EDIT: They'd still be selling the "Theme Park" version to the other 95% of us.
Benefits: sales to the tiny minority of people who won't buy an iPad now, but would if they were more 'sandboxy.'
Doesn't sound 'very tasty' to me.
For example, 99% of annoyances of computer users is that they install too much software for the resources of the machine they have. Then the computer starts suddenly working slower and slower -- and they don't know why. This happens with Macs and Windows.
In a machine like the iPad Apple can control what software will run and make sure that it is adequate to the resources of the machine. Also, from what I see, they limit the possibility of concurrent running programs to interfere with the user experience.
Yes, but there is no reason why you couldn't sell the unlocked version of the same kit. If a non-geek has a bad experience, then let them downgrade the thing. Heck, a company other than Apple might charge them another fee for that.
Apple has been doing this for decades and it's nothing new. If you want freedom and flexibility, you should look elsewhere.
Apple's been doing that gig for years.
It's still a jail, and if Apple officially removed it - you can still say 'jailbroken' but that's a minor point.
"If you want freedom and flexibility coupled with world-class design, then you do buy an Apple -- with top dollar, meaning high margins for them."
Not true. I can't officially run OS X on non-official Apple hardware with official Apple suppport. Not to mention if I didn't buy Apple hardware then it would most likely kill their margins ;) iPad will eventually have the same 'freedom' as OS X and iPhone.
What most of us don't see right away is that there are financial costs for supporting freedom and flexibility. These costs are in marketing, support (reliability and usability), and security. Given the right target techie segment, these costs don't matter for freedom. Unfortunately if you're targeting the masses of non-techies, that's a completely different story.
(FYI I am an OS X user)
It's still a jail, and if Apple officially removed it - you can still say 'jailbroken' but that's a minor point.
I never said about removing the jail. Just building a cozy luxe visitors center just outside the wall.
Not true. I can't officially run OS X on non-official Apple hardware with official Apple suppport.
In my idea, people would be running non-official Apple software without Apple support.
iPad will eventually have the same 'freedom' as OS X and iPhone. Nothing less, and nothing more; and certainly nothing new.
You're dead wrong. If the iPad is to become as pervasive as they would like it to, Apple is going to have to open it up enough so that it can operate as a general purpose computer for the small segment of the populace that wants it.
The key is in the italics. There is no technical reason why Apple can't have their "walled garden" and still let a few people do dangerous things if they want. Will it be what the FSF calls "free?" No way.
Actually, they are already doing some of this. It's called the "iPhone SDK."
It essentially has the same problem as a jailbroken iPad/iPhone/Hackintosh. There are costs with supporting issues that arise from this if it's official.
"In my idea, people would be running non-official Apple software without Apple support."
Well then why complain when in all likelihood a 3rd party will give you what you want for Apple products - ala unsupported jailbreak?
"You're dead wrong. If the iPad is to become as pervasive as they would like it to, Apple is going to have to open it up enough so that it can operate as a general purpose computer for the small segment of the populace that wants it."
Given the history with iPod, iTunes, & iPhone I'm going to disagree. All of them are closed systems with the same critics. Yet all of these products have been wildly successful despite that. I'm not saying that this would work with any company, but it works with Apple; it's the part of their company DNA that has proven time and again to work. As I've said in previous posts, there was a time when Apple was more 'open'; and it was a total failure that almost took down the entire company.
"There is no technical reason why Apple can't have their "walled garden" and still let a few people do dangerous things if they want."
I agree but there are a myriad of other reasons as to why they shouldn't such as extra costs, making their content partners (movies, music, and books) happy (I suspect this is a really big reason), and so on. It's not perfect for everyone; but it's worked for non-techies, Apple stock holders, and Apple's partners.
"Actually, they are already doing some of this. It's called the "iPhone SDK.""
Then why complain? Just pay the $99 and be happy.
I suggest moving on and helping either the Chrome OS or Linux hardware movement if you really want officially blessed freedom. You're not going to get that from a mainstream console maker; we are a niche audience.
That was, and is, a serious design failure.
On a tangent, why aren't more Linux installs (outside of 'live' distros) making use of UnionFS? That makes it easy to 'lock down' the base install because all of the writing goes to a separate partition that could be completely removed to restore the original state. Are their performance issues with UnionFS (performance in a desktop-sense, not in a server-sense)?
(Expansion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1084640)
This how it's always been done? Really?
GCC: Initial release May 23, 1987 Commodore64: Release date August 1982
EDIT: thanks for the correction on yearly vs. one-time.
It is.
The jailbreaking world has reverse engineered a lot of these internals, like replacing SpringBoard, etc.
Why would you do that? To compete with every other sandbox vendor that can simply copy all the expensive work that you put into UI and design and sell knock-offs at half the price?
Put yourself in the company's shoes. Your narrow interests are not in theirs.
Selling an official hacker version will only serve to confuse the other 95% of customers. (Apple's philosophy of simplicity goes beyond just their UI design.) I don't think this makes a lot of sense either when members of the 5% will eventually jailbreak it anyway.
That's why you a) wait until the other environment is well established first and b) charge a $250 markup.
"Less powerful, but easier to use" is a hard sell. But "Does the same stuff, is safer, and $250 cheaper" is an easy one.