7 ms·

It's not anti-Unix or anti-programmer...it's all about being anti-freedom. All these companies want to do is turn your computing experience into a locked down,

by mas644 15y ago

It's not anti-Unix or anti-programmer...it's all about being anti-freedom. All these companies want to do is turn your computing experience into a locked down, controlled, monitored experience. They want to turn your limitless and powerful computer into a home appliance...like a blender or electric razer. No way to customize, no way to modify, no way to organize thoughts your way. No hacking or "jailbreaking" into your own device to give yourself features like "tethering". That would violate the ALL HOLY EULA (unless you paid $5.99)!!! Also no need to understand how the technology works -- technology is now magic. And when technology becomes magic, they have control over you. Google manages all your e-mail, Facebook and iPhone manage your social life. Google and FB make their money through selling your information to marketing companies. Apple makes it by selling you hardware. Both of them make money by exploiting the lack of will by the masses to understand their technology and how it affects their rights and privacy. They make money when they are in control of you and your data. They make money by making you think you need a new computer when all you need is a better operating system. Getting rid of files is like Newspeak from Orwell's 1984. They want you to be dumber. They'll take care of savin that file for ya, you just worry about eating nachos and 'batin. Besides, they need to take a looksie at it first to infer information about your shopping habits...

martinpannier 15y ago
Most comments in this thread strike me as being anti-"normal users". This is the elite, talking about how they can maintain their elite position.
- tudorizer 15y ago
  Well observed :)
- onosendai 15y ago
  That's not what the parent, or the article is saying. Don't turn this into some sort of class warfare for the sake of trolling. The ability of an OS or application to expose data in order to allow you to manipulate it as you see fit, does not preclude it being user-friendly and straighforward to use. That funcionality might very well be hidden away, but available if you're inclined to use it. The point that is being made is that this level of openess and flexibiliy is directly at odds with the need for control of some companies over their OS/applications and the content whithin, usually for the sake of profits.
  - martinpannier 15y ago
    Sorry, but the article says nothing about companies maintaining control for the sake of profits — only the parent developed this point. The article made the point about the lack of composability of iOS, with the Grail of composability being the command-line. And I stand by what I said. Design is the result of trade-offs: you can't have ease of use and composability. Steve Jobs understood the necessity of trade-offs better than anyone else.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    But it does. Or at least, it does in every way that we've yet to imagine. What the author of the article suggests would be not "anti-programmer" are necessarily "anti-user". Breaking everything down into composable components and forcing the user to compose even simple, everyday procedures before being able to use them? How terribly difficult and exclusive to techies only! Similarly, he suggests that the only way for meaningful interaction to occur between programs is through the unfettered access to a filesystem - as users have demonstrated time and time again the past decade or so, they don't want that. They will pile heir music and photos and movies happily into one big dump so long as a much more proficient application handles the intricacies for them. They don't want a filesystem - it's a toy for people like us. The ability of an OS to expose data for manipulation does not necessarily preclude it from being user friendly, but that's only true in a very ephemeral, theoretical way. The only ways we know how to expose said data, up till now, is entirely anti-user, and part of why the popularity of computers with the general population has not exploded until so late. For too long we've kept the keys to the kingdom, and you know what, fuck all of that noise. And the claim that iOS (and other similarly restrictive OSes) have been developed primarily to protect the company's interest is patently absurd. The iPhone has been by far the best thing to happen to mainstream computer users in the past two decades. They have power at their fingertips that they can actually comprehend now, and use without navigating a tome of quickly outdated knowledge. This is the age of the device you don't have to take a class to use! The empowerment here is incredible, and people have been throwing gobs of money at Apple, Google, and everyone else who has realized this. The main reason these OSes are restrictive is because it guarantees usability and consistency in a way that completely open platforms do not (Gimp, anyone?). This whole article, and resulting thread, really disappoints me. I'd have thought that what we've seen in the last 4-5 years would finally wake up the tech community and make them realize that computational resources are pointless unless it benefits the rest of humanity somehow, and chief among these is mainstream usability. But no, it looks like a large contingent of HN is happy to view users as stupid plebes - if only they knew the value of free OSes and would take the time to learn the command line! Screw that train of thought, and damn the people who continue to reinforce the false assumption that technology need be complicated and obtuse. I'm sick and tired of looking at all the cool things we can do - things that are of real benefit to people - and having it locked away behind a glass wall of techno-wizardry when it does so much more good out in the hands of the masses.
- vacri 15y ago
  Nonsense. It's about the loss of functionality, not the point that there's a simplified UI available.
martinpannier 15y ago
Additional thought, because your post is just so wrong. > limitless and powerful computer More like confusing and impairing computer > no way to organize thoughts your way More ways to do so with my iDevice than with any other computer I ever owned! > no need to understand how the technology works Yay! Finally! (Not to bring up the car analogy again, but do I really need to know how my motor works to drive to work?) > technology is now magic True, it's now accessible to (almost) all! Etc. ad nauseam
briandear 15y ago
So build something better and let the market decide. I can teach my mother in law to use an iPhone in five minutes. Giving her all of this "freedom" would make the devices much harder to use and maintain, not to mention far more insecure. Not much of a malware danger on ios either. There are very few apps that need a jail broken device; the few that are unique are generally dealing with features the average user wouldn't want or need. For those Ivory Tower types, there's no law against jailbreaking..
acabal 15y ago
Maybe true, but the fact that iOS devices are selling so well shows that people actually want their computers to be as simple as appliances. I think that to many "regular" people (i.e. non-HN-reading types of people), the power in computers is when they provide a simple and idiot-proof way to automate many common day-to-day tasks. If given the choice, many people would rather go out for a picnic than sit down at a shell to figure out the difference between | and > so that maybe, one day, they could become command-line gurus and appreciate the power like we do. The market for complex and powerful computer interfaces will always exist--it's people like you and me. But the market for simple, easy, and foolproof computing will always be much bigger. Apple is owning that market, and if it's worse for the consumer, well, they seem to be pretty happy about the situation so far.
- mas644 15y ago
  I've seen this point brought up. Making some easy (which I'm all for btw) does not mean it has to lock down aspects that average users are not meant to look at it (i.e. DRM). It's fine if they hide them, but when there are software and hardware mechanisms that prevent power users from manipulating the device - that is unnecessary. I should be able to replace the OS as well as install any app that I please on the device. They are actually taking EXTRA steps to prevent me from seeing the internals by using things like hardware level OS image hashes (i.e. tivoization). Now people say, I just want to use my device and get work/play done. THat's fine, I'm all for it. However, having control benefits everybody. For example, if you want to tether your smartphone and use it as a wireless access point, writing the software to do this is trivial (and a power user can do it for you). However, smartphone companies don't want you doing that...unless you pay them more money for that feature. That's kind of unfair, the smartphone company is depending on PROPRIETARY LOCKIN rather than real competition. That's my problem with it. They want to control your experience and make you think you can't get a PREMIUM EXPERIENCE without paying them ludicrous amounts. I mean, all tethering does is update a few IP tables here and there -- I have to pay 10 bucks a month for that?? Yeah sure APple did a lot of great things as did Microsoft and Google for bringing computing to the masses. However, they all did it based on the open innovation of others (kernels, compilers, text editors, web servers, etc). They've used those wonderful open things to create a wonderful easy to use experience. At the same time, they've added ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINTS to it (e.g. again tethering) to create PROPRIETARY LOCKIN and make you think your device has less capability than it really has. If these companies stay on these same paths and people maintain the same level of compliance...we'll get to a point where ALL computers are useless and innovation can't happen. Again, easiness and openness are not orthogonal.
snprbob86 15y ago
"All these companies want to do is turn your computing experience into a locked down, controlled, monitored experience." Oh, bullshit. Do you really think there is someone siting around at Apple dreaming up new ways to take away your freedom? No. There fucking isn't. I'm a huge believer in small, composable components. And I know that developing against closed platforms sucks. Being able to dig down into the source code of every layer of your stack is critical to the understanding necessary to build high quality software. Libre, Gratis, and Open are all key elements of the software I choose to use to do many mission critical jobs, every day of my professional career going forward. But you know what? The people at Apple just want to make damn good products. They are proud as hell of those products. They work very hard to make them that damn good. Freedom isn't free. There are costs associated with development, complexity, opportunity. Free is a strategy that only few can afford to execute. Google has to vary the gratis, libre, and open dials with their products every single day to paint the benevolent picture they count on to keep their recruiting pipelines full, while still building high quality products on time and budget. My Girlfriend's Android phone (a highly rated model) is a horrible piece of crap next to the iPhone. It lags, crashes, has UX issues, flimsy hardware. The iPhone is a glorious, crowning achievement of engineering that still, years later, Microsoft and Google are struggle to replicate. I'm no dumber for owning an iPhone. It gets the job done: It makes phone calls. It settles arguments at the bar. It lets me cut in line at Chipotle. It wakes me up in the morning. It keeps me entertained. It makes me smile every time that little orange plane animates by as it goes into airplane mode. It just fucking works. You want to talk about freedom? I'm free from thinking about memory management. And processor utilization. And data loss. If it stops working, I'm free from worry because the Apple store makes everything better. I am free from all of the horrible things that can go wrong on my production servers. Unless something does go wrong on my production servers, in which case I'm free to be away from my desk when it happens. And I'm free to drive aimlessly without worrying about getting lost. I'm free to call a cab, when I just don't feel like walking home. In context, my iPhone represents every last bit as much freedom as my blinking cursor in an empty vim window.
- norswap 15y ago
  "Oh, bullshit. Do you really think there is someone siting around at Apple dreaming up new ways to take away your freedom?" > No but I honestly thinks there are people sitting around at Apple dreaming up new ways to take away your money, even if it entails taking away your freedom. "The people at Apple just want to make damn good products. They are proud as hell of those products. They work very hard to make them that damn good." > Yeah... As an aside I think Apple is overrated. It's interfaces are nifty but as seen with Lion they're not above a misstep. Plus while they offer a very nice first-time ("store") experience, with time it's edge over the other OS slowly fades. You have to learn all the keyboard shortcuts or you'll be a bit helpless in your shiny OS. Even hardware which tends to be quality can fail, as witnessed with graphic cards overheating problems for instance. "My Girlfriend's Android phone (a highly rated model) is a horrible piece of crap next to the iPhone. It lags, crashes, has UX issues, flimsy hardware. The iPhone is a glorious, crowning achievement of engineering that still, years later, Microsoft and Google are struggle to replicate." > Anecdotal evidence does not make a general truth. I for one have had the exact opposite experience. I had an iPhone 3G and with the new firmware the thing was a trainwreck of usability, while my new Samsung Galaxy S2 is snappy as hell. This is essentially irrelevant, as it has to do with computing power more than product quality (tough I get more bang for my computing power in Android, the iphone firmwares have brought me copy/paste and ... what ?).
briandear 15y ago
One more thing-- no one forces anyone to use a particular technology (unless it's being forced to use Windows at work.) The tin foil hat crowd might have some grand fears, but it's groundless -- you only give up the privacy you choose to give up. Google has never knocked on my door forcing me to give up private information, although the US government does! I would be more worried about intrusive and over regulatory whims of the government-- they can enforce their schemes at the point of a gun. Worry about the government and let the market take care of everything else.
- vacri 15y ago
  The tin foil hat crowd might have some grand fears, but it's groundless ... Worry about the government and let the market take care of everything else. Um... it's not really irony if you do it intentionally...
rimantas 15y ago
And why exactly my tablet should be different from razor or blender? Or my TV or my car? For many this is just a tool, not goal. lack of will by the masses to understand their technology There are many many many more fields besides IT. If anyone: be it waitress or accountant will be required to understand IT it will not end well. They want you to be dumber. No. I don't feel any dumber because I don't know how to fix my TV. I don't feel any dumber because my knowledge about car's engine is very basic and most of it was learnt in the age of carburetor. This are just means to get some news and entertainment, to get from point A to point B. Likewise I am not calling my car mechanic dumb, just because he has no idea how to build a web page or write an iOS application. If you are a programmer and want to create something useful, you should let that crazy idea that everyone must know and worship your craft go.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  Do not say "this is just a tool", it never helps. Besides, computer happen to be different in kind: they can do anything you tell them to. This is as close to a genie in a bottle as you will ever get. It wouldn't feel right to deprive most people of this little genie, don't you think?
  - wonderzombie 15y ago
    I think you overestimate people's desire (let alone aptitude) to wrestle with the genie in order to get their wishes. I assure you that a great many people are only able to use computers by memorizing a series of steps. They have no mental model for how it works. Given the options of "limitless but practically useless" versus "limited but quite useful practically," I'll opt for the second option. I'd rather have more people using computers than not. It's not fair to deprive people the power of even a relatively limited slice of computing just because they don't want to make a hobby out of it.
    - loup-vaillant 15y ago
      Once upon a time, most people couldn't read. No one thought it would be useful to them, including those who could read. I think programming is the same. Just teach it in school, and watch. How many people wouldn't wrestle with the genie if their grades depended on it? Not much more than those who can't read, I think. (Yes, I'm aware that changing the school system isn't isn't a piece of cake. But its easier than requiring everyone to do non-mandatory work.) Also, don't use the word "practically" when you actually mean "in the short term". Investing in the future can be worthwhile, despite hyperbolic discounting. Finally, you forgot the option "limitless and immediately useful". Really, there no reason at all why they should be mutually exclusive. If they are in our world, that's only because other interests are at work. (Open platforms and Free Software tend to be harder to monetize.)
twidlit 15y ago
change 'television' to 'computing experience' "When you're young, you look at computing experience and think, There's a conspiracy. The companies have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The companies are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the companies are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." --- original quote ironically enough came from Steve Jobs
- kunley 15y ago
  The old convenient argument "we give people what they want".. It's the same with the tv, newspapers. People get what they can get. People get what's in the market. People get what other people already got, because of a warm fuzzy feeling of familiarity and a need for identification with others. Any creator has a responsibility so that the users can be informed that things can be done in better ways and then they can choose better things. "We give people what they want" is often an easy excuse to ignore such responsibility.
danssig 15y ago
How did tin-foil-hat-esque nut-jobbery get voted so high? I wanted an iPad precisely because it isn't a "limitless and powerful computer". I wanted a multipurpose appliance that requires minimal (idealy 0) maintenance. Newsflash for you: the whole world is not computer programmers (I am and I still don't want to have to think about this stuff when I'm just consuming). They never wanted to know. Which is why something that finally lets them not bother learning this field is so incredibly popular. For those of us who do want to know Mac still covers that market. I can (and do) install anything I want on my MBP.
- frou_dh 15y ago
  I'm the same. I strongly prefer to only have to maintain one computer. I don't want or need more computers (in fact I got rid of a bunch). Augmenting it with appliance-like devices for additional needs is a pleasure.
cageface 15y ago
All technology must strike some balance between catering to the power user and catering to the novice. For the last thirty years tech has skewed pretty heavily towards the power user. iOS pushes the balance radically toward the novice and has been richly rewarded in the marketplace for doing so. I think iOS is a little more locked down than it has to be to accomplish this, but there's no question it represents a decisive break with the past. The money made in the future in technology will depend on humanizing technology. Over time I expect the market will find a paradigm that serves both ends of the spectrum well.
learc83 15y ago
All technology is magic at some level. Go deep enough and no matter what the technology is, we don't understand it why it really works on some basic physical level. Every electrical engineer, or computer scientist out there might as well be a wizard. Why pretend that one piece of technology is inferior just b/c it operates on a different level of abstraction.
mas644 15y ago
Wow, I had no idea I would stir up the beehive so much! Perhaps I was a bit dramatic in my presentation. The point I'm trying to make isn't that Apple, Google, etc are evil nor am I saying their products aren't good. The problem is things like DRM, net neutrality, software patents, privacy, developer and user rights, taking away control of information from users and throwing it in the cloud. THEY WANT TO CONTROL YOU SO THEY CAN CONTROL THEIR REVENUE STREAM AND ENACT PROPRIETARY LOCKIN! They would rather do that than have real competition! It's the Microsoft business model with sexier marketing. What happens when files go away -- how do I backup my data? Is my data even physically on my device? Is it located at some server at one of Apple's data centers? Are they securely storing it? Will I have access to it if they go out of business? Similiarly as a developer, how come there is no option for me to get my app onto the iPhone without being subject to Apple's App Store submission process? Sure, users may not notice, but they've created a major barrier to market. The excuse is that "oh we need to make sure it's user friendly and high quality", but we've seen often that they pull apps because they compete with something they're doing or they suddenly don't like the UI because it messes with Steve's vision of how your computer should behave. I don't think having open technologies and easy to use technologies is mutually exclusive. Android is a great counterexample to iOS. For DIYers on Hacker News, another great example is Arduino. Also, if you haven't taken a look at a Linux distribution in years (or ever) like Ubuntu, you really should try it out. Not only is it free and open, but it provides (in my opinion) an easier and aesthically superior experience to Windows/Mac and is a way better option for 90% of users that do simple things like listen to music, watch videos, take pictures, and surf the web. As one other person posted, they aren't trying to be evil, but they want to nickel and dime you at every step. They don't want you installing a more open OS on your device because they cannot control the experience (I gave the example of tethering in my original post). What scares them is giving you options that allow you to migrate away from their platform. A lot of people said "hey that's just business", but there are other business models than "proprietary lockin" that gives users flexibility and choice as well as generate profits for the company.

by mas644 15y ago

martinpannier 15y ago

Most comments in this thread strike me as being anti-"normal users". This is the elite, talking about how they can maintain their elite position.

tudorizer 15y ago
Well observed :)
onosendai 15y ago
That's not what the parent, or the article is saying. Don't turn this into some sort of class warfare for the sake of trolling. The ability of an OS or application to expose data in order to allow you to manipulate it as you see fit, does not preclude it being user-friendly and straighforward to use. That funcionality might very well be hidden away, but available if you're inclined to use it. The point that is being made is that this level of openess and flexibiliy is directly at odds with the need for control of some companies over their OS/applications and the content whithin, usually for the sake of profits.
- martinpannier 15y ago
  Sorry, but the article says nothing about companies maintaining control for the sake of profits — only the parent developed this point. The article made the point about the lack of composability of iOS, with the Grail of composability being the command-line. And I stand by what I said. Design is the result of trade-offs: you can't have ease of use and composability. Steve Jobs understood the necessity of trade-offs better than anyone else.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  But it does. Or at least, it does in every way that we've yet to imagine. What the author of the article suggests would be not "anti-programmer" are necessarily "anti-user". Breaking everything down into composable components and forcing the user to compose even simple, everyday procedures before being able to use them? How terribly difficult and exclusive to techies only! Similarly, he suggests that the only way for meaningful interaction to occur between programs is through the unfettered access to a filesystem - as users have demonstrated time and time again the past decade or so, they don't want that. They will pile heir music and photos and movies happily into one big dump so long as a much more proficient application handles the intricacies for them. They don't want a filesystem - it's a toy for people like us. The ability of an OS to expose data for manipulation does not necessarily preclude it from being user friendly, but that's only true in a very ephemeral, theoretical way. The only ways we know how to expose said data, up till now, is entirely anti-user, and part of why the popularity of computers with the general population has not exploded until so late. For too long we've kept the keys to the kingdom, and you know what, fuck all of that noise. And the claim that iOS (and other similarly restrictive OSes) have been developed primarily to protect the company's interest is patently absurd. The iPhone has been by far the best thing to happen to mainstream computer users in the past two decades. They have power at their fingertips that they can actually comprehend now, and use without navigating a tome of quickly outdated knowledge. This is the age of the device you don't have to take a class to use! The empowerment here is incredible, and people have been throwing gobs of money at Apple, Google, and everyone else who has realized this. The main reason these OSes are restrictive is because it guarantees usability and consistency in a way that completely open platforms do not (Gimp, anyone?). This whole article, and resulting thread, really disappoints me. I'd have thought that what we've seen in the last 4-5 years would finally wake up the tech community and make them realize that computational resources are pointless unless it benefits the rest of humanity somehow, and chief among these is mainstream usability. But no, it looks like a large contingent of HN is happy to view users as stupid plebes - if only they knew the value of free OSes and would take the time to learn the command line! Screw that train of thought, and damn the people who continue to reinforce the false assumption that technology need be complicated and obtuse. I'm sick and tired of looking at all the cool things we can do - things that are of real benefit to people - and having it locked away behind a glass wall of techno-wizardry when it does so much more good out in the hands of the masses.
vacri 15y ago
Nonsense. It's about the loss of functionality, not the point that there's a simplified UI available.

martinpannier 15y ago

Additional thought, because your post is just so wrong. > limitless and powerful computer More like confusing and impairing computer > no way to organize thoughts your way More ways to do so with my iDevice than with any other computer I ever owned! > no need to understand how the technology works Yay! Finally! (Not to bring up the car analogy again, but do I really need to know how my motor works to drive to work?) > technology is now magic True, it's now accessible to (almost) all! Etc. ad nauseam

briandear 15y ago

So build something better and let the market decide. I can teach my mother in law to use an iPhone in five minutes. Giving her all of this "freedom" would make the devices much harder to use and maintain, not to mention far more insecure. Not much of a malware danger on ios either. There are very few apps that need a jail broken device; the few that are unique are generally dealing with features the average user wouldn't want or need. For those Ivory Tower types, there's no law against jailbreaking..

acabal 15y ago

Maybe true, but the fact that iOS devices are selling so well shows that people actually want their computers to be as simple as appliances. I think that to many "regular" people (i.e. non-HN-reading types of people), the power in computers is when they provide a simple and idiot-proof way to automate many common day-to-day tasks. If given the choice, many people would rather go out for a picnic than sit down at a shell to figure out the difference between | and > so that maybe, one day, they could become command-line gurus and appreciate the power like we do. The market for complex and powerful computer interfaces will always exist--it's people like you and me. But the market for simple, easy, and foolproof computing will always be much bigger. Apple is owning that market, and if it's worse for the consumer, well, they seem to be pretty happy about the situation so far.

mas644 15y ago
I've seen this point brought up. Making some easy (which I'm all for btw) does not mean it has to lock down aspects that average users are not meant to look at it (i.e. DRM). It's fine if they hide them, but when there are software and hardware mechanisms that prevent power users from manipulating the device - that is unnecessary. I should be able to replace the OS as well as install any app that I please on the device. They are actually taking EXTRA steps to prevent me from seeing the internals by using things like hardware level OS image hashes (i.e. tivoization). Now people say, I just want to use my device and get work/play done. THat's fine, I'm all for it. However, having control benefits everybody. For example, if you want to tether your smartphone and use it as a wireless access point, writing the software to do this is trivial (and a power user can do it for you). However, smartphone companies don't want you doing that...unless you pay them more money for that feature. That's kind of unfair, the smartphone company is depending on PROPRIETARY LOCKIN rather than real competition. That's my problem with it. They want to control your experience and make you think you can't get a PREMIUM EXPERIENCE without paying them ludicrous amounts. I mean, all tethering does is update a few IP tables here and there -- I have to pay 10 bucks a month for that?? Yeah sure APple did a lot of great things as did Microsoft and Google for bringing computing to the masses. However, they all did it based on the open innovation of others (kernels, compilers, text editors, web servers, etc). They've used those wonderful open things to create a wonderful easy to use experience. At the same time, they've added ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINTS to it (e.g. again tethering) to create PROPRIETARY LOCKIN and make you think your device has less capability than it really has. If these companies stay on these same paths and people maintain the same level of compliance...we'll get to a point where ALL computers are useless and innovation can't happen. Again, easiness and openness are not orthogonal.

snprbob86 15y ago

"All these companies want to do is turn your computing experience into a locked down, controlled, monitored experience." Oh, bullshit. Do you really think there is someone siting around at Apple dreaming up new ways to take away your freedom? No. There fucking isn't. I'm a huge believer in small, composable components. And I know that developing against closed platforms sucks. Being able to dig down into the source code of every layer of your stack is critical to the understanding necessary to build high quality software. Libre, Gratis, and Open are all key elements of the software I choose to use to do many mission critical jobs, every day of my professional career going forward. But you know what? The people at Apple just want to make damn good products. They are proud as hell of those products. They work very hard to make them that damn good. Freedom isn't free. There are costs associated with development, complexity, opportunity. Free is a strategy that only few can afford to execute. Google has to vary the gratis, libre, and open dials with their products every single day to paint the benevolent picture they count on to keep their recruiting pipelines full, while still building high quality products on time and budget. My Girlfriend's Android phone (a highly rated model) is a horrible piece of crap next to the iPhone. It lags, crashes, has UX issues, flimsy hardware. The iPhone is a glorious, crowning achievement of engineering that still, years later, Microsoft and Google are struggle to replicate. I'm no dumber for owning an iPhone. It gets the job done: It makes phone calls. It settles arguments at the bar. It lets me cut in line at Chipotle. It wakes me up in the morning. It keeps me entertained. It makes me smile every time that little orange plane animates by as it goes into airplane mode. It just fucking works. You want to talk about freedom? I'm free from thinking about memory management. And processor utilization. And data loss. If it stops working, I'm free from worry because the Apple store makes everything better. I am free from all of the horrible things that can go wrong on my production servers. Unless something does go wrong on my production servers, in which case I'm free to be away from my desk when it happens. And I'm free to drive aimlessly without worrying about getting lost. I'm free to call a cab, when I just don't feel like walking home. In context, my iPhone represents every last bit as much freedom as my blinking cursor in an empty vim window.

norswap 15y ago
"Oh, bullshit. Do you really think there is someone siting around at Apple dreaming up new ways to take away your freedom?" > No but I honestly thinks there are people sitting around at Apple dreaming up new ways to take away your money, even if it entails taking away your freedom. "The people at Apple just want to make damn good products. They are proud as hell of those products. They work very hard to make them that damn good." > Yeah... As an aside I think Apple is overrated. It's interfaces are nifty but as seen with Lion they're not above a misstep. Plus while they offer a very nice first-time ("store") experience, with time it's edge over the other OS slowly fades. You have to learn all the keyboard shortcuts or you'll be a bit helpless in your shiny OS. Even hardware which tends to be quality can fail, as witnessed with graphic cards overheating problems for instance. "My Girlfriend's Android phone (a highly rated model) is a horrible piece of crap next to the iPhone. It lags, crashes, has UX issues, flimsy hardware. The iPhone is a glorious, crowning achievement of engineering that still, years later, Microsoft and Google are struggle to replicate." > Anecdotal evidence does not make a general truth. I for one have had the exact opposite experience. I had an iPhone 3G and with the new firmware the thing was a trainwreck of usability, while my new Samsung Galaxy S2 is snappy as hell. This is essentially irrelevant, as it has to do with computing power more than product quality (tough I get more bang for my computing power in Android, the iphone firmwares have brought me copy/paste and ... what ?).

briandear 15y ago

One more thing-- no one forces anyone to use a particular technology (unless it's being forced to use Windows at work.) The tin foil hat crowd might have some grand fears, but it's groundless -- you only give up the privacy you choose to give up. Google has never knocked on my door forcing me to give up private information, although the US government does! I would be more worried about intrusive and over regulatory whims of the government-- they can enforce their schemes at the point of a gun. Worry about the government and let the market take care of everything else.

vacri 15y ago
The tin foil hat crowd might have some grand fears, but it's groundless ... Worry about the government and let the market take care of everything else. Um... it's not really irony if you do it intentionally...

rimantas 15y ago

And why exactly my tablet should be different from razor or blender? Or my TV or my car? For many this is just a tool, not goal. lack of will by the masses to understand their technology There are many many many more fields besides IT. If anyone: be it waitress or accountant will be required to understand IT it will not end well. They want you to be dumber. No. I don't feel any dumber because I don't know how to fix my TV. I don't feel any dumber because my knowledge about car's engine is very basic and most of it was learnt in the age of carburetor. This are just means to get some news and entertainment, to get from point A to point B. Likewise I am not calling my car mechanic dumb, just because he has no idea how to build a web page or write an iOS application. If you are a programmer and want to create something useful, you should let that crazy idea that everyone must know and worship your craft go.

loup-vaillant 15y ago
Do not say "this is just a tool", it never helps. Besides, computer happen to be different in kind: they can do anything you tell them to. This is as close to a genie in a bottle as you will ever get. It wouldn't feel right to deprive most people of this little genie, don't you think?
- wonderzombie 15y ago
  I think you overestimate people's desire (let alone aptitude) to wrestle with the genie in order to get their wishes. I assure you that a great many people are only able to use computers by memorizing a series of steps. They have no mental model for how it works. Given the options of "limitless but practically useless" versus "limited but quite useful practically," I'll opt for the second option. I'd rather have more people using computers than not. It's not fair to deprive people the power of even a relatively limited slice of computing just because they don't want to make a hobby out of it.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    Once upon a time, most people couldn't read. No one thought it would be useful to them, including those who could read. I think programming is the same. Just teach it in school, and watch. How many people wouldn't wrestle with the genie if their grades depended on it? Not much more than those who can't read, I think. (Yes, I'm aware that changing the school system isn't isn't a piece of cake. But its easier than requiring everyone to do non-mandatory work.) Also, don't use the word "practically" when you actually mean "in the short term". Investing in the future can be worthwhile, despite hyperbolic discounting. Finally, you forgot the option "limitless and immediately useful". Really, there no reason at all why they should be mutually exclusive. If they are in our world, that's only because other interests are at work. (Open platforms and Free Software tend to be harder to monetize.)

twidlit 15y ago

change 'television' to 'computing experience' "When you're young, you look at computing experience and think, There's a conspiracy. The companies have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The companies are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the companies are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." --- original quote ironically enough came from Steve Jobs

kunley 15y ago
The old convenient argument "we give people what they want".. It's the same with the tv, newspapers. People get what they can get. People get what's in the market. People get what other people already got, because of a warm fuzzy feeling of familiarity and a need for identification with others. Any creator has a responsibility so that the users can be informed that things can be done in better ways and then they can choose better things. "We give people what they want" is often an easy excuse to ignore such responsibility.

danssig 15y ago

How did tin-foil-hat-esque nut-jobbery get voted so high? I wanted an iPad precisely because it isn't a "limitless and powerful computer". I wanted a multipurpose appliance that requires minimal (idealy 0) maintenance. Newsflash for you: the whole world is not computer programmers (I am and I still don't want to have to think about this stuff when I'm just consuming). They never wanted to know. Which is why something that finally lets them not bother learning this field is so incredibly popular. For those of us who do want to know Mac still covers that market. I can (and do) install anything I want on my MBP.

frou_dh 15y ago
I'm the same. I strongly prefer to only have to maintain one computer. I don't want or need more computers (in fact I got rid of a bunch). Augmenting it with appliance-like devices for additional needs is a pleasure.

cageface 15y ago

All technology must strike some balance between catering to the power user and catering to the novice. For the last thirty years tech has skewed pretty heavily towards the power user. iOS pushes the balance radically toward the novice and has been richly rewarded in the marketplace for doing so. I think iOS is a little more locked down than it has to be to accomplish this, but there's no question it represents a decisive break with the past. The money made in the future in technology will depend on humanizing technology. Over time I expect the market will find a paradigm that serves both ends of the spectrum well.

learc83 15y ago

All technology is magic at some level. Go deep enough and no matter what the technology is, we don't understand it why it really works on some basic physical level. Every electrical engineer, or computer scientist out there might as well be a wizard. Why pretend that one piece of technology is inferior just b/c it operates on a different level of abstraction.

mas644 15y ago

Wow, I had no idea I would stir up the beehive so much! Perhaps I was a bit dramatic in my presentation. The point I'm trying to make isn't that Apple, Google, etc are evil nor am I saying their products aren't good. The problem is things like DRM, net neutrality, software patents, privacy, developer and user rights, taking away control of information from users and throwing it in the cloud. THEY WANT TO CONTROL YOU SO THEY CAN CONTROL THEIR REVENUE STREAM AND ENACT PROPRIETARY LOCKIN! They would rather do that than have real competition! It's the Microsoft business model with sexier marketing. What happens when files go away -- how do I backup my data? Is my data even physically on my device? Is it located at some server at one of Apple's data centers? Are they securely storing it? Will I have access to it if they go out of business? Similiarly as a developer, how come there is no option for me to get my app onto the iPhone without being subject to Apple's App Store submission process? Sure, users may not notice, but they've created a major barrier to market. The excuse is that "oh we need to make sure it's user friendly and high quality", but we've seen often that they pull apps because they compete with something they're doing or they suddenly don't like the UI because it messes with Steve's vision of how your computer should behave. I don't think having open technologies and easy to use technologies is mutually exclusive. Android is a great counterexample to iOS. For DIYers on Hacker News, another great example is Arduino. Also, if you haven't taken a look at a Linux distribution in years (or ever) like Ubuntu, you really should try it out. Not only is it free and open, but it provides (in my opinion) an easier and aesthically superior experience to Windows/Mac and is a way better option for 90% of users that do simple things like listen to music, watch videos, take pictures, and surf the web. As one other person posted, they aren't trying to be evil, but they want to nickel and dime you at every step. They don't want you installing a more open OS on your device because they cannot control the experience (I gave the example of tethering in my original post). What scares them is giving you options that allow you to migrate away from their platform. A lot of people said "hey that's just business", but there are other business models than "proprietary lockin" that gives users flexibility and choice as well as generate profits for the company.