6 ms·

Woz has always about being open and modular and extensible. Jobs has always been about the opposite -- and for good reason; the early Macs were typically more

Woz has always about being open and modular and extensible. Jobs has always been about the opposite -- and for good reason; the early Macs were typically more stable and functioned better simply because of that lock-in. But history has played this over and over again, and Woz always wins. Vendors work out standards; the user experience consolidates. If you give people the freedom and trust them, they'll work it out. Or you can trust a benevolent dictator to work it out for you. Most Apple afficianados will say the most people don't want that freedom; I'm here to tell you that they do. We don't have to debate. Let's just tune in and watch the sales of the iPad starting next month, after the faithful have all bought theirs. Woz will win. Woz always wins.

jsz0 17y ago
Keep in mind it's not 1976 or 1984. Things are different today. Technology is no longer reserved for the technical elite to enjoy or fetishize over exclusively. If you want to draw a line in the sand to figure out when things changed I'd say 2001 and the introduction of the iPod -- an incredibly closed but amazingly compelling and easy to use mainstream device that smashed its open competition with no mercy. This was about the same time we saw the rise of the cell phone in every pocket which was similarly closed and restricted. Around the same time we saw the release of the Playstation 2 which, again, is a closed and restricted platform that has gone on to be the best selling gaming console in history. 3 years later we see the release of the Nintendo DS -- one of the most successful mobile electronic devices in history. Closed & restricted.
- copenja 17y ago
  Relax. Neither open or closed equals total domination.
- eru 17y ago
  What about the original game boy? And numerous other devices.
houseabsolute 17y ago
> Let's just tune in and watch the sales of the iPad starting next month We already watched the sales of the iPhone, and we saw how that went. Same type of device, same type of complaints by openness advocate, and what was the result? Are you guys going to just keep on saying this stuff until some closed Apple product fails, then say that's proof that people want openness, ignoring the litany of preceding closed devices that succeeded? I'm here to tell you that this is not a very good argument.
- samd 17y ago
  The consumer isn't choosing the iPhone or iPad because it is closed, they are choosing it because it is easy to use, sexy, and supported by lots of apps. You can still have those things and be open, and Android is proving it.
  - houseabsolute 17y ago
    Android is neither as easy to use or as sexy as the iPhone. The dismal sales of the nexus one despite it's superior spec sheet and androidness are proof of this. But I do agree with you, most people buy things out of which they get the most utility, and ease of use an sexiness are a big part of that. But the person I was responding to mad the claim that people won't buy the ipad because it is closed. It would only be possible to believe this if your head was buried deep in the sand.
    - abstractbill 17y ago
      I think the effect is real, but of course it's not as direct as this. Now that the iPhone has a viable competitor that's more developer friendly, it seems likely that apps will start to appear first on Android, and then only later on the iPhone. I think that might effect consumers' perception of which is the sexier device.
      - Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
        Having a platform that's easier to develop, publish and distribute software for is only half of the "developer friendly" equation. The other half is having a user community that's willing to spend money on that software. Are there many Android developers who've been able to quit their day jobs and make a living from app sales? (That's a serious question, not a snarky one -- I don't follow the market closely.)
crux 17y ago
What's with this constant invoking of the 'faithful'? I work at a place that sells the iPad and I've had a lot of people ask me about it. The people who are buying the iPad aren't exactly fanboys, who have been slavering over anything that Apple would put out. They're normal folks. A lot of them don't know any real specifics about the iPad, but they have the feeling that it would really be more enjoyable to use than their netbook. The notion that these Apple products only have niche appeal (because normal people value functionality and openness over prettiness) is kind of bonkers in the face of the extremely strong mainstream popularity of the various iPods as well as the iPhone.
- xiaoma 17y ago
  The iPhone is really open and functional compared to the phones that preceded it. Just downloading a ringtone for most prior phones was more expensive than full-fledged games on the iPhone. The app store is far from perfect, but it's a very open market compared to anything I've seen out of Nokia or any of the Japanese handset makers.
  - whatusername 17y ago
    You lost me at ringtone. My 3210 (10 years ago!) you were able to program your own ringtones (in the little beeps that it could produce) Most other nokia's (my 6110) - to use a ringtone it was a case of put an mp3 file on the phone - then select the mp3 as the ringtone. Do you know what you have to do to get a ringtone on the iPhone?
    - pyre 17y ago
      A lot of carrier-branded phones have features like that disabled in favor of only allowing the user to purchase ringtones from the carrier's marketplace where you pay upwards of $3-$4 per ringtone (i.e. ringtones, at 30s or less, cost more than buying the entire song on iTunes). It is/was vendor lock-in at it's worst: create a captive audience, and then price gouge them because they don't know any better (i.e. "My old phone didn't have ringtones, but now I can buy ringtones from Verizon! Yay!"; without realizing that the phone itself supports user-created ringtones that you don't have to pay for). It's sort of the same for the iPhone now. People think it's great because they are used to phones with limited functionality, openness and usability. Compared to those phones that iPhone is a breath of fresh air. Apple's just playing a game of, "what they don't know can't hurt them." People don't sit down and think about exactly what their ideal device is like. They see the iPhone/iPad and thing that it's neat and mold their expectation around what they see (especially if their expectations were lower to begin with).
ja27 17y ago
What doesn't fit the "Jobs = closed platform" paradigm is NeXT. It came after the Mac, yet was a comparatively open platform.
netcan 17y ago
I want both. People are getting anxious about the iphone/pad but overall, look at recent history. It's good to have several approaches gong at once. Linux/OSX/Windows is a good example. Go back in time and remove any of those from the game and you get a less good present. I think Apple is largely less capable then MS of holding a problematic monopoly for long (at least with their current m.o.). That would require being every thing for every person to plug all potential competition holes. That comes with hairy compromises that Apple probably won't want to make. So far, Apple hasn't done any net damage. They are getting things done and moving things along fast. It will take either a real slow down in their innovation or some serious damage to flip that balance.

jsz0 17y ago

Keep in mind it's not 1976 or 1984. Things are different today. Technology is no longer reserved for the technical elite to enjoy or fetishize over exclusively. If you want to draw a line in the sand to figure out when things changed I'd say 2001 and the introduction of the iPod -- an incredibly closed but amazingly compelling and easy to use mainstream device that smashed its open competition with no mercy. This was about the same time we saw the rise of the cell phone in every pocket which was similarly closed and restricted. Around the same time we saw the release of the Playstation 2 which, again, is a closed and restricted platform that has gone on to be the best selling gaming console in history. 3 years later we see the release of the Nintendo DS -- one of the most successful mobile electronic devices in history. Closed & restricted.

copenja 17y ago
Relax. Neither open or closed equals total domination.
eru 17y ago
What about the original game boy? And numerous other devices.

houseabsolute 17y ago

> Let's just tune in and watch the sales of the iPad starting next month We already watched the sales of the iPhone, and we saw how that went. Same type of device, same type of complaints by openness advocate, and what was the result? Are you guys going to just keep on saying this stuff until some closed Apple product fails, then say that's proof that people want openness, ignoring the litany of preceding closed devices that succeeded? I'm here to tell you that this is not a very good argument.

samd 17y ago
The consumer isn't choosing the iPhone or iPad because it is closed, they are choosing it because it is easy to use, sexy, and supported by lots of apps. You can still have those things and be open, and Android is proving it.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  Android is neither as easy to use or as sexy as the iPhone. The dismal sales of the nexus one despite it's superior spec sheet and androidness are proof of this. But I do agree with you, most people buy things out of which they get the most utility, and ease of use an sexiness are a big part of that. But the person I was responding to mad the claim that people won't buy the ipad because it is closed. It would only be possible to believe this if your head was buried deep in the sand.
  - abstractbill 17y ago
    I think the effect is real, but of course it's not as direct as this. Now that the iPhone has a viable competitor that's more developer friendly, it seems likely that apps will start to appear first on Android, and then only later on the iPhone. I think that might effect consumers' perception of which is the sexier device.
    - Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
      Having a platform that's easier to develop, publish and distribute software for is only half of the "developer friendly" equation. The other half is having a user community that's willing to spend money on that software. Are there many Android developers who've been able to quit their day jobs and make a living from app sales? (That's a serious question, not a snarky one -- I don't follow the market closely.)

crux 17y ago

What's with this constant invoking of the 'faithful'? I work at a place that sells the iPad and I've had a lot of people ask me about it. The people who are buying the iPad aren't exactly fanboys, who have been slavering over anything that Apple would put out. They're normal folks. A lot of them don't know any real specifics about the iPad, but they have the feeling that it would really be more enjoyable to use than their netbook. The notion that these Apple products only have niche appeal (because normal people value functionality and openness over prettiness) is kind of bonkers in the face of the extremely strong mainstream popularity of the various iPods as well as the iPhone.

xiaoma 17y ago
The iPhone is really open and functional compared to the phones that preceded it. Just downloading a ringtone for most prior phones was more expensive than full-fledged games on the iPhone. The app store is far from perfect, but it's a very open market compared to anything I've seen out of Nokia or any of the Japanese handset makers.
- whatusername 17y ago
  You lost me at ringtone. My 3210 (10 years ago!) you were able to program your own ringtones (in the little beeps that it could produce) Most other nokia's (my 6110) - to use a ringtone it was a case of put an mp3 file on the phone - then select the mp3 as the ringtone. Do you know what you have to do to get a ringtone on the iPhone?
  - pyre 17y ago
    A lot of carrier-branded phones have features like that disabled in favor of only allowing the user to purchase ringtones from the carrier's marketplace where you pay upwards of $3-$4 per ringtone (i.e. ringtones, at 30s or less, cost more than buying the entire song on iTunes). It is/was vendor lock-in at it's worst: create a captive audience, and then price gouge them because they don't know any better (i.e. "My old phone didn't have ringtones, but now I can buy ringtones from Verizon! Yay!"; without realizing that the phone itself supports user-created ringtones that you don't have to pay for). It's sort of the same for the iPhone now. People think it's great because they are used to phones with limited functionality, openness and usability. Compared to those phones that iPhone is a breath of fresh air. Apple's just playing a game of, "what they don't know can't hurt them." People don't sit down and think about exactly what their ideal device is like. They see the iPhone/iPad and thing that it's neat and mold their expectation around what they see (especially if their expectations were lower to begin with).

ja27 17y ago

What doesn't fit the "Jobs = closed platform" paradigm is NeXT. It came after the Mac, yet was a comparatively open platform.

netcan 17y ago

I want both. People are getting anxious about the iphone/pad but overall, look at recent history. It's good to have several approaches gong at once. Linux/OSX/Windows is a good example. Go back in time and remove any of those from the game and you get a less good present. I think Apple is largely less capable then MS of holding a problematic monopoly for long (at least with their current m.o.). That would require being every thing for every person to plug all potential competition holes. That comes with hairy compromises that Apple probably won't want to make. So far, Apple hasn't done any net damage. They are getting things done and moving things along fast. It will take either a real slow down in their innovation or some serious damage to flip that balance.