Apple's iPad is a sad, sad thing.
What the Ipad means
Everything I will say here was probably better said by Mark Pilgrim but what the heck, let's give it a shot.
Here's what's wrong with the iPad: it sucks for me.
Before anyone says "don't buy it then!" I'll say it first: I don't intend to buy one.
I think there is a place for iPads and it would go agains most of my beliefs to say it shouldn't exist, but I also expect it to make our world poorer, if it's popular enough.
Yes it's hostile to tinkering. Yes, to read about that, see Mark Pilgrim's article, he's a much better writer than I.
I once posted the README file for a piece of software called Atlast. It said things like "make everything programmable" and "[It is] far better to invest the effort up front to create a product flexible enough to be adapted at will, by its users, to their immediate needs."
The iPad and most other Apple products are the antithesis of that. They are products meant to be exactly as they are, and that's all they are goint to be. If you want to change the way it acts, you need to pay and be subject of Apple's whim, or "break into" your own device.
That hurts me. I see people give up even the possibility of changing what a (let's say it) pretty, useful, powerful device is capable of, just because they don't what that freedom. I can understand that from, say, a used car salesman, or whatever, someone without any inclination for that craft.
But I see freaking programmers buying apple kit. And I see them happy with their iPhones and iPods and (soon, surely) iPads, buying apps from the only source enabled to sell them, buying the apps that are allowed by a single party, that decides, hey, this app? you won't need it!
I see them and I say to myself, dude, that thing you hold in your hand is more powerful than anything we had 10 years ago, there must be something cool you could do with it that noone else is doing.
What's the vision a programmer has of his future if he endorses Apple's closed kit? A future where he can program something only if Apple approves? A future where a "real" computer is a SDK for the things "real people" use in their everyday lifes?
What is wrong with you? What happened to you? Are you now the kind of guy that's just happy with what he's given? Are you now a freaking utilitarian? Are you old now?
Have you noticed the trend in Apple's new products is towards less control by the user? First it was just handhelds, now there's a tablet. What was the last new interesting Apple product that wasn't locked up?
Here they had a device which could have OSX or Iphone OS, and they went with Iphone OS. There is a reason for that: it makes them more money.
For OSX, they make money of the hardware, the OS upgrades, and some apps. On the iPad, they make money every time you buy any app, every time you buy a book to read in it, every time you use 3G with the prepaid plan, and I am sure they are going to find other ways too.
And what's the key to making money that way? Control. If they had no exclusive control of the App store, they lose a source of revenue. If they allowed for easy development of hobby apps, they would lose revenue. If they could let you replace the freaking battery, they would lose revenue.
And if there's one thing companies hate is losing revenue. Apple saw two paths ahead, one leading to huge money, the other to just big money. They have taken the huge money path, and it's working for them. They are not going back.
If everyone goes along for the ride, it will be a sad thing.
I don't think revenue is the primary driving factor in keeping the App Store locked - I'm pretty sure the main motivation is to have control over what is released (no private API usage, no malware, minimal breaking of UI guidelines, etc). Deride it if you will - but it is a big part in the massive iPhone success.
Above all developers want people to *use* what they create. The hundreds of thousands of developers writing code for the iPhone do it not because they have sold out or settled for less, but because what they create will be used.
What happens when Apple adds a feature to the iphone OS, and suddenly a whole category of apps will not ever get another version approved because it now is in conflict with the guidelines?
Well, then those developers will be older and wiser about supporting a system where another company tells them what they can and cannot sell or even give away. And it will be too late for them.
If apple wanted "no private API usage, no malware, minimal breaking of UI guidelines", it's trivial: create a non-mandatory apple store. Make the user have to jump hoops to install from other sources. Void the warranty. Offer a "restore to factory+approved apps" switch. Disincentivate non-approved apps, instead of forbidding them!
Give a *choice* to have a fucked-up phone, if the user is willing! That is the cost of freedom: freedom to fuck up on your own.
Don't they already have that with jailbreaking?
Sort of, but then there would be no reason to fight the jailbreaking in every subsequent release of the iPhone OS
For what it's worth I really dislike the locked down app store and in particular some of the *specific* policies Apple seems to act on. *However*, I suspect that the locked down nature of the app store is part of the reason that is so successful. I think there is an *enormous* amount for developers of all kinds to learn about what consumers really want, and how they really use computers, from the iPhone and what will become the iPad stories. I'm afraid that rants like this indicate that many developers are *completely* missing what is there to be learned.
I would be delighted to publish apps for ipad or whatever if I wasn't subjected to approval by a third party. So no.
You're stilling missing my point. :-) It isn't about what you as a developer want, but the experience Apple is able to bring through the control they exert is obviously striking a chord with what consumers want. Fine if you don't want to give up that freedom, I agree with you of course, but us geeks have not so far been capable of producing user experiences (in terms of usable software and operating systems) that people really enjoy using. That is the challenge ahead of us and the lesson to be learned.
I don't expect IPhone OS is written by marketing specialists, but I get it. That's why I say it's sad "us geeks" are buying these things.
I do find it interesting that there aren't any real development choices on the iPhone or (presumably) iPad.
thats why wap walled gardens were so good, they were controlled by the owners. oh, wait.
open/closed has nothing to do with how good/bad it is.
i saw the palm ecosystem grow out of nothing last century, it did not need to be closed to get the attention of everyone and be successful for free and paid apps. So dont tell me that you need a closed device to be successful.
a) You also saw it become nothing again, didn't you? ;-)
b) Who is telling you that? I am however telling you that Apple's closed ecosystem is very succesful.
a) yes i did. like the apple II, or os9, or commodore, or DOS games.
b) you are not the one saying it, but let me quote from above: "*However*, I suspect that the locked down nature of the app store is part of the reason that is so successful.".
I completely agree with your article and I'm depressed to see people who like free softwares (as in free speech) interested by this piece of locked hardware.
I really don't understand them.