Alan Kay: With the Tablet, Apple Will Rule the World
gigaom.com
gigaom.com
Are tightly closed environments like this where we want personal computing to go next?
Are only a small number of people going to own powerful computers with which they can do anything they want, with the rest going through app stores and the cloud? It sounded good to me before, but now that we may all be on the receiving end, it seems disheartening.
App stores are just a stop gap until web browsers catch up.
That said, Apple's interest isn't in thin clients because once they're too thin, it gets pretty hard to sell you a new one.
It makes sense that both companies would eventually converge on trying to radically simplify the user interface.
Luckily, I tend to think openness wins eventually, even if we have a few detours along the way. Hopefully, the detour won't last much longer in the mobile space. In content, it's finally starting to get straightened out. Consumers may be stupid, but they're also cheap, and openness tends to have some advantages there.
I think it's a bit early for world domination plans, we haven't even seen the device. Also, to put things in perspective; the iPhone, which is considered a huge success, has only grabbed around 14% market share so far. It's not like the competition would just sit and watch...
iPhone :: Android phones as 'iTablet' :: ??
Apple makes new tech fashionable. Someone else can always come along afterward to make it open.
YES.
You want a guy like Steve in the driver's seat of how your platform should look, behave, and integrate with the user's daily life. Look at Linux: Its promise is that you can make it do or be anything and what has the open source community produced? Well, there's Ubuntu, a pale imitation of Windows in terms of integration, but by and large the open source community has switched to Mac.
If the iTablet were completely closed hardware-wise, had super-restrictive third-party app development, but still offered books, Wikipedia, and video via an always-on connection, for sale or free download as appropriate, it would still be a freakin' boon to mankind. And with the right restrictions in place it would be something immediately beneficial for every user instead of just a geek toy.
Allow me to at least question that assumption ...
This assumes a shrinking pool. Open Source development is happening at a higher rate than ever before, and the number of Open Source developers and users is higher than ever before.
Yes, Apple has seen a dramatic increase in market share, but before that Windows laptops were abundant at Open Source conferences; before a few years ago, running Linux on a laptop was a harrowing and challenging experience, and most people (even developers) simply could not make it all work. I'm only on my second "fully functional under Linux" laptop, and I've always bought laptops with Linux compatibility in mind.
Apple happens to make the nicest laptop hardware, and Mac OS X happens to run best on it. And, for many tasks, particularly tasks common to laptop usage, Mac OS X is an acceptable substitute for Linux in ways that Windows never was.
Of course, I couldn't tell you how many of the participants are open source contributors.
Are you claiming that by-and-large all open source software is targeted at OSX first, with Windows/Linux taking a backseat?
Are you claiming that the open source community is going to embrace Apple's tablet offering? How is this going to happen? Are open source apps going to be accepted into the tablet's AppStore? Are open source developers going to use the tablet as a development platform for whatever their target platform is?
Did you also take into account the fact that since OS X comes with so much open source software (Ruby,Python,Perl,etc) 'baked-in' that lots of 'MacHeads' have joined the Open Source community as a result? Did you take into account that many people that switched from Windows to OS X and were presented with the Open Source software that comes with it have also joined the Open Source community?
Sorry, but I take issue with people that decide to make far-reaching claims without anything to back them up other than their own personal opinions. 'Begging the question' seems appropriate here.
---------------------
I don't see how it's anything other than a net positive, you gain in security and ease of use for consumers. If you're more hacker minded like this audience is, it's extremely trivial to jailbreak - the distinction being that it is totally independent and not sanctioned by Apple whatsoever. This is an important point.
After working in user support I can totally empathise with Apple's decision to keep the platform closed via the App Store. The vast majority of the people buying these phones (ie, normal users - not geeks) are the ones who voluntarily install spyware on their PC's, click yes to every dialog box they see and execute random email attachments without thinking twice. They don't scrutinise certificate errors in their browser, use PGP, constantly have a bash window or two hanging around - in fact I think a lot of the people who have bought iPhones as fashion accessories would have trouble even changing their wallpaper.
The iPhone undeniably has the biggest mindshare, and a very hefty marketshare slice of any high-end mobile communications device yet, one notably skewed toward people with large disposable incomes.
Remember, it's constantly connected to the internet, has a connection to the phone network (and thus an unlimited tab conveniently linked to your credit card), knows where you are and even in which direction you're facing. It knows who you talk to, who your contacts are...etc. I could go on. The point is this device and it's associated popularity is a fucking GOLDMINE for the kind of people who write malware.
The App Store and it's uncompromising restriction is the final solution to keeping this cesspool of a software "ecosystem" off the platform.
Even if Apple provided an "Advanced" setting which gains you root access on your device the malware writers would simply instruct the clueless user to enable it, and I KNOW that 99.9% of people would do it without hesitation, for the promise of nothing more than a cheap thrill. All the EULA-type warning "this-is-a-bad-idea-and-we're-not-responsible" notifications in the world won't stop them. It's based on the same psychology as that study where an alarming majority of people would tell you their password for a chocolate bar.
Oooh, kittens!!! cue screaming and convenient lawsuits targeting high-profile Apple when their phone bill arrives with a $50,000 total
Yeah, I think we can do without that sort of thing, and Apple certainly doesn't need that kind of unrepairable damage done to their brand perception.
We put up with malware on Windows because like it or not it's the de-facto standard, and consequently most people don't know any better. There is an almost bewildering array of choice when it comes to mobile handsets, and people are likely to go with the one that doesn't have a reputation for involuntarily emptying your bank account.
Not only "not sanctioned" by Apple, but actively opposed by them. They go out of their way to stop jailbreakers and consider them criminals, and per the DMCA they're probably right. It will be terrible for future innovation if the only way to gain control over your own hardware is to become a felon.
The App Store and it's uncompromising restriction is the final solution to keeping this cesspool of a software "ecosystem" off the platform.
Along with anything that remotely competes with Apple's business model. If Microsoft had that level of control 20 years ago, we wouldn't have the web.
Even if Apple provided an "Advanced" setting which gains you root access on your device the malware writers would simply instruct the clueless user to enable it, and I KNOW that 99.9% of people would do it without hesitation
That's a testable prediction, since Android offers exactly that setting. We'll see if it becomes a cesspool of malware; I don't expect it to.
Of course they don't like people jailbreaking, they've worked very long and hard on making a store with a fair and seamless DRM system - then barely a week after it's jailbroken somebody has gone and made an almost one-step process for cracking, distributing and downloading pirated applications. DRM relies on a closed system by it's very nature - it's understandable they like to discourage against subjugating their entire business model.
HOWEVER: they have never (as of my knowlege) put in additional effort to prevent jailbreaking. The online media a few years ago was buzzing with warnings about updates bricking jailbroken iPhones - like if done out of some sort of malice when it turns out the problem was AnySIM completely trashing some areas of the baseband, rendering it unusable when updated next.
So let's see, Apple getting a ton of bad press misdirected at them (as usual) because of the clumsy mistakes of some people who didn't really test their baseband modifying software before releasing it to the public.
Oh, and a more recent example. The installer for OpenSSH in Cydia didn't bother to prompt a change for the default root password on the iPhone (alpine) - suddenly there's a "virus" spreading between unsecured jailbroken iPhones because of clueless idiots once again thinking they know what they're doing when they clearly don't. The press? "OMG ITS TEH IPHONE VIRUSSSSS RUN FOR THE HILLS!!" Do you think they bothered to mention that you had to a) Jailbreak your phone, b) Install OpenSSH and c) Neglect to change the default password? Of course not, who cares insignificant details like that when you can have a headline with the words "iPhone" and "virus" both in it.
Gee, I wonder why Apple don't like jailbreaking guys?
Meanwhile, it would be naîve to think that Apple doesn't have plenty of jailbroken iPhones they use internally for various things. I have no doubt they are keeping a very close eye on the progress of the JB scene.
Along with anything that remotely competes with Apple's business model. If Microsoft had that level of control 20 years ago, we wouldn't have the web.
We don't know the exact reason for many Apple's rejections, but I disagree with this sentiment in general - there are hundreds of examples of approved apps which directly with Apple's own offerings and if you're referring to the GV rejection in particular that's even more puzzling as it doesn't compete with Apple at all (unless they're secretly planning on becoming a telco?) Examples of approved apps which might enroach on Apple's territory are various Safari replacements (iCab etc), Map applications, and even Spotify; clearly stepping on the toes of iTunes store. The problem is the inconsistency, which to me points more toward individual agent whims or moods rather than policy. I agree this is unacceptable but they have promised to make it better. They have stated publicly that they approve > 99% of apps, so as usual it's a vocal minority.
That's a testable prediction, since Android offers exactly that setting. We'll see if it becomes a cesspool of malware; I don't expect it to.
There has already been a bank account phishing app which was undiscovered for weeks on the Android Marketplace. I wonder why whoever coded that didn't target the iPhone instead and get 100x the opportunity?
Oh that's right, they couldn't. The system works.
...and 80% of statistics are made up on the spot...
No offense, but isn't this the kind of 'protect people from themselves' crap that gets ragged on in a political sense under the term 'Nanny State?' Are you advocating this?
Let's say that Apple does have a 'press this button for root access' option. Once malware starts telling people to enable that option, don't you think that it would be HUGE in the media, and word would spread like wildfire that you shouldn't do that or your identity will be stolen? People are dumb to desktop computer security because it doesn't affect their 'bottom line.' When someone's computer becomes part of a botnet or installs popup malware, they likely don't know the difference from when their computer is normally functioning.
How many people have actually had (for example) their bank accounts emptied because of a computer virus? If such incidents became commonplace, you can bet your butt that people would get smart real fast. Right now there is just no incentive for people to get smart to these things because "the computer is getting really slow" is the only difference that they notice between an infected desktop and an uninfected one (and when it's their employer's computer they have even less incentive to care because 'IT will take care of it').
I think the mainstream press wouldn't bother to describe details about an obscure option hidden deep within the system settings, and would likely have whatever was the most sensational, intellectually dishonest headline they could get away with coupled with some vague, useless security tips like locking your phone with a pin and making sure bluetooth is turned off in crowded places.
People don't have their bank accounts emptied (usually, except via phishing websites and Android Marketplace apps) because their computers aren't intrinsically linked to their credit cards. Phones are, and it would be completely trivial (and very tempting) to make a dialer.exe type program that surreptitiously makes $9.95/min calls to Nigeria. List it as some kind of a raunchy sex line and try pleading innocence to your telco about that one. Go on, I dare you.
Another point: on a PC, data is stored kind of haphazardly and if you have nefarious objectives in mind it's a lot more difficult to access very specific kinds of information. On a phone, this is very easy - everything has it's place. Especially on the iPhone with it's wide use of open standards - crack open the sqlite database you need and query away to your heart's content.
What makes Apple's approach that much more secure? They don't inspect the source code of an App. There could be hidden 'call home' features that are waiting for a switch to be flipped to execute the malicious code that's wrapped up in a pink and fuzzy package. Sure Apple can hit a 'kill switch' on an App, but they need to know that the App is a threat before they do so. What happens when an App does your 'dialer.exe' example and calls Nigeria? Does this immediately alert Apple to 'suspicious goings-on' and they make a dramatic leap to hit the big red button?
I agree with some of what you say but can't help but feel that open is the only way to a good future.
Then again, this device isn't even out yet. It certainly hasn't taken over the world. And even if it becomes wildly popular Linux, BSD, Windows, and whatever other OSs are out there are not going away because of it.
But somehow, I doubt creating the "final solution" fail safe platform was first and foremost in the minds of whoever it was that thought up the iPhone app store model. Nobody likes a monopoly... unless it's their monopoly.
No point even asking questions like this, until you address what to do about the millions of idiots who click on every attachment they get and answer 'Yes' to every dialog without reading it. Because social efforts have failed to fix this problem, it's apparently a technical one, and the technical solution is to make it difficult for all but expert users to treat new mass-market devices as wide-open platforms.
Sucks, but what else can they do?
You're conflating two separate issues, and when you come to the (obviously correct) conclusion that users are generally stupid and shouldn't be able to easily break their computer, that it has something to do with Apple deciding who gets to build applications and how one uses the machine. Apple does not provide better security in Mac OS X or on the iPhone than Open Source operating systems, in general. As far as I know, Android has at least as good a security history as iPhone for the time it's been in existence.
Sucks, but what else can they do?
They can do the right thing, and not act as gatekeepers. Or, they can do what they've always done, and maximize profits, minimize consumer and developer freedoms, and charge a lot for it.
It's the (false) assumption that because someone controls what software goes onto the machine that it's impossible for 'unapproved code' to run on the machine (or that 'approved code' has been thoroughly vetted against all possible inadvertent or malicious security risks).
> The can do the right thing, and not act as gatekeepers.
I wonder what people will think once the first AppStore app gets approved by Apple but turns out to be a piece of malware. I'm sure Apple has indemnified themselves against liability in such a case, but there are plenty of people who feel it is an impossible scenario.
iPhone can have good security, and be a walled garden. But, the two are not closely related, and it's disingenuous, or at least misinformed about computer security history, to suggest that they are closely related. Open systems can have good security, and be very open. They are orthogonal issues, and I'm surprised that people here would make the mistake of believing they are the same thing.
Apple has stated that they have a kill switch they can use in a situation like that. It would be extremely irresponsible not to on a device like the iPhone imho.
I think all signs to point to yes (assuming you use "we" to mean the population at large and not HN). Outside the mobile world, look at the example provided by consoles. They epitomize the idea of a locked down environment. Look at how popular they are compared to PC gaming. I think that consumers want the slick, easy to use, "it just works" environment much more than they want an open environment.
People don't like it when they have to sort through the web to find software of marginal quality. With a closed system a gatekeeper filters this out for them.
I think there will always be a market for those who want an open system, but it will take a back seat to closed systems. It'll be interesting to see how this can be implemented in practice. The idea of a "root mode" for advanced users and "simple mode" for regular users seems like one possible solution.
The PC has been extraordinarily open so far, when you think about it. Imagine users of a phone or music player being given easy tools and encouraged to tinker with the way it stores music or contacts. Sounds outrageous.
The reality is that many (maybe most) users are confused by the fact that they can to music via itunes or via the file system. They definitely don't want to think about whether or not itunes is making a copy of that mp3 file in a different format, just remembering its location or moving it.
Open comes with a learning overhead.
I'm taking about access (sanctioned and encouraged), for regular users. Basically, the front end. In the backend, low level stuff these things take on a different meaning. You're probably right about the business decision.
In the sense that I'm talking about, Android or ChromeOs may be closed. I'm probably using the wrong words and being confusing, but I think there is a relevancy here.
Kay still wasn’t sure whether Apple would actually come out with a tablet when I talked to him late last year, noting that such a device could theoretically compete with the company’s iPhone business. But, he added: “I bet a thousand dollars that they had a five-by-eight-inch version for the last couple years in house.”
- much lighter (because ARM uses less power, therefore lighter batteries for same battery life; lighter construction in general; and lighter because no keyboard.
- connectivity (3G). This really is an internet appliance.
BUT I really don't think it can work without a keyboard (please make me famous by quoting me if I'm wrong!) Possibly, a large touch-screen keyboard would be workable enough to be useful, even without tactile feedback; but I really think it would be mainly a gimmick.
BTW: I typed on a video-hire kiosk's touchscreen today, and although slow, it was much less frustrating than I expected.
Hopefully to stand up to the buzz, it is more than just a souped up iPod Touch.
Am I one of the few to think that it might not be "all that"?
It's right back on my "do not click" mental list, with an extra strong negative weighting. An article about how Alan Kay's comment from several years ago re: the iPhone suggests he might like the alledged new tablet, plus a quip from an interview a year ago does not a worthwhile post make.
The only good thing I can say about not having a universal micropayment system is that I'm glad it cost them hosting and bandwidth fees to handle my page load. I hope it was disproportionately expensive.
If you're making me give up ergonomic input by giving up the desktop, I need to gain portability. That's why netbooks sucked so hard, input sucked and they weren't more portable than my laptop. The on screen and slideout keyboards on the iPhone and Droid are awful, but at least the devices fit in your pocket.
And can we please get over the techy self importance? The iPhone is pretty popular -- amongst geeks and rich people. Most people who have cellphones in general still have the freebie brick or folder that came with their plan. Just because Apple has done something to make a big splash in our pond called the tech industry doesn't mean our pond is large enough to matter to The World.
According to this site (http://www.wirefly.org/news/cell-phone-facts.php), 72% of the US population owns cell phones. I don't know exactly what they mean by that, but if that's 72% of the approximate 300 million population of the US, then that's 216 million cellphone users in the country. According to Wikipedia, Apple has sold 42 million iPhone units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone). That's roughly 20% if you aren't accounting for people who have paid for upgrades to the 3G and 3GS models. This page indicates that 16% of the market owns PDAs in general, lumping the iPhone into the PDA category (http://ticketsdotcom.blogspot.com/2009/09/mobile-trends-amer...). Significant for sure, but not "taking over the world". Why should we expect a device of less utility than a cellphone to do better?