Hacker News Reader

I think its important to realize what you miss out on as much as what you get. Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser.

Apple has explicitly disallowed any interpreter other than the one built into Safari, simply because it would be impossible to have a web browser without JS. Some would argue that they've severely crippled it by removing Flash, which demonstrates just how far they are willing to go.

Now imagine if the iPad had arrived before the browser. They would have never allowed this browser idea, with this crazy "javascript" thing, on the App Store. There would have been no special exception because it "might change the world". I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history, even if we had to do it at the cost of those confusing file systems and other side effects of open systems.

The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.

Its possible to create a great, easy to use system, that is also open. Arguably the web is precisely this. The web is also usable by my grandparents. The web can also eliminate the complexities of the file system (each web app stores its files). But the web is still open.

> Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser.

Assuming this had at some point become the only common model of computing, what would keep out newcomers from coming out with less locked-down systems? What about things like "many dealers started bundling the Apple II with VisiCalc" (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.htm...); if there's sufficiently useful software that won't run on your computer, you (or your employer) will buy a new, working, computer.

> The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.

General computing cannot be replaced by such devices, let alone by a single implementation of such a device by a single manufacturer.

    Assuming this had at some point become the...

The issue here is that in a world where this is the computing model, its not realistic for every new software idea to start with "let me ship my own surrounding system including hardware". If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness".

    General computing cannot be replaced by...

This argument is just "closed systems are not bad because there are also open systems". My point is simply that if closed systems win, then they are bad. So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree.

> If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness".

But they do understand "that particular very useful software won't run on this machine".

> So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree.

That is what I'm saying. Some large fraction of software development is done in-house; closed platforms wouldn't allow this, and it's expensive enough that if it wasn't important it probably wouldn't be done now. In the past, sufficiently useful software has come with a bundled computer; if this had to be done regularly, someone would see an opportunity to sell an open computer that could run more than one kind of software.

Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser.

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.

The core of the ChromeOS is open, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os.... Chrome OS is espousing a new style of computing which is all done through the web browser. Chrome OS has a standards based, no gatekeeper method of delivering new applications to users. It's called HTTP.

> I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history

I really don't agree with that. In computer history, it had been preceded by generations of dumb terminals hooked up to networks, so as such it wasn't all that new. The HTTP protocol underlying it and the URL arguably are much more important developments, the browser is just a presentation layer on top of those.

As for human history, the wheel, the control of fire, penicillin, communications satellites, space travel and hundreds of other inventions were both done earlier and have had a much bigger impact on how we live than the browser ever will.

The mobile phone, maybe. The browser ? No way.

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?

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 opportunity is lost, it's just that none of the big companies are taking advantage of it. Honestly, I think that's because they think it's too hard. Microsoft and Apple have been trying for decades at this point to make a computer that's open, easy to use for everyone, never crashes, etc. The open source community has been trying too. I don't see anyone as having succeeded there. It's not for lacking of wanting to succeed, or for a lack of trying, it's just a really hard problem, and by locking things down they can create things that work much more predictably and reliably.

I don't think the OLPC is a counter-example; it solves some issues in virtue of having a standardized hardware platform, and they've tried to do away with the file system (which sort of works and sort of doesn't), but I don't think they've completely solved all the other problems around versioning and installation and removal and viruses and third-party devices that need their own drivers, etc. I don't know a ton about it, so it's entirely possible there's something else innovative there that I'm missing. I also would argue that they haven't done it in a device that an average consumer would really want. They done all sorts of innovative things that I think are great, but I don't think they've solved those fundamental issues in a general way.

As for the moral obligation standpoint . . . I haven't read Zittrain's book, so I can't fully debate that argument. From my perspective, roughly, you have a moral obligation not to do X if doing X infringes on someone else's rights without their consent. So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow, and that just seems like a tough argument to make. I think the effect of something like the iPad on the future of computers, the internet, society as a whole, etc. is so hard to predict that I don't think you can fairly say that someone or some company has a moral obligation one way or the other. Maybe those devices will open up computing to people that currently couldn't use those devices, making their lives better. Maybe it will enable doctors to carry around a tablet that helps them avoid mistakes, saving lives. Maybe it will help small-time developers make more money selling their software. Or maybe it will kill innovation and put us at the mercy of an increasingly-paranoid government and law-enforcement community or put our information and privacy firmly in the hands of large corporations. It's so hard to say which way things will go that I just don't think you can say it's unethical.

> So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow

There is a not so far-fetched way to argue this: the device is ultra-closed. If its concept become successful enough, people which want to use open system may be denied the possibility. Not directly because of the success of closed platforms but because this success may allow regulation to happen without too many people complaining.

I have an actual example: how web mail harms me, even when I am not using it. Web mail is pervasive. The direct result was that many ISPs felt they could block the outgoing SMTP port (to stop evil spam). "Everyone" is using web mail or the mail of their ISP, so not too many people complain. Now, I can't set up SMTP server at home. Depending on the workaround, either my privacy or my wallet is harmed.

"trying for decades at this point to make a computer that's open, easy to use for everyone, never crashes, etc."

The last Mac I bought ran Tiger. Given reasonable maintenance, and good net hygiene, I had one software crash that I know of. It was the hardware that failed repeatedly ... screen, drive.

I've also been using Vista for a year. No significant events (I'm not pushing the envelope all that hard, do PM, net hygiene.)

I'm just saying that they've gotten pretty close to "never crashes" to be quitting now. But to give -many more- consumers the -stability- they need, and to protect them from the darkside of the net, there needs to be a degree of closedness.

There used to be a lot of wide-open platforms before mainstreaming boiled down options for most to PC/Mac. It was a chaotic period, and the narrowing down arguably made widespread adoption and economy of scale possible. If there were still 20 platforms ... well I don't even want to think about it. The complexity and cost, I suspect, would be an order of magnitude higher. So -we gained- from the mainstreaming.

I don't really grok the sense of anxiety here. The App store won't sell apps that aren't approved? But anyone who wants to can. Most people seem to want decisions made for them, because they're busy with the rest of their life. (See: US Congress.) Yes, you give up freedoms when other people are making choices for you. So long as I'm still free to choose for myself, what's the problem? I'm not going to roll my own OS ... so that decision's already in someone else's hands.

as an owner of 2 OLPC laptops, I submit that it is not the model of usability and maintenance you seek.

I agree that they never got there, but they were trying.

Lots of people are trying. Only Apple actually seems to be making forwards-edge progress? In order to compete with Apple, people need to try less and succeed more, otherwise Apple's superior user experience is going to steamroll any ideological benefits.

Well, OLPC has different goals. OLPC is meant to spark an interest in computers and teach people in third-world countries how to program so that they can deploy that skill to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. The ability to uncover complexity is therefore fundamental to the OLPC, and its design hints toward it.

iPad is for people who are content to use Facebook.

I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: it's a lock-in device. The more people buy these half-assed products that limit their choices and exclude 3rd party support and control of your own device, the more money they can funnel out of you. Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us. Oh, you want a program so you can be productive? You better hope we approved a recent version of it. Don't like it? Too bad, you already bought the hunk of metal and silicon, deal with it. Make no mistake: total vendor control is not in your best interests as a consumer. It never has been, never will be.

> Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us.

Lets be fair - that isn't true.

They certainly don't let other digital media sellers make it convenient for iPhone users. You have to go through their store (iTunes) in order to synchronize digital media from other stores to your phone.

You have to use their sync software (iTunes) - not their store. There is no requirement to purchase anything.

The more I think about the iPad, the more it looks like a computer to me and one that would satisfy a large segment of the PC market. I'm just not sure why Apple isn't marketing it as one and selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers. It's a PC but one that you can easily take with you, turn on quickly, and do stuff on the go. In a weird way, the history of the Tablet seems to have them responding that it's not a Tablet PC. But I see no reason, practically, why it couldn't be exactly that.

Otherwise, I agree with you completely. And looking at their 8% market share of PCs, there's a lot of room for them to improve in that category and do very, very well. They've already shown that simplicity sells.

> selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard

I think many of those who are fine with it being their main computer will be fine without a keyboard. Also, it wouldn't be Apple's style. It reminds me of how the MacBook Air doesn't come with an optical drive.

package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers

There is a dock with a built in keyboard, and there is a plain dock. The iPad also supports Apple wireless keyboards, has a built in speaker, and both docks have audio jacks.

Also, you can buy iWork for it, so yes, may as well be a consumer computer. Don't expect XCode or Terminal apps though.

The thing is: Why not just sell this device as the next generation iMac? It could have had a sweet stand, a wireless keyboard, a remote, etc. Set the base price at $599. Heck, Jobs could have demoed it as a desktop, then grabbed it and unveiled all the Tablet features. (Of course, you still sell a version without the peripherals). But it seems to me many of the complaints come from an anchoring bias. If this were introduced as a desktop that you could easily (very easily) travel with, what would the complaints be? That it's not really a desktop? That would be the point! And at the price point, wouldn't they start to take business away from Dell and HP? Instead, now it seems like a luxury item where this could easily be an inexpensive family computer for doing homework, research, coach surfing, etc. Why does the marketing seem off?

Why not just sell this device as the next generation iMac?

Because it has a 1GHz single core CPU which is far slower than any other computer Apple sells, with an architecture that most likely won't run any existing programs.

Where are the specs that say it is a single core?

No. Please, no. I love my Mac to death for one simple reason: I can program it and distribute my apps to just about anyone without restrictions and without having to go through the abomination that is the AppStore. Why does the computing industry suddenly want to take the joy out of programming by pushing for closed devices?

No, I won't program for the web. Why? Because I don't want to write JavaScript. I want to write C, C++, Objective-C, Python, Perl, Haskell or any one of the thousands of programming languages I can run on my Mac today.

Apple gives us great default choices. But when you want to change them, what do you do? Nothing, because you can't.

The inability to change their products is directly tied to the restrictions in the problem space that let them make the defaults great. You're right, you can't change them. Which means you can't screw it up. Most people are not tech-savy enough to handle the choices, so instead of giving people something mediocre and saying it can be customized, Apple makes something great that is locked down. For most people, that's perfect. For those it isn't good enough for, they can get something else.

I completely agree. I find that especially older people simply do not understand computers or even the concept of multi-tasking. The iPad has been getting flack because it is basically just an iPhone and can't run multiple apps at once. Yet the problem I see is that a lot of non-tech people don't really seem to understand the idea of running multiple programs at once. To them the iPhone style of opening an app, using it, closing it, and then opening it to see it in the state that it was in when you closed it makes more sense. As long as app launching is kept extremely fast, almost instantaneous, it is no inconvenience either.

This is just one small example of the way the iPhone / Apple techniques seem to work well for people because they are simple and easy to use.

EDIT: absolutely agree user experience is Apple's no. 1 priority.