20 ms·

How A Great Product Can Be Bad News: Apple, iPad, and the Closed Mac

213 points by BSeward 17y ago

zacharypinter 17y ago
This post adequately sums up my concerns. 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.
- sjs 17y ago
  Nothing that currently exists is going away even if this becomes popular. Devices that run other systems will emerge with time. Mainly because this does 100% of what most people want to do with a computer.
  - telemachos 17y ago
    > 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.)
    - sjs 17y ago
      I agree with all of that. 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.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    Kindle, Nook, etc.? If it were open, had a camera, I'd be interested in it as a portable POS.
- coffeemug 17y ago
  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.
  - jwhitlark 17y ago
    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...
    - scott_s 17y ago
      Yes, because most people don't want a device. They want to be able to watch videos, read books and listen to music. The enabling device is incidental.
      - jwhitlark 17y ago
        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.
        mattmanser 17y ago
        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.
- rimantas 17y ago
  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.
  - Goronmon 17y ago
    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.
    - swernli 17y ago
      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.
- adi92 17y ago
  You could ssh onto a cloud/unix server and write all the scripts and tools you want. I used my iphone once to code small scripts and start/stop batch jobs on a work server while on the go.
- adharmad 17y ago
  Apple has always treated developers in a step-motherly fashion. A few years ago, java was not supported on OSX (early versions).
  - brehaut 17y ago
    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.
- akeefer 17y ago
  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.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  It's a bit like cars. 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.
- hyperbovine 17y ago
  "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...
fierarul 17y ago
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.
- ericd 17y ago
  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.
- quantumhobbit 17y ago
  http://www.ifixit.com/ http://www.ifixit.com/ 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.
samd 17y ago
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.
- yesimahuman 17y ago
  But the design will be shit and you won't have the user base.
  - keltex 17y ago
    "design will be shit"? I think that the Nexus One has eliminated that argument.
    - wooster 17y ago
      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?
      - lukifer 17y ago
        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.
      - orangecat 17y ago
        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.
chaostheory 17y ago
Unfortunately, this is what people like my mom and my sister want: something dead simple and easy to use like iPhone. Both OSX and Windows still give them a lot of trouble. It's hard to pair both freedom and flexibility with ease of use and simplicity.
- mannkind 17y ago
  Unfortunately? Yeah, how dare they want something different than you!
  - chaostheory 17y ago
    Yes, it's unfortunate that the system they want comes with apair of handcuffs. I guess there is nothing wrong with it if you don't notice it.
    - Maktab 17y ago
      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.
      - chaostheory 17y ago
        As I've mentioned in my original post I understand it. I was just clarifying to a reply as to why I'm not happy with it.
jakarta 17y ago
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.
- orangecat 17y ago
  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.
aerique 17y ago
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.
randrews 17y ago
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.
MrSartorial 17y ago
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.
- mcav 17y ago
  Patents complicate that vision, though.
- chaostheory 17y ago
grannyg00se 17y ago
Windows Requirements: iTunes store account. I can't say that I'm surprised. This is another Apple product for the millions that are already in love with all things Apple. If I can't simply plug it into a USB port and transfer any media to it, then I don't want it.
Kilimanjaro 17y ago
I want my tablet for entertainment, not for work. And the iPad fits the bill 100%. $499? Unbeatable!
mortenjorck 17y ago
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.
sscheper 17y ago
In my mind: For surfing the web: iPad > netbooks For reading books: Kindle > iPad
- greyman 17y ago
  Exactly. 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.
- sant0sk1 17y ago
  You've never even held and iPad. How can you come to either of those conclusions?
  - Niten 17y ago
    Because we all know how much more comfortable it is to stare at e-ink than at a backlit LCD for hours on end? Also, battery life.
mark_l_watson 17y ago
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.
Todd 17y ago
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.
- raganwald 17y ago
  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. Ahem: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/blu-ray-maker-re-boxes-500-player-charges-3500/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/blu-ray-maker-re-boxe...
  - Todd 17y ago
    LOL. That's one of the best.
- timtadh 17y ago
  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).
DavidPP 17y ago
I see the iPad not as a "PC" but as an appliance, albeit a really sophisticated one.
- mannkind 17y ago
  Exactly, it's an appliance like your microwave and refrigerator.
mildweed 17y ago
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.
- mlinsey 17y ago
  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.
- ptomato 17y ago
  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.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    No, it would mean that Photoshop would have been developed for PCs, or possibly for the workstation class machines of that era.
- wtallis 17y ago
  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.)
metra 17y ago
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.
scotty79 17y ago
Funny thing that under the article advertisement for this appeared: http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-iphone-3g-3gs-halloween-collection.html?gclid=CPGX153TxZ8CFcGAzAod7hGRgA http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-iph...
tel 17y ago
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?)
uuilly 17y ago
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."
mmphosis 17y ago
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.
teeja 17y ago
I can hardly wait until some astute techies pop this thing open and take off its whalebone corset.
ecq 17y ago
It's really easy. You use the iPad to: - 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 Anything else, use a Mac (or Windows/Linux).
c23gooey 17y ago
i'd like to see one IRL - but i dont see the iPad being especially easy to use with regards to its size. on an iPhone you can easily type with your thumbs, grip it firmly and you can use all sorts of multi-touch gestures. i cant see that happening with a 10 inch tablet. you would need to hold it / balance it on one hand and then awkwardly control it with your other hand. Doesnt seem ergonomic. maybe one of the accesories they should release is an iArm, so we can hold it with two arms and confidently use gestures and such with your iArm
slapshot 17y ago
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.
BerislavLopac 17y ago
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.
- romanm 17y ago
  I kind of agree with you, basically the best way to know what the market wants is to give the market the option to show you. In two three next months we will see if there is a justification for such a device.
umut 17y ago
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...
ashleyw 17y ago
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.
elblanco 17y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1082824 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1082824

213 points by BSeward 17y ago

This post adequately sums up my concerns. 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.

sjs 17y ago
Nothing that currently exists is going away even if this becomes popular. Devices that run other systems will emerge with time. Mainly because this does 100% of what most people want to do with a computer.
- telemachos 17y ago
  > 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.)
  - sjs 17y ago
    I agree with all of that. 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.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Kindle, Nook, etc.? If it were open, had a camera, I'd be interested in it as a portable POS.
coffeemug 17y ago
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.
- jwhitlark 17y ago
  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...
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Yes, because most people don't want a device. They want to be able to watch videos, read books and listen to music. The enabling device is incidental.
    - jwhitlark 17y ago
      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.
      - mattmanser 17y ago
        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.
rimantas 17y ago
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.
- Goronmon 17y ago
  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.
  - swernli 17y ago
    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.
adi92 17y ago
You could ssh onto a cloud/unix server and write all the scripts and tools you want. I used my iphone once to code small scripts and start/stop batch jobs on a work server while on the go.
adharmad 17y ago
Apple has always treated developers in a step-motherly fashion. A few years ago, java was not supported on OSX (early versions).
- brehaut 17y ago
  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.
akeefer 17y ago
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.
jacquesm 17y ago
It's a bit like cars. 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.
hyperbovine 17y ago
"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...

fierarul 17y ago

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.

ericd 17y ago
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.
quantumhobbit 17y ago
http://www.ifixit.com/ http://www.ifixit.com/ 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.

samd 17y ago

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.

yesimahuman 17y ago
But the design will be shit and you won't have the user base.
- keltex 17y ago
  "design will be shit"? I think that the Nexus One has eliminated that argument.
  - wooster 17y ago
    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?
    - lukifer 17y ago
      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.
    - orangecat 17y ago
      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.

chaostheory 17y ago

Unfortunately, this is what people like my mom and my sister want: something dead simple and easy to use like iPhone. Both OSX and Windows still give them a lot of trouble. It's hard to pair both freedom and flexibility with ease of use and simplicity.

mannkind 17y ago
Unfortunately? Yeah, how dare they want something different than you!
- chaostheory 17y ago
  Yes, it's unfortunate that the system they want comes with apair of handcuffs. I guess there is nothing wrong with it if you don't notice it.
  - Maktab 17y ago
    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.
    - chaostheory 17y ago
      As I've mentioned in my original post I understand it. I was just clarifying to a reply as to why I'm not happy with it.

jakarta 17y ago

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.

orangecat 17y ago
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.

aerique 17y ago

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.

randrews 17y ago

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.

MrSartorial 17y ago

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.

mcav 17y ago
Patents complicate that vision, though.
chaostheory 17y ago

grannyg00se 17y ago

Windows Requirements: iTunes store account. I can't say that I'm surprised. This is another Apple product for the millions that are already in love with all things Apple. If I can't simply plug it into a USB port and transfer any media to it, then I don't want it.

Kilimanjaro 17y ago

I want my tablet for entertainment, not for work. And the iPad fits the bill 100%. $499? Unbeatable!

mortenjorck 17y ago

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.

sscheper 17y ago

In my mind: For surfing the web: iPad > netbooks For reading books: Kindle > iPad

greyman 17y ago
Exactly. 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.
sant0sk1 17y ago
You've never even held and iPad. How can you come to either of those conclusions?
- Niten 17y ago
  Because we all know how much more comfortable it is to stare at e-ink than at a backlit LCD for hours on end? Also, battery life.

mark_l_watson 17y ago

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.

Todd 17y ago

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.

raganwald 17y ago
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. Ahem: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/blu-ray-maker-re-boxes-500-player-charges-3500/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/blu-ray-maker-re-boxe...
- Todd 17y ago
  LOL. That's one of the best.
timtadh 17y ago
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).

DavidPP 17y ago

I see the iPad not as a "PC" but as an appliance, albeit a really sophisticated one.

mannkind 17y ago
Exactly, it's an appliance like your microwave and refrigerator.

mildweed 17y ago

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.

mlinsey 17y ago
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.
ptomato 17y ago
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.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  No, it would mean that Photoshop would have been developed for PCs, or possibly for the workstation class machines of that era.
wtallis 17y ago
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.)

metra 17y ago

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.

scotty79 17y ago

Funny thing that under the article advertisement for this appeared: http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-iphone-3g-3gs-halloween-collection.html?gclid=CPGX153TxZ8CFcGAzAod7hGRgA http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-iph...

tel 17y ago

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?)

uuilly 17y ago

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."

mmphosis 17y ago

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.

teeja 17y ago

I can hardly wait until some astute techies pop this thing open and take off its whalebone corset.

ecq 17y ago

It's really easy. You use the iPad to: - 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 Anything else, use a Mac (or Windows/Linux).

c23gooey 17y ago

i'd like to see one IRL - but i dont see the iPad being especially easy to use with regards to its size. on an iPhone you can easily type with your thumbs, grip it firmly and you can use all sorts of multi-touch gestures. i cant see that happening with a 10 inch tablet. you would need to hold it / balance it on one hand and then awkwardly control it with your other hand. Doesnt seem ergonomic. maybe one of the accesories they should release is an iArm, so we can hold it with two arms and confidently use gestures and such with your iArm

slapshot 17y ago

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.

BerislavLopac 17y ago

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.

romanm 17y ago
I kind of agree with you, basically the best way to know what the market wants is to give the market the option to show you. In two three next months we will see if there is a justification for such a device.

umut 17y ago

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...

ashleyw 17y ago

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.

elblanco 17y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1082824 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1082824