I agree completely, maybe because I just don't understand their argument. It may not be as open but having young people see such an exciting and well-polished gadget shows them what's possible and that they can help build something better someday. There will always be people that by their very nature need to know how things work, even if it takes a long time to figure out. Seems inspirational to me.
I hear what your saying, But if you look at the iPad as the future of computing it does seem a bit bleak, what you can do with a full featured laptop is much different then what you can do with an iPad. sure you might be able to unlock it or mod it in some way but I would see it more as novelty hacking compared to what you can do with your laptop or desktop computer. an iPad is just a simplified computer made for a specific kind of interaction, not nearly as dynamic as the "stove"
It's not like Apple is going to win 100% of the market, and the other competitors are not following suit with a closed system.
We'll always have choice - Google's entire strategy was being the opposite - open source, open apps, etc. There are dozens, if not hundreds of Android tablets, and concepts coming in the next 18 months, not to mention Windows 7 mobile etc
There are dozens, if not hundreds of Android tablets, and concepts coming in the next 18 months, not to mention Windows 7 mobile etc
The Windows 7 mobile platform is just as closed as iPhones and iPads, and Apple is trying to have Android shut down by the courts. If they get their way, there will be no viable open alternatives for mobile computing.
Most of the scenarios I envision for laptops involve typing without a desk (thus the need for the supporting base of your lap.) I don't think anything is really replacing them for these.
Exactly. I think after the last 20 years of Microsoft utter-domination, we're used to the idea that there will be one and only one winner and that it will control everything to the marginalization of everything else. On these devices that are primarily used to connect to Internet services (for consumption and creation), I don't see that as nearly so big of a concern.
Think of the iPad as the Macintosh 128k. It provides a glimpse of how we will interact with computers in the future, yet at the moment is undeveloped and lacks the features and software of mainstream computers. The Mac 128k lacked a hard drive, multitasking, enough RAM to be usable, and the huge range of productivity software available on MS-DOS machines. Over time, the Mac (and Windows) matured and the feature set exceeded that of command line driven OSs.
I think one of the first points made in this article was that the author was not criticizing the iPad's lack of current features, but rather the philosophy behind it and the implications that arise from its widespread adoption.
