Thoughts about Apple and iPad

A friend of mine and I were discussing the iPad virtually over coffee and tea and as the buzz discussion progressed (and I fell behind, quite the prolific author is Ted), I realized that I wanted to work it out so I could just get this all down as a blog post.  Not sure if it will really increase the readership of the debate any (1), but it just seemed better for a blog post then a buzz comment.

So the events that took place roughly follow the following:

I got a tweet that said, hey everyone read this (paraphrased to protect the innocent):


http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/02/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-you-shouldnt-either.html

So I read that and enjoyed it and posted it to buzz.  I got a reply or two (which is really more than I ever get) so I found this all very engaging.

One of the comments said this:

actually, john gruber has a phenomenal response to this:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/kids_are_all_right

In response to the article.  It is an interesting read.  And I'm going to start with a huge digression before I continue (might even be in response to some other stuff that was written ;-)).  I have loved writing software since I got my Sinclair 1000 back in 1980 (or was it 79).  I loved it so much more than playing games on the Atari 2600.  As a matter fact I then got and programmed on the Commodore Vic 20, the plus 4, the 128, then started into the PC era with a 486 and have then bought or built several PCs since then.  You know what?  I never bought another gaming machine until the PS3 -- which I could install Linux on.  Now as it turns out that was really a farce because you can't access the graphics chip to any extent and now they are removing the support so they have now lost me as a customer.  Except that its still a great BluRay player oh and I can download games for it.  The game I play most?  Sudoku...

But back to the article.  There is no valid comparison between wanting to be able to install any software that you want on the computing device you just bought and and buying a car and not wanting to work on it.  There just isn't.  Its an invalid comparison.  Now I'm not talking about what I prefer here, I'm just pointing out the whole issue -- the whole comparison is based on a fallacy.  It's a trickery of words.  Just because the comparison was made and sounds reasonable, does not make it so.

Anyone making the argument is basically equating having to work on the car with the ability to do what you want with the device for which you just shelled out hundreds (thousands, etc.) of dollars.  They are not equal.  In fact, you can buy the car and choose to work on it yourself or chose to pay someone else to work on it.  You don't even have to take it to the dealership!  The comparison breaks down in so many ways.

If you were to really want to make the comparison valid, it would be that you couldn't go buy a cup holder and add it to the inside of your car.  Or replace the mats yourself.  Or go to your favorite car audio shop and have them install the coolest stereo that money can buy.  These are things that you simply would not accept from a car manufacturer but some how are being accepted by the iLoveApple community.

Okay I'm done with that one, but its really important that people do not read those comparisons and think that they are valid.

Okay next we get to another point that is really good, but just not valid.  And this is because the point it makes is so clean and "of course I want the world to be that way," and it is only upon further inspection that we realize that yes it should be that way and it has nothing to do with the freedom that we should have with our devices.

but i don't want all possibilities open. lets say there are 3 groups of tasks i break the computing world up into... group A are those tasks i want/need to do. group B are those i might want/need to do in the future. group C, which is by far the largest group, are things i don't care or want to do, ever. when i pick a device that is intentionally limited or constrained in some way, i ask myself in which of the groups of tasks do the limitations fit. the limitations cory pointed out are pretty much all group C, and this is the important point, to me.

So first lets just start with: you don't want to be able to put a media player on your device and use your own media library?  You don't want to be able to run software just because Apple says you can't because it competes with them or Steve's in a bad mood?  That really falls into category C?  Come on, you drank the cool aid and now you're just rationalizing :-). 

The real issue is you just want things to work.  And I get that.  When I write software I want it to work for everyone, perfectly, everytime, period, period.  But once again there is an illusion of words going on here.  Having things working perfectly is not at odds with having the freedom to work on your computer any way you see fit.  In fact in my case they go hand in hand.  My computer wouldn't work for me near as well if I didn't have the ability to put scripts on it that automate so many things that people spend countless hours doing.  So justifying that its okay for it not to be free because you don't want to work on it is just drinking the coolaid.  They are unrelated.  It is being preached to mask the control.  Don't buy into it!  Use their products all you want, but don't act like the comparison is between it working well and being locked in, or it not working well.  For one that is the arrogant trash that is being spewed [by we know who], and two its just ridiculous.

Next there was another really good point, but again it just doesn't really apply to freedom -- it applies to software in general and has nothing to do with freedom.  I must applaud the points because they are so true and so important to the computing industry today that they deserve praise and blogs about the points.  I just feel like they are great points that really do not pertain to whether consumers deserve to have some freedom on the devices we buy.

...with the ability to anything you want, comes the responsibility to maintain all of that. that responsibility is a HUGE chain to me, and thus a limit on my freedom to simply get done the tasks i need/want to get done.

So with the ability comes nothing but ability.  Ability doesn't imply any responsibility.  They are totally separate.  In fact, even if you use the ability to do lots of fun stuff to the computer and mess it all up,  you roll it back to the state that was good and you keep do the tasks you want / need to get done like nothing ever happened.  The ability to mess it up to learn more about it and then roll it back may even help you do what you need to or want to get done.  In fact, this has been the basis of research and learning for thousands of years has it not (minus the rollback part -- that is new to the last decade I think ;-)).

So in summary it is very important not to confuse freedom to use a computer with any potential issues that computers have today.  They just can't be equated, and shouldn't be equated, because the sheep will follow.  It is not correct to link the right and ability to be able to do something and the responsibility to have to do it -- that in fact is taking away the freedom is it not?  So everyone, use whatever platform you like.  But do not drink the coolaid if it is telling you that you should trade off freedom for things to just work.  Everything should just work.  And everything possible should be based on open standards so you are not locked in.  That is what we should be focused on and not how do we rationalize getting locked in to another vendor's product line.

Just by 59900 cents worth ;-)