Is Apple Evil?
aaronsw.com
aaronsw.com
The iPhone and iPad are not computers: they're extensible consumer electronics devices. The iPhone sells so well precisely because it just works, and it's really hard to screw it up relative to a computer. How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Because they're attracting developers to their closed system? How is this any more evil than Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft making their game consoles relatively closed systems?
We should all keep in mind that computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population who has no idea how to deal with viruses, install or remove software, resolve crashes or incompatibilities, or even navigate a file system so they don't lose their documents.
Maybe I'm too cynical about computers and give Apple too much of the benefit of the doubt, but their devices are good precisely because they exert so much end-to-end control, and computers are broken for so many people precisely because they're so open.
Otherwise, I agree with you completely. And looking at their 8% market share of PCs, there's a lot of room for them to improve in that category and do very, very well. They've already shown that simplicity sells.
I think many of those who are fine with it being their main computer will be fine without a keyboard. Also, it wouldn't be Apple's style. It reminds me of how the MacBook Air doesn't come with an optical drive.
There is a dock with a built in keyboard, and there is a plain dock. The iPad also supports Apple wireless keyboards, has a built in speaker, and both docks have audio jacks.
Also, you can buy iWork for it, so yes, may as well be a consumer computer. Don't expect XCode or Terminal apps though.
Because it has a 1GHz single core CPU which is far slower than any other computer Apple sells, with an architecture that most likely won't run any existing programs.
No, I won't program for the web. Why? Because I don't want to write JavaScript. I want to write C, C++, Objective-C, Python, Perl, Haskell or any one of the thousands of programming languages I can run on my Mac today.
Yes. Zittrain wrote a book about it: http://futureoftheinternet.org/
computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population
This can be fixed (see OLPC), but all the companies are just locking everything down rather than innovating. There's a huge lost opportunity here.
I don't think the OLPC is a counter-example; it solves some issues in virtue of having a standardized hardware platform, and they've tried to do away with the file system (which sort of works and sort of doesn't), but I don't think they've completely solved all the other problems around versioning and installation and removal and viruses and third-party devices that need their own drivers, etc. I don't know a ton about it, so it's entirely possible there's something else innovative there that I'm missing. I also would argue that they haven't done it in a device that an average consumer would really want. They done all sorts of innovative things that I think are great, but I don't think they've solved those fundamental issues in a general way.
As for the moral obligation standpoint . . . I haven't read Zittrain's book, so I can't fully debate that argument. From my perspective, roughly, you have a moral obligation not to do X if doing X infringes on someone else's rights without their consent. So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow, and that just seems like a tough argument to make. I think the effect of something like the iPad on the future of computers, the internet, society as a whole, etc. is so hard to predict that I don't think you can fairly say that someone or some company has a moral obligation one way or the other. Maybe those devices will open up computing to people that currently couldn't use those devices, making their lives better. Maybe it will enable doctors to carry around a tablet that helps them avoid mistakes, saving lives. Maybe it will help small-time developers make more money selling their software. Or maybe it will kill innovation and put us at the mercy of an increasingly-paranoid government and law-enforcement community or put our information and privacy firmly in the hands of large corporations. It's so hard to say which way things will go that I just don't think you can say it's unethical.
There is a not so far-fetched way to argue this: the device is ultra-closed. If its concept become successful enough, people which want to use open system may be denied the possibility. Not directly because of the success of closed platforms but because this success may allow regulation to happen without too many people complaining.
I have an actual example: how web mail harms me, even when I am not using it. Web mail is pervasive. The direct result was that many ISPs felt they could block the outgoing SMTP port (to stop evil spam). "Everyone" is using web mail or the mail of their ISP, so not too many people complain. Now, I can't set up SMTP server at home. Depending on the workaround, either my privacy or my wallet is harmed.
The last Mac I bought ran Tiger. Given reasonable maintenance, and good net hygiene, I had one software crash that I know of. It was the hardware that failed repeatedly ... screen, drive.
I've also been using Vista for a year. No significant events (I'm not pushing the envelope all that hard, do PM, net hygiene.)
I'm just saying that they've gotten pretty close to "never crashes" to be quitting now. But to give -many more- consumers the -stability- they need, and to protect them from the darkside of the net, there needs to be a degree of closedness.
There used to be a lot of wide-open platforms before mainstreaming boiled down options for most to PC/Mac. It was a chaotic period, and the narrowing down arguably made widespread adoption and economy of scale possible. If there were still 20 platforms ... well I don't even want to think about it. The complexity and cost, I suspect, would be an order of magnitude higher. So -we gained- from the mainstreaming.
I don't really grok the sense of anxiety here. The App store won't sell apps that aren't approved? But anyone who wants to can. Most people seem to want decisions made for them, because they're busy with the rest of their life. (See: US Congress.) Yes, you give up freedoms when other people are making choices for you. So long as I'm still free to choose for myself, what's the problem? I'm not going to roll my own OS ... so that decision's already in someone else's hands.
iPad is for people who are content to use Facebook.
Apple has explicitly disallowed any interpreter other than the one built into Safari, simply because it would be impossible to have a web browser without JS. Some would argue that they've severely crippled it by removing Flash, which demonstrates just how far they are willing to go.
Now imagine if the iPad had arrived before the browser. They would have never allowed this browser idea, with this crazy "javascript" thing, on the App Store. There would have been no special exception because it "might change the world". I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history, even if we had to do it at the cost of those confusing file systems and other side effects of open systems.
The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.
Its possible to create a great, easy to use system, that is also open. Arguably the web is precisely this. The web is also usable by my grandparents. The web can also eliminate the complexities of the file system (each web app stores its files). But the web is still open.
Assuming this had at some point become the only common model of computing, what would keep out newcomers from coming out with less locked-down systems? What about things like "many dealers started bundling the Apple II with VisiCalc" (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.htm...); if there's sufficiently useful software that won't run on your computer, you (or your employer) will buy a new, working, computer.
> The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.
General computing cannot be replaced by such devices, let alone by a single implementation of such a device by a single manufacturer.
Assuming this had at some point become the...
General computing cannot be replaced by...
But they do understand "that particular very useful software won't run on this machine".
> So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree.
That is what I'm saying. Some large fraction of software development is done in-house; closed platforms wouldn't allow this, and it's expensive enough that if it wasn't important it probably wouldn't be done now. In the past, sufficiently useful software has come with a bundled computer; if this had to be done regularly, someone would see an opportunity to sell an open computer that could run more than one kind of software.
That's a really weird thing to say because it did. Atari 2600 anyone?
But Apple have never even pretended the iPhone et al were "open" computing devices. Contrast that to the just-as-limited ChromeOS.
I really don't agree with that. In computer history, it had been preceded by generations of dumb terminals hooked up to networks, so as such it wasn't all that new. The HTTP protocol underlying it and the URL arguably are much more important developments, the browser is just a presentation layer on top of those.
As for human history, the wheel, the control of fire, penicillin, communications satellites, space travel and hundreds of other inventions were both done earlier and have had a much bigger impact on how we live than the browser ever will.
The mobile phone, maybe. The browser ? No way.
This is just one small example of the way the iPhone / Apple techniques seem to work well for people because they are simple and easy to use.
Lets be fair - that isn't true.
This is why Apple will continue to do what it is doing right now. People complain about its controlling policies. People call them "evil". But these very same people will not back up their words with action and continue to buy products made by an "evil" company.
As long as Apple continue to hit its peak in stock price, as long as it earns record-breaking profits, as long as it sells millions of products, it will not change its ways.
To the author, you can blog all you want about Apple's policies. The only thing that matters is for you to turn that into action. If you think Apple is "evil", don't buy its product. Stop patronizing "evil".
My hope that there will always be an open Mac is based on the thought that they need to sell something on which to write apps. Hopefully they keep one of these devices in laptop form factor.
In general though there will need to be an 'open' Mac for a number of things: audio editing, video editing, photo/video storage (I have 40Gb+ of photos and I only have a little point-and-shoot), photo editing, 3D modeling (for movies/design/engineering, etc.
This is not the death of the general purpose computer. Think of the number of amateur photographers out there, enabled by software like Photoshop/Aperture/LightRoom and the afford-ability/accessibility of DSLRs. Think of the number of people editing their own videos and/or music out there? They can't do this on an iPad. Granted, these people aren't a majority of the population, but there are a significant amount of younger people that are adopting these hobbies because they are so accessible now (thanks to the general purpose desktop computer).
I do know that as far as tech support, I've had to help my girlfriend out a ton with her MacBook (curse you spinning beach ball), but the extent of support I've had to provide for her iPhone has been, "switch it off and switch it on again."
Perhaps Apple is distinguishing between full-fledged computers (for those who have the technical skill and desire to tinker) and consumer devices that are, yes, tightly controlled but less likely to get screwed up by your average person who likes to email, browse the web and watch videos.
I don't need an iPad in the same way I don't need a car with built-in radar to help me reverse. But there are plenty of people who do need that help. I'm happy for the choice to be there, just as long as I can still buy an open machine. Personally, I don't see Apple giving up on that area.
I worked at apple for a while... they gave me some cool things like a free bus pas ($50 in Hawaii) every month to encourage use of public transit. They're certainly not evil, not any more evil than Google, Microsoft, HP, IBM, the list goes on...
They're just the most successful. And it always sucks at the top, because everyone is trying to bring you down. Imagine all the companies that are trying to get at Apple's trade secrets, it's no wonder they have such intense security.
I don't understand why so many people are getting their panties in a knot because somebody is selling another non-general-use device with a processor.
And I know that hyperbolic rhetoric is fun, but let's be realistic. This is not undermining constructivist education, free culture, decentralized power or open systems in any meaningful way. If you really think it's accomplishing all that, go take your medication.
They actually are general-purpose devices, just deliberately limited by Apple. And I'm sort of ok with that; I'm not ok with them actively trying to stop you from removing those limitations on your own device, and calling you a criminal if you do. A seller trying to control how you use a product after you've bought it is an attack on your property rights.
This is not undermining constructivist education, free culture, decentralized power or open systems in any meaningful way.
Not by itself. But if closed devices like the iPad marginalize open devices, it becomes much easier to enforce user-hostile laws like CBDTPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_...).
Without moving from my chair, I can see the following "general-purpose" computers that have been turned into controlled platforms.
A Directv HD DVR. A Sony Playstation. A Nintendo Wii. A TomTom GPS. A Samsung Television. A Treadmill. A BlackBerry. An iPod Touch. A Logitech Remote Control.
Precisely when should I be outraged that a device's capabilities aren't as general-purpose as you'd prefer? Heck, some of those devices (the television, GPS, and treadmill) even run Linux, yet are "crippled" by their manufacturers.
2) I'm not ok with them actively trying to stop you from removing those limitations on your own device,
Every trade has two sides. If a seller says "I will sell this to you for X if you agree not to do Y", that's a trade that you can either accept or reject. I fail to see why you, as a buyer, should have a right to demand that all rights transfer for a particular price if the seller doesn't want to transfer them all for that price.
So long as it's reasonably clear, and disclosed, I fail to see the problem.
3) "calling you a criminal" ... "easier to enforce user-hostile laws like CBDTPA"
Blaming a specific, unreleased non-general computer for laws you don't like is almost comic. I say 'almost' because it's really kind of annoying that you want to strip the rights of innovators to make what they want, in the name of 'freedom'.
If I want to wrap a processor, input method and display up in a manner that precludes using it for general purpose computing, as a means to solve a problem, I should have every right to do it and sell it. And you can buy it or not buy it.
But claiming it's responsible for every law you don't like, that it's an assault on property rights, and that it's an attack on constructivist education, free culture or decentralized power is utter and complete rubbish.
There is no particular person in the wrong, and I wouldn’t call it “evil,” exactly, that all of our devices are now impossible to repair for the average person, or even the enthusiastic hobbyist: clocks, cameras, radios, automobiles, telephones ... everything we use is becoming too complex for people to understand, except in a rough, schematic way.
This has tremendous benefits, as we can make more sophisticated devices, with useful features, and our lives become more comfortable. But you must admit it also has a down-side: we lose the ability to repair, to tinker, to reverse-engineer, to understand our surroundings, to personally implement incremental improvements, etc. Each user sacrifices a little bit of control for a little bit of comfort, incrementally.
The bit of knowledge we do have about science ends up coming from top-down mandated curricula, purely theoretical understanding learned through books, rather than from practical experience cooking our own meals, tending our own gardens, crafting our own furniture, fixing our own appliances.
I believe that computers are amazingly useful and powerful general-purpose devices, and understanding how to program them can be extremely empowering, because it allows people to solve their own problems. If all you have is an iPad and a DVR and a built-in car GPS and a cell phone, you can only use them on the problems that other people already solved, and if your problem is different, you’re shit out of luck.
That said, the fact that you seem to think that cooking meals, gardening, woodworking, and appliance repair are also impossible indicates to me that you're not really railing about the iPad.
These are great days to tinker. Just a slightly different kind of tinkering, is all.
There is only 2 way such a thing is possible.
(1) By default, the iPad let you write, compile and run programs in it without requiring any external device (like a iMac with XCode). That would mean it is easy to distribute such programs without going through the App Store, just like with a plain old desktop computer. I don't believe it for a second.
(2) You had jailbroken it.
Therefore, it is safe to say that by default, the iPad is not programmable.
If you're not, jacobulous's ridiculous hypothetical scenario isn't worth treating seriously. And I treated it with all the lack of seriousness I believed it to deserve.
Now, imagine that devices like the iPad are the majority (like Windows is now). Plus, viruses and netbots are evil. Result: Trusted Computing everywhere.
This is of course the extreme, very unlikely scenario. However, this is so serious that I think it is worth to watch out, even knowing that the odds are almost nil.
If you disagree with what is being called "evil", than you could be more specific. I don't think free bus passes for employees justifies a company to engage in anti-competitive behavior. Remember, legal != good.
It seems like a 30% cut of any app sold for your operating system would far outweigh the cost of approving those sales.
Example: I buy a B&B and use the revenue from my rentals to expand the property to get more rooms (IE higher revenue) and I invest that too. 10 years down the road I could have the biggest hotel in the country, making record revenues but nearly zero profit, and then I stop expanding. I'm then raking in multi-millions from one-stop sales and my business will have operated exactly the same as iTunes and the App store.
Apple has the potential to make huge amounts of money off of iTunes and the App store. They're just delaying this to expand their market hold and look benign. "How can Apple possibly be evil?" you hear people ask; "They barely profit off their stores," they say. 10 years down the line, when no one cares anymore, no one will bat an eyelid when Apple is taking in over a billion dollars from its iTunes and App store sales.
This control gives them veto power over every piece of software on the iPad lets them create a seamless user experience. People are used to computers crashing and being impossible to use. I think people will pay a lot of money for a computer that doesn't require a CS degree to operate. I'm sure Apple does too.
credit card fees on small amounts are heinous
Agreed, Apple is certainly trying to close things down, but there's sufficient competition in the space that I don't see the "frightening future".
If pads take off now, there'll be a decent Android GoogPad, WinMo ZunePad, with Amazon selling no-DRM media, etc. and you can decide if you want a slightly less sexy design in exchange for device functionality/flexibility.
But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash? Except playing videos (for which there are alternative) I don't see much other use.
The average user doesn't care what OS you give them as long as you are meeting their expectations. As long as Safari is full compliant with the web standards I don't care about anything else.
Anyhow, if this is going to be a successful product other hardware makers will follow and you will be able to install Windows.
Two reasons:
1. It's Apple, everything is supposed to just work. As a web developer, I not a huge Flash fan. But if I'm on my iPhone or iPad and I get the "missing plugin" brick, I'm pissed: I'm missing out on content. Steve Jobs wasn't telling the whole truth when he said it was the "real internet".
and 2. Flash was introduced almost 15 years ago. The fact that Apple is today announcing a magical device with a touchscreen and a blazing fast mobile processor, but one that cannot run a plugin that my grey Gateway 2000 Pentium I desktop had no trouble with just seems backwards. I don't know if it's an Apple problem or an Adobe problem, but it's what you get when you mix two companies with closed software standards.
With the upcoming compilation of Flash to native applications developers will be able to tunnel their apps through the App Store. Not perfect but for Flash game developers it's not so bad.
I don't like that they are making such a big push with the iPhone OS either, but how is it "clear" that Apple plans to make it the foundation of its future product line?
Can you think of anyone you know who would be better off with an Iphone like OS for their primary machine? Streamlined & controlled app installation. No file system access. No virtual desktop. No desktop at all.
I know several. The reality is that most people still feel awkward with computers. They have to ask for help. They qualify sentences with "I don't know computers." It's not just about what they can do (they can usually get their work done), it's about how that feels. It feels crap.
I seriously think that if you put an iMac sized iphone in front of them with a Word app and such, they would feel a lot better with it. They wouldn't need to ask for help. They wouldn't feel like they don't understand. They would be able to get their work done just as well. In fact, an iPad with 3g & a keyboard dock is almost there. Maybe it is there.
Why should Apple want the world of computing to look like this? They are good at that world.
As developers we have more choices than we have had in a very long time in terms of picking the platforms we want to develop for. Every platform has its pros and cons, as a developer you get to choose what's important to you when picking a platform to target.
People who want to write software will always pick open systems. People who aren't techies or creatives just want technology to serve a purpose (users of information appliances), and just want things to work with the minimal amount of fuss. Locking things down simplifies a lot of things for end users.
The panic over every platform that gets released that isn't suitably open, just makes me think of this Alan Kay quote:
"In fact, let’s not even worry about Java. Let’s not complain about Microsoft. Let’s not worry about them because we know how to program computers, too, and in fact we know how to do it in a meta-way. We can set up an alternative point of view, and we’re not the only ones who do this, as you’re well aware."
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-market...
It's not that frighting, use Windows.
it’s not hard to imagine Apple doing their best to phase
out the Macintosh in the next decade, just as they phased
out OS 9
That dosn't settle well with many geeks but shiny can overcome that in some.
Apple is preventing me from selling other people's software more competitively than they can. Imagine if Walmart told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to distribute through any other channel besides Walmart.
(If console games were small enough for digital download to be feasible, do you really think Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo would let you buy them at every damn store? Would they even bother putting drives in the machines anymore?)
I don’t know why they’re doing it."
I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience. And it works for them and their users. 99.999% doesn't give a shit about your concerns.
That's the reason why iPhone sales trumps Nexus One/Droid/etc.
If Apple applied their logic to the Universe (or at least Earth) we would all be living in an episode of Leave it to Beaver to 'improve the user experience.' What if you don't want to live in a Leave it to Beaver universe? Too bad.
You have to scale down the extreme example to fit it into the real world. The 'universe/world' here the equivalent of the 'iPad/iPhone.' Trying to claim that I'm really saying that Apple is controlling the world is either disingenuous or the result of an ill-fitting tinfoil hat.
It's the combination of a closed delivery system and their increasing dominance of digital content that's worrisome.
:-)