5 ms·

I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: because they think it provides a better consumer experience. That, in turn, is what translates into more

by akeefer 17y ago

I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: because they think it provides a better consumer experience. That, in turn, is what translates into more money and more sales. (I believe they said on their conference call earlier this week that don't make much off their cut of app sales). The iPhone and iPad are not computers: they're extensible consumer electronics devices. The iPhone sells so well precisely because it just works, and it's really hard to screw it up relative to a computer. How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Because they're attracting developers to their closed system? How is this any more evil than Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft making their game consoles relatively closed systems? We should all keep in mind that computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population who has no idea how to deal with viruses, install or remove software, resolve crashes or incompatibilities, or even navigate a file system so they don't lose their documents. Maybe I'm too cynical about computers and give Apple too much of the benefit of the doubt, but their devices are good precisely because they exert so much end-to-end control, and computers are broken for so many people precisely because they're so open.

robg 17y ago
The more I think about the iPad, the more it looks like a computer to me and one that would satisfy a large segment of the PC market. I'm just not sure why Apple isn't marketing it as one and selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers. It's a PC but one that you can easily take with you, turn on quickly, and do stuff on the go. In a weird way, the history of the Tablet seems to have them responding that it's not a Tablet PC. But I see no reason, practically, why it couldn't be exactly that. Otherwise, I agree with you completely. And looking at their 8% market share of PCs, there's a lot of room for them to improve in that category and do very, very well. They've already shown that simplicity sells.
- benatkin 17y ago
  > selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard I think many of those who are fine with it being their main computer will be fine without a keyboard. Also, it wouldn't be Apple's style. It reminds me of how the MacBook Air doesn't come with an optical drive.
- DougBTX 17y ago
  package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers There is a dock with a built in keyboard, and there is a plain dock. The iPad also supports Apple wireless keyboards, has a built in speaker, and both docks have audio jacks. Also, you can buy iWork for it, so yes, may as well be a consumer computer. Don't expect XCode or Terminal apps though.
  - robg 17y ago
    The thing is: Why not just sell this device as the next generation iMac? It could have had a sweet stand, a wireless keyboard, a remote, etc. Set the base price at $599. Heck, Jobs could have demoed it as a desktop, then grabbed it and unveiled all the Tablet features. (Of course, you still sell a version without the peripherals). But it seems to me many of the complaints come from an anchoring bias. If this were introduced as a desktop that you could easily (very easily) travel with, what would the complaints be? That it's not really a desktop? That would be the point! And at the price point, wouldn't they start to take business away from Dell and HP? Instead, now it seems like a luxury item where this could easily be an inexpensive family computer for doing homework, research, coach surfing, etc. Why does the marketing seem off?
    - chrisbolt 17y ago
      Why not just sell this device as the next generation iMac? Because it has a 1GHz single core CPU which is far slower than any other computer Apple sells, with an architecture that most likely won't run any existing programs.
      - protomyth 17y ago
        Where are the specs that say it is a single core?
- GeneralMaximus 17y ago
  No. Please, no. I love my Mac to death for one simple reason: I can program it and distribute my apps to just about anyone without restrictions and without having to go through the abomination that is the AppStore. Why does the computing industry suddenly want to take the joy out of programming by pushing for closed devices? No, I won't program for the web. Why? Because I don't want to write JavaScript. I want to write C, C++, Objective-C, Python, Perl, Haskell or any one of the thousands of programming languages I can run on my Mac today.
wmf 17y ago
How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Yes. Zittrain wrote a book about it: http://futureoftheinternet.org/ http://futureoftheinternet.org/ computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population This can be fixed (see OLPC), but all the companies are just locking everything down rather than innovating. There's a huge lost opportunity here.
- akeefer 17y ago
  I don't think the opportunity is lost, it's just that none of the big companies are taking advantage of it. Honestly, I think that's because they think it's too hard. Microsoft and Apple have been trying for decades at this point to make a computer that's open, easy to use for everyone, never crashes, etc. The open source community has been trying too. I don't see anyone as having succeeded there. It's not for lacking of wanting to succeed, or for a lack of trying, it's just a really hard problem, and by locking things down they can create things that work much more predictably and reliably. I don't think the OLPC is a counter-example; it solves some issues in virtue of having a standardized hardware platform, and they've tried to do away with the file system (which sort of works and sort of doesn't), but I don't think they've completely solved all the other problems around versioning and installation and removal and viruses and third-party devices that need their own drivers, etc. I don't know a ton about it, so it's entirely possible there's something else innovative there that I'm missing. I also would argue that they haven't done it in a device that an average consumer would really want. They done all sorts of innovative things that I think are great, but I don't think they've solved those fundamental issues in a general way. As for the moral obligation standpoint . . . I haven't read Zittrain's book, so I can't fully debate that argument. From my perspective, roughly, you have a moral obligation not to do X if doing X infringes on someone else's rights without their consent. So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow, and that just seems like a tough argument to make. I think the effect of something like the iPad on the future of computers, the internet, society as a whole, etc. is so hard to predict that I don't think you can fairly say that someone or some company has a moral obligation one way or the other. Maybe those devices will open up computing to people that currently couldn't use those devices, making their lives better. Maybe it will enable doctors to carry around a tablet that helps them avoid mistakes, saving lives. Maybe it will help small-time developers make more money selling their software. Or maybe it will kill innovation and put us at the mercy of an increasingly-paranoid government and law-enforcement community or put our information and privacy firmly in the hands of large corporations. It's so hard to say which way things will go that I just don't think you can say it's unethical.
ecq 17y ago
EDIT: absolutely agree user experience is Apple's no. 1 priority.
rw 17y ago
Apple gives us great default choices. But when you want to change them, what do you do? Nothing, because you can't.
- swernli 17y ago
  The inability to change their products is directly tied to the restrictions in the problem space that let them make the defaults great. You're right, you can't change them. Which means you can't screw it up. Most people are not tech-savy enough to handle the choices, so instead of giving people something mediocre and saying it can be customized, Apple makes something great that is locked down. For most people, that's perfect. For those it isn't good enough for, they can get something else.
tolmasky 17y ago
I think its important to realize what you miss out on as much as what you get. Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. Apple has explicitly disallowed any interpreter other than the one built into Safari, simply because it would be impossible to have a web browser without JS. Some would argue that they've severely crippled it by removing Flash, which demonstrates just how far they are willing to go. Now imagine if the iPad had arrived before the browser. They would have never allowed this browser idea, with this crazy "javascript" thing, on the App Store. There would have been no special exception because it "might change the world". I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history, even if we had to do it at the cost of those confusing file systems and other side effects of open systems. The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first. Its possible to create a great, easy to use system, that is also open. Arguably the web is precisely this. The web is also usable by my grandparents. The web can also eliminate the complexities of the file system (each web app stores its files). But the web is still open.
- tbrownaw 17y ago
  > Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. Assuming this had at some point become the only common model of computing, what would keep out newcomers from coming out with less locked-down systems? What about things like "many dealers started bundling the Apple II with VisiCalc" (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.html http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.htm...); if there's sufficiently useful software that won't run on your computer, you (or your employer) will buy a new, working, computer. > The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first. General computing cannot be replaced by such devices, let alone by a single implementation of such a device by a single manufacturer.
  - 17y ago
NathanKP 17y ago
I completely agree. I find that especially older people simply do not understand computers or even the concept of multi-tasking. The iPad has been getting flack because it is basically just an iPhone and can't run multiple apps at once. Yet the problem I see is that a lot of non-tech people don't really seem to understand the idea of running multiple programs at once. To them the iPhone style of opening an app, using it, closing it, and then opening it to see it in the state that it was in when you closed it makes more sense. As long as app launching is kept extremely fast, almost instantaneous, it is no inconvenience either. This is just one small example of the way the iPhone / Apple techniques seem to work well for people because they are simple and easy to use.
peterwwillis 17y ago
I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: it's a lock-in device. The more people buy these half-assed products that limit their choices and exclude 3rd party support and control of your own device, the more money they can funnel out of you. Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us. Oh, you want a program so you can be productive? You better hope we approved a recent version of it. Don't like it? Too bad, you already bought the hunk of metal and silicon, deal with it. Make no mistake: total vendor control is not in your best interests as a consumer. It never has been, never will be.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us. Lets be fair - that isn't true.
  - grhino 17y ago
    They certainly don't let other digital media sellers make it convenient for iPhone users. You have to go through their store (iTunes) in order to synchronize digital media from other stores to your phone.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      You have to use their sync software (iTunes) - not their store. There is no requirement to purchase anything.

by akeefer 17y ago

robg 17y ago

The more I think about the iPad, the more it looks like a computer to me and one that would satisfy a large segment of the PC market. I'm just not sure why Apple isn't marketing it as one and selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers. It's a PC but one that you can easily take with you, turn on quickly, and do stuff on the go. In a weird way, the history of the Tablet seems to have them responding that it's not a Tablet PC. But I see no reason, practically, why it couldn't be exactly that. Otherwise, I agree with you completely. And looking at their 8% market share of PCs, there's a lot of room for them to improve in that category and do very, very well. They've already shown that simplicity sells.

benatkin 17y ago
> selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard I think many of those who are fine with it being their main computer will be fine without a keyboard. Also, it wouldn't be Apple's style. It reminds me of how the MacBook Air doesn't come with an optical drive.
DougBTX 17y ago
package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers There is a dock with a built in keyboard, and there is a plain dock. The iPad also supports Apple wireless keyboards, has a built in speaker, and both docks have audio jacks. Also, you can buy iWork for it, so yes, may as well be a consumer computer. Don't expect XCode or Terminal apps though.
- robg 17y ago
  The thing is: Why not just sell this device as the next generation iMac? It could have had a sweet stand, a wireless keyboard, a remote, etc. Set the base price at $599. Heck, Jobs could have demoed it as a desktop, then grabbed it and unveiled all the Tablet features. (Of course, you still sell a version without the peripherals). But it seems to me many of the complaints come from an anchoring bias. If this were introduced as a desktop that you could easily (very easily) travel with, what would the complaints be? That it's not really a desktop? That would be the point! And at the price point, wouldn't they start to take business away from Dell and HP? Instead, now it seems like a luxury item where this could easily be an inexpensive family computer for doing homework, research, coach surfing, etc. Why does the marketing seem off?
  - chrisbolt 17y ago
    Why not just sell this device as the next generation iMac? Because it has a 1GHz single core CPU which is far slower than any other computer Apple sells, with an architecture that most likely won't run any existing programs.
    - protomyth 17y ago
      Where are the specs that say it is a single core?
GeneralMaximus 17y ago
No. Please, no. I love my Mac to death for one simple reason: I can program it and distribute my apps to just about anyone without restrictions and without having to go through the abomination that is the AppStore. Why does the computing industry suddenly want to take the joy out of programming by pushing for closed devices? No, I won't program for the web. Why? Because I don't want to write JavaScript. I want to write C, C++, Objective-C, Python, Perl, Haskell or any one of the thousands of programming languages I can run on my Mac today.

wmf 17y ago

How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Yes. Zittrain wrote a book about it: http://futureoftheinternet.org/ http://futureoftheinternet.org/ computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population This can be fixed (see OLPC), but all the companies are just locking everything down rather than innovating. There's a huge lost opportunity here.

akeefer 17y ago
I don't think the opportunity is lost, it's just that none of the big companies are taking advantage of it. Honestly, I think that's because they think it's too hard. Microsoft and Apple have been trying for decades at this point to make a computer that's open, easy to use for everyone, never crashes, etc. The open source community has been trying too. I don't see anyone as having succeeded there. It's not for lacking of wanting to succeed, or for a lack of trying, it's just a really hard problem, and by locking things down they can create things that work much more predictably and reliably. I don't think the OLPC is a counter-example; it solves some issues in virtue of having a standardized hardware platform, and they've tried to do away with the file system (which sort of works and sort of doesn't), but I don't think they've completely solved all the other problems around versioning and installation and removal and viruses and third-party devices that need their own drivers, etc. I don't know a ton about it, so it's entirely possible there's something else innovative there that I'm missing. I also would argue that they haven't done it in a device that an average consumer would really want. They done all sorts of innovative things that I think are great, but I don't think they've solved those fundamental issues in a general way. As for the moral obligation standpoint . . . I haven't read Zittrain's book, so I can't fully debate that argument. From my perspective, roughly, you have a moral obligation not to do X if doing X infringes on someone else's rights without their consent. So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow, and that just seems like a tough argument to make. I think the effect of something like the iPad on the future of computers, the internet, society as a whole, etc. is so hard to predict that I don't think you can fairly say that someone or some company has a moral obligation one way or the other. Maybe those devices will open up computing to people that currently couldn't use those devices, making their lives better. Maybe it will enable doctors to carry around a tablet that helps them avoid mistakes, saving lives. Maybe it will help small-time developers make more money selling their software. Or maybe it will kill innovation and put us at the mercy of an increasingly-paranoid government and law-enforcement community or put our information and privacy firmly in the hands of large corporations. It's so hard to say which way things will go that I just don't think you can say it's unethical.

ecq 17y ago

EDIT: absolutely agree user experience is Apple's no. 1 priority.

rw 17y ago

Apple gives us great default choices. But when you want to change them, what do you do? Nothing, because you can't.

swernli 17y ago
The inability to change their products is directly tied to the restrictions in the problem space that let them make the defaults great. You're right, you can't change them. Which means you can't screw it up. Most people are not tech-savy enough to handle the choices, so instead of giving people something mediocre and saying it can be customized, Apple makes something great that is locked down. For most people, that's perfect. For those it isn't good enough for, they can get something else.

tolmasky 17y ago

I think its important to realize what you miss out on as much as what you get. Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. Apple has explicitly disallowed any interpreter other than the one built into Safari, simply because it would be impossible to have a web browser without JS. Some would argue that they've severely crippled it by removing Flash, which demonstrates just how far they are willing to go. Now imagine if the iPad had arrived before the browser. They would have never allowed this browser idea, with this crazy "javascript" thing, on the App Store. There would have been no special exception because it "might change the world". I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history, even if we had to do it at the cost of those confusing file systems and other side effects of open systems. The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first. Its possible to create a great, easy to use system, that is also open. Arguably the web is precisely this. The web is also usable by my grandparents. The web can also eliminate the complexities of the file system (each web app stores its files). But the web is still open.

tbrownaw 17y ago
> Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser. Assuming this had at some point become the only common model of computing, what would keep out newcomers from coming out with less locked-down systems? What about things like "many dealers started bundling the Apple II with VisiCalc" (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.html http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.htm...); if there's sufficiently useful software that won't run on your computer, you (or your employer) will buy a new, working, computer. > The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first. General computing cannot be replaced by such devices, let alone by a single implementation of such a device by a single manufacturer.
- 17y ago

NathanKP 17y ago

I completely agree. I find that especially older people simply do not understand computers or even the concept of multi-tasking. The iPad has been getting flack because it is basically just an iPhone and can't run multiple apps at once. Yet the problem I see is that a lot of non-tech people don't really seem to understand the idea of running multiple programs at once. To them the iPhone style of opening an app, using it, closing it, and then opening it to see it in the state that it was in when you closed it makes more sense. As long as app launching is kept extremely fast, almost instantaneous, it is no inconvenience either. This is just one small example of the way the iPhone / Apple techniques seem to work well for people because they are simple and easy to use.

peterwwillis 17y ago

I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: it's a lock-in device. The more people buy these half-assed products that limit their choices and exclude 3rd party support and control of your own device, the more money they can funnel out of you. Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us. Oh, you want a program so you can be productive? You better hope we approved a recent version of it. Don't like it? Too bad, you already bought the hunk of metal and silicon, deal with it. Make no mistake: total vendor control is not in your best interests as a consumer. It never has been, never will be.

ErrantX 17y ago
> Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us. Lets be fair - that isn't true.
- grhino 17y ago
  They certainly don't let other digital media sellers make it convenient for iPhone users. You have to go through their store (iTunes) in order to synchronize digital media from other stores to your phone.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    You have to use their sync software (iTunes) - not their store. There is no requirement to purchase anything.