This is a very short piece. I have read it a dozen times now. I still cannot follow the argument at all. "Experts can do some things better than you can." T

This is a very short piece. I have read it a dozen times now. I still cannot follow the argument at all. "Experts can do some things better than you can." This assumes I am not an expert, but okay. "People want beautiful things that work well" Sure, those are among the things people want. "Not many nonexperts can accomplish that" This is pretty vague, I guess it sounds reasonable. "Therefore open source has nothing to teach literature" What!? That doesn't follow at all from the preceding assumptions, but I guess it doesn't matter because as far as I can tell this point is just a decoy. "Therefore one's inability to hack an iPad means nothing" Again, this doesn't really follow from the preceding assumptions, which is probably why a different justification is immediately given: "you can enjoy using an iPad without programming it." True enough, but I haven't seen anyone claiming that an iPad's lack of openness is bad because people won't enjoy it. I think iPad's detractors are concerned that people will enjoy using the iPad and that those who purchase it will be fenced in by Apple, with their options for enjoying their iPad restricted to those that make money for Apple. There is a concern that this model will spread to other devices, and that eventually consumers will choose to give up freedom without ever really thinking about it. I personally believe "cheap and barely works" triumphs over "beautiful and works well" often enough that things will turn out okay.