
Doctorow: Why I won't buy an iPad - fogus
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/02/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-you-shouldnt-either.html
======
dpritchett
Doctorow is apparently philosophically opposed to:

* Devices he perceives as dumbed down

* DRM

* Old media

* Vendor lock-in

* App store models other than "bazaar"

Most of these have pros and cons; the iPad is not going to be everything to
everyone but rather the result of a highly opinionated design process. If "it
just works" and "tons of apps available for $10" fit your usage profile, so be
it. There are plenty of cultural and usability benefits to a consistent
experience even though it comes at the cost of some user control.

If this market isn't for you, there's always an Eeebuntu box with your name on
it.

~~~
cgranade
But there isn't an Eeebuntu box with multitouch input and other slick hardware
features-- having open source software is a wonderful first step, but until
non-Apple manufacturers start to realize that they really need to make damn
good hardware in order to compete, we're stuck with a rather crappy situation.

Moreover, its a false dichotomy between vendor lock-in and a consistent user
experience. What Google has shown with the HTC Dream and Nexus One handsets is
that you can have something without a centralized approver deciding what apps
are blessed for publication and which aren't, and yet still have a consistent
user experience. Though individual carriers do in fact restrict apps to the
Android Market, this is not inherent to the platform like with iPhone OS--
customers can and should complain about carriers that lock down Android
handsets.

Also inexplicable is Apple's love of DRM. Time and time again, DRM has shown
itself to be the bane of consumers. It doesn't make the iPad any better in any
technical sense, and only serves to introduce anti-features to the platform.

In short, my opposition to the iPad is not due to a difference in opinion
about design decisions so much as it is an unwillingness to participate in a
platform where both developers and users are completely subservient to Apple's
whims and where I don't truly own my own device.

~~~
st3fan
Uhhh consistent user interface? Have you recently looked at apps on the
android marketplace? You can find anything but consistent user interface. Some
copy the iPhone, other have purple square buttons, others have grey Windows
buttons. Some have some iPhone keyboard, others use the native keyboard. There
is zero consistency in android app.

~~~
jrockway
I like how people hold the freedom of the Android market against Android. "I
want to force every developer to do things _Apple's way_ , because change
scares me." The solution to that is to write your own software, not to refuse
to let people publish theirs. Want a consistent interface? Shut the fuck up
and write some code.

Let me know when my iPhone (+) can turn off its ringer when I get to work, or
when I can chat on IRC over ssh, or when I can share my location with my
friends automatically. One app may have purple buttons or its own keyboard,
but at least my phone can do something _useful_.

(+) Warning: literary device. I do not actually have an iPhone.

~~~
bitwize
Change scares users. By forcing developers into one consistent UI, Apple has
done the _correct_ thing from a user-friendliness standpoint.

* Want a consistent interface? Shut the fuck up and write some code.*

This approach leads to the exact _opposite_ of a consistent UI. Look at
desktop Linux.

~~~
jrockway
It's consistent for whoever wrote it.

If you want your definition of consistent, you are going to have to write your
own software.

~~~
gfodor
Is this a serious comment? If you write your own software towards your own
definition, then, by definition, others have _different_ definitions, thereby
making things _inconsistent_.

------
KirinDave
I'd like to put out a bet:

By April 1st 2011, Doctorow will have an iPad. He'll argue that it's more
important to be on the cutting edge helping to shape the community rather than
to sit back on the porch and complain like an old man. He'll probably like the
device, and have a list of apps that he feels exemplify his vision of the
device's potential.

I guess it shouldn't confuse me why people are so eager to comment on what or
why the iPad is the best/worst thing ever. We're looking at an attempt to
completely change the way folks use a computer here; we're looking at a whole
new product. To say, “I can forsee this impugning freedom!” is to claim to
have a crystal ball of epic proportions.

Given the incredible, measurable, financial success of IP that has shed DRM, I
don't think the industry is entirely behind locking up things in the way
Doctorow predicts.

~~~
nooneelse
Why think he will buy an iPad rather than any one of the number of more open
pads already out or coming out soon?

~~~
JeremyBanks
Because it will be better than them.

~~~
generalk
If that were the case, don't you think he'd be using an iPhone over an Android
phone?

~~~
KirinDave
Because android phones are not bad. Especially since the launch of the Droid,
they've become incredibly competitive. After about 2 years, Apple's lost their
clear lead and the market has started to produce competitors.

It doesn't _look_ like the market has things which compete with the iPad just
yet.

~~~
jcl
Really? As I recall, the iPhone had roughly a two-year lead before anything
similar came out. In the case of the iPad, we're seeing clones coming out
before the iPad itself.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1235399>

------
tptacek
I did read this post, but as a warning to others, it says nothing that you
didn't already know Doctorow would say about the iPad.

~~~
cgranade
If Doctrow sounds like a broken record, I can't hold it against him. These are
points that need to be made repeatedly and loudly-- voices that oppose these
kinds of closed platforms are sorely missing, by and large.

~~~
timr
Not really. It's a _consumer electronics device_ , not a religion. If you
don't like it because you can't (easily) open it up and change the battery,
you don't have to buy it. Only geeks care that geeks don't like the iPad --
and from what I can tell, it doesn't bother Apple much, either. They're
selling plenty of iPads to the other 99% of the world.

My grandfather used to complain that "cars these days" can't be repaired
without taking them to the shop because of the "damned computers." He was
wrong, too.

~~~
cryptoz
My understanding is that he thinks the trend itself is dangerous, not just the
device. By not purchasing an iPad, he is protesting (with his dollars) against
closed-computing. The protest _does_ need to be loud, because of this:

Most of the world does not know or care about how closed the iPad is; we all
know, however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones
_because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run_.

That's why he's fighting the fight.

~~~
mishmash
> however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones
> because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run.

I'm pretty neutral about the iPad at the moment, but just wanted to point out
that the world has had "open" computers for nearly 30 years and so far, I
would argue they have not been better for the consumer.

Just look at Linux on the desktop. :)

~~~
stanleydrew
Linux on the desktop is still irrelevant (although I do love it, so it's been
great for this consumer). But what fraction of the web wouldn't exist today if
not for Linux servers and Apache? Are you willing to say consumers aren't
better off because of those open systems?

~~~
mishmash
No, you have a point about open systems in general, to which I agree
wholeheartedly, I simply referring to consumer-facing devices.

And if the consumer really wanted an open system, again Linux on the desktop
(Ubuntu?) should be have much more market share than it does.

~~~
JulianMorrison
The consumer doesn't have to want an open system. The importance is that
they're there, keeping the others honest.

------
istari
The wide-framed automated loom is an outrage! It is the tool with which the
factory owner will crush the artisan.

Have you seen working conditions in the factories? Soon all goods, not not
just textiles, will be produced in such a manner. Workers will be treated as
machine parts, replaceable and expendable, with all power in the hands of a
few. This is what the automated loom will bring! Not just economic ruin but
the enslavement of society!

And what of innovation? For 300 years every artisan learned every aspect of
his craft, and in doing so contributed to its growth. How is innovation
possible, with all production concentrated into a handful of corporations and
run by a multitude of drones?

Down with the automated loom!

------
onedognight
The iPad is a console for the non-gamer. We are all used to lock-in when it
comes to game systems. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony don't let you make a game
without their say so. Why is Apple getting a bad rap?

~~~
jerf
You seem to be implying that these same people aren't upset at the console
makers for the same reasons, and therefore they are hypocrites. But a
sufficient number of them _are_ upset at the console makers for the same
reason, so your accusation fails.

You are, after all, posting this implicit accusation the same week that
geekdom has been raging about the PS3 locking down even tighter!

When making a complaint, people are not obligated to run through every similar
complaint they have, or face accusations of hypocrisy. In fact that would be
downright tedious.

~~~
onedognight
My comment wasn't directed to this one article or its author, but to the
situation in general where I see more people complaining now about the iPad's
lock-in than I remember complaining when the XBox360 was released.

~~~
elpuri
Probably because console gaming had always been closed and the introduction of
x360 didn't really make things any worse than they were.

Also the game developers who would like to see open gaming platforms are
probably outnumbered by the people who are now worried about a more closed
general software industry => more noise.

------
mortenjorck
_The way you improve your iPad isn't to figure out how it works and making it
better. The way you improve the iPad is to buy iApps. Buying an iPad for your
kids isn't a means of jump-starting the realization that the world is yours to
take apart and reassemble; it's a way of telling your offspring that even
changing the batteries is something you have to leave to the professionals._

Because there's no powerful, intuitive, and exhaustively-documented SDK built
on a robust set of APIs?

Yes, the fact that it costs $100/year to do anything useful with it is a
problem. But these characterizations of the iPad as a consumption-only device,
when the platform it's built on has sparked a creative, entrepreneurial
revolution on mobile devices, is complete nonsense.

~~~
lazugod
The platform on which iPad apps are built—the Mac—is a great piece of
technology, and is indeed revolutionary in its use in the creation of modern
software and digital media. But that's not an argument for the iPad being a
creative tool. It is not part of the process of utilizing its own SDK.

Until I can add features to an iPhone/iPad without shelling out for one of
Apple's "real" computers, I will consider the iPad a consumption-only, and
thus an unnecessary, device.

------
frou_dh
Lucky for people who have already accumulated tech knowledge, buying and using
an iPad won't zap it out of their brains.

Though as a young person's first computer, I kind of see his point.

------
dfj225
I agree with Doctorow's points only when looking at the iPad as a replacement
for a personal computer. If you look at it like a consumer appliance (just
like the iPod Touch, iPhone, Kindle, Nook, etc.) then the iPad isn't really
any different in is approach than any other appliance.

The iPad doesn't strike me as a device for any sort of creative type
(producing code, documents, photographs, etc). Instead, it is a device for
media consumption, just like a television or set-top box. People who want to
create things will buy a PC. Just like having a PC connected to a television
is useful, having an iPad that syncs with a PC might be useful to some.

In short, the greatest danger here is letting people think of the iPad as a
replacement for the personal computer. Hopefully the public at large will
agree.

------
hzzn
I agree with the fundamental philosophy behind Doctorow's argument, but good
grief:

    
    
      The model of interaction with the iPad is to be a "consumer," what
      William Gibson memorably described as "something the size of a baby
      hippo, the color of a week-old boiled potato, that lives by itself, in
      the dark, in a double-wide on the outskirts of Topeka. It's covered
      with eyes and it sweats constantly. The sweat runs into those eyes and
      makes them sting. It has no mouth... no genitals, and can only express
      its mute extremes of murderous rage and infantile desire by changing
      the channels on a universal remote."
    

I don't know if it's possible to be more shrill.

Take a close look at the game industry for a glimpse into a _slightly_ more
probable future. The consoles, dominant as they are, did not kill PC gaming. A
significant and very profitable chunk of gaming occurs on personal computers.
The indie gaming scene is arguably stronger now than it ever has been. There
has been an explosion of inexpensive or free or open source game development
tools, engines and libraries over the years. As a result, it has never been
easier or cheaper to make games and share them with others than it is right
now. That's good!

On the other hand, the corporate gatekeeping to the console publishing world
makes the App Store look like GitHub. That's bad!

It is far more useful to address actual problems that computing appliances
might pose than it is to paint apocalyptic sci-fi scenarios where we are
transformed into creatures made up mostly of eyes.

------
st3fan
"If you want to write code for a platform where the only thing that determines
whether you're going to succeed with it is whether your audience loves it, the
iPad isn't for you."

How is this different from writing an app for say the web? Or Linux?

What if your only audience is yourself. Or a very small group of people? Which
is also perfectly possible for iPad/iPhone developers?

How does he define success? Financially? Making it available? Being able to
open source it?

~~~
tannerburson
His point is the exact opposite of what you're saying. He's alluding to the
fact that Apple's application review process has as much, or more, to do with
your success than whether your users love the app or not. If Apple decides to
reject you, or reject a needed update, or even just delay it for an
extraordinary amount of time, you're out of business.

This is the exact opposite of a web app, or a linux app, or even a desktop OSX
app. You write it, you distribute it, and it's on you to make it successful.

~~~
neilc
_Apple's application review process has as much, or more, to do with your
success than whether your users love the app or not._

That is absurd. There are 150,000+ apps on the App Store. Those have all
passed Apple's review process, by definition. And yet only a very small
percentage of those approved apps are popular/profitable. Building an app that
people love is much harder, and much more important to your success, than
simply passing the App Store review. If you stay within the fairly well-known
guidelines, passing the App Store review is a very low bar to clear.

~~~
prodigal_erik
How many apps were rejected? Without the denominator we have no idea whether
or not surviving review is actually difficult, only the reviewers' very poor
reputation for mostly just approving trivially reviewable apps like fart
button #148272.

------
Batsu
I normally stay out of Apple related discussions, because no matter how often
people say the contrary, they reek of Fanboy. Tonight, I've just had my share
to drink and want to give my peace.

Apple is releasing a new device. With this, they are continuing a quite recent
trend of hand(ish) held devices that oppose what we generally think of when it
comes to computers.

On one hand, we don't look at most phones and wonder why we can't hack them to
pieces. On the other hand, Apple can't stop touting Computer Revolution XYZ as
the most incredible thing the technologically inclined have ever laid eyes
upon.

The problem is they don't market their items toward us. They tell us these
incredible things about how it does XYZ and does it so well... then they air
commercials about how you can find a restaurant, or get directions to a movie
theater, or (for the love of God) check your e-mail as you talk to someone.

As complete and utter nerds, we grok this device as a leap in handheld, touch-
it-till-it-loves-you computing. Apple tells us it is... then they turn around
and tell the rest of the world they can read books and download new ones for
$10.

------
ptomato
You know... in re: Apple and DRM, I think Apple has been stripping it away
about as much as could be expected:

music: none on any of the music in their store anymore, now that they actually
have the negotiating clout to get away with it

video: still there, but the TV/movie industry isn't yet in as bad a position
as the music industry was, and if Apple tries to take away the DRM they will
just leave. Note the absence of any other video store without DRM.

apps: yes, they do have DRM which is in fact _entirely_ painless for users and
the only reason you'd want to strip it off an app is to pirate it (which
people do). As far as allowing non-appstore apps, a) there's jailbreaking
which Apple hasn't made any significant effort to stop beyond the initial
jailbreak which was via a Safari exploit that allowed arbitrary code
execution, and b) one could certainly argue that the reason _why_ they don't
is to ensure that their platform continues to run well in as many cases as
possible. see: the number of android apps that will quite possibly fuck up
your OS in a number of ways.

~~~
doron
does Steve Jobs have a controlling share of Pixar? if so, he can release all
Pixar movies DRM free and lead the charge.

~~~
ptomato
No. Disney owns Pixar. Steve Jobs is the largest single shareholder of Disney
but that's by no means a controlling interest.

------
nexneo
Kids are all right!

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

------
aresant
Doctorow is completely missing the point of the iPad, IMO.

He spends nearly the entire article arguing against the iPad's ability to
impact journalism / magazines which, I sincerely doubt, has anything to do
with why most people are excited to get their hands on one . . .

~~~
malloreon
Like Doctorow mentions, "the press has jumped all over the ipad...because
journalists want a daddy figure who'll convince people to pay for content
again."

So while we may know what the device represents, the media hasn't been
spinning it that way. People think of it as a browser/app-like gaming device,
many/most media articles I've seen mention implications for journalism/media
consumption.

------
duck
Was I the only one that found the upside down picture of Jobs distracting? I
had the hardest time even getting through the first couple paragraphs. I'm
sure there is a study that will shed light on why that is... and now I have to
find it.

------
nnutter
I hate that people like Gruber keep making the analogy to automobiles.

Because the car manufacturers didn't try to lock down their system and took
government intervention to prevent this? But if Apple does it, it's just
"progress".

------
isleyaardvark
Doctorow's "think of the children" argument is absurd. How many kids are
really going to have an iPad? Their parents might have one, but does anyone
think that'll be the only computer in the house? Apple doesn't make commodity
devices, they don't compete in the low-end, and they rarely drop prices. If I
had an 8-year-old son, do you think I'd let him take a $500 anything to
school?

Children who weren't as fortunate as Doctorow to have parents who could afford
an Apple ][ will likely have a cheaper, open alternative. Commodity hardware
that wasn't available in the good old days. Back when you had to be either
lucky enough to attend a private school with a computer lab (Gates), or have
an engineer father working at Lockheed (Woz), or any number of other examples.

------
colinplamondon
I don't get the whining- jailbreak the damn thing!

It takes five minutes with a single click GUI front end. Are there really that
many budding hackers who can't be bothered to google 'program on an ipad'?

~~~
sstrudeau
It is also illegal. If Apple didn't go to pains to prevent jailbreaking (and
therefore make jailbreaking the device a violation of the DMCA) Doctorow's
entire point would be moot, IMO.

------
jwr
Opposing closed platforms is done not by bickering about it but by building
better ones.

------
antidaily
Why I won't: first-generation Apple stuff usually kinda sucks.

~~~
tortilla
My first-gen iPhone still kicks ass (for me).

~~~
potatolicious
iPhone 3GS is the first really awesome iPhone, for me, and I had the iPhone
2G. Lack of 3G and the really godawfully slow UI (still faster than most
Android phones today, sad really) made the 2G's experience a little less than
stellar.

The 3GS is the first iPhone where I didn't get constant lags and skips in the
UI.

------
hackermom
Will there be an "Everyone: Why we shouldn't care for Doctorow trying to tell
us what _we_ want in personal computing, and what to do with _our_ money."
follow-up?

------
sabat
I would rather buy a locked-down iPad -- well-executed -- than poorly executed
attempts at science fiction (Doctorow's). Seriously, the world is not black-
and-white, and Doctorow needs to learn that.

------
bensummers
Here are two other articles from Boing Boing, found by clicking on the big
picture links at the top of this anti-iPad article:

"Apple's iPad is a touch of genius"
[http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/31/a-first-look-at-
ipad.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/31/a-first-look-at-ipad.html)

"The Elements for iPad: Hands-on review"
[http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/01/the-elements-for-
ipa.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/01/the-elements-for-ipa.html)

I'm confused now. Is it good or is it evil?

~~~
pavs
Why are you confused?

They are publishing opinions for and against ipad, how can that ever be a bad
thing? If it was by the same author, on different posts with different
opinions, I would understand.

~~~
bensummers
Of course I'm not confused. I was just pointing out it was mildly amusing that
the publication highlighted links to an opposing viewpoint from one of the
other producers of the very same site.

~~~
jrockway
Whoa, it's almost like smart people don't mind intelligent disagreement with
their viewpoints! My world is shattered!

