I think you're wrong. All my non-technical friends are very fed-up with how apps, apple, android, <walled-garden-buzzword> work.
I constantly hear them chattering about how they would like to do <action> but stupid <apple/android> doesn't allow them do said action. A recent example of the other day was something about how apple blue-tooth is somehow not compatible with a windows devices or something along those lines.
Perhaps right now walled-garden devices are still profitable, but if they continue to become more limited it won't take long for a suitable (more open) alternative to appear.
As for your second point, I find it somewhat paradoxical, I assume you would agree with me that computers are becoming more and more common (including smart phones). And yet you think that the knowledge _about_ computers will decrease?
Perhaps the obliviousness of the people around you have become more apparent because of the ubiquitousness of computing these days. But to say it has _increased_ would imply that that group was knowledgeable in the first place, which is not the case. Also since more and more people are born that have been around computers their entire lives, I find it very doubtful that less of those people will end-up learning about computers than before when it was strictly the domain of "nerds".
I think the point was the UX of mobile devices is very different from that of 'traditional computers'.
Cars have also become more and more ubiquitous throughout the years, but I would not say that the % of population willing to open the hood and get down and dirty has grown at the same rate.
If pirating requires "opening the hood" and users' experiences with technology trend towards simplicity, it's not unreasonable to conclude that piracy will decrease.
This post shows how words like "UX" and "simplicity" are frequently used as euphemisms for "designing with a goal of depriving users their rights concerning devices they own" and "designing with a goal of making devices more attractive for sale at the expense of the interests of the user".
My life isn't simpler as a result of things like DRM on my motherboard and video card. It doesn't make a user's life simpler if their computer is fused shut to prevent service, or if they have to buy ink and coffee of a specific brand in order to use their existing printer and coffee machine.
When people are given options like (say) replaceable batteries, and this isn't associated with some other giant disadvantage (as it will be if you don't even try to design FOR the user, but just to sell)... most will prefer that.
> My life isn't simpler as a result of things like DRM on my motherboard and video card.
Isn't it? I don't like it, but I can admit that if you tell the user "These are the video services that work, you don't get to grab them elsewhere", or "You must buy this brand of ink", instead of giving them an array of viable options. Or saying "You must bring this computer in if you want service".
Fewer options, and having the decisions on what to do mandated for you is simpler. It means you don't have to think. It's paternalistic and encourages helplessness, but it's simpler.
It doesn't end up simpler though in the end. I've had to explain to my grandfather how the unopened inks still in the boxes on his shelf have somehow "expired" and the ink that his printer takes is no longer commonly sold so really does need to scrap that working printer and buy a new one.
Its anything but simple. I'm a geek and the only thing I really know for sure about the whole debacle is that "plays for sure"... didn't.
If that printer doesn't require cartridges with an individual chip attached, and the printer still works; I
wouldn't toss the printer. I have taught older individuals
how to drill cartridges and refill their own ink. If they
are slightly mechanically inclined, and on a budget--they
print like it was the ninties. I don't like to run out of
pricey chipped ink cartridges. The bigger point I'm trying to make is I don't like limitations/restrictions on hardware
or software. I don't like the "locked down" trend that I
guess was inevitable?
Not only were these chipped, but they were also DATED so that if they weren't used within a specific amount of time they would "expire" and the printer would refuse to use them.
It was diabolical. I didn't just toss it, I actually went "Office Space" on the thing in the driveway first.
That's pretty horrible (about the expiration). What brand was that? I wouldn't be surprised to see pod-based coffee machines go the same route (e.g. Keurig).
There are just as many options as before, just now all but one are a bomb of incompatibility.
Instead there will just be a lot of confusion of what is compatible with what and a lot of tears when people waste money on something that's incompatible. Say... a user without a PC who has a large iTunes in the Cloud library buying an Android phone. "Wait what do you mean I can't listen to my music any more?"
AFAIK specifically Google Play Music can import iTunes tracks (due to a special arrangement with Apple), but it was achieved recently, and can probably break.
With music (or any other data) locked in the cloud, you don't own it any more. You are granted a right to use, and this right is revokable.
There was an article a while back questioning the oft-parroted "kids this generation are wizards of technology" along similar lines; while young people now /use/ more technology vs 10-20 years ago, it doesn't mean that they understand HTTP or file systems or distributed computing at a higher percentage vs back then. Would love if someone had a link to that article.
This is why I love the idea of a Chromebook-like device that essentially has a browser as an OS. You have the security features of the browser model without the additional "security" restrictions of "we won't let you install any app that [doesn't look the way we say it should look | competes with one of our apps | doesn't support our agenda | hasn't paid us to regulate it | etc.]".
I hope Google's rediscovered interest in Web apps (Service Workers, Polymer, etc.) will herald a major shift back toward ever more powerful Web apps that are as easily installed locally to home screen (and offline capable) as native apps. If that happens, there will be less use of app stores and more low-cost devices whose only app store is the open Internet, which is a lot harder to restrict.
>This is why I love the idea of a Chromebook-like device that essentially has a browser as an OS. You have the security features of the browser model without the additional "security" restrictions of "we won't let you install any app that [doesn't look the way we say it should look | competes with one of our apps | doesn't support our agenda | hasn't paid us to regulate it | etc.]".
Err, for starters you can't install any app that's not web based with such a model.
People are unwilling to get under the hood and get dirty because their cars are generally reliable and satisfy their current needs. This is not always the case with computers. The two things are not comparable.
A better analogy would be literacy. Many people struggle with functional illiteracy in the United States (and throughout the world). These people are frustrated and have limited economic opportunities. If they were given better resources to help them achieve functional literacy, they'd be happier and more successful overall.
>As for your second point, I find it somewhat paradoxical, I assume you would agree with me that computers are becoming more and more common (including smart phones). And yet you think that the knowledge _about_ computers will decrease?
He's speaking of desktop computers, so not including "smartphones".
A smartphone users doesn't need to have 1/10 the knowledge about OSes and desktop computing a Windows/OSX/Linux users needs.
I don't get why you lump iOS and Android together when they make so different trade offs in terms of quality, polish and security vs. functionality and freedom.
Bluetooth is a good example... You can use regular (even Apple's) wireless keyboard on an Android phone out of the box. Even wireless mice, it's a fun thing to try, and see a mouse cursor appearing on the phone screen. I also like that I can plug a USB SDR device on my phone and explore the RF spectrum with an open source app. Something I would not dream to do on iOS, which can't event handle a USB thumb drive.
So I think the situation is very different between the two ecosystems, and it's great that people can choose according to what they value the most. Of course we want the best of both worlds and the two platforms are converging a bit along these lines but a device that allows any app to be installed will probably never be as secure as one that only takes from a curated list.
If lifting artificial limitations doesn't count as "becoming less limited", then does creating artificial limitations count as "becoming more limited"? Because they seem like obvious cognates.
It does in the context of users voting with their feet - most users care about what their phone can and can't do, not about what's artificial. (Indeed, they may associate more open systems with malware.)
Voting with your feet works less when you only really* have the choice between Android or iOS, Democrat or Republican, Comcast or AT&T, etc.
*if you want your phone to be compatible with the vast majority of external devices, services, stuff your friends have, etc, or if you want your political critter to stand a chance of winning, or if you want to not have dial-up, pay a few hundred dollars a month +, have a really slow connection, or go without Internet.
I constantly hear them chattering about how they would like to do <action> but stupid <apple/android> doesn't allow them do said action. A recent example of the other day was something about how apple blue-tooth is somehow not compatible with a windows devices or something along those lines.
Perhaps right now walled-garden devices are still profitable, but if they continue to become more limited it won't take long for a suitable (more open) alternative to appear.
As for your second point, I find it somewhat paradoxical, I assume you would agree with me that computers are becoming more and more common (including smart phones). And yet you think that the knowledge _about_ computers will decrease?
Perhaps the obliviousness of the people around you have become more apparent because of the ubiquitousness of computing these days. But to say it has _increased_ would imply that that group was knowledgeable in the first place, which is not the case. Also since more and more people are born that have been around computers their entire lives, I find it very doubtful that less of those people will end-up learning about computers than before when it was strictly the domain of "nerds".