Apple's Dumbing Down of Computers a.k.a The End of Super-User Computers | Hacker News Reader

Apple's Dumbing Down of Computers a.k.a The End of Super-User Computers

mattshaw.org

29 pointsdplgk38 comments

> So, while I don’t like Apple’s general direction, I do think that an iOS-like OS is great for consumer computers. I’m just not sure it’s great for the rest of us and everyone’s wallets when Apple is in control.

Let's get down to brass tacks. Nobody says you have to buy an Apple computer (and the author of this post points out that he doesn't have one). We're done here, right? Not quite.

Picking through the ranting what I think I see is someone who's upset about Apple's success and what they're doing with their market inertia. It was pretty much a given that if the App Store for iOS took off there would be an App Store for OS X. If we were in a pirate movie right now we'd call that a "parlay." Apple has done a lot of things right if your metric is strictly financial success. Where people seem to be incredulous is that (although highly subjective) Apple has also done a lot of things right when it comes to user/consumer experience. Nerds are not the primary audience for Apple's products. My parents, grandparents, and people who are more interested all things non-technical are. An App Store on OS X (and the existing one of iOS) is good for the two parties most important to Apple, normal users and Apple.

If you feel strongly about how this has shaken out then I challenge you to ask yourself, "why?". There are tons of ready-made excuses along the lines of "openness", "freedom", and "I don't like guys in turtle necks." None of them really matter. The problem of how non-technical people find and install computer software is decades old. As designers and developers we've largely left that problem to platform developers, sales, and marketing people. Now someone has come along and placed a viable solution into the mass market all while creating the potential to make a tidy profit. We call this capitalism.

This is a good quote to choose from the OP, because it gets at something I think people fundamentally misunderstand about Apple: they make products that _they_ want to use. The "consumer" they target in a "consumer computer" is themselves!

So while their Mac offerings certainly vary in terms of size and performance, they all must pass this test. The _worst_ Apple computer should still be one that they would be happy to use. To write software, to make music, to make spreadsheets, to enjoy movies.

This is why they've never compromised on keyboard size.

So to think that the Mac App Store is some sort of move towards draconian control misses the entire point. It's not control they want, but a trusted directory of Mac apps that don't crash or behave maliciously. Even a power user shouldn't have to waste their time on bad software (unless they want to).

We should all value our time so highly.

This sounds more alarmist to me. So what if the direction Apple chooses for their computers is to make them (only?) usable by the common person? So what if they charge you to develop for their computers? Then those who disagree or want more from their machines will just buy something other than Apple. As an Apple user it will be sad for me if they go that way, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. I was a Linux user before I went Apple.

I agree, this is rather alarmist, but I also agree with the blog post that this is the direction Apple seems to be going (slowly). Luckily, I'm a Linux user too, but I'm betting the majority of OSX users aren't ready for that switch.

That's assuming the majority of OS X users are currently Super-Users. :) I don't know if they are or not, but it would be interesting to somehow find out. I bet at one time they were, but when you see that 80% of incoming freshman to US Universities have Macbooks, I think it is no longer the case.

If—and I think this is possible—the only way to make a more usable machine is to take away some "power" (not the right word, but I think everybody knows what I mean), then I'm very happy for there to be more-usable-less-powerful machines, as long as there are still less-usable-more-powerful machines available, too. I'd hate to see a whole evolutionary branch of more productive/enjoyable machines be not explored just because they don't do some of the things that we like to do.

And if it is possible to achieve the same usability gains without taking away power but Apple still goes that route, then I'll be happy to see somebody beat Apple at their own game.

All this is talking about some hypothetical possible future, of course: nothing Apple's announced so far has in any way reduced the capability of Macs. But, yes, such a route does seem more "on the table" today than it seemed a week ago.

Sorry, but if anyone expects me to pay for the right to develop on my own machine, they can buzz off. I'll just go back to GNU/Linux. I hope that others will do the same and we see a brain drain of developers.

It's unclear if you're making a projection about the future or mistaken about the present, but Apple's Mac dev tools have been zero-cost for years. Nothing about that changed yesterday.

I doubt you'll have to pay to develop for Mac, the 99$ are for joining the developer program that allows you to get your apps on the App Store (Mac or iOS). Xcode, compilers and the possibility to run and sell your programs via other means will still be free.

Pah, when I was a teenager in the mid-90s I had to spend $300 (which was a helluva lot of money for me in those days) to write software for my mac (or rather, my parents' mac, which was the only machine I had).

That was the dark age of self-taught developers. Before that, everyone had BASIC for free, and after that everyone had gcc for free.

That's my point. It's free at the moment, but the fact that I can't compile and run my own code on my iPod Touch or so without paying the $99 is abhorrent. I don't know if a similar situation will take hold on the mac or not.

First, there isn't a clear line between "the common person" and everybody else. Every first-time user, whatever their age, is a potential power user, if they aren't taught to be subordinate to a remote corporation in the control of their own hardware.

Second, many "uncommon people" are the sons and daughters of "common people" and will learn to hack -- or not -- on their parents' computers.

Common thread: helplessness can be taught and learned. It's convenient for Apple and an inevitable state anyway for many users, but it keeps other "users" beneath their potential.

This is like saying that car designs should be more "mechanic friendly" and less "closed" because every car owner is a potential mechanic, and mechanics learn by working on their parents' cars.

How would you feel about a car company that offered a model that is easier to maintain and operate but harder to modify?

Good. Computers need dumbing down. The number of times I've solved a relatively common computer problem using what to ordinary computer users would be "deep magic" is pretty high. And often times I wonder "how the hell do ordinary users deal with this sort of thing?"

The answer is that they don't. They get frustrated, they reboot their machine, and if that doesn't work they give up completely and reinstall from scratch or buy a new computer. This is a horrific user experience and it needs to change.

Using a computer for mundane tasks should be ... mundane. And I think the mobile OS (iPhone/android) model fits that use case far better than the existing free for all model of desktop computing.

But what does this mean for hackers and "super users"? Probably not much actually. It probably means that we'll have to make some configuration changes on our systems, or buy different models, or install our own OSes (oh noes!)

I guess I don't get it. The Mac App store is... wait for it... a store. Just like the physical brick and mortar Apple Store, it carries not the universe of software available for the Mac, but a screened subset of that software that Apple thinks best showcases the capabilities of their product line.

Complaining that the App Store will not carry all available MacOS Apps is almost as silly as complaining that the Apple Store at your local mall does not carry all available MacOS Apps. (`almost' because the shelf space of an online store is, presumably, less limited.)

Now, if there were a move to make the App Store the only way to get (or even the only way to buy) apps for the Mac, that would be different. But as far as I can tell, there isn't.

> if there were a move to make the App Store the only way to get apps for the Mac

Why does everyone think this is unlikely rather than inevitable? We already know not only that they can get away with it successfully, but their staff doesn't even feel it's an unethical way to treat their customers or the industry.

Plus, the AppStore is the only way for iPad and iPhone - so why not Macs?

Because it would be an insanely irrational move that would destroy the platform?

They were up on stage yesterday talking up the new AutoCAD port. The new AutoCAD port which is utterly incompatible with the posted App Store rules. The AutoCAD port that would in no way benefit from the exposure the App Store would give it, and which doesn't need and would never accept the 30% sales overhead for payment processing.

Locking the platform to the App Store would be a great way to kill Office, MatLab, Photoshop, Lightroom, AutoCAD, Steam, and a bunch of other software the platform needs if they want to keep anyone using it. To assume that it is inevitable that Apple will do it is to assume that Apple has a death-wish for the Mac platform.

But if we're going to assume that, why not just assume they'd kill the platform in the most straight-forward way possible: by discontinuing it.

Not to mention the technical difficulties. How would they stop me from running an application which I'd copied off a CD, or compiled myself, when I already have control over my filesystem? I suppose they could figure out a way, but it'd involve a lot of voodoo.

Besides, imagine the marketing pitch for that version of OSX. "Upgrade to our latest version! Most of your old software will stop working, and you'll have to buy it again!" I don't think so.

They're going to make a lot of money with their app store -- they don't need to destroy the rest of their platform to do it, though.

That's if MacOS remains < 33% market share. Once it hits a demanding 50%+ market share, they have the power to do pretty much what they want, unless laws prevent them from doing so. Not saying they would, but your argument is weaker once they gain the market share.

I have an engine that I can directly fiddle with, using one hand to rev the engine whilst the other messes with the carbs. Most new cars (in developed Western economies) come with a big cover over the engine, forbidding the user to touch the internals. If you just want to drive within the lines, you get the latter. If you want to fiddle and play and experiment, you get the former. It's really not a problem for anyone.

My car comes with a complete technical manual online (http://www.hmaservice.com/) that I can access freely, so that if you want to remove the four bolts that hold that plastic cover on, you can.

It sounds like you chose to stop learning about cars after manufacturers stopped using carburetors.

The point still stands though - some people like to hear that the computer they're buying "just works," and other people like to know a little more about what goes on under the hood, so that they have a better idea of whether or not they're getting shafted by their, uh, mechanic.

"It sounds like you chose to stop learning about cars after manufacturers stopped using carburetors."

Read what I said again. You'll find that actually all you can infer is that I have a car with carbs; there's no information there on how much I know about anything else.

I guess the problem is that there are a lot of things many of us really like about OSX. I like it for a lot reasons, and while I'm sure I could learn to like things about Linux or Windows, I'm also pretty sure I've got the right OS for me right now. But I still need to be able to get under the hood, or it's just not going to do everything I want.

So if (hypothetical, not real world) Apple were tomorrow to remotely turn OSX into an iOS like system where everything is centralized and the internals are locked away, I'd be really disappointed. Because I'd ultimately have to choose to use a "super-user" system, but that means switching to some other one that I don't care for as much.

The message of this post and others seems to be "We like that you're making everything simpler, but please don't take the power away from those of us who need it. We don't want to switch, so for everyone's sake, please don't make us".

"the other messes with the carbs. "

Pringles? Cheetos?

For some reason it always astonishes me how incredibly reactionary geeks are. We're supposed to be the neophiles.

Listen: for the first time in history, ordinary people are actually using computers, every day, in their real lives, and we're kicking and screaming as hard as we can against the systems that have made that the case.

The future is different from the past. The coders who are empowering creativity on iOS (and similar devices) aren't the ones whining about how hard it is. Get over your ridiculous nostalgia, stop bitching, and write BASIC for the 21st century.

This fear mongering is getting completely absurd:

  > Apple doesn’t want you use your computer to control an 
  > Arduino, write custom printer drivers, run a game server  
  > or control your house lights.

Are you serious? How does creating an App Store (that is only suited for certain types of consumer-oriented software) imply that Apple doesn't want you to do any of these things? What?

  > Your computer will also cost a lot more because you’re a
  > professional. So Apple can bump up the profit margin that 
  > it once lost because of the commodification of fast computers.

Yeah, cause Apple is really interested in bumping up its profit margin on the 1% of Mac users that write Mac software, instead of the 99% of Mac users that consume it.

  > So now, as a developer, if you want to sell your software 
  > it better be in the AppStore. If not, Mom will never find 
  > it and Mom wouldn’t trust it if she did.

How is that any different from the current situation? As a Mac developer if you want to sell software right now, you have to handle everything yourself.

A Mac App Store (which is entirely optional to participate in) gives you increased visibility, a massive audience, and takes care of the pesky payment details for you. Is that worth a 30% cut to most developers? We'll see. (I suspect the answer is going to be yes.)

Sorry man, but that's just a random collection of FUD there. The AppStore won't be the only way to install apps on the Mac, it will be - as you correctly pointed out - the most convenient for the average user.

Concering your argument on fragmentation and different devices. My grandfather, now 75 years old, just started using the Internet thanks to the iPad. You can read about it here: http://blog.dispatched.ch/2010/07/18/my-grandfathers-ipad/

And you know what? He loves it so much, that he got himself a 16Mbit connection after three months. To make something like that happen, that's a major feat. He's on the net regularly now, sending mails, checking news - and couldn't be happier about his machine.

I won't use the iPad as my primary computer, of course - but a lot of people just can't operate a developers OS. And they shouldn't have to.

As for the price tag - that argument is as lame as it is old. Start comparing other high-end vendors and models and you'll have your epiphany. For starters search for competition on the Macbook Air 11" or at the other end of the spectrum the iMac 27". Then come back and write another blog post.

One last thing: your comments system is broken. I got cookies and JS enabled, but still get this: http://dispatched.ch/bilder/Broken_Blog-20101021-235606.jpg

"Please do not go elsewhere for software"

Just to be clear, no one at Apple is actually saying this, are they?

The irony of this article's title is how many hackers and programmers swear by their Macbooks.

I just don't feel that the AppStore is all that different from package managers on Linux.

If you need something, you run Synaptic/yum/aptitude/whatever. Sometimes, you can't find what you're looking for and you go elsewhere.

Can you imagine Ubuntu without Synaptic? Dell selling Ubuntu like that?

Did people complain about the "Dumbing Down of Linux" when package managers showed up?

I don't know about that. Anybody can package any software they want in a file that will be read and installed by the package manager. If you want to have something installed on Ubuntu, just package it in a proper .deb file and you can distribute that file any way you want. Once your user/customer gets a hold of the .deb file, all they need to do is double click it and your software gets installed by the package manager. There is no review process, there are no rejections, nobody takes a cut of your fees.

And the user can add 3rd party repositories.

My third-party Mac repository is Google.

Why use Google if one can be lazy and use MacPorts ;)?

And going forward with the AppStore, users can still download and install from a .dmg or a .pkg as they do now.

Your .deb could satisfy dependency requirements, but it won't be able to take advantage of "check for updates" functionality of the underlying package management ystem.

The advantage of the App Store is that Apple will make sure nobody submits an app with a dependency on locusts.

http://www.xkcd.com/797/

Time will tell, and until that point, this is just a rant without any evidence.

It all sort of reminds me of Amusing Ourselves to Death where we keep giving up freedom for the sake of entertainment. Where is Neil Postman when you need him?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com