Not really. It's a consumer electronics device, not a religion. If you don't like it because you can't (easily) open it up and change the battery, you don't have to buy it. Only geeks care that geeks don't like the iPad -- and from what I can tell, it doesn't bother Apple much, either. They're selling plenty of iPads to the other 99% of the world.
My grandfather used to complain that "cars these days" can't be repaired without taking them to the shop because of the "damned computers." He was wrong, too.
My understanding is that he thinks the trend itself is dangerous, not just the device. By not purchasing an iPad, he is protesting (with his dollars) against closed-computing. The protest does need to be loud, because of this:
Most of the world does not know or care about how closed the iPad is; we all know, however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run.
> however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run.
I'm pretty neutral about the iPad at the moment, but just wanted to point out that the world has had "open" computers for nearly 30 years and so far, I would argue they have not been better for the consumer.
<blockquote>... just wanted to point out that the world has had "open" computers for nearly 30 years and so far, I would argue they have not been better for the consumer.</blockquote>
Then again, the world has had open browsers for just a few years, and they kicked off a flurry of innovation on the web - which itself is built on open technologies.
Imagine if Windows web sites would only load on Windows computers.
Linux on the desktop is still irrelevant (although I do love it, so it's been great for this consumer). But what fraction of the web wouldn't exist today if not for Linux servers and Apache? Are you willing to say consumers aren't better off because of those open systems?
Are you willing to say consumers aren't better off because of those open systems?
I'm willing to say that consumers are better off because Linux and Apache are used in places where they are the best tool for the job. I am not convinced that being open is inherently the best thing for anybody. How much of the web wouldn't exist if not for people just trying to make a buck? Would Y Combinator?
> And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does.
Not really, the thing is that MS has a monopoly on the desktop, hard to reverse that trend. Look at Apple, even with their billions of dollars in revenue, they only get 5% of the desktop, Linux is at 1-2% with $0 in campaigning, so not that bad really.
I prefer Target, and local independent shops to Walmart. I am extremely glad, and grateful, however, that Walmart exists. It is a major driving force behind improvements in the stores I do like.The same is true of Home Depot versus Lowes (and versus any other similar store). The competition is what keeps things serving me well. Without Linux, Microsoft, et al. wouldn't have done nearly so much.
I was replying to the "open computers" statement of which I took to primarily mean operating systems. Which unless you call Mac OS or Windows open, IMHO my point re: linux still stands.
Mac and Windows are open compared to the App Store; they're just not open source. The market needs openness to foster innovation, but it doesn't necessarily need open source.
Exactly, the problem is that I, as a hobbyist, can't scratch personal itches by writing and giving away little programs that run on such a device.
Most of the software I ran on my first few computers was freeware, downloaded from BBSs at 2400baud. The barriers to entry for hobbyists to get little itch scratching programs up on the app store at $0 makes it not even worth the effort.
And the shame of it is that the iPad is the perfect kind of hobbyist platform, small, constrained, knowable. An organization putting millions of dollars into a piece of software for it isn't likely to make something really that much better than one or two teens banging out code in the bedrooms over a few weeks.
I feel that this is the key point: distinguishing between open and open source.
Openness, in terms of economic freedom, allows choice and therefore increases competition. As you say, this leads to innovation and is better for the consumer.
Very well said. This is why I keep telling my family about how closed a platform the iPad actually is. I honestly don't mind if consumers make an educated decision to buy an iPad. I may buy one too (probably not, but you never know...). But the fact that most people don't know much about what they are actually buying, and the fact that Apple won't inform them of the downsides, means that those of us who do know have to make up the difference.
Because I don't want them to get taken advantage of. I want them to make informed decisions. And I care about them generally. This is a pretty strange question. If someone in your family worked manufacturing cars and knew a lot about which ones were good and bad and for which reasons, and could just generally help you make a better informed decision about what car to buy, wouldn't you want to talk to that family member about that knowledge?
This is absolutely not true. Such a statement is ridiculous, and ignores the historical development of Linux and Windows. Windows was built as a single-user, administrator-by-default system that will run any EXE file without question. Linux was built modelled on UNIX standards: run as unprivileged user, multi-user environments, etc.
Sure, MS is better about Windows Security now. And guess what? That's why there aren't nearly as many virus problems as there used to be (think 7's early days vs XP's early days).
Linux has a strong security model. It already has ~50% market share on servers (maybe more)! Don't ever suggest that my last dollar would be spent poorly if I bet on Linux's security.
Also, the plural of "virus" is "viruses", not "virii".
Bullshit. Historically Apache has always had a greater market share than IIS yet far more virueses target IIS.
Historically most servers have run UNIX OSes yet most of the malware that targets servers goes for Windows.
Some architectures are objectively more secure. Being closed, in fact, closely correlates with being insecure.
The guy in the park with the "Jesus Saves" sign thinks his protest needs to be loud, too.
The point is, Cory Doctorow is in a small, small minority. The minority isn't small because people don't know what he's saying -- it's small because they don't care. He's protesting the very philosophy that gives Apple products the quality that people who buy Apple products desire. And honestly, making the openness of Apple products your raison d'etre is a bit like getting furious about the mechanical details of your favorite brand of dishwasher. The answer is always the same: don't like it? Don't buy it.
Cory is more than welcome to continue to post these sorts of rants on his blog, of course, but let's not turn them into more than what they are: one guy, forcefully advocating an opinion about something that really doesn't matter that much to most people, and that he can't really change.
And honestly, making the openness of Apple products your raison d'etre is a bit like getting furious about the mechanical details of your favorite brand of dishwasher.
I'd guess Cory's complaint is not specifically that iPads are closed, but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. If you accept the premises, that actually is a big deal.
one guy, forcefully advocating an opinion about something that really doesn't matter that much to most people, and that he can't really change.
So, pretty much like nearly any public advocacy of anything.
I'd guess Cory's complaint is not specifically that iPads are closed, but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. If you accept the premises, that actually is a big deal.
The "if you accept the premises" is, well, one hell of a big "if".
Cory seems to believe that companies are not in the business of making money, but rather are in the business of controlling peoples' lives as totally as possible, and proceeds from there. The mismatch of this belief with actual reality, and the resulting conclusions drawn with respect to, e.g., vast multinational conspiracies attempting to micromanage individual people, is of a sort which, given any other target, would result in institutionalization for paranoid psychosis.
Cory seems to believe that companies are not in the business of making money, but rather are in the business of controlling peoples' lives as totally as possible, and proceeds from there.
Not at all. I don't think Apple wants closed systems for their own sake, but I do think they believe that closed systems will be more profitable for them. The end result is the same.
Consider the line I quoted when I originally replied:
Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized.
This does not express the opinion that Apple believes they can make more money from selling closed systems. This expresses the opinion that Apple's goal is not to make money but rather to impose control on people for... well, I'm not honestly sure what reason.
And that sort of implication is everywhere in discussion on places like HN, despite the fact that it literally goes off the deep end into unfounded paranoia; "Steve Jobs wants to keep me from using Google Voice" is taken not as a statement about how he'd prefer to have his company get your money, but as a statement about how he's an evil megalomanic obsessed with controlling peoples' lives. Which is really only a step away from (and logically about as sensible as) "he's working with the Bilderbergers and the lizard people to cover up the truth about JFK's role in 9/11".
>but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized.
I myself find it difficult to imagine a future where the vast majority of applications are not web apps hosted on private servers. If you take that to be the likely future, then what you can and can't run natively on your computer (with the exception of the browser) becomes irrelevant. Debating whether or not you have the freedom to run arbitrary native code will be like arguing over having the freedom to install your own BIOS.
> The minority isn't small because people don't know what he's saying -- it's small because they don't care.
People don't care because when they hear nay-sayers predicting dystopian futures, they think things like 'that could never happen here' or 'that could never happen to me.' The reality is that I doubt very much that if you had polled Germans in the 1920's about whether they thought that the atrocities of WW2 could ever happen to them or in their country, they would say the same thing, 'not here' or "people wouldn't stand for it."
People that predict doom and gloom are often called crazy, but not always because they really are. Most of the time people don't want to think that the worst could happen even when reality paints a different picture. If I had published a paper in 2005 predicting that Wall Street would crumble due to highly-inflated real-estate and that the government would spend $700+ billion propping up banks that were 'too big to fail' I would have been called crazy and people would have ignored me stating that my concerns were 'unfounded.'
Please don't use "people don't care" as some sort of argument against someone's beliefs. I mean, if his blog post is getting up-voted enough on HN to reach the front page obviously enough people here care about it to discuss it, but for some reason you're trying to tell those people that they really don't share Doctorow's opinion and that they need to wake up to that fact.
"Jesus Saves" isn't backed up by any facts. Consider this as more of an educational campaign, to proclaim loudly the facts about these devices and why alternatives might be more attractive.
The parent poster goes on for length operating under the assumption that no one on HN that is participating in this discussion or up-voted the news item shares the same views that Doctorow does. How one can draw that assumption escapes me, because it would stand to reason that a number of people (most?) would up-vote the blog post because they either: 1) share Doctorow's opinion or 2) want to participate in a discussion of Doctorow's views. The parent poster acts as if HN readers/participants are just like rats dancing to the Pied Piper's tune, that need to be woken up.
The parent poster goes on for length operating under the assumption that no one on HN that is participating in this discussion or up-voted the news item shares the same views that Doctorow does.
I believe you have misinterpreted. The parent post does not refer to HN readers, but to the obviously ambiguous "most people". The post it was in reply to distinguishes between "Most of the world" and "we" (meaning HN readers), and I propose to you that it is the former group that was meant.
The parent poster acts as if HN readers/participants are just like rats dancing to the Pied Piper's tune, that need to be woken up.
That appears to be precisely the attitude it is rejecting, in reference to Cory's desire (as described by the parent to that post) to protest loudly something that it is said few who don't already know actually care about.
I would also point out that you yourself drew parallels to the specter of Nazism (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1237826) and of unheeded warnings. Are you yourself not acting as though others need to be woken up?
Good analogy - I wouldn't buy a dishwasher from Sears if it meant that I had to buy all my futures dishes, glasses, and silverware from Sears too. (App Store)
I wouldn't buy it if I had to have a special Sears approved connecting pipe to hook it into my existing plumbing. (Dock connector)
And I wouldn't buy it if I had to bring it back to Sears whenever I ran out of soap. (Battery)
Even if there is a negative trend, it will "bottom out": it's impossible to not have open computers somewhere, as something has to run the SDKs for all the consumer electronics platforms!
That open vs. closed computers thing does not make much sense itself, but the other point is: you can create programs for iPad. Heck, you can even design hardware to be used in combination with it. You cannot do that on iPad itself, so what?
Let him fight it. He is preaching to the choir. The only audience he is reaching are the techies. Techies don't like closed systems (mostly) but the general public could really care less.
Hmm. I remember a guy, whatshisname, bald, rich, monkey-like, running around on a stage shouting DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!!
Don't know what ever happened to him, but i think that maybe he had a point.
we all know, however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run
1. I love value and simplicity and would buy an iPad in an instant if it offers these qualities at a good price and if I have needs in that direction.
2. I recoil against herd thinking about the latest "in" thing and can't therefore stand all the iPad hype.
3. I buy closed-system products all the time for specialized uses, whether it be a Kindle, an iPod, or whatever.
4. I resent the thought of getting trapped in one vendor's world by becoming dependent on closed, proprietary products and will always look for ways to avoid this.
5. Innovation is too dynamic for a single company ever to dominate the computing world in toto for any sustained period. IBM tried it in the 1960s and 1970s and Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s. Apple appears poised to do so now but this will never stick.
6. Therefore, I sympathize with what the author of this post says but I also am relaxed about it. Three cheers for Apple and their great products. But may it never limit my choices for other great products in the future.
The inconsistency is that they make a closed consumer electronics device with incredibly restrictive rules, but at the same time they want geeks to create software and content for it.
Your argument sounds like this is supposed to be like a Sony TV set. It's a big difference whether we're talking about repairing something that is finished or whether something is a platform that is only as useful as the stuff built on top of it. I'm not complaining that I can't read the Mac firmware with a refrigerator magnet.
No one is trying to say that it's anything like a religion. Rather, the statements being made are about the long-term effects on the consumer. For instance, we are getting scarily close to Stallman's Right To Read scenario. As long as closed platforms are preferred to open ones, we have a problem-- not a religious problem, but a pragmatic and practical problem. One may even go so far as to frame the open vs. closed dichotomy in terms of long-term versus short-term goals.
We want to warn people. It's like this: Imagine that Apple sold cars, and wanted to sell you a car for $20,000 that you couldn't fix, had no radio or any luxury packages whatsoever.
Then some mechanic told you that you can get a nice customizable, fixable VW for the same price with the best luxury package.
Would you buy the Apple cause it was automatic and you didn't want to learn how to drive a manual?
> They're selling plenty of iPads to the other 99% of the world.
So 99% of the world can afford an iPad, wants an iPad, and has bought/is going to buy an iPad? I feel that a larger portion of the world than you care to admit puts more thought towards getting food on the table than computing devices.
Please don't try to win an argument through a passive-aggressive statement of "you're in the minority, so deal with it."
> My grandfather used to complain that "cars these days" can't be repaired without taking them to the shop because of the "damned computers." He was wrong, too.
So 'cars these days' can be repaired without taking them to the shop?
> If you don't like it because you can't (easily) open it up and change the battery, you don't have to buy it.
The point is to protect against a world where the choice isn't "an iPad or another device that is more open" but "a closed device or no device at all." The point isn't to eliminate all closed-devices, but to make sure that they don't eliminate all open-devices.
The issue here is if most parents buy their kids and IPad instead of a real computer. They would probably be less hackers/engineers in the future if this happens.
Some of us are old enough to remember when assembler was supposed to rot your brain. When BASIC or COBOL or another compiler was going to make you stupid. When new tools and new abstractions were viewed as scary by some folks.
I trust the kids. They're smart. Smarter than us.
Hand'm all iPads. I can't wait to see what they'll come up with.
Some of us are old enough to remember when assembler was supposed to rot your brain. When BASIC or COBOL or another compiler was going to make you stupid. When new tools and new abstractions were viewed as scary by some folks.
Who said stuff like this? The outsourced-java-monkeys of yesteryear?
That was a pretty commonly heard perspective from lecturers and tutors when I was studying Comp Sci in ~85 or so - that kids who'd learnt a bit of basic at school (or on their AppleII or ZX81) needed to "unlearn" all their bad habits before they could understand a _proper_ language like Pascal...
There were many smart people that did smart things in the USSR too, but it doesn't mean it was better. In many ways, this is more like transitioning computing away from a Democracy (or an Anarchy depending on how you look at it) to rule by a Benevolent Leader. Maybe the Benevolent Leader does some great things that benefit a lot of people, but sometimes this is at the cost of the people the cross the Benevolent Leader's path. And then there is the question of "what happens when the Benevolent Leader dies?" Who will take over the reins?
I doubt it. The real potential hackers will immediately want to jailbreak it. This is what I would do if this thing came out when I was a kid. I wanted to take everything apart. Even if they don't have a PC in their home, they'll find a way to do it. A friends house, the library, etc. Kids are amazing.
And, because Apple actively tries to prevent jailbreaking, these kids will all be breaking the law (DMCA) to hack their devices; which is a real shame.
And let's hope they're kids under 18, since doing what you describe will probably be a federal crime (see DMCA) in the US, and probably most other nations.
The fact that it will be proven jailbreakable doesn't mean we should all accept being criminalized for doing what it's our natural right to do (take things apart that we own).
My grandfather used to complain that "cars these days" can't be repaired without taking them to the shop because of the "damned computers." He was wrong, too.