basically aggressively dumbed down the user interface even more, on the theory that non-power-users would probably prefer a simpler interface. The Mac Classic one, if I recall, completely did away with the Desktop or access to the file system, and just displayed multiple tabs, one listing all the applications in some PATH, and another tab all the documents in some other PATH, each displayed as a big-ass button. My father doesn’t understand the concept of drag-and-drop: I said, logically enough, “let’s try simple mode, maybe you can use that.” He hated it. The reason? Because he was obviously trading off his ability to control the computer — or even just use the computer’s facilities to their fullest — for ease-of-use. (Well, OK, it might have been insulting to him to be using an interface that was both so hideous and so obviously cabbagized, that was probably also a factor.) Ditto for OS X: I think Simple Interface Mode lasted a few minutes, because it hid controls on the menu bar, and he wanted access to all the controls on his computer, which he definitely felt he should own and control completely, given that he’d paid the rather exorbitant price for the thing (it was a Mac Cube).
When the offer to trade off ownership for convenience is made up-front, almost nobody will go for it. People most certainly actively wish to avoid losing control of their machines, and they definitely don’t value locking down an environment for its own sake. The problem comes when the trade-off is hidden: if it’s pitched first as making the environment much easier to use, and people don’t see or realize how much control they’re really giving up, they’ll accept the same deal much more eagerly.
Edited 2010-02-03 17:08 UTC
I’m not talking about computers, I’m talking about consumer devices.
People who buy game consoles don’t want pirates and freeloaders playing games that they didn’t purchase. Since the vast majority plans on purchasing legal games for their system they have no problem with locking out non-approved games.
The same is true for cell phones. If you give people a choice between phone A that won’t get malware but requires you to purchase apps from the company store or phone B that allows installation any app most people will choose phone A.
They’re consumer devices and people expect them to have limited functionality.
“Completely open consumer devices only lead to piracy” – bullshit.
.. About as valid as “the colour green causes cancer”. To be truly accurate, it’s copyright infringement not piracy. And open systems still don’t cause it any more than closed systems have managed to stop it. (it’s on the rise except in music where the removal of DRM has actually reduced piracy and improved profits)
“Most users in fact support locking down consumer devices since most of them are against pirates”
Most people believe what marketing tells them. There believing that open systems inherently lead to copyright infringement doesn’t make it so though RIAA has put a lot of money into repeating that falsehood.
And, what exactly does gaming on Linux based systems have to do with how much access one has to there own purchased items?
“consumer entertainment devices not toy unix boxes” – like Tivo and the bazillion other consumer devices and gadgets that happen to use a Linux platform.
I think the market is diverging with the advent of appliances like the iPhone, iPad and their imitators.
I make the car analogy.
The iPad, iPhone etc are your bog standard car that apart from filling the windscreen washer bottle many owner never open the bonnet/hood.
However that are still the people who like to tinker with their cars. Be it fitting a zillion watt sound system, bigger exhause, different camshafts & fuel injectors etc etc, they are the tinkerers.
As any market matures the proportion of the market of the ‘non tinkerers’ grows whilst (again proportionally) the % market share of the tinkerers shrinks.
To make it like cars, like many have already said, it’s not just you can’t fix it, it’s no one but the dealer can. This is actually happening with some car manufactures and it pushes the price for repairs way up. (Can’t put my hand on the study/report I saw a while ago). This is a very very bad thing. Just think about your wallet for starters! No competition! People just stupidly expecting this as a ok trade off are sleep walking us all in dark waters indeed. In both the case of computers and cars. It does effect tinkerers and engineers, we would be stuck with either old kit we can play with, or new we can’t, we aren’t a big enough market in ourselves to get tailed to. This effects everyone because it means less people know how anything works as it’s all hidden from anyone view. Things should be out in the open for all to learn from if we so choose. If you don’t care how stuff works that’s fine, but to make it so you couldn’t find out even if you wanted to is just stupid. I actually think in both the case of computers and cars, it is government’s job to play the long game and step in and regulate to protect the consumer by preventing locking out of competition.
I guess the reason we are having issues understanding your point is because you know about as much as we do about the future and spreading FUD just because you think something will happen when there is every indication that it wouldn’t is just plain irresponsible. There are enough things to tinker with. In-fact why don’t one of these tinkerers make something for them, oh thats right, they have and people still rather hack an iphone instead. Here you have a product made to be hacked and modded to your hearts content and people would rather crack the closed proprietary solution. Why is that? Why complain about it and not focus on the product you can tinker with to your hearts content?
I really don’t see the reasoning, I don’t get the “Think of the children” arguments. I don’t get why our geek paradise has anything to do with what a consumer wants. Clearly the two are not the same, because the ones most interested in the iPhone and the iPad are people who actually want to use the product for what it was intended for not hack it pieces to get it just right for you.
Who cares if the iPad is a closed system. Make your own pad and make it as open as you’d like. Put Linux on it, make the hardware open, let users put whatever they want on it. Try to compete with Apple. HP, Dell, Acer are all waiting in the wings to see how this plays out so that they can drop their own solution which will most likely be as open as you’d like them to be. I don’t see the big deal and frankly at this point I think you are just trying to get page hits by posting nonsense poised as arguments when really all you are posting is speculation.
I don’t think you understand idealism. Its not enough for me to be free, if my brother is enslaved. There are those of us who cages cannot hold: that does not mean we can rest easy; that does not mean we can free every one who cannot break the bars themselves. It does mean that we will have to spend a lot of our energy breaking cages that people try to put us in, that we could have spent doing something more productive.
Wow. Dramatize much?
Who is trying to put you in a cage?
Wow, way to take things literally!
The problem is when the manufacturer of the closed system uses it later to say: “there are a lot of people who have only that closed system, and hence they can use only this or that when they connect to the web … therefore the web itself can be allowed to present only this or that”.
Apple have already historically used exactly such an argument viz a viz audio formats and the iPod. Now, via the iPad and iPhone, they are trying to do this same trick all over again in order to eliminate open format video on the web (such as the video which Wikipedia/Wikimedia uses) in favour of proprietary format video in which they have an interest in the applicable patents.
iPad user? … then public access, public domain data is NOT FOR YOU!!! (according to Apple).
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Media_help
This is why people care … because the closed nature of iPads will be used against the freedom of people who don’t own an iPad and wouldn’t touch it because it is so limiting.
Edited 2010-02-03 04:20 UTC
Can you come by my house at about 4pm? My toaster won’t calculate PI to 256 decimal places and it really should. It might be an appliance, but I know it should be able to do anything I desire – you’ve informed me this much!
My toaster doesn’t have a CPU in it, but if it did – I would expect that I could wire it up and use it to calculate whatever it was capable of calculating.
Why would I be prevented from doing so? Why would the toaster manufacturer explicitly prevent me from doing so by adding locks and hurdles in my way to make it harder?
Your also perfectly free to try and make your toaster computer. Heck, there may even be a way using the timing strip as a clock tick but it may take a while to return results. (but.. if it was Apple branded.. lookout)
But at least NetBSD would run on it.
Apple computers have not always been locked up. The Apple II series was very open.
And now, with the iPad, Apple have moved in completely the opposite direction.
Correct, but then again the bulk of people scouring these boards most likely weren’t kids when the Apple II was first announced.
Did anyone play Conan on the Apple II? It was the first game I consumed in a “gamer” type way on an Apple IIe but have never since been able to find it again. It’s almost to the point where those six or so level screens seem more like something I dreamed up.
And when did that come out? Every mac I have ever used was locked up. The point is that the ipad isn’t a change of pace for the company. The ipad is just a streched out ipod touch.
Just look at what it takes to change the hard drive on the imac:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YsCTNVEYt8
Or how about how you need a putty knife to change the hard drive on the mac mini
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIiSaunTWWM&feature=related
Apple locks down their computers and devices. More news at 11.
After the first crack at it (pun intended), the Mac Mini is actually a rather nice design, and easy enough to work on.
That iMac video, however, makes me cringe. Even the worst non-Apple notebooks I’ve taken apart were nothing like that.
Things like batteries and hard drives aught to be user-replaceable by default. OTOH, that’s the main reason I never got an iPod.
Edited 2010-02-03 06:31 UTC
Apple computers have not always been locked up! I don’t know if that statement represents stupidity or just plain ignorance on your part (the latter is excusable, the former is not), but the Apple ][ and its immediate successors were definitely not locked up.
All well and good, but they’re not really idealists– they are reactionaries. The direction that Apple is moving is a welcome change after nearly two decades of stagnation in personal computing. It’s a new computing model and just because Apple’s version of it is closed doesn’t mean that being closed is inherent to the model. The problem is that these so called idealists are not putting forth any alternatives– they are only arguing for the status quo. When it comes to technology, the status quo is not good enough.
In other words, if you don’t like what Apple is doing, then show us something else. I’d love to see some other ideas, particularly from those that prefer open solutions. If all you have to offer as alternatives are Windows, GNOME or KDE on a netbook or slate, and you honestly think that is acceptable for the next decade of computing, then you just don’t get it and likely never will.
Its not like we’re reactionary against any real part of the iphone or the ipad. We wouldn’t be “reacting” if we were able to install our own programs on the devices without “jail breaking” the devices. Its not a criticism of any functional part of the system.
I also reject the patently absurd idea that the computer industry has ever stagnated. That’s ridiculous.
To the contrary, the computer industry is stuck in a permanent state of stagnation. Technical innovation, yes, but still the same paper-based paradigms that fail to take full advantage of the computer’s capabilities. I think that the Kindle is a perfect example.
Computers aren’t unique in this trend, and any information technology borrows heavily from its preceding technology in the beginning. The fonts for the printing press in the West were basically replicas of cursive handwriting until Aldus, and if you read Plato you’ll see plenty of issues with the invention of writing, introduced to Athens right around the time of Socrates. In general, everyone thinks about the development of computers purely in terms of their engineering, but rarely do we hear their historical context.
C’mon and downvote this, baby (for my Kindle comment)!
I disagree completely, we are so far apart in our mindsets that a further exchange of ideas is not possible, nor is the effort worthwhile; there is too much future to invent!
The science has certainly progressed. Hardware has become exponentially more powerful. Research in programming languages and algorithms has grown by leaps and bounds. Yet the interactive and conceptual models that we use today are still fundamentally identical to those developed at Xerox PARC and introduced with the original Macintosh in 1984.
Applications are still massive walled gardens that operate on isolated documents. We’re still stuck digging through dozens, hundreds or thousands of menus and submenus to access features. Data is still stored as untyped, unstructured buckets of bits that carry a single piece of metadata and are presented in a hierarchical folder structure that is the direct analog of a physical filing cabinet.
That was the paradigm that was introduced with the original Macintosh, and 26 years later, even with all the staggering advances in technology, nothing has changed.
I call that stagnation and I also find it patently absurd.
The science has certainly progressed. Hardware has become exponentially more powerful. Research in engine efficiency and safety has grown by leaps and bounds. Yet the interactive and conceptual models that we use today are still fundamentally identical to those developed at Cadillac and introduced with the Cadillac Type 53 in 1916 [1].
Cars are still massive dangerous objects operated by flawed humans. We’re still stuck taking expensive driving lessons, learning hundreds of road signs, traffic controller signals, and what not. Cars still operate as individual, unlinked objects, even thougn roads have clogged up and are infinitely more busy than they were in 1916.
That was the paradigm that was introduced with the Type 53, and 94 years later, even with all the staggering advances in technology, nothing has changed.
I call that stagnation and I also find it patently absurd.
[1] http://tviv.org/Top_Gear/Season_10_Episode_8#Search_for_the_Modern_…
Impressive work for a car analogy, Thom.
Ignoring the fact that the functionality necessary for operating a vehicle is at least an order of magnitude less complex than that of an average modern computer program, I find issues with the automotive industry as well. We could discuss things like electric motors and continuously variable transmissions. Both have been available for years, provide increased efficiency and lower maintenance costs due to less wear of mechanical parts, yet both are still exceedingly rare on the streets.
Still, the deficiencies of one industry cannot excuse those of another.
Though I have to admit some confusion at your response. At the very least, I know you agree with me that organization, search, and sorting of content should be handled at the fundamental storage layer rather than having to rely on applications like iTunes and iPhoto. This same type of thing can be extrapolated to just about every area of contemporary user interfaces and data models where we find ourselves fighting against our computers to do things that at this point, the computers should be doing for us. At this time, Apple seems to be the only organization willing to begin addressing these sort of things. I won’t say that they’ve been solved, but at least we’re seeing some movement towards new solutions.
Coming back to the topic. I certainly don’t wish for Apple branded devices to overtake the whole of computing. I too like to tinker and they are obviously not known for openness. But they are succeeding at breaking down a lot of long-standing barriers. And for that, I am appreciative.
We’re not talking about Apple providing a new search service: the problem we’re talking about here is Apple producing less open devices, with arbitrarily restricted software – in many cases deliberately and maliciously crippled – and the worry that these types of restrictions, if perceived as normal by people who are children now, will inhibit the growth of the next generation of hackers. I do not want to see people start to just accept as normal not having control of your hardware or software, of having their media locked to a single device (or service), or blindly assume that what they’re allowed to do with a device is the full extent of what it’s capable of doing, or all they should really want it to do.
The fundamental problem here is that “Apple’s approach is new and different” does. Not. Excuse. Aribtrary. And. Damaging. Restrictions. That shiny-Apple-newness doesn’t even make their new paradigm a good thing, on it’s own: that’s a question that must be answered by analyzing the pro’s and con’s of Apple’s Glorious New Way, not simply assumed because the new way is different than what came before!
Edited 2010-02-03 18:16 UTC
what the hell are you talking about?
how is the iPad different ? you’ve never seen a tablet pc before? Cause they’ve been around for 10 years, mind you. All there is, is an Apple marketing head on top of it. That’s no new computing model. Neither is making it entierely DRM controlled and closed.
Have you seen the anti-intel TPM video? that’s the same story, except they don’t even need to cover it under the claims of greater security anymore.
Heck, its even using a 3 years old OS and apps.
Such people as you, which are called sheeps, are the reason for most things going wrong in this world. Time to get off your eye protections and look around.
Yes, they have been around for a while. And yes, they’ve been a monumental failure because they’ve been shackled to a decades old interface paradigm that simply doesn’t work for a touch based device. The iPad is different because it tosses the old stuff out the window and provides a platform for building software that is designed from the ground up for that form factor and interaction model. The difference is hugely significant.
Oh please. I’m well aware of the implications of a DRM controlled future and I don’t wish for it anymore than you do. I praise Apple’s move with the iPad because it will shatter long held expectations about what computing is and possibly can be– not for their creation of a closed ecosystem. I fully expect that once the hysterics die down, everyone will see the chasm that they’ve opened and that new ideas, both proprietary and open, will come forth.
Judging from your post, I’m sure you don’t have the depth of understanding to make such statements.
Uhm, special touch/tablet interfaces have been designed ages ago, and even brought to market.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/books/thepowerofpenpoint/chapter2
Quite right. There have been many attempts at a proper tablet. Even your beloved Be was working on the WebPAD: http://tinyurl.com/ykbyuxz
But they were all well before their time and none of their associated companies had the weight to push a new platform. Apple does.
It’s also clear from the context of _xmv’s post that he/she was talking about Tablet PCs, meaning those that began shipping around 10 years ago and came with Windows. They are also the only tablets that have been even marginally successful.
Edited 2010-02-03 12:39 UTC
Yeah..
Let me introduce you to a thing called “Apple Newton”. The original Apple tablet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton
they’re ipod touch with big screens. 3 years old design.
but that is the point and the issue. i’m pretty sure everyones happy if apple issues great products (not that i think the ipad is great in itself – but thats a different subject)
apple marketing is very efficient. everyone *knows* that despite the ipad not being exceptionally useful (again, just like other tablet pcs in fact:p ), its going to sell. most don’t know why they buy it other than “it looks cool, it sounds cool and you know, must have one”
imagine, if everyone has an ipad, and an iphone, it does not matter, if some open source or just “open” solutions gather up. 99% will be apple, closed, and most people will go that way, and get used to have no such freedom.
what you mean here is “you disagree with me so you canno’t be correct”
just try to “think different” as you fav company used to say, without thinking about winning an internet argument. or is it you, who do not have enough depth.. or here, self-confidence to try? sure takes more effort than reading pre-conceived ideas, which most are not willing to make.
and that defines my ironical “sheep” to compare with your own renaming of a section of the population. Maybe you’ll get my point, now.
In fact, I don’t.
You are either mistakenly or intentionally attempting to mislabel me as some sort of Apple loyalist in order to better suit your own arguments. I’m nothing of the sort. I have no need for loyalties to any company or organization. I’m simply providing my assessment of the device that they’ve put forth in comparison to the existing array of devices out there.
I’m open to discussing any of the points I’ve made, but if you’ve nothing to add aside from your generic suite of Apple bashing rhetoric, then please direct your attention elsewhere.
So, what is the problem?
_You_ can be free if you wish
href=”http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/02/the_failure_of_empathy.php“&g… have to agree here and with this article, failure of empathy Though I’m way too young to have a son, the crux of the argument is here
[q]”It^aEURTMs the payoff to all the work done by multiple industries over the last 20^aEUR“30 years. It^aEURTMs the subtraction of 20lbs of textbooks in my son^aEURTMs backpack, and the device I finally feel comfortable buying my parents.”
Old is not always bad, and new is not automatically better. There are plenty of things that are very wrong with what Apple is doing, and pointing that out doesn’t mean that we’re idiots who can’t clearly see where the technology is headed.
That shouldn’t need to be said; it should be obvious. The revelation that “things will probably be different in ten years!” shouldn’t by everybody who wants to do things differently a free pass out of critical analysis of the benefits and costs of their proposition, nor should it require me to come up with some brilliant scheme to Fundamentally Alter the Desktop to point out the obvious downsides in Apple’s brilliant plan.
got a staffed fab plant you can lend me?
The problem is the “idealists” sounds like 3 year olds… Hold one company to a higher standard than the rest and like to pretend they speak for everyone. Idealism is one thing, hysterics is quite another…
Quite frankly, I think this device is very idealistic. But one persons paradise is another persons cesspool. If you like it buy it. If you don’t, don’t buy it. It’s quite simple.
I thought Mark’s blog entry was quite insightful and was very interested to see what arguments there was against it.
Imagine my “facepalm-moment” when I found out it’s Gizmodo. Because when it comes credibility in the context of criticism and Apple, I see similarities with the former and well known Iraqi Information Minister.
Anyways, I find the current trend of “licenses” disturbing, especially when it comes to hardware. I can’t agree more with Thom, one should have the freedom to tinker as your wish with the goods you buy.
Finally an eloquent post about this mater. Thanks Thom.
There’s obviously many types of users in this world. Companies care about the happy ones that pay the most money most frequently. If it works for Apple then good for them. Apple and their products are not for me. I’m a part-time nerd that likes free/cheap/good value things and I like to tinker. I’m not their target market. Good luck to them.
Yikes! Tomorrow may not be the same as yesterday! We’re in a handbasket to hell! Get me off this crazy thing!
Oh, and the iPad and its ilk will fail because the the little children can’t tinker? Give me a break.
Edited 2010-02-03 00:53 UTC
I think the concern here is more the cultural damage it’s going to do. Believe it or not, other people’s first-and-foremost concern isn’t Apple’s financial success.
Your fear is not reasoned because you are not limited in your choices. Do not buy an Apple if you do not like the environment and, for Pete’s sake, stop acting like what ever Apple does limits your options. It limits your options only if you let it.
Buy a Linux box if that is the environment you like and ignore Apple. Don’t cry that it is changing the entire cyberspace because your options are growing! Chrome, Linux, Unix, Win 7, whatever. Let Apple zombies do the zombie dance and you can do the geek dance.
Vote with your dollars, as I will…I spend my money on the most open solution, as a rule.
\clap \clap
Geesh! If you want to tinker download the SDK play with some apps write your own it’s free anyone can do. I don’t think that this will limit people’s ability to play with their own systems or even learn to play with them. Besides as some one else pointed out DVD John cracked something a lot more secure than the iPad is. I am sure that as soon as the iPad comes out there will be a crack for it just like there was for the iPhone. If you want to tinker I am sure you will be able to.
Speaking as someone who writes software as a job and for pleasure. I just want my iPhone (have one) to work. Just as having to put up with unstable OS’s at work drives me nuts I don’t want those problems with my iPad when it arrives. I want it to work. I don’t want to have to hack my registry to fix my OS after some app has roggered the thing. I don’t want to have try and fiddle around on the command line to fix Xfree86 because some app has changed my setting and now the GUI is non functional and certainly don’t want to have to tinker and fiddle my way to acceptable performance. When I pay money for something I expect it to work straight out of the box. Because I have more important things to do with my time than customise the spinning ball, change the background or overclock the CPU.
All these examples are things that I have done and While you might say “but you were able to do them” the point is I don’t want to. And just as I had to choose the hardware for my computer so I could overclock the CPU (AMD was soooo much easier) you can choose to do all these things with one of the of other tablets that are out there. Besides I am sure that there will be a Google tablet with a Linux derivative OS out in next to no time for all the FSF fans.
It won’t work (at least it won’t work for web video). Because of Apple’s lockdown, iPad has no Flash, and no support for freedom codecs (e.g. Theora, Vorbis, FLAC or Dirac). AFAIK the only support for web video would be via HTML5/h264, and the only places that have that are experimental sites for Vimeo and YouTube.
FUD.
If you pay for it to work out of the box, it will (generally) work out of the box … regardless if it is OSX, Windows 7 or Kubuntu in your box. Not so, apparently, if it is an iPad.
Because you don’t want to do those things is not a valid reason for a company to provide no means for anyone who wants to to do them.
Edited 2010-02-03 03:05 UTC
Sure it is if the company is targeting “me” and not “them”.
This is a possible argument if the company left it at that … but they don’t.
They have already used the argument along the lines “but popular devices (read their devices, e.g. iPod) support only such-and-such a format, and not that other open one, so we can’t use that open format on the public access web”.
They aren’t targetting their control-freak restrictions at just you, they are targetting these anti-freedom restrictions at everybody on the planet.
They are even targetting web content providers, via the ploy: “if you use Flash or HTML5/Theora, you won’t get iPad users, so use HTML5/h264 instead (and BTW pay us a royalty, but not Adobe)”.
Strangely enough, not everybody on the planet is willing to be restricted by what Apple wants them limited to be able to do.
Edited 2010-02-03 03:39 UTC
Well this is at least a much more valid concern than a perceived war against curiosity.
If your goal is Theora adoption then you certainly don’t want to see the iPad become popular. However I think the blame here really lies with Google since portable video devices will be built to decode whatever YouTube uses.
That’s a very good point. If the iPhone and iPad become popular ways to access the web, then the restrictions on what those devices can do with the sites they access will start to affect the design of websites. If the iPhone helps kill Flash, that may be a good thing.
But if it lets Apple start controlling what’s possible with the Web, and start controlling what web technologies can and cannot be used, then that’s a problem that affects more than just iPhone and iPad users.
And note, Apple could solve that problem by allowing the installation of third-party apps — like less-restricted web-browsers. Or even allowing alternative web browsers into the App store (the alternative browsers that are there now are really just wrappers around Safari). But they won’t – or, at least, haven’t, even tho it’d be a simple step to take.
Fortunately, it is possible right now to get a smartphone that doesn’t constrain you to Apple’s restricted web.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2010/02/hands-on-mozilla…
We just need a decent ARM-based tablet to arrive with 10+ hours battery life, Pixel Qi touchscreen display, USB ports, an ethernet port, and HDMI and/or DisplayPort video output(s), with a good full-featured and well-integrated version of Linux (possibly Android, possibly Qt/Maemo, maybe KDE4/Plasma-netbook, maybe even Moblin) and the iPad would look utterly silly in comparison.
A silly device (compared to the competition) would capture only an insignificant portion of the market, despite even Apple’s marketing spin, and hence the web content providers would then be able to safely ignore the limitations of the iPad, and provide content for everyone that firefox mobile could render but which the iPad couldn’t.
Edited 2010-02-03 22:51 UTC
Well, it certainly makes sense. If you don’t want to fiddle around with your system you should stay with one that is locked down. BSD is not for you.
By the way, I have been using linux for years and have not had to fiddle with it to make it work.
What I’ve seen lately is a lot of anti-apple campaing from everywhere and the iPad is just another excuse to batch apple. All started because the app. store closed policy, a few made a lot of noice about it w/o taking in count the thousands of other developers who had no problem at all and actually made a lot of money.
And now we have the new “Hero” witch is Google. But lets see for how long until another “Hero” replaces it.
Edited 2010-02-03 01:59 UTC
google has bad sides as well.
theres no hero.
when reaching some critical mass, every company is going to be evil in such ways. even if you had a good CEO, hes going to be remplaced eventually and most are inclined to one rule: do whatever brings the most power.
and what is power?
money is power.
knowledge is power.
control is power.
and make sure you do not share the wealth.
you achieve this by e.g. (and thats a very limited view) restricting freedom gradually, ensuring lock-ins (hi, h264) and so forth. it works best on the young generation who do not have recent real-life history of such events.
The iPad will be cracked wide open in short order, just like the iPhone was. Then you can load Linux, or whatever the hell you want on it. Don’t worry about it if it doesn’t come this way out of the box; there’s far more people in this world who just want sh*t to work than there are tinkerers, so it’s only natural that these companies are going to cater to the former group. Hell, even if it came out of the box a tinkerer’s paradise, probably about .5% of the user base would even bother. The kind of crowd this thing is catered toward is not exactly the kind of crowd who wants to get close to the metal, if you know what I mean.
I’m one of those people who are kind of ho-hum about the closed ‘app store’ ecosystem, but my parents would probably love it, and I’d probably worry less about it if they owned something like this. There’s far less chance that they might break something, which means less support calls for me
(Wrong thread)
Edited 2010-02-03 02:12 UTC
This article is accusing Bill Atkinson who not only wrote MacPaint, but HyperCard a fews years later of not trusting end users to create stuff? I don’t know how much more wrong you can be really.
Do you know what HyperCard was? It was one of the most powerful easy to use and powerful visual programming environments there has ever been. People who weren’t professional programmers were empowered to create HyperCard stacks.
With Mac OS X you get the entire XCode/Cocoa development environment bundle with the OS at no charge. If you want to develop iPhone or iPad apps it costs all of $90 a year, which is less than I paid for MacPascal back in 1985.
Personally I don’t particular want an iPad at the moment because indeed locked and even as a registered developer (which I am) you can’t install software on it without using your digit certificate that only Apple will give you. But Apple aren’t forcing you to buy an iPad as your only computing device, and they aren’t forcing you not to create things. This “Apple believes that users cannot be trusted” stuff is just complete nonsense.
The problem with Pilgrim’s commentary is that he’s linked tinkering to creativity. It’s true that the iPad poses a threat to the great tinkering tradition that’s built the computer industry so far. Ironically, so do the products of Pilgrim’s employer Google, especially Chrome OS, which does for data what Apple has done for a computer’s processing power; namely, both Apple and Google have abstracted these two resources from the user in the name of user friendliness. Abstraction and isolation of the user from the resource run counter to the nature of computer software, in which the design is the product, an aspect unique to software engineering. Altering the design (i.e., a program’s C code) effectively means changing the program and thus creating something altogether new. Thus, tinkering has been a traditionally popular entry into the world of computers for countless legions of programmers, system designers, and hackers.
What the iPad et al. do (let’s include the Kindle and other devices) is discourage tinkering, but the will of children to destroy should not be underestimated. I don’t doubt Pilgrim when he implies that such devices would kill off tinkering, but I think that they also have the potential to introduce the design/implementation split present in most other arts and crafts, thus forcing children to be even more creative. Frustrated with their family’s iPad(s), they won’t consider reprogramming them, but rather they’ll go to Radio Shack and pick up an electronics lab kit to make their own computers from scratch–in fact, that’s what I’ve started to do.
The original OSAlert link to Pilgrim’s article inspired me to write more about the abstraction trend on my own blog at http://www.whatdigitalrevolution.com/?p=91. Feel free to check it out!
i can see if it said Android or Maemo but WebOS? Its not even open source! My problem is that people keep calling it crippled when it’s base hardware configuration is 500 and its specs alone are better than the nokia N900. the asus EEE atom tablet isn’t out yet and I dont know it’s battery life or performance. It does annoy me how I can’t run what I want but thats why I wouldn’t buy an iphone. the iPod is still a music device and this iPad seems like the internet tablet who’s form factor lends it self to other things. When I can buy a reasonably priced, performant MoBoard that coreboot supports, I will buy that mobo, put tetris on it, otherwise, i will buy a mobo that CAN ONLY RUN WHAT THEY WANT ME TO. CAN YOU DO OTHERWISE?
WebOS is very easy to tinker with, it’s very Linux-like under the hood, and the official apps, although closed source (like some of Google’s Android apps, incidentally), are just JavaScript text files and thus are modifiable. (The new 3d games are binaries of course, but Android doesn’t forbid other players making closed-source apps either…)
You even get root on the device without needing to hack it, Palm supplies the tools for root, though other than tethering you don’t really need root on the device to tinker, just developer mode (which makes the device a lot more open than iPhone) and Palm not only doesn’t stop jailbreakers, they endorse the Homebrew community publicly.
Android may have a better license on a larger percentage of it’s OS, which is good for putting it on new hardware, but from a tinkerer’s perspective, it’s not much more open than Palm’s WebOS. (Which not only is partially open source, it is open for tinkerers in some ways that Android isn’t. Ever tried patching the Google Android maps application to add features on Android? It’s impossible. We added Google Latitude when Google was unwilling to do so for anyone but Android and the iPhone. (Yeah, you don’t really need to patch Google Android maps to add features, since Google puts all their features on Android first. ))
It is truly ironic (and I am probably not the only one to point it out) that the ‘Rise of Apple’ was triggered by a Super Bowl commercial we all know representing an Orwellian revolt against control. Now, Apple has taken the role of the controlling faction.
Their continued demand that consumers cannot make our own decisions about what we can and cannot do/use on/with the devices that we have purchased and own is appalling.
You have to ask yourself how the Apple devices ‘free’ us when someone has to jailbreak their iTouch to get it to play OGG/Vorbis files (completely ‘free’ and ‘open’ audio compression libraries). Apparently this is because Apple will not support such an application in the App Store that competes with their iTunes music offerings.
Exactly what consumer has Apple gone against in this regard? Please put said mythical consumer up on a pedestal so that s/he shall be known! I’ve seen a few jail broken iPhones, but not have I once seen an Apple extraction team!
The point is that someone has to ‘break’ into their own device to run software that they may have developed because Apple is too greedy to allow their software on the App Store.
I am not 100% up on the technology used to jailbreak an iPhone/iTouch, but I believe it requires some bending of the DMCA. If true, Apple implemented the security that ‘protects’ itself from jailbreak and thus forces people to violate the law to do what they want with their own property.
Here is a hit on a quick google of ‘jailbreak DMCA’ indicating that Apple was seeking protection under DMCA for users using this method to gain freedom on their property. I don’t know where this went after 2/2009, but recent events (iPad) don’t seem to indicate they have opened up.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3537
Why is that person not being greedy in demanding that their software work on a controlled platform? There are options, you can buy a droid or build a web app.
The App store provides a trade-off. It doesn’t allow installation of outside software but it keeps piracy and malware in check. Most users are happy with this trade off and the App store has attracted incredible developer support.
That’s not the point. The point is that Apple isn’t the pillar of freedom that that famous commercial make it look like. Contrasting that commercial with Apple’s actual behaviour does indeed create irony.
Not that the commercial ever had anything to do with how Apple actually worked as company.
.. the only possible outcome of allowing a browser into the App Store which competes directly with Safari.
Must be nice that it doesn’t…for him. A months salary can be as little as $725USD before taxes. Take the taxes out, and guess what..a computer costs MORE than a months salary. No sense reading any more from him..he is obviously clueless to the state of reality.
Not only that, he’s obviously a man of much better writing skills who can actually put his ideas forth in a good manner. Joel’s writing make him sounds like a snivelling whiner who is too upset to make a coherent argument.
Also, it’s snivellers, not snivelers. Doesn’t a Mac’ these days have spell check?
True. For a lot of people in this world it costs much more than a months salary.
Edited 2010-02-03 07:48 UTC
i’ll just add it cost a month salary if you buy an apple computer.
sure, some get $10K per month, but average people aren’t getting a lot more than 2-3K per month
that happens to be the price of most (not all) decent apple computers
even an ipad, top model, would cost nearly 1/3 of your salary which is quite much.
It will never happen! there is a large percentage of the population that believes in open systems and open specifications. Linux is a success, and there is a ton of open software and hardware out there.
For me, the closeness of iPad is a non issue. The IPad is not a general purpose computer, it is an internet & multimedia appliance.
I have read OSAlert for years and they do not claim to be the voice of reason (and that’s a GOOD thing) but they do imply there is news within. So I return to this site daily and see the fringe is fraying. (Braying) I wish their voice wasn’t so silly and shrill because paranoia poisons the pond.
Pilgrim, since Apple’s mbox fiasco, has become polarized against Apple and that is not helpful. He likes Linux so I enjoy reading when he has something to say on THAT topic, but when he rallies AGAINST another way of doing business he goes hyperbolae over the point. He inspires those who looks for shadows and dark forces. (My grandfather believed the biggest evil in society was the auto. Horses…now THERE was perfection)
My point is getting lost in digression here: vote with your wallet like I can vote with my clicks (and delete this bookmark). You can still voice your “fears” <duh> and I can still read insightful tech NEWS elsewhere. (Just a thought: You may want to change the site name)
I don’t want the tweeks to pack their toys and go play with themselves; though it has been a long time since I found a thought on OSAlert that sponsored within me anything other than reaction. Just, don’t expect me to believe the sky is falling because, unlike my grandfather, I am quite sure you will still be able to buy a horse after the automatic transmission is perfected.
Edited 2010-02-03 13:43 UTC
Is anyone holding a gun to anyone’s head to buy or not buy an iPad? Is the fate of Western Civilization (or Eastern, whatever
) hanging by a thread on the purchasing decisions revolving around this device?
If you answered “Yes” to either of these questions … wow. You live in a very interesting world. You might consider relocation!
Seriously, though … if the iPad and/or Apple offend you so deeply, vote with your hard-earned money and don’t buy the darned thing. If you want to buy it, knock yourself out. Why do so many people feel the need to scream so shrilly and ram their personal viewpoints down other people’s throats?
Thinking that the iPad or any similar device is going to elminate technological freedom is just flat-out bizarre.
I started working on computers back when the TRS-80 Model I was king. You had to program everything on the darned thing in order to get it to do anything. Cool learning tool. Would I like to go back to it? Nope. Things have progressed so much in the intervening years it’s just flat-out stunning. I’m interested in the iPad and the rumored Microsoft Courier. I think they both have a lot of potential. Will they be everything I want them to be? Hardly. Will they be useful? Possibly.
Here’s a thought: how about wait until you actually are able to hold one of these things in your own hands and use them for a while, before you jump into your own preferred armed ideological camps?
My Dad always said one of the best things about this country was the ability to “vote with your feet” if you liked or didn’t like something. The same holds true with anything technological. If you like it, cool. Buy it. If you don’t like it, wow. Don’t buy it!
Amazingly simple concept. Trying to read huge sociological and/or conceptual tea leaves in something like the iPad is just too funny.
thinking that such devices will not eliminate freedom is just flat-out bizarre.
easy eh?
this is a general trend, not just from Apple. haven’t you seen, how the net also gets restricted?
you restrict small things, until the humans get used to it, and restrict more and more. More control, more power, more profit.
History repeating itself. Until the day you push it too far, which might take hundred of years. Again, that wouldn’t be the first time in history.
On top of that, it does not matter, if a few individuals “vote with their money”. This has no effect whatsoever on the masses. I’m not going to buy an iPad, you think Apple with figure out restricting freedom is not nice? Laughtable, at best.. 5 millions will buy one anyway
I’m pretty sure there are lot of good causes you defend that way and in a similar fashion there is no change being done by your “actions”, or in this case, “inactions”.
All you can do is make people aware of your point of view, which the internet facilitate greatly, and try to make them use CRITICISM towards everything. To make them get their OWN point of view. Not one they believe their own (aka being fed some advert/review/product/what-not and deciding its correct/not big deal/going to be ok)
And I find freaking out over a stretched out ipod with a bad name bizarre. Did we have mini surfing devices in the 80’s? Your sense of technological freedom is what you personally would like to do with the device. It isn’t a global constant. On another level we have more technological freedom than ever since we have so many devices to choose from.
That’s why I also find it odd that people here are upset over this. For every person that wants root access there are 10k hipsters that will buy it and spend another $50 at the app store. Shouting at a wall about how you think it should run OSX won’t change anything.
Be glad that the business world will have little interest in this device thanks to it not being designed around stylus use. A cheap tablet with a browser and character recognition would go a long way in the business world.
I don’t understand why everyone is upset with Apple.
People sometimes gives the impression that they are been forced to purchase an iphone , a mac or and ipad. If you don’t like Apple products, policies , etc.. then don’t buy Apple products.
Maybe the AppStore is a bad model, but the problem is not apple, the real problem are the other companies (Nokia, Rim,Google) adopting the same model instead of trying to make something ‘different’.
Are we talking about the Apple which includes software developments tools like XCode and support gcc?
I think this is good.
Years ago Microsoft requires money for compilers and money for documentation. Now they give some tools for free, but only to stop tinkerers to go to Linux.
Is there any argument hiding in that piece? Because i couldn’t find one. All that seems to be said is: “You are dumb! na na na na naaa na! Grow the f*#% up! No you!”
Isn’t the point of an opinion to convey an opinion?
I’m 58 years old. I won’t go through all my experience with tinkering, learning about computers, etc. as it goes back a long, long way.
I just wanted to say that, for good or ill (for tinkerers), the iPad is the closest thing yet I’ve seen to what has always been the ultimate goal of “computing for the masses” – the computer or device where the user doesn’t have to know anything. That’s always been the vision of…tinkerers…to get to that level. Now that it’s just about here, I have to admit, it is odd.
The iPad (and other tablets like it) is going to be huge. Really huge.
The herd is going to bust the gates and the nerds cry foul…
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin – 1775
It will be interesting to see if Apple’s unexplained iphone app rejections were simply because they wouldn’t be compatible with the iPad.