The author of the article is making the point that the device is "more open" because although it has a lower "unit openness" it is appealing to more people, thus raising the "total openness".
>By giving people freedom to explore the app store without having to worry about anything (except their wallets), Apple has possibly made the best move they could make by locking down the iPad’s installation sources.
What a brave new world that has such people in it.
Yes, he's equivocating "open" with "more freedom to explore without fear", which is understandable for an enthusiastic 14-year-old. ;-)
But he's making the same point that others have made, that freedom from worry about virii/spam/etc is a real advantage over the absolute openness of the web or desktop worlds, at least for non-geek population.
Well, I think Brave New World is particularly applicable because the same basic philosophy which supports Apple's actions also supports the belief that Huxley's dystopia is in fact a utopia. Obviously there's a difference of scale, but there's still the same sense. If people are content to be protected from smut and 'evil' speech, why do they need to have complete freedom to choose for themselves?
No, now you're equivocating the rather trivial matter (in the big picture of real life) of protection from sketchy apps with stifling freedom of speech in real life. You can always access the sketchy stuff on your Android or general web browser. There's no real lack of freedom.
And, personally, beyond whatever moral objections I might have to porn on the app store, it's always associated with bottom-feeder and generally sketchy behaviors (they obviously don't have any qualms about making money any way they can), and I'm glad I don't have to deal with that.
Before I noticed the age of the author, I was hoping that someone is pulling a Swift on us here.
NB: Imagine you've got an app store + additional ways to install applications. Why would this increase the worries of teenagers? (Their parents & teachers might think otherwise.) I certainly never got depressed in school by swapping around floppy disks of pirated games…
So you're saying he must be wrong just because you're older than him? This can't be right because I'm 30 and I agree with him. It doesn't seem like age is the critical factor here.
If I happen to be older than you, should I be able to dismiss anything you say as youthful naivety?
The incorrectness of the argument was never in doubt for me, to be honest. I was merely wondering whether this was out of naivety or a cynical parody. And in this day and age (and especially on the internets) I'm more prone to assume cynicism. Until I reread the first few paragraphs.
Well said. It's not about the platform or OS being open. It's about opening up possibilities for people.
One way Apple did this was with the App Store. Apple didn't create this model for distributing apps, they simply discovered it, allowing more people to discover what is possible. The same goes for the App Store on OS X. I, personally, have discovered a couple of applications I otherwise wouldn't have.
I upvoted because I dig the psychological aspect of the article -- The teenage market is where I like to turn for a prediction of where the general market will be in a few years. Because while teens aren’t nerdy, they tend to be early adopters because it’s cool
But the argument about openness is greatly flawed.
Now, I am a fairly young person myself, but the author is in 8th grade. I'm not sure he's qualified to talk about changes in the market over a few years.
It's not too young for an interested person to know this stuff. In the eighth grade, I was already dual-booting Linux on the family computer, was following VA Linux Systems' and Red Hat's IPOs, and was looking for alternatives to MS Office for my school.
Observation is available to anyone at any age. A person who is outside of the tech bubble may also look at the market from a psychological point of view rather than a pragmatic one.
Very much agree about the openness argument. Though, speaking to the quote about teens and prediction, I present this:
This is what Motorola and Google and Samsung and BlackBerry and everyone else, with the sole exception of Apple, do not get about “open” computing. It’s powerful, but for ordinary people, it’s too powerful
Notice a prominent name missing from that list? If what the author feels is true (and being a teenager himself), this speaks volumes to just how far they are behind the curve.
My fault. I completely forgot about Nokia - and Windows Phone 7 is actually kind of nice. And yes, I have in fact used it. I'll update the post a little bit later (I'm planning a whole update post)
The argument against Apple, iPad, iPhone regarding openness is more about freedom than it is about usability. So when you banter about it being more open one would assume you're charging back at the notion that it is not.
In other words, you're preaching to the choir - but using a headline that belittles your real point.
The author is 14yo. I am truly stunned at his ability to articulate his experience and opinions to the world. He should be commended for that if nothing else.
Now to the topic at hand: I own Apple products and they serve me well. However, I have to agree with dazzla that JP describes accessibility rather than openness.
I don't think you can reach the conclusion that the iPad is more open than any other platform because one person, who doesn't even own an iPad yet, thinks it does more.
Although, it would be interesting to know why the author's friend has that impression. I wouldn't think it's common, at least it isn't in my (admittedly tech savvy) circles.
Have you asked why they think that? I'd like to know their reasoning. I certainly understand the allure of the device, I just can't see where the idea of it doing more than they are already doing on their computers comes from, unless they are simply referring to apps that are only available on iPad.
I was 14 a couple months ago. I don't believe in breaks for people because of age, but i'm not attacking him personally or anything! My point is simply that his logic is failed, nothing more.
Free software might be open from a legal standpoint, or even a tech standpoint, but if it's not actually making itself accessible to people, it's still closed. Maybe you can assuage your conscience by sticking a GPL license in your source code directory on your FTP server, but if your users can't actually change anything, it's still closed to them.
My flip-side take of the same idea: sure Linux is "open", but every time I try to really use it, I get mired in obfuscation and decide that shelling out a few bucks will get me a lot closer to my goals a whole lot faster.
Kinda like driving vs. walking: sure, moving your feet will take you anywhere - anywhere! - you want to go, but more than a few miles soon becomes impractical ... while the fuel-roads-and-rules limitations of driving can get you almost anywhere up to halfway across the country within a day in comfort. To say walking is more "free" (aka "open") than driving kinda misses something key.
And, while we're at it, this kid (!) can download the Xcode IDE, write any software he wants (short of obscenity, libel, or flagrant IP violations) and have it distributed with the greatest of ease to every iOS user who wants it. For just $99 and a percentage he can make a profit to boot.
Is something "open" if most people can't get at it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thought the article was terrible, but rather than contribute anything useful, I'm going to mock the title. "99% less open" is idiomatic and means "1/100 as open". It's a round number, conveying an order of magnitude. On the other hand, "99% more open" implies you've measured precisely enough to claim that the iPad is 1.99 times as open as the best alternative. Thank you.
This is a cute read, and as others have stated, it's well-written for a 14 year old.
The idea that the iPad is opening up more people to technology than other products though is quite naive. It might get the most press, fan-fair, and attention with an exclusive event to debut it every year, but that doesn't make it any friendlier to non-tech-savvy users than its competitors. Has the author even touched another tablet-like device on the market?
The iPad might be "open" in the sense that it is making technology accessible to regular users. But more "open" than the rest? That's the product of good marketing. Sure, the device itself has to stand on its own, but so do its competitors. The media loves to give Apple plenty of attention, and combined with aggressive advertisement its products are now household names.
Fun fact about the technology: if there can be spam, there will be spam. If there can be porn, there will be porn. If there can be malware, there will be malware. If there can be scams, there will be scams.
Apple's goal is that these things can't be. Their solution is the top down approach and App Store. Other platforms will (or will not) have other solutions. It's really that simple.
"There is more than one kind of freedom... Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it." - The Handmaid's Tale
Why do people get hung up on wording? It is a shame people are just going to dismiss this because he worded it as "open". In reality, what he is saying is that the iPad is more useful than a regular computer, and usefulness trumps openness.
As someone who is very technical, is a computer (or ipad) more useful to me if I can install whatever I want, and program it however I want? Yes. Are most users very technical? No.
People just want to use their computers to do something, and quickly. Why don't alot of people who aren't comfortable with technology install software? Well, they have experience that they download something and install it, and suddenly their computer runs like crap or they have a virus. They have learned they are better off just to leave it be. That's why so many users just stick with the default. They install something, they get hosed. Again and again. The alternative is to spend a great deal of time determining whether the source is trusted, or official, or whatever.
The app store removes that restriction, making it more useful to the -average- user. Apps don't write all over each other, they don't bog down the ipad, and the source is already trusted. Those things mean that a typical user is able to do more, because those are all barriers to -doing something- that don't exist on the iPad that do on other platforms. That's all he is saying. That's the point, and one that people who are building businesses here should recognize. Don't get hung up on wording.
You can sit around and argue all day that people should be willing to take the time to understand their devices better, and then they would benefit from a more open system, but you are wasting your breath. People aren't interested in that, by and large. They just want to do something else, and do so without opening themselves up to a giant hassle.
"The iPad does everything that a regular computer user does. Facebook. YouTube. Email. Web browsing. It does all this out of the box."
Doesn't basically every device with a browser do these out of the box?
If we're talking apps I wasn't aware that the iPhone pre-installed Facebook and I didn't think there was an iPad app for Facebook. Is this a new thing? I've heard of Android phones having it installed, even having buttons for it, but I don't remember seeing it on my iPhone.
Fair point. But it does web browsing out of the box and that's all you need for Facebook. And yes, every device does so out of the box. The point is that for an average computer user, it does this out of the box and it does more and they can still figure it out. But you're right about the Facebook thing. Thanks for reading.
First: I'm kind of blown away that anyone's reading this and thinking about it at all -- including those of you who disagree. Thank you all. Second: I don't want anyone to think that I believe the iPad is more powerful than a regular computer. Several people have said that I think that, and I don't. I know I couldn't survive on just my iPad. But what I am saying is that the iPad is kind of like computer training wheels. For a lot of normal people, it makes it possible for them to explore without worrying. That doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that all computers should be like that. I don't think so. That would be terrible. We need open computers, but there is a place for that and a place for closed ones, and I think most people do better with a closed one.
Finally, I am well aware what the Android folks mean by "openness", and I am deliberately redefining the term. Call it "relative openness" if you care that much. Openness comes at a cost, and unfortunately, it doesn't scale. Have any of you ever watched someone use an Android device? They don't get them. They find them confusing and difficult. They make people hate their electronics because they aren't worth using, and that's no way to push things forward.
I would never want to live in a country made and run like iOS, but a country is not the same thing as an electronic device used to communicate with others and the same principles cannot be applied.
We need a rich language in order to communicate effectively. By using a term differently than expected in your post, and then mixing it with the original meaning, you're making absolutely no sense. Let's call the iOS interface "accessible" (covering any number of characteristics) and acknowledge the missing feature of "arbitrary installs".
I'll grant that Android is not perfect. But the arbitrary install feature does not seem to be the issue. The crucial non-nerdy segment would never need to know about it, as they are free to explore the default market app to their heart's content. In fact, arbitrary installs are disabled by default and have to be enabled from deep in the settings menu.
As for the principle of disabling arbitrary installs, it's insulting, like a pair of safety scissors (an inferior product for intended safety).
My last comment. I'm sure this will make you guys even more sarcastic, but haters gotta hate: http://jpteti.com/post/4091718756/ipad-followup-post. I hope you folks are glad that I'm no prejudiced (probably unfairly) against all of you because of the behavior of a few.
63 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
What a brave new world that has such people in it.
Hate is Love War is Peace etc ...
Brave new world (in combination with Newspeak) just about captures it.
But he's making the same point that others have made, that freedom from worry about virii/spam/etc is a real advantage over the absolute openness of the web or desktop worlds, at least for non-geek population.
And, personally, beyond whatever moral objections I might have to porn on the app store, it's always associated with bottom-feeder and generally sketchy behaviors (they obviously don't have any qualms about making money any way they can), and I'm glad I don't have to deal with that.
(Let the downvoting begin! ;-)
NB: Imagine you've got an app store + additional ways to install applications. Why would this increase the worries of teenagers? (Their parents & teachers might think otherwise.) I certainly never got depressed in school by swapping around floppy disks of pirated games…
So you're saying he must be wrong just because you're older than him? This can't be right because I'm 30 and I agree with him. It doesn't seem like age is the critical factor here.
If I happen to be older than you, should I be able to dismiss anything you say as youthful naivety?
And read the Tempest, as well - that's what Huxley references in the title.
One way Apple did this was with the App Store. Apple didn't create this model for distributing apps, they simply discovered it, allowing more people to discover what is possible. The same goes for the App Store on OS X. I, personally, have discovered a couple of applications I otherwise wouldn't have.
But the argument about openness is greatly flawed.
This is what Motorola and Google and Samsung and BlackBerry and everyone else, with the sole exception of Apple, do not get about “open” computing. It’s powerful, but for ordinary people, it’s too powerful
Notice a prominent name missing from that list? If what the author feels is true (and being a teenager himself), this speaks volumes to just how far they are behind the curve.
Microsoft and Nokia.
Also "BlackBerry" is a brand/model, not a company. What does that say for RIMs status in the market? It's defined by a single product.
In any case, thanks for reading.
In other words, you're preaching to the choir - but using a headline that belittles your real point.
Now to the topic at hand: I own Apple products and they serve me well. However, I have to agree with dazzla that JP describes accessibility rather than openness.
Although, it would be interesting to know why the author's friend has that impression. I wouldn't think it's common, at least it isn't in my (admittedly tech savvy) circles.
Kinda like driving vs. walking: sure, moving your feet will take you anywhere - anywhere! - you want to go, but more than a few miles soon becomes impractical ... while the fuel-roads-and-rules limitations of driving can get you almost anywhere up to halfway across the country within a day in comfort. To say walking is more "free" (aka "open") than driving kinda misses something key.
And, while we're at it, this kid (!) can download the Xcode IDE, write any software he wants (short of obscenity, libel, or flagrant IP violations) and have it distributed with the greatest of ease to every iOS user who wants it. For just $99 and a percentage he can make a profit to boot.
Is something "open" if most people can't get at it?
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.
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.
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.
The narrative of Sophie measures this utility.
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.
Interestingly, the sentence that completely blew me away had nothing to do with the argument being made.
Ha!
The idea that the iPad is opening up more people to technology than other products though is quite naive. It might get the most press, fan-fair, and attention with an exclusive event to debut it every year, but that doesn't make it any friendlier to non-tech-savvy users than its competitors. Has the author even touched another tablet-like device on the market?
The iPad might be "open" in the sense that it is making technology accessible to regular users. But more "open" than the rest? That's the product of good marketing. Sure, the device itself has to stand on its own, but so do its competitors. The media loves to give Apple plenty of attention, and combined with aggressive advertisement its products are now household names.
Apple's goal is that these things can't be. Their solution is the top down approach and App Store. Other platforms will (or will not) have other solutions. It's really that simple.
As someone who is very technical, is a computer (or ipad) more useful to me if I can install whatever I want, and program it however I want? Yes. Are most users very technical? No.
People just want to use their computers to do something, and quickly. Why don't alot of people who aren't comfortable with technology install software? Well, they have experience that they download something and install it, and suddenly their computer runs like crap or they have a virus. They have learned they are better off just to leave it be. That's why so many users just stick with the default. They install something, they get hosed. Again and again. The alternative is to spend a great deal of time determining whether the source is trusted, or official, or whatever.
The app store removes that restriction, making it more useful to the -average- user. Apps don't write all over each other, they don't bog down the ipad, and the source is already trusted. Those things mean that a typical user is able to do more, because those are all barriers to -doing something- that don't exist on the iPad that do on other platforms. That's all he is saying. That's the point, and one that people who are building businesses here should recognize. Don't get hung up on wording.
You can sit around and argue all day that people should be willing to take the time to understand their devices better, and then they would benefit from a more open system, but you are wasting your breath. People aren't interested in that, by and large. They just want to do something else, and do so without opening themselves up to a giant hassle.
Doesn't basically every device with a browser do these out of the box?
If we're talking apps I wasn't aware that the iPhone pre-installed Facebook and I didn't think there was an iPad app for Facebook. Is this a new thing? I've heard of Android phones having it installed, even having buttons for it, but I don't remember seeing it on my iPhone.
First: I'm kind of blown away that anyone's reading this and thinking about it at all -- including those of you who disagree. Thank you all. Second: I don't want anyone to think that I believe the iPad is more powerful than a regular computer. Several people have said that I think that, and I don't. I know I couldn't survive on just my iPad. But what I am saying is that the iPad is kind of like computer training wheels. For a lot of normal people, it makes it possible for them to explore without worrying. That doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that all computers should be like that. I don't think so. That would be terrible. We need open computers, but there is a place for that and a place for closed ones, and I think most people do better with a closed one.
Finally, I am well aware what the Android folks mean by "openness", and I am deliberately redefining the term. Call it "relative openness" if you care that much. Openness comes at a cost, and unfortunately, it doesn't scale. Have any of you ever watched someone use an Android device? They don't get them. They find them confusing and difficult. They make people hate their electronics because they aren't worth using, and that's no way to push things forward.
I would never want to live in a country made and run like iOS, but a country is not the same thing as an electronic device used to communicate with others and the same principles cannot be applied.
I'll grant that Android is not perfect. But the arbitrary install feature does not seem to be the issue. The crucial non-nerdy segment would never need to know about it, as they are free to explore the default market app to their heart's content. In fact, arbitrary installs are disabled by default and have to be enabled from deep in the settings menu.
As for the principle of disabling arbitrary installs, it's insulting, like a pair of safety scissors (an inferior product for intended safety).
Frankly, it is disturbing how much of 4chan slips into the thoughts and lexicon of today's youth.