9 ms·

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 t

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...

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...