5 ms·

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 artific

by 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.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        You're welcome to your opinion. Just as, on a public forum, I'm welcome to critique it. Do you see it as rediculous to say "I'd like the ability to install arbitrary things on my d-link router"? Of course you could say "I should be able to do that and just not get any support if I do". But what about reputation? How can e.g. Apple ensure that (a) just you can install things on the iPad (i.e. experienced people only) and (b) that you wont complain that their product sucks if the unsupported software you load causes your machine to become slow or unstable?
        bodhi 16y ago
        Actually I don't see it as ridiculous, and neither do a lot of people[1]. Recognising the technical features/limitations of the device, the kind of software that would be useful is obviously different to that of the iPad. Your two reputation questions are good. How can Apple ensure that only I can install apps on my device and not others? I have some ideas, but as I'm not privy to the internals, I have no idea whether they are feasible or not. Perhaps an iTunes preference (plist-style would be fine, it doesn't have to be exposed in the interface) that allows unsigned applications to be added to the list of apps in iTunes? As for (b), I have no idea. Looking at the reputation of the Mac and OS X, I don't think it's that big an issue, but I can see the difference in reputation usability-wise of the desktop versus the Cocoa Touch products. I attribute this to the difference in interaction paradigms and the hard work that Apple put in to polishing the UI, rather than the business/legal restrictions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_router_firmware_projects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_router_firmwar...

by bodhi 16y ago

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.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      You're welcome to your opinion. Just as, on a public forum, I'm welcome to critique it. Do you see it as rediculous to say "I'd like the ability to install arbitrary things on my d-link router"? Of course you could say "I should be able to do that and just not get any support if I do". But what about reputation? How can e.g. Apple ensure that (a) just you can install things on the iPad (i.e. experienced people only) and (b) that you wont complain that their product sucks if the unsupported software you load causes your machine to become slow or unstable?
      - bodhi 16y ago
        Actually I don't see it as ridiculous, and neither do a lot of people[1]. Recognising the technical features/limitations of the device, the kind of software that would be useful is obviously different to that of the iPad. Your two reputation questions are good. How can Apple ensure that only I can install apps on my device and not others? I have some ideas, but as I'm not privy to the internals, I have no idea whether they are feasible or not. Perhaps an iTunes preference (plist-style would be fine, it doesn't have to be exposed in the interface) that allows unsigned applications to be added to the list of apps in iTunes? As for (b), I have no idea. Looking at the reputation of the Mac and OS X, I don't think it's that big an issue, but I can see the difference in reputation usability-wise of the desktop versus the Cocoa Touch products. I attribute this to the difference in interaction paradigms and the hard work that Apple put in to polishing the UI, rather than the business/legal restrictions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_router_firmware_projects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_router_firmwar...