I Don’t Want a Freaking Computer
baekdal.com
baekdal.com
But he's right, in a different way. When I use a computer, I make it do things. I give it commands, and it executes them, faster than before. I can write a script to transcode ripped DVDs overnight, according to my specifications, and automatically calculating crop values, pixel aspect ratios, etc. to produce the appropriate output for putting movies on my handheld devices. I can write programs that manipulate masses of data in heterogeneous formats and emit summaries, graphs, animations, visualizations of my design, not limited to the preconceptions of some third party software designer thousands of miles away.
I use my computer as a computational device. To compute things. iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, these aren't computational devices. They are a different kind of thing; but my need and desire for ad-hoc computation are not limited to my current location or equipment, so I want my phone to be similarly flexible. But the things an iPhone etc. can do, I can also do.
> I even tell my dealer to change my tires twice a year
> I even drilled a hole my wall, and bought a 60 feet cable, at the cost of $300
> Yep, I am one of the drooling mac fanatics.
But I already have a 16 gigabyte USB stick, or a 16 gigabyte SD card I bought from Frys, on sale, for $40. Apple's going to charge me $100 for something I already have, and they're gonna charge me two times the price? If there was an SD slot, I could buy the 16 gigabyte iPad and use the SD card I already have, instead of buying the $600, 32-gigabyte iPad vs. the $500, 16-gigabyte version. It's a nickel-and-dime to the tune of 99-cents an app, and I don't like it. Nor can I really argue against the current success of the iPhone. If it costs me extra to get something that actually works, I'll actually get it, because it'll actually work.
(edit: clarified '...charge me $100...')
Could you explain what you mean by this? I don't understand how Apple fits in to your previous purchases.
In order to have a 32-gigabyte iPad, I have to purchase the 32-gigabyte version for $600.
If the iPad had an SD card slot, I could hypothetically purchase a 16-gigabyte iPad for $500 and use my previously purchased 16-gigabyte SD card.
This is akin to the different Windows editions. The basic edition is exactly the same as the pro edition, except for the restrictions, so they can justify the price difference.
The connection isn't to Apple's prices: they made it, they get to decide pricing (and features).
The connection is between my previous purchase, and my next (considered) purchase and the connection there is me. Buying doesn't happen in a vacuum, though 'cost to me' is perhaps a better way of looking at it.
The 'charge' occurs when Apple omits a card slot though it is their right to do so. This locks me into their pricing structure, which means I have to pay their prices. I already have 16-gigabytes that I could use in a device with an SD slot, but the lock-in requires that I pay their prices, and if I want the 32-gigabyte iPad, then I have to pay what Apple charges and I cannot use my previous purchase to offset that cost.
Being a car guy, I can say that properly maintaining sports cars is not cheap.
To the average person who loathes paying $300 for a set of all-season tires every 40K-50K miles, maintenance budgets for a high-performance car can be terrifying.
I had to do long distance commuting in a Lancer Evolution MR for a while. The ultra-grippy tires would last about 10K commuting like a sane person. You could destroy them during a single track day at Watkins Glen. At $1300 a set (shipped, mounted, and balanced). And you still needed to maintain a good set of winter tires despite an absurdly complex torque-vectoring AWD system. And tires were not the biggest items on the maintenance budget.
Even the cheapest sports car money can buy in the US, a Miata, tears through $800 sets of summer tires pretty handily.
People aren't oblivious. Everyone has their priorities. Home. Cars. Technology. Food. Travel. Other hobbies. What some find ridiculous, others find normal, and vice-versa.
Speaking of cars, users have extensive knowledge of it. To the point that no one can legally drive a car without a driving licence. This represents dozens of hours of specialized learning and training.
And I was talking about a single purpose device. Computers have many purposes. No amount of user friendliness is going to hide this essential complexity. No matter what we do, users will have to know basic things like the difference between a computer and a program, between a browser and a the Internet, or between the address bar and the search box. If they don't, they could lose their privacy or their money. Just like driving left without looking can be lethal.
Many computer users lack this kind of knowledge. The only way we can give them a "great experience" is by teaching first. Until we do, they will stay dependent, helpless, and happy. (At least as far as computers are concerned, which is further and further, these days.)
Who do you mean by "we" and what exactly do you think should be taught?
First the very basics. What is a computer? A program? An OS? A network? The internet? A web browser? A web site? A URL? A search engine? A file? A text editor? Email? Web based mail?
Then, a bit about privacy and security. What is a virus? An anti-virus? A firewall? Spam? Fishing? Spam filters? Cryptography? TLS? How to spy on your husband? Can you trust strangers and companies on line (compared to IRL)? What is a weak password?
And finally, a crash programming course in a super-easy programming language so they can write a hello world, do some calculations, and a basic interactive program (like a dichotomy game). It shouldn't take more than a few hours (maybe even just one). But it definitely should teach that computer errors are often programmer errors. That it is possible to do personalized automation of tedious tasks.
Ideally, all these things should be taught with the help of GNU/linux machines. Not only to push the philosophy, but also to put everyone in an unfamiliar environment, then get them familiar with it. Just to teach them that they can actually learn.
This won't be a common use case, of course. Because writing anything longer than a sentence or two is not a common use case. Unless you're me.
In other words: it's all about selling stuff to consumers. Which is a great thing to say if - like Baekdal - you are marketing yourself as a guru to people to want to sell stuff.
Many "usability" discussions have the implicit (sometimes explicit goal) of making it easy for users to do things without having to learn anything first. This may be fine for generic routine tasks that everyone has to do from time to time. We are all thrilled about our shiny new phones. But consider this:
1. Not long ago, most things were hard, confusing or impossible to do on any phone 2. Even if 80% of all things you can do on an iPhone are dead simple - are these things that really matter to you?
Things worth well are usually not generic routine tasks. When you love what you are doing and try to make it as good as you can, using the right tools in the right way is a major part of the experience. But that kind of experience is impossible without making an effort to learn new things.
My personal belief is that those of us who want to create our own experiences benefit from getting our hands dirty with technology now and then.
That's the point: "It's about giving people a great experience".
You made a mistake right off the bat by setting up the argument that "it's all about selling stuff to consumers" instead of the one actually made in the article. You're disagreeing right past agreement.
Same. I want carefreeness of the 60s, with the convenience of the 10s.