4 ms·

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 sys

by bodhi 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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?)
        bodhi 16y ago
        I'm not asking for anything. I'm saying that I think it is a flaw of the device that without paying $100/year, I can only install applications from the App Store. If you disagree, that's fine, but can you accept that my opinion is not as black-and-white as you make out? > just say "I want to install what ever I want!" then you're letting an idealogy blind you What ideology? I fail to see how it is ridiculous to say "I'd like the ability to install application X" when X isn't in the App Store. This doesn't imply that I think Steve Jobs must fall over his feet to make it so, it's just straightforward criticism of a flaw that I perceive in the platform.
- carussell 16y ago
  > A palm pre runs linux, and has a keyboard, it's SDK is HTML/JS. Why aren't people complaining about that? Because they do have a PDK so you can run native code... http://developer.palm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2000&Itemid=333 http://developer.palm.com/index.php?option=com_content&v...

by bodhi 16y ago

lallysingh 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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?)
      - bodhi 16y ago
        I'm not asking for anything. I'm saying that I think it is a flaw of the device that without paying $100/year, I can only install applications from the App Store. If you disagree, that's fine, but can you accept that my opinion is not as black-and-white as you make out? > just say "I want to install what ever I want!" then you're letting an idealogy blind you What ideology? I fail to see how it is ridiculous to say "I'd like the ability to install application X" when X isn't in the App Store. This doesn't imply that I think Steve Jobs must fall over his feet to make it so, it's just straightforward criticism of a flaw that I perceive in the platform.
carussell 16y ago
> A palm pre runs linux, and has a keyboard, it's SDK is HTML/JS. Why aren't people complaining about that? Because they do have a PDK so you can run native code... http://developer.palm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2000&Itemid=333 http://developer.palm.com/index.php?option=com_content&v...