12 ms·

Doctorow: Why I won't buy an iPad

273 points by fogus 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago
I did read this post, but as a warning to others, it says nothing that you didn't already know Doctorow would say about the iPad.
- cgranade 17y ago
  If Doctrow sounds like a broken record, I can't hold it against him. These are points that need to be made repeatedly and loudly-- voices that oppose these kinds of closed platforms are sorely missing, by and large.
  - DeusExMachina 17y ago
    I don't think that these voices are useful. I don't claim they are right or wrong, but I think they are useless. If the iPad is such a bad platform, developers/publishers/users will understand it and abandon the ship. But, for now, it does not matter how many times these concepts are reiterated. People already have decided wether to buy/develop for/publish on iPad or not. Very few will change their mind reading these pieces (or the opposite sided ones).
    - pavs 17y ago
      Its bad in the sense that its a "closed" platform, where you are at the mercy of the manufacturer. Not bad in the sense that its a horrible product and developers can't make money from it. There are some very good arguments both for and against ipad, and it is important to have these discussions openly as often as possible. Popular game consoles like PS and Xbox are good examples of closed system that is good for business but bad for innovation. Price and market are tightly controlled.
      - discipline 17y ago
        I really wish someone in the know would reply to your post because I think you have the most salient point. In fact, do the same open source advocates decry the Playstation and Nintendo platforms?
        bitwize 17y ago
        YES. Have you been following the kerfuffle behind Other OS yankage?
        pavs 17y ago
        I don't think I can be considered an open source advocate. But the basic premise of open source ideology (the way I understand it) is no limitation in any form or shape. When you buy a hardware (or software), you should not be subject to artificial limitations imposed by the manufacturer. PS3 is a very good example IMO. It comes with very powerful hardware, which you paid for, but you are only limited to rules placed by sony. As a matter of fact Sony goes through a lot of trouble to make it almost imposible to do anything else with the hardware. Similarly, I should be able to install any app on my iphone/ipad that is not approved by Apple without have to go through hoops of cracking the device.
        pyre 17y ago
        Or at the very least Apple shouldn't spend so much time making it impossible to crack the device. If I've already proven that I'm willing to jump through the pain to get a cracked device, maybe that's a sign that I don't necessarily want "exactly" what Apple wants for me. It's already a barrier to entry, so why not just leave it so. It's not like the majority of users will just 'stumble' into a cracked device.
        wmf 17y ago
        Game consoles are less dangerous than iPads because consoles are not replacements for a computer. If someone has a console and a PC they still have some freedom, but if someone only has an iPad, an iPhone, and a console they're totally walled in.
        17y ago
    - stanleydrew 17y ago
      I think you underestimate the ability of Apple (or any company really) to stimulate demand for bad platforms/products. They have a lot of money which gives them a lot of power to make really pretty things and market them so that people want them.
  - timr 17y ago
    Not really. It's a consumer electronics device, not a religion. If you don't like it because you can't (easily) open it up and change the battery, you don't have to buy it. Only geeks care that geeks don't like the iPad -- and from what I can tell, it doesn't bother Apple much, either. They're selling plenty of iPads to the other 99% of the world. My grandfather used to complain that "cars these days" can't be repaired without taking them to the shop because of the "damned computers." He was wrong, too.
    - cryptoz 17y ago
      My understanding is that he thinks the trend itself is dangerous, not just the device. By not purchasing an iPad, he is protesting (with his dollars) against closed-computing. The protest does need to be loud, because of this: Most of the world does not know or care about how closed the iPad is; we all know, however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run. That's why he's fighting the fight.
      - timr 17y ago
        The guy in the park with the "Jesus Saves" sign thinks his protest needs to be loud, too. The point is, Cory Doctorow is in a small, small minority. The minority isn't small because people don't know what he's saying -- it's small because they don't care. He's protesting the very philosophy that gives Apple products the quality that people who buy Apple products desire. And honestly, making the openness of Apple products your raison d'etre is a bit like getting furious about the mechanical details of your favorite brand of dishwasher. The answer is always the same: don't like it? Don't buy it. Cory is more than welcome to continue to post these sorts of rants on his blog, of course, but let's not turn them into more than what they are: one guy, forcefully advocating an opinion about something that really doesn't matter that much to most people, and that he can't really change.
        stanleydrew 17y ago
        "Jesus Saves" isn't backed up by any facts. Consider this as more of an educational campaign, to proclaim loudly the facts about these devices and why alternatives might be more attractive.
- jws 17y ago
  He lays out nicely written screed, but omits any inconvenient evidence and fabricates data to bolster his position. The end result is just technodemagogy. Missed opportunity.
  - cgranade 17y ago
    That's a rather tall claim-- what evidence has he omitted here, or more to the point, what data did he make up?
    - jws 17y ago
      For an omission: in his section on Apple's DRM policies he omits that after getting the music labels on board Apple then drove them to drop DRM. How would this change the paragraph containing: For a company whose CEO professes a hatred of DRM, Apple sure has made DRM its alpha and omega. Having gotten into business with the two industries that most believe that you shouldn't be able to modify your hardware, load your own software on it, write software for it, override instructions given to it by the mothership (the entertainment industry and the phone companies), Apple has defined its business around these principles. Then for a fabrication: The iPad you buy today will be e-waste in a year or two (less, if you decide not to pay to have the battery changed for you). Read that closely. He wants you to believe iPad batteries last less than 12 months, degraded to the point that you will throw away the device if you don't buy a new battery (with installation). Look at the verbs. He isn't saying he fears this might happen. He definitively states it as fact.
      - tvon 17y ago
        This kind of crap drives me nuts. There are completely legitimate reasons to be opposed to the concept of the iPad, or to suggest that people should not buy one. When you construct an argument with stretched truths and hyperbole, you just weaken the entire position and make people who agree with you look like fanatics. In other words, if you have such a good argument, why are you employing Rovian tactics?
        17y ago
- pavs 17y ago
  Its like expecting anything other than praise for everything apple related from John Gruber of "Daring Fireball". I knew it just by looking at the title what Doctorow had to say.
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    John Gruber has been pretty fair recently, at least on the Apple patents front.
  - tvon 17y ago
    That is far from reality. Gruber criticizes Apple in areas he feels they deserve it (App Store policies, and most recently their patent lawsuits). You may not agree with where he criticizes and where he agrees, but he is far from doing nothing but praising Apple.
st3fan 17y ago
"If you want to write code for a platform where the only thing that determines whether you're going to succeed with it is whether your audience loves it, the iPad isn't for you." How is this different from writing an app for say the web? Or Linux? What if your only audience is yourself. Or a very small group of people? Which is also perfectly possible for iPad/iPhone developers? How does he define success? Financially? Making it available? Being able to open source it?
- tannerburson 17y ago
  His point is the exact opposite of what you're saying. He's alluding to the fact that Apple's application review process has as much, or more, to do with your success than whether your users love the app or not. If Apple decides to reject you, or reject a needed update, or even just delay it for an extraordinary amount of time, you're out of business. This is the exact opposite of a web app, or a linux app, or even a desktop OSX app. You write it, you distribute it, and it's on you to make it successful.
  - bmj 17y ago
    True, but if you don't think that model is fair, then don't write software for it. I agree that the AppStore model is flawed, and doesn't promote the sort of freedom that most developers (and users) are used to, but apparently many, many developers, and many, many users either think it is okay, or haven't thought about it at all. If enough developers wised up, then perhaps Apple would make changes to the model. I suspect, however, that we won't see that sort of groundswell anytime soon.
    - tannerburson 17y ago
      You have to go a step farther, if you agree that the model is flawed, don't buy the device, and tell others why you've made that decision. Which is exactly what Corey is proposing (and doing). We won't see groundswell against this kind of thing, unless we help to create it by educating potential customers.
dpritchett 17y ago
Doctorow is apparently philosophically opposed to: * Devices he perceives as dumbed down * DRM * Old media * Vendor lock-in * App store models other than "bazaar" Most of these have pros and cons; the iPad is not going to be everything to everyone but rather the result of a highly opinionated design process. If "it just works" and "tons of apps available for $10" fit your usage profile, so be it. There are plenty of cultural and usability benefits to a consistent experience even though it comes at the cost of some user control. If this market isn't for you, there's always an Eeebuntu box with your name on it.
- cgranade 17y ago
  But there isn't an Eeebuntu box with multitouch input and other slick hardware features-- having open source software is a wonderful first step, but until non-Apple manufacturers start to realize that they really need to make damn good hardware in order to compete, we're stuck with a rather crappy situation. Moreover, its a false dichotomy between vendor lock-in and a consistent user experience. What Google has shown with the HTC Dream and Nexus One handsets is that you can have something without a centralized approver deciding what apps are blessed for publication and which aren't, and yet still have a consistent user experience. Though individual carriers do in fact restrict apps to the Android Market, this is not inherent to the platform like with iPhone OS-- customers can and should complain about carriers that lock down Android handsets. Also inexplicable is Apple's love of DRM. Time and time again, DRM has shown itself to be the bane of consumers. It doesn't make the iPad any better in any technical sense, and only serves to introduce anti-features to the platform. In short, my opposition to the iPad is not due to a difference in opinion about design decisions so much as it is an unwillingness to participate in a platform where both developers and users are completely subservient to Apple's whims and where I don't truly own my own device.
  - dpritchett 17y ago
    Be glad that Apple is demonstrating the market potential for iPad-like devices. How long now before Google partners their way into a Chromium/Android tablet that is to the iPad what the Nexus One is to the iPhone? I'd love to have that device, and in the meantime I'm also excited to borrow an iPad when I get a chance.
bensummers 17y ago
Here are two other articles from Boing Boing, found by clicking on the big picture links at the top of this anti-iPad article: "Apple's iPad is a touch of genius" http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/31/a-first-look-at-ipad.html http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/31/a-first-look-at-ipad.ht... "The Elements for iPad: Hands-on review" http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/01/the-elements-for-ipa.html http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/01/the-elements-for-ipa.ht... I'm confused now. Is it good or is it evil?
- dpritchett 17y ago
  It appears that Xeni Jardin finds it awesome while Cory Doctorow feels it promotes undesirable cultural and business practices.
- wallflower 17y ago
  Both penned by Xeni Jardin, Cory Doctorow's partner in Boing-Boing.
- pavs 17y ago
  Why are you confused? They are publishing opinions for and against ipad, how can that ever be a bad thing? If it was by the same author, on different posts with different opinions, I would understand.
  - bensummers 17y ago
    Of course I'm not confused. I was just pointing out it was mildly amusing that the publication highlighted links to an opposing viewpoint from one of the other producers of the very same site.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Whoa, it's almost like smart people don't mind intelligent disagreement with their viewpoints! My world is shattered!
    - thwarted 17y ago
aresant 17y ago
Doctorow is completely missing the point of the iPad, IMO. He spends nearly the entire article arguing against the iPad's ability to impact journalism / magazines which, I sincerely doubt, has anything to do with why most people are excited to get their hands on one . . .
- malloreon 17y ago
  Like Doctorow mentions, "the press has jumped all over the ipad...because journalists want a daddy figure who'll convince people to pay for content again." So while we may know what the device represents, the media hasn't been spinning it that way. People think of it as a browser/app-like gaming device, many/most media articles I've seen mention implications for journalism/media consumption.
onedognight 17y ago
The iPad is a console for the non-gamer. We are all used to lock-in when it comes to game systems. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony don't let you make a game without their say so. Why is Apple getting a bad rap?
- jerf 17y ago
  You seem to be implying that these same people aren't upset at the console makers for the same reasons, and therefore they are hypocrites. But a sufficient number of them are upset at the console makers for the same reason, so your accusation fails. You are, after all, posting this implicit accusation the same week that geekdom has been raging about the PS3 locking down even tighter! When making a complaint, people are not obligated to run through every similar complaint they have, or face accusations of hypocrisy. In fact that would be downright tedious.
  - onedognight 17y ago
    My comment wasn't directed to this one article or its author, but to the situation in general where I see more people complaining now about the iPad's lock-in than I remember complaining when the XBox360 was released.
    - elpuri 17y ago
      Probably because console gaming had always been closed and the introduction of x360 didn't really make things any worse than they were. Also the game developers who would like to see open gaming platforms are probably outnumbered by the people who are now worried about a more closed general software industry => more noise.
- gloob 17y ago
  Because there was never any hype about how the XBox was the future of computing. That's a non-negligible difference.
antidaily 17y ago
Why I won't: first-generation Apple stuff usually kinda sucks.
- tortilla 17y ago
  My first-gen iPhone still kicks ass (for me).
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    iPhone 3GS is the first really awesome iPhone, for me, and I had the iPhone 2G. Lack of 3G and the really godawfully slow UI (still faster than most Android phones today, sad really) made the 2G's experience a little less than stellar. The 3GS is the first iPhone where I didn't get constant lags and skips in the UI.
- frou_dh 17y ago
  I wouldn't class the hardware as entirely first-generation given the "big iPod Touch" aspect.
- delano 17y ago
  And I still have a 1st gen Macbook Pro that's been going strong since 2006.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  First-gen iPhone users were very well cared-for by Apple. I've never had a better early-adopter experience.
frou_dh 17y ago
Lucky for people who have already accumulated tech knowledge, buying and using an iPad won't zap it out of their brains. Though as a young person's first computer, I kind of see his point.
KirinDave 17y ago
I'd like to put out a bet: By April 1st 2011, Doctorow will have an iPad. He'll argue that it's more important to be on the cutting edge helping to shape the community rather than to sit back on the porch and complain like an old man. He'll probably like the device, and have a list of apps that he feels exemplify his vision of the device's potential. I guess it shouldn't confuse me why people are so eager to comment on what or why the iPad is the best/worst thing ever. We're looking at an attempt to completely change the way folks use a computer here; we're looking at a whole new product. To say, “I can forsee this impugning freedom!” is to claim to have a crystal ball of epic proportions. Given the incredible, measurable, financial success of IP that has shed DRM, I don't think the industry is entirely behind locking up things in the way Doctorow predicts.
- nooneelse 17y ago
  Why think he will buy an iPad rather than any one of the number of more open pads already out or coming out soon?
  - JeremyBanks 17y ago
    Because it will be better than them.
    - nooneelse 17y ago
      So you are backing up an accusation of future hypocrisy with your own metrics of what constitutes better? That just doesn't constitute a reason to accuse someone of hypocrisy that hasn't happened.
    - generalk 17y ago
      If that were the case, don't you think he'd be using an iPhone over an Android phone?
      - KirinDave 17y ago
        Because android phones are not bad. Especially since the launch of the Droid, they've become incredibly competitive. After about 2 years, Apple's lost their clear lead and the market has started to produce competitors. It doesn't look like the market has things which compete with the iPad just yet.
mortenjorck 17y ago
The way you improve your iPad isn't to figure out how it works and making it better. The way you improve the iPad is to buy iApps. Buying an iPad for your kids isn't a means of jump-starting the realization that the world is yours to take apart and reassemble; it's a way of telling your offspring that even changing the batteries is something you have to leave to the professionals. Because there's no powerful, intuitive, and exhaustively-documented SDK built on a robust set of APIs? Yes, the fact that it costs $100/year to do anything useful with it is a problem. But these characterizations of the iPad as a consumption-only device, when the platform it's built on has sparked a creative, entrepreneurial revolution on mobile devices, is complete nonsense.
- lazugod 17y ago
  The platform on which iPad apps are built—the Mac—is a great piece of technology, and is indeed revolutionary in its use in the creation of modern software and digital media. But that's not an argument for the iPad being a creative tool. It is not part of the process of utilizing its own SDK. Until I can add features to an iPhone/iPad without shelling out for one of Apple's "real" computers, I will consider the iPad a consumption-only, and thus an unnecessary, device.
dfj225 17y ago
I agree with Doctorow's points only when looking at the iPad as a replacement for a personal computer. If you look at it like a consumer appliance (just like the iPod Touch, iPhone, Kindle, Nook, etc.) then the iPad isn't really any different in is approach than any other appliance. The iPad doesn't strike me as a device for any sort of creative type (producing code, documents, photographs, etc). Instead, it is a device for media consumption, just like a television or set-top box. People who want to create things will buy a PC. Just like having a PC connected to a television is useful, having an iPad that syncs with a PC might be useful to some. In short, the greatest danger here is letting people think of the iPad as a replacement for the personal computer. Hopefully the public at large will agree.
nexneo 17y ago
Kids are all right! http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/kids_are_all_right http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/kids_are_all_right
colinplamondon 17y ago
I don't get the whining- jailbreak the damn thing! It takes five minutes with a single click GUI front end. Are there really that many budding hackers who can't be bothered to google 'program on an ipad'?
- sstrudeau 17y ago
  It is also illegal. If Apple didn't go to pains to prevent jailbreaking (and therefore make jailbreaking the device a violation of the DMCA) Doctorow's entire point would be moot, IMO.
ptomato 17y ago
You know... in re: Apple and DRM, I think Apple has been stripping it away about as much as could be expected: music: none on any of the music in their store anymore, now that they actually have the negotiating clout to get away with it video: still there, but the TV/movie industry isn't yet in as bad a position as the music industry was, and if Apple tries to take away the DRM they will just leave. Note the absence of any other video store without DRM. apps: yes, they do have DRM which is in fact entirely painless for users and the only reason you'd want to strip it off an app is to pirate it (which people do). As far as allowing non-appstore apps, a) there's jailbreaking which Apple hasn't made any significant effort to stop beyond the initial jailbreak which was via a Safari exploit that allowed arbitrary code execution, and b) one could certainly argue that the reason why they don't is to ensure that their platform continues to run well in as many cases as possible. see: the number of android apps that will quite possibly fuck up your OS in a number of ways.
- doron 17y ago
  does Steve Jobs have a controlling share of Pixar? if so, he can release all Pixar movies DRM free and lead the charge.
  - ptomato 17y ago
    No. Disney owns Pixar. Steve Jobs is the largest single shareholder of Disney but that's by no means a controlling interest.
istari 17y ago
The wide-framed automated loom is an outrage! It is the tool with which the factory owner will crush the artisan. Have you seen working conditions in the factories? Soon all goods, not not just textiles, will be produced in such a manner. Workers will be treated as machine parts, replaceable and expendable, with all power in the hands of a few. This is what the automated loom will bring! Not just economic ruin but the enslavement of society! And what of innovation? For 300 years every artisan learned every aspect of his craft, and in doing so contributed to its growth. How is innovation possible, with all production concentrated into a handful of corporations and run by a multitude of drones? Down with the automated loom!
sabat 17y ago
I would rather buy a locked-down iPad -- well-executed -- than poorly executed attempts at science fiction (Doctorow's). Seriously, the world is not black-and-white, and Doctorow needs to learn that.
isleyaardvark 17y ago
Doctorow's "think of the children" argument is absurd. How many kids are really going to have an iPad? Their parents might have one, but does anyone think that'll be the only computer in the house? Apple doesn't make commodity devices, they don't compete in the low-end, and they rarely drop prices. If I had an 8-year-old son, do you think I'd let him take a $500 anything to school? Children who weren't as fortunate as Doctorow to have parents who could afford an Apple ][ will likely have a cheaper, open alternative. Commodity hardware that wasn't available in the good old days. Back when you had to be either lucky enough to attend a private school with a computer lab (Gates), or have an engineer father working at Lockheed (Woz), or any number of other examples.
hzzn 17y ago
I agree with the fundamental philosophy behind Doctorow's argument, but good grief: The model of interaction with the iPad is to be a "consumer," what William Gibson memorably described as "something the size of a baby hippo, the color of a week-old boiled potato, that lives by itself, in the dark, in a double-wide on the outskirts of Topeka. It's covered with eyes and it sweats constantly. The sweat runs into those eyes and makes them sting. It has no mouth... no genitals, and can only express its mute extremes of murderous rage and infantile desire by changing the channels on a universal remote." I don't know if it's possible to be more shrill. Take a close look at the game industry for a glimpse into a slightly more probable future. The consoles, dominant as they are, did not kill PC gaming. A significant and very profitable chunk of gaming occurs on personal computers. The indie gaming scene is arguably stronger now than it ever has been. There has been an explosion of inexpensive or free or open source game development tools, engines and libraries over the years. As a result, it has never been easier or cheaper to make games and share them with others than it is right now. That's good! On the other hand, the corporate gatekeeping to the console publishing world makes the App Store look like GitHub. That's bad! It is far more useful to address actual problems that computing appliances might pose than it is to paint apocalyptic sci-fi scenarios where we are transformed into creatures made up mostly of eyes.
nnutter 17y ago
I hate that people like Gruber keep making the analogy to automobiles. Because the car manufacturers didn't try to lock down their system and took government intervention to prevent this? But if Apple does it, it's just "progress".
Batsu 17y ago
I normally stay out of Apple related discussions, because no matter how often people say the contrary, they reek of Fanboy. Tonight, I've just had my share to drink and want to give my peace. Apple is releasing a new device. With this, they are continuing a quite recent trend of hand(ish) held devices that oppose what we generally think of when it comes to computers. On one hand, we don't look at most phones and wonder why we can't hack them to pieces. On the other hand, Apple can't stop touting Computer Revolution XYZ as the most incredible thing the technologically inclined have ever laid eyes upon. The problem is they don't market their items toward us. They tell us these incredible things about how it does XYZ and does it so well... then they air commercials about how you can find a restaurant, or get directions to a movie theater, or (for the love of God) check your e-mail as you talk to someone. As complete and utter nerds, we grok this device as a leap in handheld, touch-it-till-it-loves-you computing. Apple tells us it is... then they turn around and tell the rest of the world they can read books and download new ones for $10.
duck 17y ago
Was I the only one that found the upside down picture of Jobs distracting? I had the hardest time even getting through the first couple paragraphs. I'm sure there is a study that will shed light on why that is... and now I have to find it.
hackermom 17y ago
Will there be an "Everyone: Why we shouldn't care for Doctorow trying to tell us what we want in personal computing, and what to do with our money." follow-up?
jwr 17y ago
Opposing closed platforms is done not by bickering about it but by building better ones.

273 points by fogus 17y ago

I did read this post, but as a warning to others, it says nothing that you didn't already know Doctorow would say about the iPad.

cgranade 17y ago
If Doctrow sounds like a broken record, I can't hold it against him. These are points that need to be made repeatedly and loudly-- voices that oppose these kinds of closed platforms are sorely missing, by and large.
- DeusExMachina 17y ago
  I don't think that these voices are useful. I don't claim they are right or wrong, but I think they are useless. If the iPad is such a bad platform, developers/publishers/users will understand it and abandon the ship. But, for now, it does not matter how many times these concepts are reiterated. People already have decided wether to buy/develop for/publish on iPad or not. Very few will change their mind reading these pieces (or the opposite sided ones).
  - pavs 17y ago
    Its bad in the sense that its a "closed" platform, where you are at the mercy of the manufacturer. Not bad in the sense that its a horrible product and developers can't make money from it. There are some very good arguments both for and against ipad, and it is important to have these discussions openly as often as possible. Popular game consoles like PS and Xbox are good examples of closed system that is good for business but bad for innovation. Price and market are tightly controlled.
    - discipline 17y ago
      I really wish someone in the know would reply to your post because I think you have the most salient point. In fact, do the same open source advocates decry the Playstation and Nintendo platforms?
      - bitwize 17y ago
        YES. Have you been following the kerfuffle behind Other OS yankage?
      - pavs 17y ago
        I don't think I can be considered an open source advocate. But the basic premise of open source ideology (the way I understand it) is no limitation in any form or shape. When you buy a hardware (or software), you should not be subject to artificial limitations imposed by the manufacturer. PS3 is a very good example IMO. It comes with very powerful hardware, which you paid for, but you are only limited to rules placed by sony. As a matter of fact Sony goes through a lot of trouble to make it almost imposible to do anything else with the hardware. Similarly, I should be able to install any app on my iphone/ipad that is not approved by Apple without have to go through hoops of cracking the device.
        pyre 17y ago
        Or at the very least Apple shouldn't spend so much time making it impossible to crack the device. If I've already proven that I'm willing to jump through the pain to get a cracked device, maybe that's a sign that I don't necessarily want "exactly" what Apple wants for me. It's already a barrier to entry, so why not just leave it so. It's not like the majority of users will just 'stumble' into a cracked device.
      - wmf 17y ago
        Game consoles are less dangerous than iPads because consoles are not replacements for a computer. If someone has a console and a PC they still have some freedom, but if someone only has an iPad, an iPhone, and a console they're totally walled in.
      - 17y ago
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    I think you underestimate the ability of Apple (or any company really) to stimulate demand for bad platforms/products. They have a lot of money which gives them a lot of power to make really pretty things and market them so that people want them.
- timr 17y ago
  Not really. It's a consumer electronics device, not a religion. If you don't like it because you can't (easily) open it up and change the battery, you don't have to buy it. Only geeks care that geeks don't like the iPad -- and from what I can tell, it doesn't bother Apple much, either. They're selling plenty of iPads to the other 99% of the world. My grandfather used to complain that "cars these days" can't be repaired without taking them to the shop because of the "damned computers." He was wrong, too.
  - cryptoz 17y ago
    My understanding is that he thinks the trend itself is dangerous, not just the device. By not purchasing an iPad, he is protesting (with his dollars) against closed-computing. The protest does need to be loud, because of this: Most of the world does not know or care about how closed the iPad is; we all know, however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run. That's why he's fighting the fight.
    - timr 17y ago
      The guy in the park with the "Jesus Saves" sign thinks his protest needs to be loud, too. The point is, Cory Doctorow is in a small, small minority. The minority isn't small because people don't know what he's saying -- it's small because they don't care. He's protesting the very philosophy that gives Apple products the quality that people who buy Apple products desire. And honestly, making the openness of Apple products your raison d'etre is a bit like getting furious about the mechanical details of your favorite brand of dishwasher. The answer is always the same: don't like it? Don't buy it. Cory is more than welcome to continue to post these sorts of rants on his blog, of course, but let's not turn them into more than what they are: one guy, forcefully advocating an opinion about something that really doesn't matter that much to most people, and that he can't really change.
      - stanleydrew 17y ago
        "Jesus Saves" isn't backed up by any facts. Consider this as more of an educational campaign, to proclaim loudly the facts about these devices and why alternatives might be more attractive.
jws 17y ago
He lays out nicely written screed, but omits any inconvenient evidence and fabricates data to bolster his position. The end result is just technodemagogy. Missed opportunity.
- cgranade 17y ago
  That's a rather tall claim-- what evidence has he omitted here, or more to the point, what data did he make up?
  - jws 17y ago
    For an omission: in his section on Apple's DRM policies he omits that after getting the music labels on board Apple then drove them to drop DRM. How would this change the paragraph containing: For a company whose CEO professes a hatred of DRM, Apple sure has made DRM its alpha and omega. Having gotten into business with the two industries that most believe that you shouldn't be able to modify your hardware, load your own software on it, write software for it, override instructions given to it by the mothership (the entertainment industry and the phone companies), Apple has defined its business around these principles. Then for a fabrication: The iPad you buy today will be e-waste in a year or two (less, if you decide not to pay to have the battery changed for you). Read that closely. He wants you to believe iPad batteries last less than 12 months, degraded to the point that you will throw away the device if you don't buy a new battery (with installation). Look at the verbs. He isn't saying he fears this might happen. He definitively states it as fact.
    - tvon 17y ago
      This kind of crap drives me nuts. There are completely legitimate reasons to be opposed to the concept of the iPad, or to suggest that people should not buy one. When you construct an argument with stretched truths and hyperbole, you just weaken the entire position and make people who agree with you look like fanatics. In other words, if you have such a good argument, why are you employing Rovian tactics?
      - 17y ago
pavs 17y ago
Its like expecting anything other than praise for everything apple related from John Gruber of "Daring Fireball". I knew it just by looking at the title what Doctorow had to say.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  John Gruber has been pretty fair recently, at least on the Apple patents front.
- tvon 17y ago
  That is far from reality. Gruber criticizes Apple in areas he feels they deserve it (App Store policies, and most recently their patent lawsuits). You may not agree with where he criticizes and where he agrees, but he is far from doing nothing but praising Apple.

st3fan 17y ago

"If you want to write code for a platform where the only thing that determines whether you're going to succeed with it is whether your audience loves it, the iPad isn't for you." How is this different from writing an app for say the web? Or Linux? What if your only audience is yourself. Or a very small group of people? Which is also perfectly possible for iPad/iPhone developers? How does he define success? Financially? Making it available? Being able to open source it?

tannerburson 17y ago
His point is the exact opposite of what you're saying. He's alluding to the fact that Apple's application review process has as much, or more, to do with your success than whether your users love the app or not. If Apple decides to reject you, or reject a needed update, or even just delay it for an extraordinary amount of time, you're out of business. This is the exact opposite of a web app, or a linux app, or even a desktop OSX app. You write it, you distribute it, and it's on you to make it successful.
- bmj 17y ago
  True, but if you don't think that model is fair, then don't write software for it. I agree that the AppStore model is flawed, and doesn't promote the sort of freedom that most developers (and users) are used to, but apparently many, many developers, and many, many users either think it is okay, or haven't thought about it at all. If enough developers wised up, then perhaps Apple would make changes to the model. I suspect, however, that we won't see that sort of groundswell anytime soon.
  - tannerburson 17y ago
    You have to go a step farther, if you agree that the model is flawed, don't buy the device, and tell others why you've made that decision. Which is exactly what Corey is proposing (and doing). We won't see groundswell against this kind of thing, unless we help to create it by educating potential customers.

dpritchett 17y ago

Doctorow is apparently philosophically opposed to: * Devices he perceives as dumbed down * DRM * Old media * Vendor lock-in * App store models other than "bazaar" Most of these have pros and cons; the iPad is not going to be everything to everyone but rather the result of a highly opinionated design process. If "it just works" and "tons of apps available for $10" fit your usage profile, so be it. There are plenty of cultural and usability benefits to a consistent experience even though it comes at the cost of some user control. If this market isn't for you, there's always an Eeebuntu box with your name on it.

cgranade 17y ago
But there isn't an Eeebuntu box with multitouch input and other slick hardware features-- having open source software is a wonderful first step, but until non-Apple manufacturers start to realize that they really need to make damn good hardware in order to compete, we're stuck with a rather crappy situation. Moreover, its a false dichotomy between vendor lock-in and a consistent user experience. What Google has shown with the HTC Dream and Nexus One handsets is that you can have something without a centralized approver deciding what apps are blessed for publication and which aren't, and yet still have a consistent user experience. Though individual carriers do in fact restrict apps to the Android Market, this is not inherent to the platform like with iPhone OS-- customers can and should complain about carriers that lock down Android handsets. Also inexplicable is Apple's love of DRM. Time and time again, DRM has shown itself to be the bane of consumers. It doesn't make the iPad any better in any technical sense, and only serves to introduce anti-features to the platform. In short, my opposition to the iPad is not due to a difference in opinion about design decisions so much as it is an unwillingness to participate in a platform where both developers and users are completely subservient to Apple's whims and where I don't truly own my own device.
- dpritchett 17y ago
  Be glad that Apple is demonstrating the market potential for iPad-like devices. How long now before Google partners their way into a Chromium/Android tablet that is to the iPad what the Nexus One is to the iPhone? I'd love to have that device, and in the meantime I'm also excited to borrow an iPad when I get a chance.

bensummers 17y ago

Here are two other articles from Boing Boing, found by clicking on the big picture links at the top of this anti-iPad article: "Apple's iPad is a touch of genius" http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/31/a-first-look-at-ipad.html http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/31/a-first-look-at-ipad.ht... "The Elements for iPad: Hands-on review" http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/01/the-elements-for-ipa.html http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/01/the-elements-for-ipa.ht... I'm confused now. Is it good or is it evil?

dpritchett 17y ago
It appears that Xeni Jardin finds it awesome while Cory Doctorow feels it promotes undesirable cultural and business practices.
wallflower 17y ago
Both penned by Xeni Jardin, Cory Doctorow's partner in Boing-Boing.
pavs 17y ago
Why are you confused? They are publishing opinions for and against ipad, how can that ever be a bad thing? If it was by the same author, on different posts with different opinions, I would understand.
- bensummers 17y ago
  Of course I'm not confused. I was just pointing out it was mildly amusing that the publication highlighted links to an opposing viewpoint from one of the other producers of the very same site.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Whoa, it's almost like smart people don't mind intelligent disagreement with their viewpoints! My world is shattered!
  - thwarted 17y ago

aresant 17y ago

Doctorow is completely missing the point of the iPad, IMO. He spends nearly the entire article arguing against the iPad's ability to impact journalism / magazines which, I sincerely doubt, has anything to do with why most people are excited to get their hands on one . . .

malloreon 17y ago
Like Doctorow mentions, "the press has jumped all over the ipad...because journalists want a daddy figure who'll convince people to pay for content again." So while we may know what the device represents, the media hasn't been spinning it that way. People think of it as a browser/app-like gaming device, many/most media articles I've seen mention implications for journalism/media consumption.

onedognight 17y ago

The iPad is a console for the non-gamer. We are all used to lock-in when it comes to game systems. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony don't let you make a game without their say so. Why is Apple getting a bad rap?

jerf 17y ago
You seem to be implying that these same people aren't upset at the console makers for the same reasons, and therefore they are hypocrites. But a sufficient number of them are upset at the console makers for the same reason, so your accusation fails. You are, after all, posting this implicit accusation the same week that geekdom has been raging about the PS3 locking down even tighter! When making a complaint, people are not obligated to run through every similar complaint they have, or face accusations of hypocrisy. In fact that would be downright tedious.
- onedognight 17y ago
  My comment wasn't directed to this one article or its author, but to the situation in general where I see more people complaining now about the iPad's lock-in than I remember complaining when the XBox360 was released.
  - elpuri 17y ago
    Probably because console gaming had always been closed and the introduction of x360 didn't really make things any worse than they were. Also the game developers who would like to see open gaming platforms are probably outnumbered by the people who are now worried about a more closed general software industry => more noise.
gloob 17y ago
Because there was never any hype about how the XBox was the future of computing. That's a non-negligible difference.

antidaily 17y ago

Why I won't: first-generation Apple stuff usually kinda sucks.

tortilla 17y ago
My first-gen iPhone still kicks ass (for me).
- potatolicious 17y ago
  iPhone 3GS is the first really awesome iPhone, for me, and I had the iPhone 2G. Lack of 3G and the really godawfully slow UI (still faster than most Android phones today, sad really) made the 2G's experience a little less than stellar. The 3GS is the first iPhone where I didn't get constant lags and skips in the UI.
frou_dh 17y ago
I wouldn't class the hardware as entirely first-generation given the "big iPod Touch" aspect.
delano 17y ago
And I still have a 1st gen Macbook Pro that's been going strong since 2006.
CamperBob 17y ago
First-gen iPhone users were very well cared-for by Apple. I've never had a better early-adopter experience.

frou_dh 17y ago

Lucky for people who have already accumulated tech knowledge, buying and using an iPad won't zap it out of their brains. Though as a young person's first computer, I kind of see his point.

KirinDave 17y ago

I'd like to put out a bet: By April 1st 2011, Doctorow will have an iPad. He'll argue that it's more important to be on the cutting edge helping to shape the community rather than to sit back on the porch and complain like an old man. He'll probably like the device, and have a list of apps that he feels exemplify his vision of the device's potential. I guess it shouldn't confuse me why people are so eager to comment on what or why the iPad is the best/worst thing ever. We're looking at an attempt to completely change the way folks use a computer here; we're looking at a whole new product. To say, “I can forsee this impugning freedom!” is to claim to have a crystal ball of epic proportions. Given the incredible, measurable, financial success of IP that has shed DRM, I don't think the industry is entirely behind locking up things in the way Doctorow predicts.

nooneelse 17y ago
Why think he will buy an iPad rather than any one of the number of more open pads already out or coming out soon?
- JeremyBanks 17y ago
  Because it will be better than them.
  - nooneelse 17y ago
    So you are backing up an accusation of future hypocrisy with your own metrics of what constitutes better? That just doesn't constitute a reason to accuse someone of hypocrisy that hasn't happened.
  - generalk 17y ago
    If that were the case, don't you think he'd be using an iPhone over an Android phone?
    - KirinDave 17y ago
      Because android phones are not bad. Especially since the launch of the Droid, they've become incredibly competitive. After about 2 years, Apple's lost their clear lead and the market has started to produce competitors. It doesn't look like the market has things which compete with the iPad just yet.

mortenjorck 17y ago

The way you improve your iPad isn't to figure out how it works and making it better. The way you improve the iPad is to buy iApps. Buying an iPad for your kids isn't a means of jump-starting the realization that the world is yours to take apart and reassemble; it's a way of telling your offspring that even changing the batteries is something you have to leave to the professionals. Because there's no powerful, intuitive, and exhaustively-documented SDK built on a robust set of APIs? Yes, the fact that it costs $100/year to do anything useful with it is a problem. But these characterizations of the iPad as a consumption-only device, when the platform it's built on has sparked a creative, entrepreneurial revolution on mobile devices, is complete nonsense.

lazugod 17y ago
The platform on which iPad apps are built—the Mac—is a great piece of technology, and is indeed revolutionary in its use in the creation of modern software and digital media. But that's not an argument for the iPad being a creative tool. It is not part of the process of utilizing its own SDK. Until I can add features to an iPhone/iPad without shelling out for one of Apple's "real" computers, I will consider the iPad a consumption-only, and thus an unnecessary, device.

dfj225 17y ago

I agree with Doctorow's points only when looking at the iPad as a replacement for a personal computer. If you look at it like a consumer appliance (just like the iPod Touch, iPhone, Kindle, Nook, etc.) then the iPad isn't really any different in is approach than any other appliance. The iPad doesn't strike me as a device for any sort of creative type (producing code, documents, photographs, etc). Instead, it is a device for media consumption, just like a television or set-top box. People who want to create things will buy a PC. Just like having a PC connected to a television is useful, having an iPad that syncs with a PC might be useful to some. In short, the greatest danger here is letting people think of the iPad as a replacement for the personal computer. Hopefully the public at large will agree.

nexneo 17y ago

Kids are all right! http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/kids_are_all_right http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/kids_are_all_right

colinplamondon 17y ago

I don't get the whining- jailbreak the damn thing! It takes five minutes with a single click GUI front end. Are there really that many budding hackers who can't be bothered to google 'program on an ipad'?

sstrudeau 17y ago
It is also illegal. If Apple didn't go to pains to prevent jailbreaking (and therefore make jailbreaking the device a violation of the DMCA) Doctorow's entire point would be moot, IMO.

ptomato 17y ago

You know... in re: Apple and DRM, I think Apple has been stripping it away about as much as could be expected: music: none on any of the music in their store anymore, now that they actually have the negotiating clout to get away with it video: still there, but the TV/movie industry isn't yet in as bad a position as the music industry was, and if Apple tries to take away the DRM they will just leave. Note the absence of any other video store without DRM. apps: yes, they do have DRM which is in fact entirely painless for users and the only reason you'd want to strip it off an app is to pirate it (which people do). As far as allowing non-appstore apps, a) there's jailbreaking which Apple hasn't made any significant effort to stop beyond the initial jailbreak which was via a Safari exploit that allowed arbitrary code execution, and b) one could certainly argue that the reason why they don't is to ensure that their platform continues to run well in as many cases as possible. see: the number of android apps that will quite possibly fuck up your OS in a number of ways.

doron 17y ago
does Steve Jobs have a controlling share of Pixar? if so, he can release all Pixar movies DRM free and lead the charge.
- ptomato 17y ago
  No. Disney owns Pixar. Steve Jobs is the largest single shareholder of Disney but that's by no means a controlling interest.

istari 17y ago

The wide-framed automated loom is an outrage! It is the tool with which the factory owner will crush the artisan. Have you seen working conditions in the factories? Soon all goods, not not just textiles, will be produced in such a manner. Workers will be treated as machine parts, replaceable and expendable, with all power in the hands of a few. This is what the automated loom will bring! Not just economic ruin but the enslavement of society! And what of innovation? For 300 years every artisan learned every aspect of his craft, and in doing so contributed to its growth. How is innovation possible, with all production concentrated into a handful of corporations and run by a multitude of drones? Down with the automated loom!

sabat 17y ago

I would rather buy a locked-down iPad -- well-executed -- than poorly executed attempts at science fiction (Doctorow's). Seriously, the world is not black-and-white, and Doctorow needs to learn that.

isleyaardvark 17y ago

Doctorow's "think of the children" argument is absurd. How many kids are really going to have an iPad? Their parents might have one, but does anyone think that'll be the only computer in the house? Apple doesn't make commodity devices, they don't compete in the low-end, and they rarely drop prices. If I had an 8-year-old son, do you think I'd let him take a $500 anything to school? Children who weren't as fortunate as Doctorow to have parents who could afford an Apple ][ will likely have a cheaper, open alternative. Commodity hardware that wasn't available in the good old days. Back when you had to be either lucky enough to attend a private school with a computer lab (Gates), or have an engineer father working at Lockheed (Woz), or any number of other examples.

hzzn 17y ago

I agree with the fundamental philosophy behind Doctorow's argument, but good grief: The model of interaction with the iPad is to be a "consumer," what William Gibson memorably described as "something the size of a baby hippo, the color of a week-old boiled potato, that lives by itself, in the dark, in a double-wide on the outskirts of Topeka. It's covered with eyes and it sweats constantly. The sweat runs into those eyes and makes them sting. It has no mouth... no genitals, and can only express its mute extremes of murderous rage and infantile desire by changing the channels on a universal remote." I don't know if it's possible to be more shrill. Take a close look at the game industry for a glimpse into a slightly more probable future. The consoles, dominant as they are, did not kill PC gaming. A significant and very profitable chunk of gaming occurs on personal computers. The indie gaming scene is arguably stronger now than it ever has been. There has been an explosion of inexpensive or free or open source game development tools, engines and libraries over the years. As a result, it has never been easier or cheaper to make games and share them with others than it is right now. That's good! On the other hand, the corporate gatekeeping to the console publishing world makes the App Store look like GitHub. That's bad! It is far more useful to address actual problems that computing appliances might pose than it is to paint apocalyptic sci-fi scenarios where we are transformed into creatures made up mostly of eyes.

nnutter 17y ago

I hate that people like Gruber keep making the analogy to automobiles. Because the car manufacturers didn't try to lock down their system and took government intervention to prevent this? But if Apple does it, it's just "progress".

Batsu 17y ago

I normally stay out of Apple related discussions, because no matter how often people say the contrary, they reek of Fanboy. Tonight, I've just had my share to drink and want to give my peace. Apple is releasing a new device. With this, they are continuing a quite recent trend of hand(ish) held devices that oppose what we generally think of when it comes to computers. On one hand, we don't look at most phones and wonder why we can't hack them to pieces. On the other hand, Apple can't stop touting Computer Revolution XYZ as the most incredible thing the technologically inclined have ever laid eyes upon. The problem is they don't market their items toward us. They tell us these incredible things about how it does XYZ and does it so well... then they air commercials about how you can find a restaurant, or get directions to a movie theater, or (for the love of God) check your e-mail as you talk to someone. As complete and utter nerds, we grok this device as a leap in handheld, touch-it-till-it-loves-you computing. Apple tells us it is... then they turn around and tell the rest of the world they can read books and download new ones for $10.

duck 17y ago

Was I the only one that found the upside down picture of Jobs distracting? I had the hardest time even getting through the first couple paragraphs. I'm sure there is a study that will shed light on why that is... and now I have to find it.

hackermom 17y ago

Will there be an "Everyone: Why we shouldn't care for Doctorow trying to tell us what we want in personal computing, and what to do with our money." follow-up?

jwr 17y ago

Opposing closed platforms is done not by bickering about it but by building better ones.