7 ms·

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 cl

by 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.
- orangecat 17y ago
  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. I'd guess Cory's complaint is not specifically that iPads are closed, but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. If you accept the premises, that actually is a big deal. 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. So, pretty much like nearly any public advocacy of anything.
  - jstevens85 17y ago
    >but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. I myself find it difficult to imagine a future where the vast majority of applications are not web apps hosted on private servers. If you take that to be the likely future, then what you can and can't run natively on your computer (with the exception of the browser) becomes irrelevant. Debating whether or not you have the freedom to run arbitrary native code will be like arguing over having the freedom to install your own BIOS.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    I'd guess Cory's complaint is not specifically that iPads are closed, but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. If you accept the premises, that actually is a big deal. The "if you accept the premises" is, well, one hell of a big "if". Cory seems to believe that companies are not in the business of making money, but rather are in the business of controlling peoples' lives as totally as possible, and proceeds from there. The mismatch of this belief with actual reality, and the resulting conclusions drawn with respect to, e.g., vast multinational conspiracies attempting to micromanage individual people, is of a sort which, given any other target, would result in institutionalization for paranoid psychosis.
    - orangecat 17y ago
      Cory seems to believe that companies are not in the business of making money, but rather are in the business of controlling peoples' lives as totally as possible, and proceeds from there. Not at all. I don't think Apple wants closed systems for their own sake, but I do think they believe that closed systems will be more profitable for them. The end result is the same.
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        Consider the line I quoted when I originally replied: Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. This does not express the opinion that Apple believes they can make more money from selling closed systems. This expresses the opinion that Apple's goal is not to make money but rather to impose control on people for... well, I'm not honestly sure what reason. And that sort of implication is everywhere in discussion on places like HN, despite the fact that it literally goes off the deep end into unfounded paranoia; "Steve Jobs wants to keep me from using Google Voice" is taken not as a statement about how he'd prefer to have his company get your money, but as a statement about how he's an evil megalomanic obsessed with controlling peoples' lives. Which is really only a step away from (and logically about as sensible as) "he's working with the Bilderbergers and the lizard people to cover up the truth about JFK's role in 9/11".
- gsk 17y ago
  >but let's not turn them into more than what they are Speak for yourself. I happen to agree with Cory and am sure I am not alone.
  - pyre 17y ago
    To those that down-voted: The parent poster goes on for length operating under the assumption that no one on HN that is participating in this discussion or up-voted the news item shares the same views that Doctorow does. How one can draw that assumption escapes me, because it would stand to reason that a number of people (most?) would up-vote the blog post because they either: 1) share Doctorow's opinion or 2) want to participate in a discussion of Doctorow's views. The parent poster acts as if HN readers/participants are just like rats dancing to the Pied Piper's tune, that need to be woken up.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      The parent poster goes on for length operating under the assumption that no one on HN that is participating in this discussion or up-voted the news item shares the same views that Doctorow does. I believe you have misinterpreted. The parent post does not refer to HN readers, but to the obviously ambiguous "most people". The post it was in reply to distinguishes between "Most of the world" and "we" (meaning HN readers), and I propose to you that it is the former group that was meant. The parent poster acts as if HN readers/participants are just like rats dancing to the Pied Piper's tune, that need to be woken up. That appears to be precisely the attitude it is rejecting, in reference to Cory's desire (as described by the parent to that post) to protest loudly something that it is said few who don't already know actually care about. I would also point out that you yourself drew parallels to the specter of Nazism (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1237826 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1237826) and of unheeded warnings. Are you yourself not acting as though others need to be woken up?
- pyre 17y ago
  > The minority isn't small because people don't know what he's saying -- it's small because they don't care. People don't care because when they hear nay-sayers predicting dystopian futures, they think things like 'that could never happen here' or 'that could never happen to me.' The reality is that I doubt very much that if you had polled Germans in the 1920's about whether they thought that the atrocities of WW2 could ever happen to them or in their country, they would say the same thing, 'not here' or "people wouldn't stand for it." People that predict doom and gloom are often called crazy, but not always because they really are. Most of the time people don't want to think that the worst could happen even when reality paints a different picture. If I had published a paper in 2005 predicting that Wall Street would crumble due to highly-inflated real-estate and that the government would spend $700+ billion propping up banks that were 'too big to fail' I would have been called crazy and people would have ignored me stating that my concerns were 'unfounded.' Please don't use "people don't care" as some sort of argument against someone's beliefs. I mean, if his blog post is getting up-voted enough on HN to reach the front page obviously enough people here care about it to discuss it, but for some reason you're trying to tell those people that they really don't share Doctorow's opinion and that they need to wake up to that fact.
  - rwmj 17y ago
    Godwin! You win the thread :-)
- mattvanhorn 17y ago
  Good analogy - I wouldn't buy a dishwasher from Sears if it meant that I had to buy all my futures dishes, glasses, and silverware from Sears too. (App Store) I wouldn't buy it if I had to have a special Sears approved connecting pipe to hook it into my existing plumbing. (Dock connector) And I wouldn't buy it if I had to bring it back to Sears whenever I ran out of soap. (Battery)
mishmash 17y ago
> however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run. I'm pretty neutral about the iPad at the moment, but just wanted to point out that the world has had "open" computers for nearly 30 years and so far, I would argue they have not been better for the consumer. Just look at Linux on the desktop. :)
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  Linux on the desktop is still irrelevant (although I do love it, so it's been great for this consumer). But what fraction of the web wouldn't exist today if not for Linux servers and Apache? Are you willing to say consumers aren't better off because of those open systems?
  - mishmash 17y ago
    No, you have a point about open systems in general, to which I agree wholeheartedly, I simply referring to consumer-facing devices. And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does.
    - JulianMorrison 17y ago
      The consumer doesn't have to want an open system. The importance is that they're there, keeping the others honest.
    - papachito 17y ago
      > And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does. Not really, the thing is that MS has a monopoly on the desktop, hard to reverse that trend. Look at Apple, even with their billions of dollars in revenue, they only get 5% of the desktop, Linux is at 1-2% with $0 in campaigning, so not that bad really.
  - lurkinggrue 17y ago
    The internet was based on open technologies and we wouldn't be where we are without that. Companies want to reverse that trend and close it up and we do need to fight that. We don't want the future to be AOL.
stanleydrew 17y ago
Very well said. This is why I keep telling my family about how closed a platform the iPad actually is. I honestly don't mind if consumers make an educated decision to buy an iPad. I may buy one too (probably not, but you never know...). But the fact that most people don't know much about what they are actually buying, and the fact that Apple won't inform them of the downsides, means that those of us who do know have to make up the difference.
- ThomPete 17y ago
  Why should your family care? Another word for closed platform is no virus, no installation, no manual. That seems to be pretty down someone like my dads alley who love the internet but always have issues with his laptop.
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    Why should your family care? Because I don't want them to get taken advantage of. I want them to make informed decisions. And I care about them generally. This is a pretty strange question. If someone in your family worked manufacturing cars and knew a lot about which ones were good and bad and for which reasons, and could just generally help you make a better informed decision about what car to buy, wouldn't you want to talk to that family member about that knowledge?
  - aswanson 17y ago
    Another word for closed platform is no virus? So closed windows is more virus proof than open Linux?
    - jawngee 17y ago
      If Linux had the market share that Windows did, you can bet your last dollar Linux would be as bad off in terms of spyware, virii, etc.
      - cryptoz 17y ago
rimantas 17y ago
That open vs. closed computers thing does not make much sense itself, but the other point is: you can create programs for iPad. Heck, you can even design hardware to be used in combination with it. You cannot do that on iPad itself, so what?
GHFigs 17y ago
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 Thanks for looking out for us, Dad.
- cryptoz 17y ago
  Do you disagree?
derefr 17y ago
Even if there is a negative trend, it will "bottom out": it's impossible to not have open computers somewhere, as something has to run the SDKs for all the consumer electronics platforms!
sigzero 17y ago
Let him fight it. He is preaching to the choir. The only audience he is reaching are the techies. Techies don't like closed systems (mostly) but the general public could really care less.
- e40 17y ago
  I know a lot of the choir that are going to buy an iPad today. Sounds like his soap box is in the correct location.
- gahahaha 17y ago
  Hmm. I remember a guy, whatshisname, bald, rich, monkey-like, running around on a stage shouting DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!! Don't know what ever happened to him, but i think that maybe he had a point.

by cryptoz 17y ago

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.
orangecat 17y ago
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. I'd guess Cory's complaint is not specifically that iPads are closed, but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. If you accept the premises, that actually is a big deal. 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. So, pretty much like nearly any public advocacy of anything.
- jstevens85 17y ago
  >but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. I myself find it difficult to imagine a future where the vast majority of applications are not web apps hosted on private servers. If you take that to be the likely future, then what you can and can't run natively on your computer (with the exception of the browser) becomes irrelevant. Debating whether or not you have the freedom to run arbitrary native code will be like arguing over having the freedom to install your own BIOS.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  I'd guess Cory's complaint is not specifically that iPads are closed, but that Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. If you accept the premises, that actually is a big deal. The "if you accept the premises" is, well, one hell of a big "if". Cory seems to believe that companies are not in the business of making money, but rather are in the business of controlling peoples' lives as totally as possible, and proceeds from there. The mismatch of this belief with actual reality, and the resulting conclusions drawn with respect to, e.g., vast multinational conspiracies attempting to micromanage individual people, is of a sort which, given any other target, would result in institutionalization for paranoid psychosis.
  - orangecat 17y ago
    Cory seems to believe that companies are not in the business of making money, but rather are in the business of controlling peoples' lives as totally as possible, and proceeds from there. Not at all. I don't think Apple wants closed systems for their own sake, but I do think they believe that closed systems will be more profitable for them. The end result is the same.
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      Consider the line I quoted when I originally replied: Apple and others are trying to create a future where closed systems are the default, and open systems are either illegal or heavily marginalized. This does not express the opinion that Apple believes they can make more money from selling closed systems. This expresses the opinion that Apple's goal is not to make money but rather to impose control on people for... well, I'm not honestly sure what reason. And that sort of implication is everywhere in discussion on places like HN, despite the fact that it literally goes off the deep end into unfounded paranoia; "Steve Jobs wants to keep me from using Google Voice" is taken not as a statement about how he'd prefer to have his company get your money, but as a statement about how he's an evil megalomanic obsessed with controlling peoples' lives. Which is really only a step away from (and logically about as sensible as) "he's working with the Bilderbergers and the lizard people to cover up the truth about JFK's role in 9/11".
gsk 17y ago
>but let's not turn them into more than what they are Speak for yourself. I happen to agree with Cory and am sure I am not alone.
- pyre 17y ago
  To those that down-voted: The parent poster goes on for length operating under the assumption that no one on HN that is participating in this discussion or up-voted the news item shares the same views that Doctorow does. How one can draw that assumption escapes me, because it would stand to reason that a number of people (most?) would up-vote the blog post because they either: 1) share Doctorow's opinion or 2) want to participate in a discussion of Doctorow's views. The parent poster acts as if HN readers/participants are just like rats dancing to the Pied Piper's tune, that need to be woken up.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    The parent poster goes on for length operating under the assumption that no one on HN that is participating in this discussion or up-voted the news item shares the same views that Doctorow does. I believe you have misinterpreted. The parent post does not refer to HN readers, but to the obviously ambiguous "most people". The post it was in reply to distinguishes between "Most of the world" and "we" (meaning HN readers), and I propose to you that it is the former group that was meant. The parent poster acts as if HN readers/participants are just like rats dancing to the Pied Piper's tune, that need to be woken up. That appears to be precisely the attitude it is rejecting, in reference to Cory's desire (as described by the parent to that post) to protest loudly something that it is said few who don't already know actually care about. I would also point out that you yourself drew parallels to the specter of Nazism (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1237826 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1237826) and of unheeded warnings. Are you yourself not acting as though others need to be woken up?
pyre 17y ago
> The minority isn't small because people don't know what he's saying -- it's small because they don't care. People don't care because when they hear nay-sayers predicting dystopian futures, they think things like 'that could never happen here' or 'that could never happen to me.' The reality is that I doubt very much that if you had polled Germans in the 1920's about whether they thought that the atrocities of WW2 could ever happen to them or in their country, they would say the same thing, 'not here' or "people wouldn't stand for it." People that predict doom and gloom are often called crazy, but not always because they really are. Most of the time people don't want to think that the worst could happen even when reality paints a different picture. If I had published a paper in 2005 predicting that Wall Street would crumble due to highly-inflated real-estate and that the government would spend $700+ billion propping up banks that were 'too big to fail' I would have been called crazy and people would have ignored me stating that my concerns were 'unfounded.' Please don't use "people don't care" as some sort of argument against someone's beliefs. I mean, if his blog post is getting up-voted enough on HN to reach the front page obviously enough people here care about it to discuss it, but for some reason you're trying to tell those people that they really don't share Doctorow's opinion and that they need to wake up to that fact.
- rwmj 17y ago
  Godwin! You win the thread :-)
mattvanhorn 17y ago
Good analogy - I wouldn't buy a dishwasher from Sears if it meant that I had to buy all my futures dishes, glasses, and silverware from Sears too. (App Store) I wouldn't buy it if I had to have a special Sears approved connecting pipe to hook it into my existing plumbing. (Dock connector) And I wouldn't buy it if I had to bring it back to Sears whenever I ran out of soap. (Battery)

mishmash 17y ago

> however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run. I'm pretty neutral about the iPad at the moment, but just wanted to point out that the world has had "open" computers for nearly 30 years and so far, I would argue they have not been better for the consumer. Just look at Linux on the desktop. :)

stanleydrew 17y ago
Linux on the desktop is still irrelevant (although I do love it, so it's been great for this consumer). But what fraction of the web wouldn't exist today if not for Linux servers and Apache? Are you willing to say consumers aren't better off because of those open systems?
- mishmash 17y ago
  No, you have a point about open systems in general, to which I agree wholeheartedly, I simply referring to consumer-facing devices. And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does.
  - JulianMorrison 17y ago
    The consumer doesn't have to want an open system. The importance is that they're there, keeping the others honest.
  - papachito 17y ago
    > And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop (Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does. Not really, the thing is that MS has a monopoly on the desktop, hard to reverse that trend. Look at Apple, even with their billions of dollars in revenue, they only get 5% of the desktop, Linux is at 1-2% with $0 in campaigning, so not that bad really.
- lurkinggrue 17y ago
  The internet was based on open technologies and we wouldn't be where we are without that. Companies want to reverse that trend and close it up and we do need to fight that. We don't want the future to be AOL.

stanleydrew 17y ago

Very well said. This is why I keep telling my family about how closed a platform the iPad actually is. I honestly don't mind if consumers make an educated decision to buy an iPad. I may buy one too (probably not, but you never know...). But the fact that most people don't know much about what they are actually buying, and the fact that Apple won't inform them of the downsides, means that those of us who do know have to make up the difference.

ThomPete 17y ago
Why should your family care? Another word for closed platform is no virus, no installation, no manual. That seems to be pretty down someone like my dads alley who love the internet but always have issues with his laptop.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  Why should your family care? Because I don't want them to get taken advantage of. I want them to make informed decisions. And I care about them generally. This is a pretty strange question. If someone in your family worked manufacturing cars and knew a lot about which ones were good and bad and for which reasons, and could just generally help you make a better informed decision about what car to buy, wouldn't you want to talk to that family member about that knowledge?
- aswanson 17y ago
  Another word for closed platform is no virus? So closed windows is more virus proof than open Linux?
  - jawngee 17y ago
    If Linux had the market share that Windows did, you can bet your last dollar Linux would be as bad off in terms of spyware, virii, etc.
    - cryptoz 17y ago

rimantas 17y ago

That open vs. closed computers thing does not make much sense itself, but the other point is: you can create programs for iPad. Heck, you can even design hardware to be used in combination with it. You cannot do that on iPad itself, so what?

GHFigs 17y ago

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 Thanks for looking out for us, Dad.

cryptoz 17y ago
Do you disagree?

derefr 17y ago

Even if there is a negative trend, it will "bottom out": it's impossible to not have open computers somewhere, as something has to run the SDKs for all the consumer electronics platforms!

sigzero 17y ago

Let him fight it. He is preaching to the choir. The only audience he is reaching are the techies. Techies don't like closed systems (mostly) but the general public could really care less.

e40 17y ago
I know a lot of the choir that are going to buy an iPad today. Sounds like his soap box is in the correct location.
gahahaha 17y ago
Hmm. I remember a guy, whatshisname, bald, rich, monkey-like, running around on a stage shouting DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!! Don't know what ever happened to him, but i think that maybe he had a point.