How A Great Product Can Be Bad News: Apple, iPad, and the Closed Mac
createdigitalmusic.com
createdigitalmusic.com
Here we have a device that doesn't support USB thumbdrives, doesn't support dropbox (at least system-wide, I assume the dropbox iphone app would work), is unable to run ruby or any of my other dev scripts/tools, cannot install firefox or firefox plugins, etc.
I do not want to see computing head this direction.
Devices that run other systems will emerge with time. Mainly because this does 100% of what most people want to do with a computer.
I disagree. This sort of device has the very real chance of killing notebook computers.
I don't think that desktops are going away any time soon, for two reasons. First, if you are going to work for hours at a time, a big screen and keyboard re far more comfortable and practical. Second, really significant work requires the horsepower of a full OS (as opposed to apps on this device).
That said, most people don't need a full computer to travel with. They want something light, with an "always on" connection to the cloud. They want to browse the web, check email, play a game, read a book, listen to music. Sure, maybe they can tinker for a bit with a document too.
Will 90% of the world miss the openness and power of a full computer? I doubt it. And god knows that the screen and multi-touch already beats the hell out of most netbooks. I think it's a no-brainer that this thing will be wildly successful, and I do think it could (over time) kill off the laptop market. (Not for developers or hard-core geeks, but for (so-called) normal people.)
But even if for no reason other than a dislike of Apple, there will be people who don't want one of these. There will be competition.
Anyone here on hacker news that is worried about an Apple monopoly in the future because of this should get to work on competing in whichever area they are able, be it the hardware, software, or business side of things.
If it were open, had a camera, I'd be interested in it as a portable POS.
Mind you, I'm not saying it won't be cool, and I'm not saying it won't sell many units, (although I have my doubts). I'm just saying this isn't the logical conclusion to the personal computer revolution. A personal computer is, by definition, a general purpose computing device, which this most assuredly is not.
Edit, reply to following comment: How is "it does what I tell it" a narrower definition of enable than "it does what it's allowed to do by the people I bought it from"?
I'm not trying to be flip; I think it looks very sexy. However, it's just a narrow tool, not the end-all of computers.
Oh, so programming it is the only thing that Apple limits? Wow it's more open than the iPhone! I can wait to install the iPad version of Opera!
People still need more heavy-duty computers to do those other things as well as for non-leisure stuff. The advantage of an iPhone was that it was extremely portable and you could just pull it out on the bus to pass the time.
The iPad is barely more portable than a laptop, and much less functional. I guess reliability of the machine is greater since it's so stripped down. Other than that, I don't see what's so special.
I heartily disagree. There's a big difference, huge difference between "can barely" and "does it really fucking well". The iPad shoots for the latter (we'll see if it hits), the netbook's mere existence is predicated on the former.
If your definition of "can do the same" means "someone willing to bang their head hard enough and willing to live with a substandard user experience can do it", sure. But IMHO we need to strive for a higher standard than that.
After the iPod, the Mac, and the iPhone, I don't think geeks still get why Apple is successful: they build devices that normal people actually want. I think there is some collective head-in-the-sand in the geek community because what people apparently want is not at all like what geeks want. The average user doesn't want freedom, doesn't want an open kernel, doesn't give a shit about standards, they want to have a slick, usable, and intuitive user experience, and so far netbooks are failing hard at it.
The average user doesn't want the ability to hunt down zip files on obscure websites, downloading the file, and being able to run whatever app is inside. They like having a central place where all apps in the universe reside. This may or may not be good for the industry as a whole, but it is what our users desire.
IMHO the constant spec-based wankery is why nobody has yet caught up with Apple. I'm seeing a lot of internet chatter about how netbooks do more (does more, poorly), how the cost is too high, how the CPU is too slow, blah blah blah, but conveniently ignores what is IMHO the one defining reason Apple has succeeded in the last decade: user interface.
"My Android phone isn't locked down!" <-- Your Android phone also crashes all the time, emits strange cryptic messages that only developers understand ("a process has been forced to exit"?)
No they don't, that's probably why everyone on this thread is saying the same thing as you ..
> the constant spec-based wankery
The way you actually transform platform openness into spec-based wankery is beyond me.
I had an epiphany (albeit a minor one) when thinking about this problem. I asked myself, "Why do I have such a problem with Apple's closed app store?" The conclusion I reached is that a core part of my geek personality involves resisting authority figures that I didn't choose, whether it's manifest through running Linux instead of Windows or starting my own company instead of pursuing a traditional career. I suspect that, to an enterprising and independent geek, accepting Apple's way is like giving up the fight for independence from unwanted authority figures.
Just saying, but having an open kernel doesn't prevent Apple's user experience. If Apple were to post their source code to apple.com right now the iPad's user experience would not take an immediate nose-dive due to the universal law that "open source != good user experience." Please don't act like freedom and good user experience are mutually exclusive.
For example, I just read a most interesting exchange on a board, where one guy was going on about how the video experience sucks because there's no DVD drive - it's completely missing the forest for the trees, getting hung up about a single insignificant detail that's at the very best a nice-to-have. This sort of tunnel vision prevents the broad view required to execute this sort of device.
How many users actually use all the functionality?
My sister bought a 15" MacBook Pro for Xmas. She checks work e-mail via Outlook Web Access, occasionally works with MS Office documents for the office, uses an IM client, YouTube, browses the web for vacation ideas/planning, iTunes, iPhoto and... that's it. Not a luddite. Quite savvy and bright. Only 30. Yet that's all she does with a $1700 laptop.
Granted, you could do the same with a netbook, however, the iPad has nothing to really "mess up". There's not much to configure. There's not much updating. It's instant on. It has better battery life. For her intents and purposes, it does 95% of what she wants. I can say this for my parents, and either most of my friends, or their spouses.
For these types of users the lack of a full-blown OS is actually an advantage. There's nothing "to mess up". There's very few things to configure. No boot times. Longer battery life. Easier to carry around. Cheaper than a conventional laptop or desktop. Can be always online (WiFi or 3G). Presumably a very simple "restore" or factory default reset process. I would also assume you could get a MobileMe account and have all your data backed up in a data center somewhere for easy restore.
I, personally, am not sold on the device. I already have an iPhone, and I have different computing needs as a developer. However I won't ignore the fact that it'll cut the mustard for a large number of users as an "occasional" computer, if not a primary computing device.
As much as I love esoteric computer languages and UNIX, I don't consider those to be the paragons of the promise of computers.
EDIT: "We would like the Dynabook to have the flexibility and generality of this second kind of item[paper or clay], combined with tools which have the power of the first kind[cars, television sets]." I'd say they were aiming for inspiration AND power. I'd also argue that inspiration without power is worthless...
When I look at a shitty netbook what am I supposed to be inspired about? Tinkering with Linux is no future of computing- it's nigh time to get out of that pipe dream.
Though, I expect and look forward to Linux to be installed on the thing within two weeks of it getting to the stores ;)
Mac OS X itself is a good example. Normal users can just click on the dock icons and never need to have any awareness of the Unix layer underneath.
In the mobile space, Android is 80% there.
Eventually, there will be an iPad to Apple TV interface, and they can cut out the cable companies too.
Scary now that I think about it.
In what market and by what definition?
The analogy is not perfect, since you can buy mp3s and movies and ebooks from other services. But on iPhones and iPads the barriers to getting content from non-iTunes sources is certainly higher than it otherwise would be on a regular Mac (or any other PC for that matter).
full disclosure: lifelong Apple user
There is one place in our city that offers free wifi, and few people are aware of it because they do not advertise it. Our library has computers one can use, but no wifi.
People living in and around major cities may want to pretend that everyone is able to have nearly continuous internet access, but that's not the case. Even assuming one has a smartphone, Edge isn't a pleasant thing to attempt to even browse the internet over.
Oh, but they can't because those are on YouTube and it doesn't do Flash. Simple doesn't have to mean purposely disabled to make more money.
1. Youtube DIDN'T have an HTML5 video mode (both non-web and web).
or:
2. Apple were somehow asking people to pay for Flash support and profiting from that.
Since neither is true, your concern here seems unsupported.
This is about far more than running your own Ruby scripts. It's about the fact that true innovation cannot exist in such an environment. And the problem is, you will not see what you're missing; people won't bother developing new technologies that have no platform they can legally run on.
Would the Web exist if Microsoft had been able to ban Netscape from running on Windows? What new, groundbreaking technologies are we missing out on because it's not worth the time and effort to create something new if the platform vendor can simply forbid you from publishing it?
The App store and the iPhone have fostered a colossal amount of innovation, and made a lot of normal non-techy people very, very happy. And a bunch of techies too.
And in the end I hope it doesn't come down to open source advocates getting their way so they can install vim, but it being about my Mum being able to use it without having to phone me saying that it's all gone wrong again and can I talk through 3 hours of trying to fix the damn thing.
Installing vim isn't mutually exclusive from having a usable system.
You're confusing correlation with causation. The fact that your Mum has been unable to use devices in the past is not _caused_ by the devices being open platforms. Lots of people can't even operate a dvd player and they are certainly locked down devices. Being easy to operate and being locked down are mutually exclusive.
If events A & B are mutually exclusive, it means that if A happens, then B cannot happen, and vice-versa
But, it is not just alarmist. The iphone has catalysed lots of innovation. Great innovation. This will too. It is all sanctioned innovation though. Unsanctioned innovation is important too. As things mature, it will become increasingly important.
Hardware is an entirely different beast. Apple brashly requires hardware vendors to engineer their products specifically for the iPhone platform, and you can't work around these limitations in software.
For a glaring example, there's no open Bluetooth stack on iPhone OS. Most probably the underlying implementation is essentially identical to IOBluetooth.framework on Mac OS X, but instead of giving software developers the degree of freedom that's taken for granted on computer platforms, Apple has chosen to restrict iPhone OS to a much more limited API which can only connect to devices that contain an Apple-licensed chip.
Apple doesn't seem to mind suffocating independent hardware innovation in order to extract licensing fees. What a long way they've come from Steve Wozniak's days...
If freedom-to-tinker on the iPad is restricted, it makes me worried about freedom of expression.
Isn't this part of the reason why people went out and bought the desktop Macs? Because everything 'just works'?
Locked Down Platform seems to me to be completely uncorrelated to Easy To Use.
You mean aside from the ones Apple developed? Why is the platform vendor always excluded?
The iPhone is a good example of how this might play out. It's a locked-down system full of problems for developers, but that doesn't mean innovation in the phone industry stopped.
You had a dead/slow industry, Apple woke it up, and now everyone is moving forward quickly. The customer wins.
Open phone platforms like Android will enjoy growth because of that open platform, even if Apple remains closed.
There's a similar story with the Linksys WRT54G routers. And while you might be able to jailbreak the iPad, it's just a lot less likely that a community will be able to form around 'alternative' usages.
You seem to be talking about things that machines can do, but you're referring to people. If a machine is limited it does not follow to say that the person is limited.
1) An account that is a member of a default privileged group present in Windows 2000 through Windows 2003. Has the ability to install random crap and break everything, but not the ability to fix anything (unless they exploit their breakage ability to escalate privileges).
2) Someone who reads "top ten ways to..." articles on sites like Digg, Reddit, or Lifehacker and then blindly copy-pastes shit from <pre> boxes into their terminal. They have no clue how anything works nor the facility to learn, but they sure are earnest and they love to evangelize! They'll seize any opportunity to apply their cargo-cult knowledge to help you with the problems they think you have. They love to defrag and "Repair Permissions", but don't have backups. They're the audience/creators of 'themes' and 'skins'.
Historically these people (largely adolescents) have been know-nothing partisan tweakers of Windows, Classic Mac OS, BeOS, Amiga, or any number of 8-bit home computer platforms. Recently Linux has become the cool thing to wank over -- compiz and Ubuntu helped a lot with that. The Hackintosh phenomenon has led to a lot of them defecting to Mac OS X.
I must use a different machine to build applications for this, which means on the gradient of iphone to macbook, it's much closer to the iphone. If the only niche it fills is for grandmothers, secretaries and managers, how will the developers ever really grok it? It seems like they'd only be monetarily driven... and that just sounds like iFart.
I imagine you should be able to see the difference between not targeting a particular audience and doing everything to lock that particular audience out.
EDIT: I'm kind of getting sick of this. Basically all the posts on this thread sum up to this:
Some guy say "Yeah but my grandma can use it !". And gets tremendously upvoted, so ok guys we get the point.
And some other guy says "Yeah ok, but what prevents this slick grandma-friendly platform to be open at the same time", and the guy get less upvoted, like the very point of this Ipad is that it be user friendly, like we hackers don't care at all about openness, denying the very point of this article, wich IS :
"Why can't we have a platform that is BOTH user friendly and slick, and open"
On the other hand, a much larger audience would be the vast unwashed masses in the third world who use cell phones to access the internet. The sales volumes are higher, while the price point is lower... I wonder if Apple would go there, or would they leave that market to others.
First of all, its cheap compared to a mac laptop or desktop. Secondly, it is great for surfing and checking emails, which is what my parents do 99% of the time on the computer. Any laptop or desktop would be an overkill for their use case. Thirdly, the iPad's zooming functionality is the best in the market now, and would be extremely useful for older folks with bad eyesight. The small screens on netbooks just do not cut it.
I think apple has again come up with a device that will revolutionize the way we use computers, just not the way all of us tech minded geeks wanted it to.
Fair enough. But a not-insignificant chunk of that 99% is the friend or relative who asks you to write a small piece of software to do some calculation for them or some quick script or tool to automate some repetitive task. And then you have to sit and explain to them that this thing they bought isn't a real computer in the same way that their desktop was.
There will always be two groups of people, one group of those wanting to hack things, and another, much much larger group of those who want just use them. For every one John who wants to chip his car engine there will be five millions Joes who just want to get from the point A to the point B with the least hassle possible. As it happens Apples iProducts are aimed at the second group—deal with it. Just like ITMS and App Store may be the fastest and most hassle-free way to get what you want on your device.
I've spent some time thinking, do I want iPad. The answer is: I do. I like to read when in bed, iPad is perfect for this. I cannot take my iMac to bed, and reading with notebook is not as convenient as it can be with iPad: that damn keyboard gets in a way, event when I barely use it.
iPad is very well suited for what it is intended for: surfing the web, reading the books, some email. Let's not forget it has UI specifically tailored for the device and multitouch use. It should be great for tasks it was meant to do, and not so great for all others.
It is time to stop thinking about anything with CPU inside as the computer.
At the end of the day, for the layman, non-techie user (ie: most of the population of the world), whether they are buying Windows, or an iPad, or using a Web app, they see it as something that enables them to do certain things and not others. They don't see the same restrictions we see as developers, and most of the time, they either don't understand them or don't care. At the end of the day, they got the product they paid for and use for what they wanted. If you want something different, buy something different.
Exactly. And that's what made tablet-PC unsuccessful for the most part. Because what you ended up doing was interacting with basically the same OS with a stylus instead of a mouse. The iPad is removing the cursor altogether.
Apple reminds me of homeland security, but prettier!
Because, in fact, the sale of gas is subject to a great deal of regulation. That's to prevent someone from selling you adulterated gas that destroys your car's emission system. Or from selling you leaded gas that pollutes the air that our kids have to breathe.
And the reason the manufacturer doesn't need to enforce your use of the roads is that it's already being enforced by a higher authority. We have cops for that. And they very much do dictate that you keep your car on public roads, and not go driving off across someone else's lawn, or the National Mall.
If you think these extensions to the metaphor make no sense, you're missing the elephant in the room: Personal computers are insecure, and the average web surfer is more likely (probably, alas, by an order of magnitude) to have their computer steal their credit card numbers or grind to a halt under a flood of malware than they are to crack open the box or write a single line of code. An enormous number of people don't want the freedom I want, any more than they want to own an acetylene torch.
To your other point, Windows is insecure, not personal computers. A true personal computer is/would be owned by me, not a corporation, not a hacker.
Hmmm... Seems to me I've seen this freedom vs. security argument elsewhere...
I suppose the argument then is that you choose to limit yourself to what the iPad offers by buying and using one. As long as a priori most people understand what they are getting themselves into when they buy an iPad, I think everyone would agree that people should be able to make that choice. The problem is that a lot of people aren't going to understand beforehand the limitations of this device, so they won't have made a fully informed choice.
You seem to be assuming several things: that this is peculiar to the iPad, that people who do understand the limitations also care, and that if they don't make fully informed choices about things they care about that it is someone's fault other than their own.
I don't think those are accurate assumptions.
But your last point is a good one. And I think it gets to the crux of a lot of the hysteria over this being a "closed system." A lot of consumers aren't very savvy when it comes to complicated electronics. Maybe that's their fault? I don't know. But something in me says it's partially Apple's responsibility to educate people about the devices they sell through proper marketing.
If Apple markets this ethically they won't mislead people into thinking this is a general-purpose computer. Because if people perceive this as a general-purpose computer, they will be sorely disappointed in a lot of ways when they get it home.
So It doesn't have to be entirely the manufacturer's fault if I make an uninformed choice, but I'd argue that it is partially the manufacturer's responsibility to educate me.
It is, but there are practical limits to that. We don't usually expect companies to highlight things about their products that some people might not like, we just expect them to not lie. Obviously they omit much, but omissions aren't inherently nefarious or misleading (I know you're not saying that), so we're talking about something(s) more specific than that. What should Apple be expected to make clear about their products that they aren't currently?
If Apple markets this ethically they won't mislead people into thinking this is a general-purpose computer.
Isn't it though? In the sense of 'tasks you can perform' or 'purposes you can use it for', it seems quite general. It has limitations in terms of what is available from the store, but how would you convey those to limitations to someone as being distinct from obvious limitations like how the lack of a camera prevents you from taking pictures with it?
I'm not sure if that's a clear question, but I ask because it seems to me that people with a less detailed understanding about how these things work tend to view software limitations as being just as real as hardware limitations, and that whether it allows them to accomplish the tasks they want to perform or not is vastly more meaningful to them than their control over how it does so. I just don't get the sense that people will be disappointed.
What really makes the iPad any more special, especially considering the price?
Please don't say the UI, as it's not so well loved by everyone...
Please don't say the UI, as it's not so well loved by everyone...
I don't know what to say to that if you don't already know by now. What answer are you looking for? That Apple customers are brainless sheep?
Who's "everyone"? Everyone whose opinions you like to read on the Internet?
I used my iphone once to code small scripts and start/stop batch jobs on a work server while on the go.
Java still ships with Mac OS X (though you need to switch to 64bit java to enable the Java 6 version that ships).
The only thing apple have done regarding java is deprecate the Java-Cocoa bridge.
The fact that the model is now being extended to things like web browsing and e-mail isn't necessarily a bad thing for 90%+ of the population who just want a device that always works (and always works the same way). It's turning functions formerly reserved for a computer proper and moving into the closed-off-but-much-more-straightforward consumer electronics space.
Cars used to be 'user servicable', you could take them apart and put them back together again, or repair them with simple tools.
The further you integrate something the further away you get from 'user servicable'.
Due to emissions controls cars were equipped with injection systems and motor management, and then car manufacturers discovered 'lock-in', how to make money on obfuscation in stead of openness.
Computing is doing the exact same thing.
Gone are the simple serial and parallel interfaces, and in their place you get undocumented docking connectors and other 'magic'.
The only thing that keeps things open to some extent is the fact that the internet arrived just in time to save us from complete lock in hell. The protocols are standardized enough to let devices talk to each other.
So that's where you're going to find your new 'openness', at the protocol level.
Serverside it will take a long time to go 'closed', but on the client side I would expect to see more and more devices that are closed as much as possible.
Gaming hardware has already gone that way, mobile phones started out closed ('to protect the networks', as if client side security would be good enough for a carrier).
It's not a good development, but it will happen.
Tech savvy people can only push back by releasing their own open devices, the open source variety of hardware.
I don't understand the tendency towards these Patrick Henry-esque statements (of which this is but one example.) The Apple ecosystem functions harmoniously, making my life simpler and more productive. To pull that off, that they necessarily have to erect barriers preventing everyone from coming in and screwing it up. Why is this viewed as such a terrible thing?
The assumption that all forms of freedom are equally important deserves a second look. The freedoms to speak my mind, criticize the government, (not) practice any religion I choose, and pursue happiness, are essential me as a human being. The freedom to install Firefox plugins, not so much. I mean really, who gives a hoot? If it works for you, use it; if not, don't. Either way, spare us the ominous, brooding prognostications...
Making use of a closed-system and trying to be the best in a category assumes that you have access to the most brilliant minds in that field, and the most brilliant marketing campaign. What makes Apple great? Well, they can control every aspect of their production because they own all their own tools and can keep out the crap. Also, they have slick industrial design. For now they also have some of the most brilliant minds in the industry, but not all of them. This is why they will never achieve world domination with their products. I suppose I could make use of their own advertising to make an example : "I'm a mac, I'm a PC". You are either an apple person or you're not. Their closed-system allows little flexibility. They would be doomed to what they used to be were it not for them opening their file formats to standards.
Why is this not the best approach? Because of human innovation. People hate being held down, forced into one category, etc. This is what apple is doing, but because their products are so innovative, consumers will go for it.
Google is much smarter; they know what to hold onto and what to open up for the masses. Even though they employ many geniuses, they are always on the search for new innovative ideas. That's why they purchase so many startups, or so I've been told.
That's why I believe in a race between Google and Apple, Apple WILL lose eventually.
Closed-systems should actually drive innovation because they must be circumvented. That's why Apple products are cracked all the time. So I guess the challenge then is, that if you aren't happy with Apple, build a better product and market it as well as they do. All things being equal, the open-system product will win every time. You can't employ all of the brightest people yourself, all of the time. I think Apple will learn this in due time, and then things will change.
A sidenote is that a large part of Apple's appeal is simplicity because of their closed-system. If anyone could create an opem-system as turnkey as theirs, they'd come ahead by far. I think one of the closest systems to being fully open and turnkey I've seen so far is Facebook Connect, but I'm starting to become too long-winded, so I'll leave it at that.
I disagree. Both Apple and Nintendo have shown proof that their closed 'circle of one' system works. Yes both of them have had a lot of big missed opportunities in the past because of this, but what matters more for these companies is profitability and not marketshare. Both Apple's and Nintendo's closed systems have led to large margins, and a healthy supply of cash flow and reserves.
Yes it doesn't really fully cater to us, but we're not their main market.
Apple and Nintendo aren't young start ups; they've been around for decades with closed systems. A closed system like iTunes is a big reason Apple has even gotten so successful in recent times; it works I.e they have made tons of money with a closed sys and they probably will continue to do so. Marketshare is another story.
Whether it makes geeks happy is also another story
If apple think their iPhone success shows that people like closed systems, they are kidding themselves. Phones have never really been open (thanks to the carriers), so the iPhone was actually one of the more open phones out there. But once they start competing with actual computers, it is going to be very different.
The Newton, just like any other tablet computer had a niche, vertical applications.
And it failed in that niche because of choices set in stone by the Apple team that developed it.
It wasn't open enough.
So, forward 21 years and we're in 2010, where we see a sequel to the Newton, running a proprietary OS on hardware that has been closed to the point where you can't even attach a USB stick.
I'm sure that lots more of these will be sold than there ever were sold of the Newton, but I doubt it will tap the potential of this form factor. For that it needs to be much more open and hackable.
This is just another remote terminal attached to the web, and more importantly for Apple, to itunes.
There is nothing wrong with remote web terminals, but as long as they are computers you should allow access to all that power, locking it and making it hard to put software on it is limiting, not enabling.
The elephant in the room is the iPhone, where "circle of one" seems to be working extremely well. Maybe the model just needed some fine tuning.
All of those issues are precisely because the Macs were proprietary. If they hadn't been proprietary, none of the issues that made them lose to PCs would have been issues and they may have won the war. In the 80's, every school bought Apple IIe's, so they had the foot in the door.
Then, under the leadership of Mr. Jobs, apple slammed the door shut on their foot and here they are doing it again -- also under Steve Jobs.
Steve is the problem. Eventually, they'll realize this and fire him again when people get tired of his antics.
Going back to the subject, before Steve came back Apple tried the MS game where they licensed everything about the Mac (from hardware to software). This strategy failed miserably; most likely because they were already too late.
Fast forwarding to today, Steve is not the problem. He is the main reason Apple is wildly successful today. If he didn't return and revive Apple with the products under his watch, Apple would most likely be gone. Saying Apple is not successful is like saying BMW isn't successful just because it doesn't sell as many cars as either Ford or GM.
Here's an alternative take on this (with a story). I recently saw Thomas Keller (chef and owner of Per Se here in NYC and French Laundry in CA, among others) talking about a new-ish restaurant of his in CA, Ad Hoc.
Ad Hoc has no menus. They make meals and serve them family style. You take what you want from the dishes provided. You have choice only within that range.
He argued that true luxury was the freedom from choice. Now in a political context, this is Orwellian and terrifying. But in the context of a meal, it made a lot of sense to me. Let a great chef do his or her magic, and I will try any damn thing they put in front of me and thank them for the privilege.
For us as hackers, computer use is more like politics. We want the openness to do what we want, to dig around, to break things and fix them again, to change things. For most people, however, computer use is more like a meal. Give them some great toys to play with and they won't mind the limitations at all.
I love turnkey, and so do a lot of people. Who wants to fuss with installing new software, etc.? That's my perspective.
Closed-systems are much easier to make turnkey, but they aren't the only alternative.
Just because something is open, doesn't mean that it can't be simple. It CAN be tinkered with, but it doesn't have to be to make it work.
That response is shorter than I'd like, but I have to run unfortunately.
This is explicitly about locking developers down, and not allowing them to do things that Apple does not approve of. Want to write a competing web browser? Sorry, you can't. Want to write an awesome JIT that optimizes itself for their shiny new chip? No can do.
Imagine if this policy had been in place on their desktop or laptop computers. Half of the technologies that they themselves use and tout as great would not exist. LLVM/clang? WebKit? Heck, the Mach and BSD kernels that this is all built on. None of this would have been created in a closed ecosystem with restrictive policies, and yet Apple is perfectly happy to take advantage of it while not letting anyone else play in their sandbox.
The hypocrisy of their policies makes me sick.
Want to write a competing web browser that will confuse people (why do I need another web browser?), no can do. It's a quality control issue.
The iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad do specific things and do them well. They are not personal computers. They are web browsers, music players, calendars, etc. The customer is paying for a device that does these things. They don't want (or arguably need) a personal computer.
Why would you want to develop LLVM on an iPad? Do you honestly think that Apple would junk their desktop OS in favour of an App Store-driven laptop/desktop experience? Developers write code on personal computers. Apple is not a closed ecosystem because of this fact alone. There is room in Apple's world for 3rd party innovation - it's just not on their consumer products.
And Apple is not immune to this sort of problem; there are alternative products that they forbid that really can improve the experience (for instance, better podcast clients, email clients that are optimized for Gmail, and the like). And given the quantity of software they have on the app store, and how crappy some of it is, it's not about quality control at all; it's about the fact that Apple simply wants control, and doesn't want any third-party developers getting too big or too powerful.
The point about LLVM is not about developing LLVM on an iPad. It's about the fact that you can't use such technology on the iPad. If I want to develop a product to run on the iPad, and that product would be greatly improved by containing a JIT or an interpreter, I cannot distribute that on the iPad; it is forbidden. And this means that there is less of a market for developing such things in general. If the hardware that the consumers have and use forbids me from selling them a product with an interpreter in it, then there's a lot less of a reason for me to produce that interpreter in the first place.
I write interactive educational multimedia software that's scripted in a dialect of Scheme. The iPad may be a great platform that we could port our software to; the screen is a perfect size for our type of content, it supports video, composited graphics and animation, and multitouch interaction could really improve some of our simulations. However, we cannot run our Scheme interpreter on the iPad. Writing a compiler would be prohibitively expensive for our small team, as would porting all of our content to JavaScript, the only interpreted language you are allowed to run on the iPhone/iPad. Apple is explicitly preventing me from porting the software I would like to the iPad.
But you don't hear as much about people like me, who simply turn away from the iPhone or iPad and don't develop software for it. You hear about the success stories; the people who made a quick buck selling a fart app for the iPhone. The only cases in which you do hear about people being turned away are cases in which people did make the initial investment, developed the software, and then were turned down; but because most people don't want to risk that, they never bother developing the software in the first place if they think there's a high chance that Apple will reject it.
When html5 matures and is more widely adopted, developers will sidestep the ridiculous shackles of the app store approval process... effortlessly. At that point, it'll be a competition between the best developed browsers and the most inexpensive mobile devices that will still deliver a very good experience. Google, I think, will come out on top then w/ Google Chrome OS.
Except the ones you listed do exist and are open for anybody else to go use and build their own great products, even using the work that Apple put into them.
Fair enough, but isn't the point that some applications (ones central to the device like the browser, email, maybe calendar now?, book app?) can't be duplicated? You can't write Firefox for the iPad or submit Opera mobile. Or, I suppose you can, but Apple won't accept such items, will they?
So in that sense, the mere number of apps is irrelevant. My point was that the experience is very, very heavily controlled and that many people turn out not to mind that when it comes to such devices.
Very well put.
Sometimes even Apple doesn't get that. There was a great example of this principle in one of the slides the Engadget blogger took during Jobs's presentation (http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/live-from-the-apple-table...), where the 10:57AM slide shows the iBooks application allowing the user to "change the font (to) whatever you want."
Um, thanks but no thanks, Steve. Book publishers hire type designers to come up with appropriate fonts, and they hire other skilled designers to select and use them. Leaving this choice up to the reader is not a feature, but an aesthetic regression at best and a dereliction of duty at worst. It's like bundling fine art with a paint-by-numbers set.
This is exactly how MS Office ends up with 30 different selectable toolbars that nobody knows how to use. It was a splash of cold water to the face to see Apple making the same sort of mistake.
Open up developer ad-hoc provisioning. Keep the App Store closed, heck, make it even stricter, but give that alternative, ad-hoc channel a chance. You don't have to publicize it; all you need to do is to change a single number in a plist somewhere on your activation servers from 100 to unlimited.
Then the hacker community will focus on adding features to your product instead of on compromising its security.
With the ubiquity of SD and micro SD and need for more and more storage due to the explosion of digital media, they don't even provide a port. Obviously, they don't provide a port because it would destroy their product line. When you have the cheapest digital electronics providing these ports and high-end hardware like the iPod/Phone/Pad not providing it, that says a lot. It says "we don't care about anything except our product the money in your wallet."
It's ironic that MS gets so much flack from developers in the OSS purist and Apple fanbois camps about their closed products. They've always been the most open from the hardware perspective and they've always been great to developers. Apple is just the opposite.
If we care about an open future in computing, we need to think clearly about which platforms to develop for.
Ahem: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/blu-ray-maker-re-boxe...
* (terrible name btw, i was sitting with three girls over lunch and looking at the engadget coverage while we ate, when i told them it was called the iPad they cracked up. One said, it must have been a male only committee that picked that name).
If you are worried about openness, then look to Android. I'm sure we will see a plethora of Android tablets that will be like a large Droid/Nexus One just like this tablet is a large iPhone.
That said, the bottom touch bar was an absolutely terrible idea; I don't know how that made it through dogfood testing. Closed vs. open aside, what makes Apple unique is that they would have scrapped such a design and started over. We can only guess how many design iterations it took to result in the iPad.
UI is a matter of personal taste.
I have an Android phone (G1) and just recently bought an IPod Touch.
I don't like the Touch's navigation. Sure, UI is beautiful but having an extra button would have definitely enhanced the navigation.
Android may have overdone it with 5+ buttons but I'll take that over just 1.
Like drug effectiveness, UI preference varies among individuals. But in the same way, it is no mere matter of personal taste.
"Oh, you're critical of this thing that you don't like? BET YOU CAN'T DO ANY BETTER!"
"No thanks, I have more money than time, I think I'll just spend the bux on the thing that does do it better"
Likely they read it on some blog that it is shit and just believed it.
That said, I do not regularly use Mac computers, so I don't think everything they do is awesome.
Both OSX and Windows still give them a lot of trouble.
It's hard to pair both freedom and flexibility with ease of use and simplicity.
We need to understand that the average HN reader is not the target market here. We're generally more technical and are willing to tolerate more complexity and maintenance in return for a greater level of freedom over our software and devices. The things we regard as important are not seen the same way by most people. They just want an appliance that makes the things they do every day as easy and hassle-free as possible.
Apple is no longer called Apple Computers because they will not sell computers anymore. They will sell closed devices with a closed software ecosystem. They will also sell the best devices money can buy.
The Mac Pro is made for power users and developers, it's made very easy to open and add hardware to.
The iPhone is made for everyone on the planet who can afford it, it is made to be very easy to use for normal use cases and very hard to screw up to the point where someone needs someone else to fix it.
I'm typing this on a Macbook that no longer has its original RAM, hard drive, or keyboard/trackpad. The RAM and hard drive upgrades didn't break any sort of warranty and were rather trivial.
The Mac Pro is certainly not the only apple computer to modify. It is only the easiest to upgrade. Just because an upgrade isn't easy or encouraged doesn't mean you can't do it.
When they make a new thing I don't want, it doesn't make the old stuff I did want any less cool.
If you don't like the closed platform you can grab a PC, but I think this is just how Steve Jobs does things -- he likes to have as much control as possible so that Apple can deliver a certain type and level of experience to users.
And the iPad fits the bill 100%.
$499? Unbeatable!
Same with my iPhone. It wouldn't be half as useful without being jailbroken.
What I think is exciting is that this device breaks new ground. It's only version 1.0. Better devices will come out. Hopefully, from companies other than Apple. There's virtually nothing stopping another company from selling an open platform, one that runs open software, has open hardware, has WIFI, has USB and has higher screen resolution than the 1024x768 that my 8 year old iBook has. And, hopefully someone will deliver a device that uses low power open cores.
Stop complaining. Start dreaming up something better.
However, devices bigger than iPhone - in the netbook/iPad range - need significantly more functionality. I believe Apple missed the boat with the iPad, especially if it really is targeting grandpa and grandma. People are becoming more tech savvy and they will be less and less willing to shell out money for an inflexible device that only serves a rigid set of predefined functions.
The iPad, I'm sure, is constructed extremely well. However, taking it to the bathroom, to bed and around the house in general isn't the same thing as taking it everywhere you go. Apple's success is in building beautiful durable portable hardware. The iPad just isn't portable enough or flexible enough for people to want it.
Google is trying to take the opposite pole: you can do pretty much anything on an Android phone, but that includes buggy software with bad UI design.
There will always be both positions. Both have benefits to different people. To a HackerNews audience, the open system will almost always seem better -- HackerNews types enjoy tinkering and will tend to be advanced users. But not everyone shares the HN love of tinkering.
I'll never use the iPad for work, and in the same way I can't bring myself round to using a Mac Mini as my media centre, I don't want the hassle of a full OS over a purposely built OS for the task(s) in hand. All I'd want to do on the iPad is browse the web, read, watch videos, and perhaps play some games.
Overall as long as this isn't Apples future strategy for the Mac platform (which would be suicide), I think it's a nice product, which by the looks of it, will do the job it's made for brilliantly.
I personally will insist on "not" buying any Apple product unless they develop a strategy to innovate(as they did in the past) instead of trying to monopolize the scene...
(Oh, and if you've got some other laptop and pick up an iPad just how long do you think the average user will last before drooling a little more over the MacBook lineup?)
http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-iph...
on an iPhone you can easily type with your thumbs, grip it firmly and you can use all sorts of multi-touch gestures.
i cant see that happening with a 10 inch tablet.
you would need to hold it / balance it on one hand and then awkwardly control it with your other hand. Doesnt seem ergonomic.
maybe one of the accesories they should release is an iArm, so we can hold it with two arms and confidently use gestures and such with your iArm
You use the iPad to:
- read a book - surf the web - organize/look at/show off photos - watch videos/movies/tv shows - listen to music - send/receive emails - play games - use maps/calendar and the 140k+ apps available in the app store
Anything else, use a Mac (or Windows/Linux).
For surfing the web: iPad > netbooks
For reading books: Kindle > iPad
So what to buy? I currently own a netbook, and while I like the device, for longer ebook reading and surfing, having the keyboard part is impractical. And I don't want Kindle, since I do a lot of reading in the dark room, and don't like the external lamp solution.
Overall, I am finding iPad to be a kind of product I'd like to have, but will probably buy similar alternative with Win7 or Android/Chrome OS.