4 ms·

Say it with me: The iPad is not a computer. It's a web browsing appliance. Hackers want computers, full computers. And plenty of vendors (including apple) s

Say it with me: The iPad is not a computer. It's a web browsing appliance. Hackers want computers, full computers. And plenty of vendors (including apple) sell them in many different configurations, styles, and prices. Many other people do not want full computers -- they're a pain to manage and maintain, and their interfaces are too general-purpose and get in the way. Complaining about the freedom about an iPad is like complaining about the freedom in your TV's firmware or (fairly-advanced) toaster.

wollw 17y ago
My N800 manages to be an "Internet Tablet" and have XTerm installed by default. Using it isn't necessary but it's nice to be able to run command line programs when I want.
cema 17y ago
He is not complaining. He is explaining.
bodhi 17y ago
I've heard this line of reasoning many times, and I've just figured out what I dislike about it. The iPad is a computer. It has a general-purpose operating system, and a very general-purpose input method. The reason that people like me are irritated is that the limitations that lead to you saying "[it] is not a computer" are business/social reasons, not technical. Given that a lot of the people here are technical-minded, it's reasonable to complain that the iPad is artifically restricted.
- lallysingh 17y ago
  Any line between embedded and "full" computers isn't technical, without choosing fairly arbitrary criteria. A palm pre runs linux, and has a keyboard, it's SDK is HTML/JS. Why aren't people complaining about that? I believe that it's b/c they already knew what a phone was, and that they were happy that they got some power to hack phones when the smarter ones came out. The iPad went the other direction. The endpoint's the same -- a specialized device for a specific set of activities -- but now developers feel that things have been taken away instead of added. A social reason if I ever heard one. We're only going to see more specialized devices -- embedded systems are getting enough power to get really interesting -- so it's best that us hackers get used to it now.
  - bodhi 17y ago
    Ok, so you see the iPad as a "a specialized device for a specific set of activities", whereas I and others see it as a general-purpose computer, that is artificially restricted. An iPad could technically run Emacs, but won't due to policy restrictions. > it's best that us hackers get used to it now I'd rather not, and I'd rather complain about companies that push computing in that direction. It seems to be a philosophical difference between us.
    - loewenskind 17y ago
      Personally I'm glad that Apple ignores people like you and hope the trend continues. Hackers (a kind of slang word for "producers") already have a capible device. It's called a desktop computer. Everyone else is mostly a consumer. Apple has given us the (almost) perfect consumer device. Finally a machine that can be with us literally all time. We've tried the "I know! Make it a real computer!" route before. They were called tablets. Tablets failed for two reasons: horrible interface (stylus, yuck) and it was a real computer. Netbooks got closer by fixing the interface but they still suck because it's a whole computer. It took Apple figure out to forget the computer. Give a good interface in an instant-on device.
      - bodhi 16y ago
        I'm not sure how any of your comment is relevant to this thread? I don't want technical changes, I think the iPhone is quite a fine feat of interface design and usability -- I haven't seen an iPad in person, but I assume it's just as good. Being able to install non-app-store applications wouldn't technically impact in any way on your, or my, or any other person's use of the device. Does the ability to jailbreak an iPhone somehow make it less usable for people who don't jailbreak it? Edit: discussion -> thread.
        loewenskind 16y ago
        You're asking for it to just be a computer again with a different interface. We've known for a while that the next big thing in technology would be when we moved away from this model and started making appliances, etc. There is no reason for the iPad to do everything. It should do the things it's good at and we should have other devices to do other things. If your comment is no more complex than to just say "I want to install what ever I want!" then you're letting an idealogy blind you. I don't think Jobs is trying to take away anyone's freedoms. He just doesn't want to get a reputation for expensive devices that crash all the time. Much of the reason that windows has such a reputation for not being stable is that anyone could install anything they wanted. That does give them more flexibility for those who can use it, but it gives the opposite impression for the less tech savy (the bulk of Apples market, no?)
jpr 17y ago
> Say it with me: > The iPad is not a computer. You and I both know that's a lie. And I don't utter lies, especially ones that only exist to serve big companies at the expense of ordinary people.
- loewenskind 17y ago
  I disagree. Does it have, or potentially have a full OS? Sure. So do tons of embedded devices (e.g. home routers), but I bet many of those devices would void your support if you "jail broke" them. It's meant to be a device, regardless of what you think it's capable of. There is a reason nerds/geeks are never consulted by sales. If you don't like the device then don't buy it. I'm sure plenty of nerds will be out there saying "but! Lets make it a whole computer! Then we'll kill apple!". Buy one of their devices to go with your Android phone. Don't mind all the people laughing as you trudge your way through using them.
CodeMage 17y ago
Say it with Apple: The iPad is not a web browsing appliance. They are selling it as a computer, without mentioning the word "computer". Just look at the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY A device that can do all that has usually been called "computer".

wollw 17y ago

My N800 manages to be an "Internet Tablet" and have XTerm installed by default. Using it isn't necessary but it's nice to be able to run command line programs when I want.

cema 17y ago

He is not complaining. He is explaining.

bodhi 17y ago

I've heard this line of reasoning many times, and I've just figured out what I dislike about it. The iPad is a computer. It has a general-purpose operating system, and a very general-purpose input method. The reason that people like me are irritated is that the limitations that lead to you saying "[it] is not a computer" are business/social reasons, not technical. Given that a lot of the people here are technical-minded, it's reasonable to complain that the iPad is artifically restricted.

lallysingh 17y ago
Any line between embedded and "full" computers isn't technical, without choosing fairly arbitrary criteria. A palm pre runs linux, and has a keyboard, it's SDK is HTML/JS. Why aren't people complaining about that? I believe that it's b/c they already knew what a phone was, and that they were happy that they got some power to hack phones when the smarter ones came out. The iPad went the other direction. The endpoint's the same -- a specialized device for a specific set of activities -- but now developers feel that things have been taken away instead of added. A social reason if I ever heard one. We're only going to see more specialized devices -- embedded systems are getting enough power to get really interesting -- so it's best that us hackers get used to it now.
- bodhi 17y ago
  Ok, so you see the iPad as a "a specialized device for a specific set of activities", whereas I and others see it as a general-purpose computer, that is artificially restricted. An iPad could technically run Emacs, but won't due to policy restrictions. > it's best that us hackers get used to it now I'd rather not, and I'd rather complain about companies that push computing in that direction. It seems to be a philosophical difference between us.
  - loewenskind 17y ago
    Personally I'm glad that Apple ignores people like you and hope the trend continues. Hackers (a kind of slang word for "producers") already have a capible device. It's called a desktop computer. Everyone else is mostly a consumer. Apple has given us the (almost) perfect consumer device. Finally a machine that can be with us literally all time. We've tried the "I know! Make it a real computer!" route before. They were called tablets. Tablets failed for two reasons: horrible interface (stylus, yuck) and it was a real computer. Netbooks got closer by fixing the interface but they still suck because it's a whole computer. It took Apple figure out to forget the computer. Give a good interface in an instant-on device.
    - bodhi 16y ago
      I'm not sure how any of your comment is relevant to this thread? I don't want technical changes, I think the iPhone is quite a fine feat of interface design and usability -- I haven't seen an iPad in person, but I assume it's just as good. Being able to install non-app-store applications wouldn't technically impact in any way on your, or my, or any other person's use of the device. Does the ability to jailbreak an iPhone somehow make it less usable for people who don't jailbreak it? Edit: discussion -> thread.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        You're asking for it to just be a computer again with a different interface. We've known for a while that the next big thing in technology would be when we moved away from this model and started making appliances, etc. There is no reason for the iPad to do everything. It should do the things it's good at and we should have other devices to do other things. If your comment is no more complex than to just say "I want to install what ever I want!" then you're letting an idealogy blind you. I don't think Jobs is trying to take away anyone's freedoms. He just doesn't want to get a reputation for expensive devices that crash all the time. Much of the reason that windows has such a reputation for not being stable is that anyone could install anything they wanted. That does give them more flexibility for those who can use it, but it gives the opposite impression for the less tech savy (the bulk of Apples market, no?)

jpr 17y ago

> Say it with me: > The iPad is not a computer. You and I both know that's a lie. And I don't utter lies, especially ones that only exist to serve big companies at the expense of ordinary people.

loewenskind 17y ago
I disagree. Does it have, or potentially have a full OS? Sure. So do tons of embedded devices (e.g. home routers), but I bet many of those devices would void your support if you "jail broke" them. It's meant to be a device, regardless of what you think it's capable of. There is a reason nerds/geeks are never consulted by sales. If you don't like the device then don't buy it. I'm sure plenty of nerds will be out there saying "but! Lets make it a whole computer! Then we'll kill apple!". Buy one of their devices to go with your Android phone. Don't mind all the people laughing as you trudge your way through using them.

CodeMage 17y ago

Say it with Apple: The iPad is not a web browsing appliance. They are selling it as a computer, without mentioning the word "computer". Just look at the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY A device that can do all that has usually been called "computer".