4 ms·

This stood out to me too. It's harsh, but true. I love that Apple is making computing devices more accessible to people, and I think that's a good thing. But

by erdevs 10y ago

This stood out to me too. It's harsh, but true. I love that Apple is making computing devices more accessible to people, and I think that's a good thing. But I wish they weren't also making those very same devices more closed and controlled. Imagine if all of the original personal computers were as locked down as the iPhone is, in terms of being able to tweak/customize it, create and distribute software for it, or find other people's software for it. It's definitely a regressive step and I don't see why we can't have beautiful industrial design, slick software interfaces and more easy, open-access under the hood for users that want to get in there.

rimantas 10y ago
iPhone has a computer in it, but it is not a general purpose computer. Why is this concept so hard to get? There are tons of things that have CPUs and billions of lines of code to run them, but they are not personal computers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- erdevs 10y ago
  It's not hard to "get", in that their policy decision is clear and understandable. However, are you saying that the iPhone is incapable of being a general purpose computer? That it would be difficult to have it more open/accessible for tuning? If so, you'd have to explain. The point is that the iPhone / iOS devices could be more open (to user control and modification at the OS level, to third-party peripherals, to third-party software distribution and installation, etc)... but, due to fiat policy rather than any significant technical constraint, it is not. Is that hard to "get"?
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    The part that is hard to "get" is the constant complaining. You could complain once and then let it go, but the favored technique seems to be to beat it to death, accompanied by mock surprise that not every person gives the same priority to things. It's boring, frankly.
    - erdevs 10y ago
      I am pretty sure that this is the first time, or at most one of the few times, I personally have made any note of this general issue. Are you perhaps displacing? Do you think it's actually fair to take the view that because other people may have made note of an issue repeatedly in the past, it is therefore to be frowned upon if any new person also makes note of it from their own perspective? I guess you'd also tell Alan Kay, who made the actual comment under original discussion here, to muzzle it because his thought is boring? In any case, by your own logic, shouldn't you not have replied at all because no doubt many, many other people have replied to this issue as you are here, given that it is apparently such well-trod ground? Aren't you then being hypocritical? And do you actually think it's fair-minded to call what I specifically wrote a "complaint"?
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Advocacy or evangelism, and repetition, go hand in hand. Your complaint makes little sense, and has no foundation.
  - Volt 10y ago
    Sounds like you don't get it. And I'm not being facetious. Well, maybe a little. Just because something can be done doesn't necessarily mean it should be done, does it? This is not a commentary on the iPhone as a computer, but about products in general. Lots of things have general purpose computer parts, but serve a very specific purpose. What did Steve Jobs pitch the iPhone as again? A phone, an iPod, and an internet communicator? I don't remember "personal computer" being one of those things. So yes, this is the thing that Apple wants to make. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
- mundo 10y ago
  It's hard to get because iphone users want it to be an open general-purpose computer that they own, and it masquerades as one most of the time. Remember when the apple-using-world lost it's collective shit over a free U2 album? It's not like they didn't know _intellectually_ that Apple had the ability to do that - they just hated being reminded of it.
  - Volt 10y ago
    >iphone users want it to be an open general-purpose computer Which ones?
    - WayneBro 10y ago
      What does general purpose mean? It means I get to do what I wan. Anyone who complains that they can't do something that Apple won't let them is a candidate. Anybody who jailbreaks is definitely one. There are plenty.
    - mundo 10y ago
      All of them. A general purpose computer (e.g. a linux box) is one that can run arbitrary code. A special-purpose computer (e.g. an ATM machine) only runs what the manufacturer intends it to run. The former is powerful-but-dangerous, and the latter is safe-but-limited. Customers, of course, don't want a trade-off - they want power and safety. IOS is an attempt to get as close to that as possible, but it only works until iphone users want to do something on their phone that Apple doesn't want to let them do - that's when the illusion comes crashing down. When this happens, Apple users don't say, "Well, I'd like to run XYZ on my phone but I understand that I can't because that's the trade-off I made in exchange for a nice app store with no viruses in it," they say, "What the hell! I should be able to run XYZ if I want, it's my phone!"

by erdevs 10y ago

rimantas 10y ago

iPhone has a computer in it, but it is not a general purpose computer. Why is this concept so hard to get? There are tons of things that have CPUs and billions of lines of code to run them, but they are not personal computers.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
erdevs 10y ago
It's not hard to "get", in that their policy decision is clear and understandable. However, are you saying that the iPhone is incapable of being a general purpose computer? That it would be difficult to have it more open/accessible for tuning? If so, you'd have to explain. The point is that the iPhone / iOS devices could be more open (to user control and modification at the OS level, to third-party peripherals, to third-party software distribution and installation, etc)... but, due to fiat policy rather than any significant technical constraint, it is not. Is that hard to "get"?
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  The part that is hard to "get" is the constant complaining. You could complain once and then let it go, but the favored technique seems to be to beat it to death, accompanied by mock surprise that not every person gives the same priority to things. It's boring, frankly.
  - erdevs 10y ago
    I am pretty sure that this is the first time, or at most one of the few times, I personally have made any note of this general issue. Are you perhaps displacing? Do you think it's actually fair to take the view that because other people may have made note of an issue repeatedly in the past, it is therefore to be frowned upon if any new person also makes note of it from their own perspective? I guess you'd also tell Alan Kay, who made the actual comment under original discussion here, to muzzle it because his thought is boring? In any case, by your own logic, shouldn't you not have replied at all because no doubt many, many other people have replied to this issue as you are here, given that it is apparently such well-trod ground? Aren't you then being hypocritical? And do you actually think it's fair-minded to call what I specifically wrote a "complaint"?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Advocacy or evangelism, and repetition, go hand in hand. Your complaint makes little sense, and has no foundation.
- Volt 10y ago
  Sounds like you don't get it. And I'm not being facetious. Well, maybe a little. Just because something can be done doesn't necessarily mean it should be done, does it? This is not a commentary on the iPhone as a computer, but about products in general. Lots of things have general purpose computer parts, but serve a very specific purpose. What did Steve Jobs pitch the iPhone as again? A phone, an iPod, and an internet communicator? I don't remember "personal computer" being one of those things. So yes, this is the thing that Apple wants to make. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
mundo 10y ago
It's hard to get because iphone users want it to be an open general-purpose computer that they own, and it masquerades as one most of the time. Remember when the apple-using-world lost it's collective shit over a free U2 album? It's not like they didn't know _intellectually_ that Apple had the ability to do that - they just hated being reminded of it.
- Volt 10y ago
  >iphone users want it to be an open general-purpose computer Which ones?
  - WayneBro 10y ago
    What does general purpose mean? It means I get to do what I wan. Anyone who complains that they can't do something that Apple won't let them is a candidate. Anybody who jailbreaks is definitely one. There are plenty.
  - mundo 10y ago
    All of them. A general purpose computer (e.g. a linux box) is one that can run arbitrary code. A special-purpose computer (e.g. an ATM machine) only runs what the manufacturer intends it to run. The former is powerful-but-dangerous, and the latter is safe-but-limited. Customers, of course, don't want a trade-off - they want power and safety. IOS is an attempt to get as close to that as possible, but it only works until iphone users want to do something on their phone that Apple doesn't want to let them do - that's when the illusion comes crashing down. When this happens, Apple users don't say, "Well, I'd like to run XYZ on my phone but I understand that I can't because that's the trade-off I made in exchange for a nice app store with no viruses in it," they say, "What the hell! I should be able to run XYZ if I want, it's my phone!"