Here we have a device that doesn't support USB thumbdrives, doesn't support dropbox (at least system-wide, I assume the dropbox iphone app would work), is unable to run ruby or any of my other dev scripts/tools, cannot install firefox or firefox plugins, etc.
I do not want to see computing head this direction.
My dad, mom, grandma, and grandpa can watch videos, look at photos of their kids/grandkids, send e-mails to their relatives oversees, and read their favorite books on it, all without the need for a "computer-savvy guy" who has to teach them how it works, and fix it when it's broken. In other words, it's a logical conclusion of the personal computer revolution. I understand you need to run your Ruby scripts, but this product was designed for the 99% of the people in this country instead. You're not the target audience.
The thing is, without an open platform, the new, innovative ways of working with this machine will never be invented.
This is about far more than running your own Ruby scripts. It's about the fact that true innovation cannot exist in such an environment. And the problem is, you will not see what you're missing; people won't bother developing new technologies that have no platform they can legally run on.
Would the Web exist if Microsoft had been able to ban Netscape from running on Windows? What new, groundbreaking technologies are we missing out on because it's not worth the time and effort to create something new if the platform vendor can simply forbid you from publishing it?
The App store and the iPhone have fostered a colossal amount of innovation, and made a lot of normal non-techy people very, very happy. And a bunch of techies too.
And in the end I hope it doesn't come down to open source advocates getting their way so they can install vim, but it being about my Mum being able to use it without having to phone me saying that it's all gone wrong again and can I talk through 3 hours of trying to fix the damn thing.
>it being about my Mum being able to use it without having to phone me saying that it's all gone wrong again
You're confusing correlation with causation. The fact that your Mum has been unable to use devices in the past is not _caused_ by the devices being open platforms. Lots of people can't even operate a dvd player and they are certainly locked down devices. Being easy to operate and being locked down are mutually exclusive.
Some of us might argue that installing Vim is the sine qua non for a (truly) usable system. (For what it's worth, I just love me some Vim. Overall, I'm on the "this device is perfect for most people" side of this actual argument.)
The iPhone model is not terribly detrimental to software innovation. Of course there's a lack of transparency, long approval waits just to release bugfixes, occasional bizarre app refusals... But mostly it doesn't matter because the open web provides an increasibly viable secondary outlet for software.
Hardware is an entirely different beast. Apple brashly requires hardware vendors to engineer their products specifically for the iPhone platform, and you can't work around these limitations in software.
For a glaring example, there's no open Bluetooth stack on iPhone OS. Most probably the underlying implementation is essentially identical to IOBluetooth.framework on Mac OS X, but instead of giving software developers the degree of freedom that's taken for granted on computer platforms, Apple has chosen to restrict iPhone OS to a much more limited API which can only connect to devices that contain an Apple-licensed chip.
Apple doesn't seem to mind suffocating independent hardware innovation in order to extract licensing fees. What a long way they've come from Steve Wozniak's days...
>but it being about my Mum being able to use it without having to phone me saying that it's all gone wrong again and can I talk through 3 hours of trying to fix the damn thing.
Isn't this part of the reason why people went out and bought the desktop Macs? Because everything 'just works'?
Locked Down Platform seems to me to be completely uncorrelated to Easy To Use.
I get what you are saying & I agree. There are huge advantages in doing things this Apple way. Your Mum gets to have something that works for her first, the 4% of people that have a preference for Thunderbird over Mail (just an example) because they like the way that it handles their profiles (again, just an example), well they are not the no. 1 concern. That makes sense. A product for the majority.
But, it is not just alarmist. The iphone has catalysed lots of innovation. Great innovation. This will too. It is all sanctioned innovation though. Unsanctioned innovation is important too. As things mature, it will become increasingly important.
The iPhone is a good example of how this might play out. It's a locked-down system full of problems for developers, but that doesn't mean innovation in the phone industry stopped.
You had a dead/slow industry, Apple woke it up, and now everyone is moving forward quickly. The customer wins.
Open phone platforms like Android will enjoy growth because of that open platform, even if Apple remains closed.
One example of this that comes to mind is the Xbox. When the Xbox was first released, while being essentially a computer, it was only meant for playing games and watching dvds. Later when modding became easy, and therefor widespread, people developed new applications that made the Xbox do things it wasn't supposed to do. One of these applications was XBMC, or Xbox Media Center, which from the beginning was a 'clone' of Windows Media Center. But today is the basis for startups like Boxee and Voddler, and is the (IMO) most competent htpc platform, as well as the most 'cutting edge' one. Redefining the way we think about media.
There's a similar story with the Linksys WRT54G routers. And while you might be able to jailbreak the iPad, it's just a lot less likely that a community will be able to form around 'alternative' usages.
The logical conclusion of the personal computer revolution is the person doesn't control their device?! That's not revolutionary; that's a return to the bad old days...
I recommend you read this if you want a reminder about what the personal computer revolution is all about: http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-26-kay.pdf. The point is to get to the point where people actually give a damn about computers.
As much as I love esoteric computer languages and UNIX, I don't consider those to be the paragons of the promise of computers.
That's not the point I get from the article. It talks about people being literate and able to create tools. It talks about power, not locked down narrow use tools.
EDIT: "We would like the Dynabook to have the flexibility and generality of this second kind of item[paper or clay], combined with tools which have the power of the first kind[cars, television sets]." I'd say they were aiming for inspiration AND power. I'd also argue that inspiration without power is worthless...
But you have to be inspired to make great tools- the medium itself must be inspiring. That was the whole point of Dynabook, tools that are inspiring enough to want to change them, figure out how they work. I'm sure there are many young hackers looking at the iPad thinking, "man I want to make some great stuff for that!". I know I'm thinking that.
When I look at a shitty netbook what am I supposed to be inspired about? Tinkering with Linux is no future of computing- it's nigh time to get out of that pipe dream.
Though, I expect and look forward to Linux to be installed on the thing within two weeks of it getting to the stores ;)
Netbooks, which are basically the same price or cheaper, can do the same as the above and are much less locked in. More immediately, they also have Flash support, multitasking, and USB ports.
People still need more heavy-duty computers to do those other things as well as for non-leisure stuff. The advantage of an iPhone was that it was extremely portable and you could just pull it out on the bus to pass the time.
The iPad is barely more portable than a laptop, and much less functional. I guess reliability of the machine is greater since it's so stripped down. Other than that, I don't see what's so special.
I heartily disagree. There's a big difference, huge difference between "can barely" and "does it really fucking well". The iPad shoots for the latter (we'll see if it hits), the netbook's mere existence is predicated on the former.
If your definition of "can do the same" means "someone willing to bang their head hard enough and willing to live with a substandard user experience can do it", sure. But IMHO we need to strive for a higher standard than that.
After the iPod, the Mac, and the iPhone, I don't think geeks still get why Apple is successful: they build devices that normal people actually want. I think there is some collective head-in-the-sand in the geek community because what people apparently want is not at all like what geeks want. The average user doesn't want freedom, doesn't want an open kernel, doesn't give a shit about standards, they want to have a slick, usable, and intuitive user experience, and so far netbooks are failing hard at it.
The average user doesn't want the ability to hunt down zip files on obscure websites, downloading the file, and being able to run whatever app is inside. They like having a central place where all apps in the universe reside. This may or may not be good for the industry as a whole, but it is what our users desire.
IMHO the constant spec-based wankery is why nobody has yet caught up with Apple. I'm seeing a lot of internet chatter about how netbooks do more (does more, poorly), how the cost is too high, how the CPU is too slow, blah blah blah, but conveniently ignores what is IMHO the one defining reason Apple has succeeded in the last decade: user interface.
"My Android phone isn't locked down!" <-- Your Android phone also crashes all the time, emits strange cryptic messages that only developers understand ("a process has been forced to exit"?)
> After the iPod, the Mac, and the iPhone, I don't think geeks still get why Apple is successful: they build devices that normal people actually want. I think there is some collective head-in-the-sand in the geek community because what people apparently want is not at all like what geeks want. The average user doesn't want freedom, doesn't want an open kernel, doesn't give a shit about standards, they want to have a slick, usable, and intuitive user experience, and so far netbooks are failing hard at it.
Just saying, but having an open kernel doesn't prevent Apple's user experience. If Apple were to post their source code to apple.com right now the iPad's user experience would not take an immediate nose-dive due to the universal law that "open source != good user experience." Please don't act like freedom and good user experience are mutually exclusive.
I'm not - but geeks fight the wrong battles regardless. Instead of realizing and building what our users want, we constantly tread water and waste our time on issues (important to us, and us only) like opening our code. This has no tangible benefit (nor harm, to be fair), yet it's something we fight about instead of spending this time building slick, efficient UIs.
For example, I just read a most interesting exchange on a board, where one guy was going on about how the video experience sucks because there's no DVD drive - it's completely missing the forest for the trees, getting hung up about a single insignificant detail that's at the very best a nice-to-have. This sort of tunnel vision prevents the broad view required to execute this sort of device.
I think there is some collective head-in-the-sand in the geek community because what people apparently want is not at all like what geeks want.
I had an epiphany (albeit a minor one) when thinking about this problem. I asked myself, "Why do I have such a problem with Apple's closed app store?" The conclusion I reached is that a core part of my geek personality involves resisting authority figures that I didn't choose, whether it's manifest through running Linux instead of Windows or starting my own company instead of pursuing a traditional career. I suspect that, to an enterprising and independent geek, accepting Apple's way is like giving up the fight for independence from unwanted authority figures.
The iPad is a living room computer, a couch computer, a coffee-table computer. It won't live on a desk, it will live in the places in a house that people live in. The goal is not to replace desktop computers, but to supplement them.
>The iPad is barely more portable than a laptop, and much less functional.
How many users actually use all the functionality?
My sister bought a 15" MacBook Pro for Xmas. She checks work e-mail via Outlook Web Access, occasionally works with MS Office documents for the office, uses an IM client, YouTube, browses the web for vacation ideas/planning, iTunes, iPhoto and... that's it. Not a luddite. Quite savvy and bright. Only 30. Yet that's all she does with a $1700 laptop.
Granted, you could do the same with a netbook, however, the iPad has nothing to really "mess up". There's not much to configure. There's not much updating. It's instant on. It has better battery life. For her intents and purposes, it does 95% of what she wants. I can say this for my parents, and either most of my friends, or their spouses.
For these types of users the lack of a full-blown OS is actually an advantage. There's nothing "to mess up". There's very few things to configure. No boot times. Longer battery life. Easier to carry around. Cheaper than a conventional laptop or desktop. Can be always online (WiFi or 3G). Presumably a very simple "restore" or factory default reset process. I would also assume you could get a MobileMe account and have all your data backed up in a data center somewhere for easy restore.
I, personally, am not sold on the device. I already have an iPhone, and I have different computing needs as a developer. However I won't ignore the fact that it'll cut the mustard for a large number of users as an "occasional" computer, if not a primary computing device.
Actually, you don't. You can sign up for 3G on the device. You can buy and manage content from the iTunes or App stores right from the device - just like the iPhone.
Until you need to get an OS update, put your existing content/apps on it, transfer your contacts, exchange documents, backup, etc. Just like an iPhone.
I understand what you're saying, but the key is enabling. This device enables some things at the cost to many others.
Mind you, I'm not saying it won't be cool, and I'm not saying it won't sell many units, (although I have my doubts). I'm just saying this isn't the logical conclusion to the personal computer revolution. A personal computer is, by definition, a general purpose computing device, which this most assuredly is not.
Edit, reply to following comment: How is "it does what I tell it" a narrower definition of enable than "it does what it's allowed to do by the people I bought it from"?
I'm not trying to be flip; I think it looks very sexy. However, it's just a narrow tool, not the end-all of computers.
Only if you accept your very limited definition of enabling. You mean so that you can program it. I'm guessing most other people think it means so it can do loads of cool stuff without me having to speak in 1s and 0s.
I guess their 1984 ad campaign was more precient than Steve could have imagined. The surprise is that he is the old guy on the screen. Now, who's the woman throwing the hammer?
1) An account that is a member of a default privileged group present in Windows 2000 through Windows 2003. Has the ability to install random crap and break everything, but not the ability to fix anything (unless they exploit their breakage ability to escalate privileges).
2) Someone who reads "top ten ways to..." articles on sites like Digg, Reddit, or Lifehacker and then blindly copy-pastes shit from <pre> boxes into their terminal. They have no clue how anything works nor the facility to learn, but they sure are earnest and they love to evangelize! They'll seize any opportunity to apply their cargo-cult knowledge to help you with the problems they think you have. They love to defrag and "Repair Permissions", but don't have backups. They're the audience/creators of 'themes' and 'skins'.
Historically these people (largely adolescents) have been know-nothing partisan tweakers of Windows, Classic Mac OS, BeOS, Amiga, or any number of 8-bit home computer platforms. Recently Linux has become the cool thing to wank over -- compiz and Ubuntu helped a lot with that. The Hackintosh phenomenon has led to a lot of them defecting to Mac OS X.
I don't understand. How does buying an iPad prevent people from using other computers for those purposes, or wanting to, aside from the opportunity cost of actually buying the device?
You seem to be talking about things that machines can do, but you're referring to people. If a machine is limited it does not follow to say that the person is limited.
Of course the person is limited. They are limited because they can't for example, install Firefox on the iPad and use it as the browser rather than Safari. The person is limited because the locked nature of the device limits them.
Right, and all that goodness would be destroyed for your family if others could run Ruby scripts on the device.
I imagine you should be able to see the difference between not targeting a particular audience and doing everything to lock that particular audience out.
The problem in what you're saying is that it wouldn't have been THAT hard to do a product that does both : Add an usb port and add the ability to install custom software, even if hidden in the bottom of the OS where your grandma doesn't even notices it, and you have a device that pleases everyone. I still don't really get why they wouldn't do such a thing.
EDIT: I'm kind of getting sick of this. Basically all the posts on this thread sum up to this:
Some guy say "Yeah but my grandma can use it !". And gets tremendously upvoted, so ok guys we get the point.
And some other guy says "Yeah ok, but what prevents this slick grandma-friendly platform to be open at the same time", and the guy get less upvoted, like the very point of this Ipad is that it be user friendly, like we hackers don't care at all about openness, denying the very point of this article, wich IS :
"Why can't we have a platform that is BOTH user friendly and slick, and open"
I still like to believe that openness and usability / polish / "shinyness" are not mutually exclusive. Maybe it's idealistic (I definitely can't point to any irrefutable examples), but insofar as we're part of the people shaping technology, I don't think it's a bad ideal to strive for.
I still like to believe that openness and usability / polish / "shinyness" are not mutually exclusive. Maybe it's idealistic (I definitely can't point to any irrefutable examples)
Mac OS X itself is a good example. Normal users can just click on the dock icons and never need to have any awareness of the Unix layer underneath.
I've actually been meaning to get an iMac or Macbook for my parents to replace the old desktop at home. BUT when I checked out the iPad today, everything just clicked into place - this device is perfect for them!
First of all, its cheap compared to a mac laptop or desktop. Secondly, it is great for surfing and checking emails, which is what my parents do 99% of the time on the computer. Any laptop or desktop would be an overkill for their use case. Thirdly, the iPad's zooming functionality is the best in the market now, and would be extremely useful for older folks with bad eyesight. The small screens on netbooks just do not cut it.
I think apple has again come up with a device that will revolutionize the way we use computers, just not the way all of us tech minded geeks wanted it to.
I can see the ease of use argument, and that Apple products certainly do well at that. But, thinking on a longer time line, isn't that target audience shrinking. What is the life expectancy of the pre-computer literate population? How big is this audience now? I'm just asking. I have no idea.
On the other hand, a much larger audience would be the vast unwashed masses in the third world who use cell phones to access the internet. The sales volumes are higher, while the price point is lower... I wonder if Apple would go there, or would they leave that market to others.
The fact that developers are not the target audience is, I think, a problem. It means that apps will be created that developers think people would want to buy, NOT apps that developers would want to use.
I must use a different machine to build applications for this, which means on the gradient of iphone to macbook, it's much closer to the iphone. If the only niche it fills is for grandmothers, secretaries and managers, how will the developers ever really grok it? It seems like they'd only be monetarily driven... and that just sounds like iFart.
>but this product was designed for the 99% of the people in this country instead. You're not the target audience.
Fair enough. But a not-insignificant chunk of that 99% is the friend or relative who asks you to write a small piece of software to do some calculation for them or some quick script or tool to automate some repetitive task. And then you have to sit and explain to them that this thing they bought isn't a real computer in the same way that their desktop was.
That just means a device for people who have very few technical skills will need a near-constant and perfectly working internet connection to be passably useful.
I would classify myself and quite technically skilled, and I still need a near-constant and perfectly working Internet connection to be passably useful. :P
Assuming that internet connections are usually available ensures that your device will be utterly useless in many rural areas. In some places around my city, there is no broadband internet available at all, perhaps even when considering offerings from cell phone networks.
There is one place in our city that offers free wifi, and few people are aware of it because they do not advertise it. Our library has computers one can use, but no wifi.
People living in and around major cities may want to pretend that everyone is able to have nearly continuous internet access, but that's not the case. Even assuming one has a smartphone, Edge isn't a pleasant thing to attempt to even browse the internet over.
The iTunes stores! It is monopoly at its finest. Apple could eventually half the price if the masses by their books and software and rent or buy their movies all from Apple.
Eventually, there will be an iPad to Apple TV interface, and they can cut out the cable companies too.
The analogy is not perfect, since you can buy mp3s and movies and ebooks from other services. But on iPhones and iPads the barriers to getting content from non-iTunes sources is certainly higher than it otherwise would be on a regular Mac (or any other PC for that matter).
I wonder, how many people were sad when gearbox in their car went from stick to auto, when choke control disappeared, when you could no longer tinker with carburetor, because it was gone.
There will always be two groups of people, one group of those wanting to hack things, and another, much much larger group of those who want just use them. For every one John who wants to chip his car engine there will be five millions Joes who just want to get from the point A to the point B with the least hassle possible. As it happens Apples iProducts are aimed at the second group—deal with it. Just like ITMS and App Store may be the fastest and most hassle-free way to get what you want on your device.
I've spent some time thinking, do I want iPad. The answer is: I do. I like to read when in bed, iPad is perfect for this. I cannot take my iMac to bed, and reading with notebook is not as convenient as it can be with iPad: that damn keyboard gets in a way, event when I barely use it.
iPad is very well suited for what it is intended for: surfing the web, reading the books, some email. Let's not forget it has UI specifically tailored for the device and multitouch use. It should be great for tasks it was meant to do, and not so great for all others.
It is time to stop thinking about anything with CPU inside as the computer.
Wrong analogy, I think. There is an important difference between desire to tinker and desire to control. I don't tinker with my car, but I'm not going to allow the manufacturer to dictate who must repair it, where I must buy gas, which roads I can use...
Apple reminds me of homeland security, but prettier!
Because, in fact, the sale of gas is subject to a great deal of regulation. That's to prevent someone from selling you adulterated gas that destroys your car's emission system. Or from selling you leaded gas that pollutes the air that our kids have to breathe.
And the reason the manufacturer doesn't need to enforce your use of the roads is that it's already being enforced by a higher authority. We have cops for that. And they very much do dictate that you keep your car on public roads, and not go driving off across someone else's lawn, or the National Mall.
If you think these extensions to the metaphor make no sense, you're missing the elephant in the room: Personal computers are insecure, and the average web surfer is more likely (probably, alas, by an order of magnitude) to have their computer steal their credit card numbers or grind to a halt under a flood of malware than they are to crack open the box or write a single line of code. An enormous number of people don't want the freedom I want, any more than they want to own an acetylene torch.
Well, like all metaphors, it's only an approximation. However, the laws don't dictate that I keep my car on public roads, they dictate what I do with my car when I'm not on my property. And while those laws are enforced by a higher authority, if you follow the chain up in a democracy, you come to me again, in theory.
To your other point, Windows is insecure, not personal computers. A true personal computer is/would be owned by me, not a corporation, not a hacker.
Hmmm... Seems to me I've seen this freedom vs. security argument elsewhere...
If it meant getting a car that was better than anything else on the market, many people would make that tradeoff. I value simplicity, design and functionality way more than the ability to run Flash, and I'm willing to pay slightly extra for it.
This is definitely a stretch. When I go to a restaurant I'm choosing a priori to give up control of my possible choices when I decide to go. There's no confusion. If I wanted to have full control I'd stay home and cook.
I suppose the argument then is that you choose to limit yourself to what the iPad offers by buying and using one. As long as a priori most people understand what they are getting themselves into when they buy an iPad, I think everyone would agree that people should be able to make that choice. The problem is that a lot of people aren't going to understand beforehand the limitations of this device, so they won't have made a fully informed choice.
The problem is that a lot of people aren't going to understand beforehand the limitations of this device...
You seem to be assuming several things: that this is peculiar to the iPad, that people who do understand the limitations also care, and that if they don't make fully informed choices about things they care about that it is someone's fault other than their own.
It's most definitely not peculiar to the iPad, and I don't think my statement assumes that. I also don't think it's relevant whether people who do understand the limitations care or not, nor was I assuming that. Once you understand the limitations, you can choose to ignore them and buy the device. A lot of people will do this. Hell I even might! And that's perfectly fine.
But your last point is a good one. And I think it gets to the crux of a lot of the hysteria over this being a "closed system." A lot of consumers aren't very savvy when it comes to complicated electronics. Maybe that's their fault? I don't know. But something in me says it's partially Apple's responsibility to educate people about the devices they sell through proper marketing.
If Apple markets this ethically they won't mislead people into thinking this is a general-purpose computer. Because if people perceive this as a general-purpose computer, they will be sorely disappointed in a lot of ways when they get it home.
So It doesn't have to be entirely the manufacturer's fault if I make an uninformed choice, but I'd argue that it is partially the manufacturer's responsibility to educate me.
But something in me says it's partially Apple's responsibility to educate people about the devices they sell through proper marketing.
It is, but there are practical limits to that. We don't usually expect companies to highlight things about their products that some people might not like, we just expect them to not lie. Obviously they omit much, but omissions aren't inherently nefarious or misleading (I know you're not saying that), so we're talking about something(s) more specific than that. What should Apple be expected to make clear about their products that they aren't currently?
If Apple markets this ethically they won't mislead people into thinking this is a general-purpose computer.
Isn't it though? In the sense of 'tasks you can perform' or 'purposes you can use it for', it seems quite general. It has limitations in terms of what is available from the store, but how would you convey those to limitations to someone as being distinct from obvious limitations like how the lack of a camera prevents you from taking pictures with it?
I'm not sure if that's a clear question, but I ask because it seems to me that people with a less detailed understanding about how these things work tend to view software limitations as being just as real as hardware limitations, and that whether it allows them to accomplish the tasks they want to perform or not is vastly more meaningful to them than their control over how it does so. I just don't get the sense that people will be disappointed.
Let's not forget it has UI specifically tailored for the device and multitouch use
Exactly. And that's what made tablet-PC unsuccessful for the most part. Because what you ended up doing was interacting with basically the same OS with a stylus instead of a mouse. The iPad is removing the cursor altogether.
I think you are mistakingly comparing a closed system like the iPad to things like automatic transmissions. Of course not everyone wants to do lots of personal maintenance on their stuff or have lots of customizable features. But that's not how software development works. Everyone doesn't have to make their own software. A small subset of people create software that the rest use.
That's a good point that goes a long way to proving Apple right. Yes, a small subset of people create software that the rest use. And every day, that small subset desides what that software can and can't do. Apple decided what their software AND hardware can and can't do, because they make both. Apple never promised the world that all their hardware would be able to run arbitrary software.
At the end of the day, for the layman, non-techie user (ie: most of the population of the world), whether they are buying Windows, or an iPad, or using a Web app, they see it as something that enables them to do certain things and not others. They don't see the same restrictions we see as developers, and most of the time, they either don't understand them or don't care. At the end of the day, they got the product they paid for and use for what they wanted. If you want something different, buy something different.
Cars used to be 'user servicable', you could take them apart and put them back together again, or repair them with simple tools.
The further you integrate something the further away you get from 'user servicable'.
Due to emissions controls cars were equipped with injection systems and motor management, and then car manufacturers discovered 'lock-in', how to make money on obfuscation in stead of openness.
Computing is doing the exact same thing.
Gone are the simple serial and parallel interfaces, and in their place you get undocumented docking connectors and other 'magic'.
The only thing that keeps things open to some extent is the fact that the internet arrived just in time to save us from complete lock in hell. The protocols are standardized enough to let devices talk to each other.
So that's where you're going to find your new 'openness', at the protocol level.
Serverside it will take a long time to go 'closed', but on the client side I would expect to see more and more devices that are closed as much as possible.
Gaming hardware has already gone that way, mobile phones started out closed ('to protect the networks', as if client side security would be good enough for a carrier).
It's not a good development, but it will happen.
Tech savvy people can only push back by releasing their own open devices, the open source variety of hardware.
To put it in a different context, a lot of people (myself included, and I'm a hardcore techy) prefer to play video games on consoles rather than PCs so as to avoid dealing with all these headaches. You want to just put the game in, press play, and it works, without dealing with device drivers and hardware incompatibilities and software version conflicts.
The fact that the model is now being extended to things like web browsing and e-mail isn't necessarily a bad thing for 90%+ of the population who just want a device that always works (and always works the same way). It's turning functions formerly reserved for a computer proper and moving into the closed-off-but-much-more-straightforward consumer electronics space.
> Nothing that currently exists is going away even if this becomes popular.
I disagree. This sort of device has the very real chance of killing notebook computers.
I don't think that desktops are going away any time soon, for two reasons. First, if you are going to work for hours at a time, a big screen and keyboard re far more comfortable and practical. Second, really significant work requires the horsepower of a full OS (as opposed to apps on this device).
That said, most people don't need a full computer to travel with. They want something light, with an "always on" connection to the cloud. They want to browse the web, check email, play a game, read a book, listen to music. Sure, maybe they can tinker for a bit with a document too.
Will 90% of the world miss the openness and power of a full computer? I doubt it. And god knows that the screen and multi-touch already beats the hell out of most netbooks. I think it's a no-brainer that this thing will be wildly successful, and I do think it could (over time) kill off the laptop market. (Not for developers or hard-core geeks, but for (so-called) normal people.)
But even if for no reason other than a dislike of Apple, there will be people who don't want one of these. There will be competition.
Anyone here on hacker news that is worried about an Apple monopoly in the future because of this should get to work on competing in whichever area they are able, be it the hardware, software, or business side of things.
"I do not want to see computing head this direction."
I don't understand the tendency towards these Patrick Henry-esque statements (of which this is but one example.) The Apple ecosystem functions harmoniously, making my life simpler and more productive. To pull that off, that they necessarily have to erect barriers preventing everyone from coming in and screwing it up. Why is this viewed as such a terrible thing?
The assumption that all forms of freedom are equally important deserves a second look. The freedoms to speak my mind, criticize the government, (not) practice any religion I choose, and pursue happiness, are essential me as a human being. The freedom to install Firefox plugins, not so much. I mean really, who gives a hoot? If it works for you, use it; if not, don't. Either way, spare us the ominous, brooding prognostications...
Your claim regarding java on OS X does match my memory. I recall java beign one of the 3 core platform choices for developments on OS X since 10.0 (Cocoa, Java, Carbon).
Java still ships with Mac OS X (though you need to switch to 64bit java to enable the Java 6 version that ships).
The only thing apple have done regarding java is deprecate the Java-Cocoa bridge.
That Apple is creating a closed system is of little surprise. Steve Jobs is all about control. It works in the short term, but I believe it will bite them in the ass over the long-term.
Making use of a closed-system and trying to be the best in a category assumes that you have access to the most brilliant minds in that field, and the most brilliant marketing campaign. What makes Apple great? Well, they can control every aspect of their production because they own all their own tools and can keep out the crap. Also, they have slick industrial design. For now they also have some of the most brilliant minds in the industry, but not all of them. This is why they will never achieve world domination with their products. I suppose I could make use of their own advertising to make an example : "I'm a mac, I'm a PC". You are either an apple person or you're not. Their closed-system allows little flexibility. They would be doomed to what they used to be were it not for them opening their file formats to standards.
Why is this not the best approach? Because of human innovation. People hate being held down, forced into one category, etc. This is what apple is doing, but because their products are so innovative, consumers will go for it.
Google is much smarter; they know what to hold onto and what to open up for the masses. Even though they employ many geniuses, they are always on the search for new innovative ideas. That's why they purchase so many startups, or so I've been told.
That's why I believe in a race between Google and Apple, Apple WILL lose eventually.
Closed-systems should actually drive innovation because they must be circumvented. That's why Apple products are cracked all the time. So I guess the challenge then is, that if you aren't happy with Apple, build a better product and market it as well as they do. All things being equal, the open-system product will win every time. You can't employ all of the brightest people yourself, all of the time. I think Apple will learn this in due time, and then things will change.
A sidenote is that a large part of Apple's appeal is simplicity because of their closed-system. If anyone could create an opem-system as turnkey as theirs, they'd come ahead by far. I think one of the closest systems to being fully open and turnkey I've seen so far is Facebook Connect, but I'm starting to become too long-winded, so I'll leave it at that.
> People hate being held down, forced into one category, etc.
Here's an alternative take on this (with a story). I recently saw Thomas Keller (chef and owner of Per Se here in NYC and French Laundry in CA, among others) talking about a new-ish restaurant of his in CA, Ad Hoc.
Ad Hoc has no menus. They make meals and serve them family style. You take what you want from the dishes provided. You have choice only within that range.
He argued that true luxury was the freedom from choice. Now in a political context, this is Orwellian and terrifying. But in the context of a meal, it made a lot of sense to me. Let a great chef do his or her magic, and I will try any damn thing they put in front of me and thank them for the privilege.
For us as hackers, computer use is more like politics. We want the openness to do what we want, to dig around, to break things and fix them again, to change things. For most people, however, computer use is more like a meal. Give them some great toys to play with and they won't mind the limitations at all.
But, this isn't about giving the users freedom from choice; with 140,000 options in the App Store, that's a lot of choices.
This is explicitly about locking developers down, and not allowing them to do things that Apple does not approve of. Want to write a competing web browser? Sorry, you can't. Want to write an awesome JIT that optimizes itself for their shiny new chip? No can do.
Imagine if this policy had been in place on their desktop or laptop computers. Half of the technologies that they themselves use and tout as great would not exist. LLVM/clang? WebKit? Heck, the Mach and BSD kernels that this is all built on. None of this would have been created in a closed ecosystem with restrictive policies, and yet Apple is perfectly happy to take advantage of it while not letting anyone else play in their sandbox.
Your third paragraph sums up the link very well. Yes, many customers win in the short-term, but they will lose in the long run. I'm one that thinks web apps are the future, anyway, so Apple's focus on specialized apps that can't be ported to other platforms very easily and without having to invest a whole lot up front is going to bite them hard.
When html5 matures and is more widely adopted, developers will sidestep the ridiculous shackles of the app store approval process... effortlessly. At that point, it'll be a competition between the best developed browsers and the most inexpensive mobile devices that will still deliver a very good experience. Google, I think, will come out on top then w/ Google Chrome OS.
When html5 matures? Seriously? Have you ever done any web development? Have you looked at html5? It's an incremental upgrade, nothing that's going to let you do new interesting things with all the new, interesting hardware we have. Plus, it will still be very, very slow compared to code running through fewer layers of indirection.
Apple may tout the appstore now, but they only reluctantly released it. The first iteration of the iphone only supported web applications. People disliked them because they were slower and not nearly as cohesive as the core, native apps.
Want to write a competing web browser that will confuse people (why do I need another web browser?), no can do. It's a quality control issue.
The iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad do specific things and do them well. They are not personal computers. They are web browsers, music players, calendars, etc. The customer is paying for a device that does these things. They don't want (or arguably need) a personal computer.
Why would you want to develop LLVM on an iPad? Do you honestly think that Apple would junk their desktop OS in favour of an App Store-driven laptop/desktop experience? Developers write code on personal computers. Apple is not a closed ecosystem because of this fact alone. There is room in Apple's world for 3rd party innovation - it's just not on their consumer products.
How does an alternative web browser confuse people? Has Firefox been taking market share from IE because it confuses people? No, it's because Microsoft got complacent, and let their browser rot, and some open-source hackers managed to produce a product that was better enough that even many non-technical people who barely know what a browser is run Firefox because it's faster and more secure.
And Apple is not immune to this sort of problem; there are alternative products that they forbid that really can improve the experience (for instance, better podcast clients, email clients that are optimized for Gmail, and the like). And given the quantity of software they have on the app store, and how crappy some of it is, it's not about quality control at all; it's about the fact that Apple simply wants control, and doesn't want any third-party developers getting too big or too powerful.
The point about LLVM is not about developing LLVM on an iPad. It's about the fact that you can't use such technology on the iPad. If I want to develop a product to run on the iPad, and that product would be greatly improved by containing a JIT or an interpreter, I cannot distribute that on the iPad; it is forbidden. And this means that there is less of a market for developing such things in general. If the hardware that the consumers have and use forbids me from selling them a product with an interpreter in it, then there's a lot less of a reason for me to produce that interpreter in the first place.
I write interactive educational multimedia software that's scripted in a dialect of Scheme. The iPad may be a great platform that we could port our software to; the screen is a perfect size for our type of content, it supports video, composited graphics and animation, and multitouch interaction could really improve some of our simulations. However, we cannot run our Scheme interpreter on the iPad. Writing a compiler would be prohibitively expensive for our small team, as would porting all of our content to JavaScript, the only interpreted language you are allowed to run on the iPhone/iPad. Apple is explicitly preventing me from porting the software I would like to the iPad.
But you don't hear as much about people like me, who simply turn away from the iPhone or iPad and don't develop software for it. You hear about the success stories; the people who made a quick buck selling a fart app for the iPhone. The only cases in which you do hear about people being turned away are cases in which people did make the initial investment, developed the software, and then were turned down; but because most people don't want to risk that, they never bother developing the software in the first place if they think there's a high chance that Apple will reject it.
> But, this isn't about giving the users freedom from choice; with 140,000 options in the App Store, that's a lot of choices.
Fair enough, but isn't the point that some applications (ones central to the device like the browser, email, maybe calendar now?, book app?) can't be duplicated? You can't write Firefox for the iPad or submit Opera mobile. Or, I suppose you can, but Apple won't accept such items, will they?
So in that sense, the mere number of apps is irrelevant. My point was that the experience is very, very heavily controlled and that many people turn out not to mind that when it comes to such devices.
Half of the technologies that they themselves use and tout as great would not exist.
Except the ones you listed do exist and are open for anybody else to go use and build their own great products, even using the work that Apple put into them.
I actually agree with you 100% that people love something that's easy to play with. That's what I meant when I said that Apple's simplicity is their strength. What I'm talking about is a difference between "open" turnkey and "closed" turnkey.
I love turnkey, and so do a lot of people. Who wants to fuss with installing new software, etc.? That's my perspective.
Closed-systems are much easier to make turnkey, but they aren't the only alternative.
Just because something is open, doesn't mean that it can't be simple. It CAN be tinkered with, but it doesn't have to be to make it work.
That response is shorter than I'd like, but I have to run unfortunately.
Very well said - I really can't understand why so many people on HN think turnkey == closed. Sure there is a correlation, but is it just me or does it seem like everyone has forgotten that correlation != causation.
He argued that true luxury was the freedom from choice. Now in a political context, this is Orwellian and terrifying. But in the context of a meal, it made a lot of sense to me. Let a great chef do his or her magic, and I will try any damn thing they put in front of me and thank them for the privilege.
Sometimes even Apple doesn't get that. There was a great example of this principle in one of the slides the Engadget blogger took during Jobs's presentation (http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/live-from-the-apple-table...), where the 10:57AM slide shows the iBooks application allowing the user to "change the font (to) whatever you want."
Um, thanks but no thanks, Steve. Book publishers hire type designers to come up with appropriate fonts, and they hire other skilled designers to select and use them. Leaving this choice up to the reader is not a feature, but an aesthetic regression at best and a dereliction of duty at worst. It's like bundling fine art with a paint-by-numbers set.
This is exactly how MS Office ends up with 30 different selectable toolbars that nobody knows how to use. It was a splash of cold water to the face to see Apple making the same sort of mistake.
"It works in the short term, but I believe it will bite them in the ass over the long-term."
I disagree. Both Apple and Nintendo have shown proof that their closed 'circle of one' system works. Yes both of them have had a lot of big missed opportunities in the past because of this, but what matters more for these companies is profitability and not marketshare. Both Apple's and Nintendo's closed systems have led to large margins, and a healthy supply of cash flow and reserves.
Yes it doesn't really fully cater to us, but we're not their main market.
Apple has also shown that their closed 'circle of one' system does NOT work. That's why they lost to IBM/MS so long ago. Everything apple was proprietary and people went to PCs.
Good point. And to add to that in order to back in the computer business and come back from irrelevance, Apple had to progressively give up on everything that differentiated them from PCs except for the two things they are actually good at -- the gui and the nice shiny cases. And they had to make sure they could run most PC software.
If apple think their iPhone success shows that people like closed systems, they are kidding themselves. Phones have never really been open (thanks to the carriers), so the iPhone was actually one of the more open phones out there. But once they start competing with actual computers, it is going to be very different.
Yes! That is exactly what is wrong with this picture.
The Newton, just like any other tablet computer had a niche, vertical applications.
And it failed in that niche because of choices set in stone by the Apple team that developed it.
It wasn't open enough.
So, forward 21 years and we're in 2010, where we see a sequel to the Newton, running a proprietary OS on hardware that has been closed to the point where you can't even attach a USB stick.
I'm sure that lots more of these will be sold than there ever were sold of the Newton, but I doubt it will tap the potential of this form factor. For that it needs to be much more open and hackable.
This is just another remote terminal attached to the web, and more importantly for Apple, to itunes.
There is nothing wrong with remote web terminals, but as long as they are computers you should allow access to all that power, locking it and making it hard to put software on it is limiting, not enabling.
I'm not sure if that's really true. The problem with the first Mac was that it launched a couple of years after the IBM PC, and the hardware was underpowered for a GUI OS. By the time the Mac became useful and suitable for businesses, MS had already built too much of a lead for Apple to catch up.
That's what I refer to when I mentioned lost opportunity, the same goes for Nintendo with the advent of Genesis and PS one.
Apple and Nintendo aren't young start ups; they've been around for decades with closed systems. A closed system like iTunes is a big reason Apple has even gotten so successful in recent times; it works I.e they have made tons of money with a closed sys and they probably will continue to do so. Marketshare is another story.
Whether it makes geeks happy is also another story
I don't think it's at all clear that people "went to PCs" because the Mac was proprietary. Macs were also expensive, slow, monochrome, and you couldn't buy them from IBM or Compaq, for example.
The elephant in the room is the iPhone, where "circle of one" seems to be working extremely well. Maybe the model just needed some fine tuning.
Macs were also expensive, slow, monochrome, and you couldn't buy them from IBM or Compaq, for example.
All of those issues are precisely because the Macs were proprietary. If they hadn't been proprietary, none of the issues that made them lose to PCs would have been issues and they may have won the war. In the 80's, every school bought Apple IIe's, so they had the foot in the door.
Then, under the leadership of Mr. Jobs, apple slammed the door shut on their foot and here they are doing it again -- also under Steve Jobs.
Steve is the problem. Eventually, they'll realize this and fire him again when people get tired of his antics.
Starting off on a tangent, Windows is also proprietary. (MS just licensed off used of Windows)
Going back to the subject, before Steve came back Apple tried the MS game where they licensed everything about the Mac (from hardware to software). This strategy failed miserably; most likely because they were already too late.
Fast forwarding to today, Steve is not the problem. He is the main reason Apple is wildly successful today. If he didn't return and revive Apple with the products under his watch, Apple would most likely be gone. Saying Apple is not successful is like saying BMW isn't successful just because it doesn't sell as many cars as either Ford or GM.
There is only one thing I want Apple to do at this point.
Open up developer ad-hoc provisioning. Keep the App Store closed, heck, make it even stricter, but give that alternative, ad-hoc channel a chance. You don't have to publicize it; all you need to do is to change a single number in a plist somewhere on your activation servers from 100 to unlimited.
Then the hacker community will focus on adding features to your product instead of on compromising its security.
I know of no other company that can charge $100 for 16GB of flash memory. Differentiating on real features like 3G is good and expected. Differentiating on commodity hardware like memory is unfair.
With the ubiquity of SD and micro SD and need for more and more storage due to the explosion of digital media, they don't even provide a port. Obviously, they don't provide a port because it would destroy their product line. When you have the cheapest digital electronics providing these ports and high-end hardware like the iPod/Phone/Pad not providing it, that says a lot. It says "we don't care about anything except our product the money in your wallet."
It's ironic that MS gets so much flack from developers in the OSS purist and Apple fanbois camps about their closed products. They've always been the most open from the hardware perspective and they've always been great to developers. Apple is just the opposite.
If we care about an open future in computing, we need to think clearly about which platforms to develop for.
My issue is the iPad* is very close to being a good general purpose computer. For a certain class of consumer, it could be there only computer. However, it is crippled by the lack of ports. How are they going to hook up their printer or webcam? It is so close, especially with the keyboard dock. If only they where a little more open with the platform, and had some open ports this thing would be a great computer.
* (terrible name btw, i was sitting with three girls over lunch and looking at the engadget coverage while we ate, when i told them it was called the iPad they cracked up. One said, it must have been a male only committee that picked that name).
I know of no other company that can charge $100 for 16GB of flash memory. Differentiating on real features like 3G is good and expected. Differentiating on commodity hardware like memory is unfair.
The revolutionary thing about this tablet is that it's not a Mac. Tablets have been around for a while and haven't caught on because nobody wants to buy a keyboardless laptop running a normal OS.
If you are worried about openness, then look to Android. I'm sure we will see a plethora of Android tablets that will be like a large Droid/Nexus One just like this tablet is a large iPhone.
Really? Everyone I know who has used one says that bottom touch bar is a PITA. It keeps getting hit by accidental touches. Speaking of which, if you have a touch screen, why do you need that many hardware controls?
Huh, I like it. Especially the universal back button; it provides a much better flow than the iPhone where you have to go back to the home screen and relaunch the app you were in when you got a text message.
I'd much rather have a device with lots of hardware controls and a touchscreen, so that I can control the device without looking at it, or even taking it out of my pocket.
That said, the bottom touch bar was an absolutely terrible idea; I don't know how that made it through dogfood testing. Closed vs. open aside, what makes Apple unique is that they would have scrapped such a design and started over. We can only guess how many design iterations it took to result in the iPad.
I wasn't referring specifically to the Nexus, which I have not tried. However, I tried the Droid, and was just upset that these companies just don't get it. I want to leave Apple and use something else, but they aren't putting in the time and effort to polish and make the experience awesome.
That said, I do not regularly use Mac computers, so I don't think everything they do is awesome.
I don't know about you, but I am not a designer, I don't have years of experience creating usable interfaces. I do not have the ability to make a graphical user interface that is useful and intuitive.
Restrictions only matter when they limit you from doing things you want to do. For the vast majority of consumers, the closed nature of the iPad isn't a restriction, it's a convenience.
We need to understand that the average HN reader is not the target market here. We're generally more technical and are willing to tolerate more complexity and maintenance in return for a greater level of freedom over our software and devices. The things we regard as important are not seen the same way by most people. They just want an appliance that makes the things they do every day as easy and hassle-free as possible.
I bet someone at Apple is thinking hard about how could they seal the MacPro case too. It's the only system they sell that you are allowed to open and upgrade or tinker (beyond something limited like a RAM upgrade).
Apple is no longer called Apple Computers because they will not sell computers anymore. They will sell closed devices with a closed software ecosystem. They will also sell the best devices money can buy.
What? They have clearly segmented the market, they're not taking a "let's seal everything" approach.
The Mac Pro is made for power users and developers, it's made very easy to open and add hardware to.
The iPhone is made for everyone on the planet who can afford it, it is made to be very easy to use for normal use cases and very hard to screw up to the point where someone needs someone else to fix it.
I'm typing this on a Macbook that no longer has its original RAM, hard drive, or keyboard/trackpad. The RAM and hard drive upgrades didn't break any sort of warranty and were rather trivial.
The Mac Pro is certainly not the only apple computer to modify. It is only the easiest to upgrade. Just because an upgrade isn't easy or encouraged doesn't mean you can't do it.
Eh, every time I hear this argument my response is the same: if they stop making open Macs, I'll stop buying Macs. I'm not married to it, and there are open platforms to switch to.
When they make a new thing I don't want, it doesn't make the old stuff I did want any less cool.
Apple has managed to maintain consistency and provide a level of experience over the years by tightly controlling the platform. This is just another manifestation of that. Look at the App store, the fact that you have to use hacks to get OS X running on a PC or that you buy Apple computers with OS X being pre-loaded as examples of that.
If you don't like the closed platform you can grab a PC, but I think this is just how Steve Jobs does things -- he likes to have as much control as possible so that Apple can deliver a certain type and level of experience to users.
Macs are wide open. Apple creates the default user experience, but you're free to develop and run any software you want without begging for permission. Apple's total control over the iPhone/iPod/iPad platform is a change for the worse.
My position is if I pay good money for hardware it's mine and I will do with it as I please. And I will not buy it until it has been hacked (and I can install Linux on it ;-) ).
Same with my iPhone. It wouldn't be half as useful without being jailbroken.
I am reading a lot of concerns that Apple has created a closed system. You are right, Apple has a closed system. That's what Apple has mostly sold for years.
What I think is exciting is that this device breaks new ground. It's only version 1.0. Better devices will come out. Hopefully, from companies other than Apple. There's virtually nothing stopping another company from selling an open platform, one that runs open software, has open hardware, has WIFI, has USB and has higher screen resolution than the 1024x768 that my 8 year old iBook has. And, hopefully someone will deliver a device that uses low power open cores.
Stop complaining. Start dreaming up something better.
I believe Apple's success stems from its portable devices, mainly the iPod and the iPhone. Both of those devices could take full advantage of Apple's closed door policy. The iPod and the iPhone are extremely well built because Apple had complete control over all the parts. All the other phones on the market just felt like cheaper plastic knockoffs. Furthermore, Apple is somewhat lucky that the functionality you'd want from these portable devices is very limited and so Apple didn't miss any of the market by providing such limited functionality.
However, devices bigger than iPhone - in the netbook/iPad range - need significantly more functionality. I believe Apple missed the boat with the iPad, especially if it really is targeting grandpa and grandma. People are becoming more tech savvy and they will be less and less willing to shell out money for an inflexible device that only serves a rigid set of predefined functions.
The iPad, I'm sure, is constructed extremely well. However, taking it to the bathroom, to bed and around the house in general isn't the same thing as taking it everywhere you go. Apple's success is in building beautiful durable portable hardware. The iPad just isn't portable enough or flexible enough for people to want it.
I agree with the article. I look more forward to a light weight Chrome netbook. I don't know if it is the offing or not, but perhaps a Chrome netbook could forgo a physical keyboard and have a popup virtual keyboard like my Droid (although that adds the expense of a touchscreen). Bonus points to hardware manufacturers: sell a Chrome netbook that looks like a iPad, but has a slide out physical keyboard like my Motorola Droid phone.
Apple has become the prime example of closed computing. It has its benefits: the iPhone is painfully easy to use, has very few viruses, and works pretty much all the time (except when AT&T drops, but that's a separate worry).
Google is trying to take the opposite pole: you can do pretty much anything on an Android phone, but that includes buggy software with bad UI design.
There will always be both positions. Both have benefits to different people. To a HackerNews audience, the open system will almost always seem better -- HackerNews types enjoy tinkering and will tend to be advanced users. But not everyone shares the HN love of tinkering.
At first I was let down with it being closed system. But after a night to sleep on it, I'm starting to warm to the idea.
I'll never use the iPad for work, and in the same way I can't bring myself round to using a Mac Mini as my media centre, I don't want the hassle of a full OS over a purposely built OS for the task(s) in hand. All I'd want to do on the iPad is browse the web, read, watch videos, and perhaps play some games.
Overall as long as this isn't Apples future strategy for the Mac platform (which would be suicide), I think it's a nice product, which by the looks of it, will do the job it's made for brilliantly.
This could be the big step for the developers' dream of using the actual target device as the host for developing(end-to-end toolchain and the debugging host of course). Success of open systems(both HW and SW) comes from this marginal-looking(huge in fact) idea. So, the hardware is there, but unfortunately they lack the determination. It is sad to see Apple performing even worse than MS on this very department.
I personally will insist on "not" buying any Apple product unless they develop a strategy to innovate(as they did in the past) instead of trying to monopolize the scene...
Personally, I don't have a problem with iPad being closed. I have problem with a lack of an open alternative (or several). I'm using an iPhone, but I'm sure as hell glad there is the Android.
I think the biggest obvious point people are missing is that Jobs intends many, many people to own a MacBook and an iPad. Probably an iPhone, too. They serve different niches in the ecology of your technological life.
(Oh, and if you've got some other laptop and pick up an iPad just how long do you think the average user will last before drooling a little more over the MacBook lineup?)
If I were Adobe, I'd be furious. Exclusion of Flash from this platform is a slap in the face, despite Jobs' perspective of how it would break his App Store model. If it weren't for Adobe focusing their Creative Suite development on Jobs' platforms, Apple wouldn't have had the design community's support that it had for so many years. Apple owes Adobe.
Apple made a major investment in Adobe back in the '80s, if I'm remembering Triumph of the Nerds correctly. That's how Mac really became the platform for artists, etc. I don't think Apple "owes" Adobe anything.
Nobody owes Adobe anything with regards to Flash. It has sucked for so long (especially on OS X), and been bane of the Web in so many ways that one can only applaud Apple's refusal to inflict Flash upon their mobile devices. Flash games simply don't matter that much to many people who are actually in a position to buy an iPad, and none of the other uses of Flash are particularly excusable. (HTML5 is here, and if you were using Flash for fancy effects and navigation elements, your users probably already hate you for it.)
If it weren't for Apple, Adobe wouldn't EXIST. Considering what Photoshop was first developed for and solely for Macs for several years. And the only reason Adobe even still bothers to develop for Mac is because of the very high percentage of the design community who are married to their Macs and won't use anything else. If I recall correctly, something like 40% of Photoshop installs are on Macs, which considering the general desktop userbases percentages is fairly dramatic.
I see the iPad as a communal home machine that floats around the house. It replaces newspapers, books, magazines, remotes (for music and hopefully TV), picture frames, and for some video game consoles. Eventually it will control your oven, door entry system etc. To me it's a "home computer."
- read a book
- surf the web
- organize/look at/show off photos
- watch videos/movies/tv shows
- listen to music
- send/receive emails
- play games
- use maps/calendar and the 140k+ apps available in the app store
So what to buy? I currently own a netbook, and while I like the device, for longer ebook reading and surfing, having the keyboard part is impractical. And I don't want Kindle, since I do a lot of reading in the dark room, and don't like the external lamp solution.
Overall, I am finding iPad to be a kind of product I'd like to have, but will probably buy similar alternative with Win7 or Android/Chrome OS.
Here we have a device that doesn't support USB thumbdrives, doesn't support dropbox (at least system-wide, I assume the dropbox iphone app would work), is unable to run ruby or any of my other dev scripts/tools, cannot install firefox or firefox plugins, etc.
I do not want to see computing head this direction.