5 ms·

irrelevant aside, skip if desired At first, I was annoyed because I knew this was going to be the same foolish logic of "It is more free because I am free from

irrelevant aside, skip if desired At first, I was annoyed because I knew this was going to be the same foolish logic of "It is more free because I am free from worry with it! See, I can use the word free too!" logic that makes me repost that lovely quote from George Orwell's Politics and the English Language about words having contradicting meanings and people arguing over them pointlessly. Then I RTFA and found out it was written by an 8th Grader. Whew, I feel better now. If other people making this argument would realize they were using 8th grade logic as well, I'd feel a lot better about this. Every time I see an adult making an argument stemming from poor understanding of the fact that words have multiple meanings, I want to bonk them over the head with a dictionary while shouting "see definiton (2)!" It is..a pet peeve of mine. irrelevant aside over This is still a terrible argument, because it ignores what the people complaining about the iPad being not open is all about. It has nothing to do with it being open meaning accessible, free meaning with a lack of worry, or any similar semantic strawmen. It has to do with the fact that you cannot put any application you want on an iOS device without Apple's permission. Jailbreaking is not an excuse, and neither is the "you just have to pay $100 a year and join a developer program". Users should be able to install what they want, when they want, without asking anyone's permission. You should own the hardware you purchase. Apple disagrees, and thus iOS devices are not free and open in the sense of being able to do with them as you please.

glhaynes 16y ago
Users should be able to install what they want, when they want, without asking anyone's permission. You should own the hardware you purchase. Why, though? "Should" is a strong word that implies a more overarching requirement than just a desire on the part of an individual purchaser. I understand that you want to be able to do anything you want with your hardware, and I'm very very glad that there exist systems that you can buy to do this on — I'd be extremely concerned too if all systems became walled gardens, but I don't see any reason to think that there's even a chance of this happening since Android is so very successful — but it's hard for me to see why that requirement "should" be a part of every product. In fact, the idea that this form of openness is some sort of moral imperative (and thus should exist on all systems) ignores the fact that by the same reasoning I should be able to buy a system that trades-off binary-installation freedom for the benefits that come from the closed-down approach.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  You're correct. I should (I think we can agree on this one :) have mentioned that the last section was my personal opinion and what I mean when I say the iPad being not "open" is a bad thing. The argument that you're making here is the argument that I'd like to see, because it's acknowledging the "not open" side's actual opinion, and challenging it. Thank you. As for an answer, I mostly take offense at the fact that iOS does not allow for installing apps outside of the closed down market. I'm actually absolutely fine with Apple censoring the App Store, it's the lack of an advanced option to install non-market apps that I dislike. I don't think their method adds much security (you could jailbreak the thing through a web page for a while), but it does close off a lot of opportunity. Edit: and to expand on why I feel its necessary to argue against iOS when I'm happily on Android, it's because I feel that it's a lot easier to convince people to give up freedom for security than it is to get freedom back in exchange for some risk. If the iOS model becomes the norm, I might not have an option like Android's sideloading, and it's not easy to get that back. I think a compromise between the two would be the best, but I've never felt like installing apps on Android is risky. Generally the popularity of an app/program is somewhat indicative of its safety.
dcdan 16y ago
It's not a terrible argument. To put it differently, the value to the end user is not a direct function of the degree of openness, but the utility of the degree of openness. The narrative of Sophie measures this utility.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  That part isn't, yes. Most people don't care how open (as in freedom) their device is. They care how open (as in they can use it well). This is a decent argument. However, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the Android model is vastly different and more complicated than iOS's. Installing an app on Android is virtually the exact same as iOS, and being able to install from other sources is optional and adds zero complexity to installing from the market. Apple has definitely made iOS seem easier to install apps to, but that has more to do with their excellent design and marketing than the fact that their market is locked down. The part in the title about "The iPad is 99% more open" is 100% semantic bullshit (which happens to be a pet peeve of mine, obviously). Additionally, "None of this crap about it being closed is accurate." is wrong because he's talking about open (as in accesible) while the people he's saying are wrong talking about it being closed (as in freedom). No one was making the argument that it's not accessible to users, so it's a strawman. I don't think it was intentional though, just a failure to think about the fact that he's using a completely different definition than the people he's arguing against. He does have a point, but it's also stuck in the middle of this confusion over terms. His argument that "None of this crap about it being closed is accurate." is indeed completely wrong, because that claim was never made. The point about the perceived complexity is correct, but again I don't think that has to do with the inability to install from other sources.

glhaynes 16y ago

Users should be able to install what they want, when they want, without asking anyone's permission. You should own the hardware you purchase. Why, though? "Should" is a strong word that implies a more overarching requirement than just a desire on the part of an individual purchaser. I understand that you want to be able to do anything you want with your hardware, and I'm very very glad that there exist systems that you can buy to do this on — I'd be extremely concerned too if all systems became walled gardens, but I don't see any reason to think that there's even a chance of this happening since Android is so very successful — but it's hard for me to see why that requirement "should" be a part of every product. In fact, the idea that this form of openness is some sort of moral imperative (and thus should exist on all systems) ignores the fact that by the same reasoning I should be able to buy a system that trades-off binary-installation freedom for the benefits that come from the closed-down approach.

jokermatt999 16y ago
You're correct. I should (I think we can agree on this one :) have mentioned that the last section was my personal opinion and what I mean when I say the iPad being not "open" is a bad thing. The argument that you're making here is the argument that I'd like to see, because it's acknowledging the "not open" side's actual opinion, and challenging it. Thank you. As for an answer, I mostly take offense at the fact that iOS does not allow for installing apps outside of the closed down market. I'm actually absolutely fine with Apple censoring the App Store, it's the lack of an advanced option to install non-market apps that I dislike. I don't think their method adds much security (you could jailbreak the thing through a web page for a while), but it does close off a lot of opportunity. Edit: and to expand on why I feel its necessary to argue against iOS when I'm happily on Android, it's because I feel that it's a lot easier to convince people to give up freedom for security than it is to get freedom back in exchange for some risk. If the iOS model becomes the norm, I might not have an option like Android's sideloading, and it's not easy to get that back. I think a compromise between the two would be the best, but I've never felt like installing apps on Android is risky. Generally the popularity of an app/program is somewhat indicative of its safety.

dcdan 16y ago

It's not a terrible argument. To put it differently, the value to the end user is not a direct function of the degree of openness, but the utility of the degree of openness. The narrative of Sophie measures this utility.

jokermatt999 16y ago
That part isn't, yes. Most people don't care how open (as in freedom) their device is. They care how open (as in they can use it well). This is a decent argument. However, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the Android model is vastly different and more complicated than iOS's. Installing an app on Android is virtually the exact same as iOS, and being able to install from other sources is optional and adds zero complexity to installing from the market. Apple has definitely made iOS seem easier to install apps to, but that has more to do with their excellent design and marketing than the fact that their market is locked down. The part in the title about "The iPad is 99% more open" is 100% semantic bullshit (which happens to be a pet peeve of mine, obviously). Additionally, "None of this crap about it being closed is accurate." is wrong because he's talking about open (as in accesible) while the people he's saying are wrong talking about it being closed (as in freedom). No one was making the argument that it's not accessible to users, so it's a strawman. I don't think it was intentional though, just a failure to think about the fact that he's using a completely different definition than the people he's arguing against. He does have a point, but it's also stuck in the middle of this confusion over terms. His argument that "None of this crap about it being closed is accurate." is indeed completely wrong, because that claim was never made. The point about the perceived complexity is correct, but again I don't think that has to do with the inability to install from other sources.