

IPad Snivelers: Put Up or Shut Up - Engineers - twism
http://gizmodo.com/5461485/ipad-snivelers-put-up-or-shut-up

======
Goronmon
_Hilariously, the great open-source hope is Google's Android, but its best
apps are designed—and tightly controlled—by Google, which has used its clout
to roll over countless web-based companies in a manner just as Orwellian or
Huxleyan or whoever it is we're invoking now as Apple or Microsoft. And even
with the threat of the DMCA looming, the iPhone has been cracked over and over
again. It's been a tinkerer's paradise._

That is an...uhh...interesting take on things.

------
mbreese
Yeah, so this was a flamebait article. However, it did make me think about
something... Even if you never will buy an iPad, you're likely to benefit from
it... just like you're probably benefiting from the iPhone.

It is a lot easier to complain about a device than to make one. But once you
have that concrete object in hand, you can find all sorts of things wrong with
it. It should have X, it should do Y... but the bottom line is that it exists.
And that gives other companies something to compete with. But if it never
existed, then no one would be pushed.

Say what you will about Apple, but they've raised the bar for everyone,
whether that's Microsoft, HP, Dell, Google, Asus, or Nokia. And because of
that we're getting better gear that does more and looks nicer.

~~~
nollidge
That was exactly my thought as well. I don't own an iPhone, but I'm seriously
considering a Nexus One, and I'm not sure the latter would even _exist_
without the former.

------
colomon
The other thing I keep thinking is, if you're seriously worried about kids not
being able to learn to program because their only computing devices are locked
down, why not fight back by developing kid-friendly web-based programming
platforms? Surely an iPad would make the nicest dumb terminal ever...

~~~
jamesbritt
<http://tryruby.org/>

For example.

------
robotron
Flamebait?

~~~
tensor
I'd say so. Among many other reasons, Apple made a comeback because they made
it easy, and free, to develop for the Mac. Unlike Microsoft who required some
hefty developer fees.

Now Apple has not only gone back to the pay-to-develop model, but they've also
gone the way of the consoles: you only get to distribute what we say you can.

I think people are greatly underestimating the effect this will have on
development. Ironically, it may have less effect on developers of small
programs than large. Why would a company spend a large amount of money
developing a complex application if they were not guaranteed that they could
even sell the final product?

This has already happened to Google with the Google Voice app, although I
imagine they have enough money to not be affected too much. There is no
defence at all for this sort of system. The app store can easily co-exist in
conjunction with "unverified" apps. Hell, Apple could even say "well, first
uninstall any unverified apps, then come back for support."

I've never been one to harp on about software freedom, but this is too much,
and you are damn right I'm scared of it. I'm scared that the public will
gleefully jump on this product and set a precedent of extremely closed
platforms.

~~~
jodrellblank
_The app store can easily co-exist in conjunction with "unverified" apps.
Hell, Apple could even say "well, first uninstall any unverified apps, then
come back for support."_

That's not really in Apple's interest, though is it?

a) A device the user can't ruin associated with your brand.

b) A device the user can ruin associated with your brand.

Which would you pick in their position?

~~~
tensor
The latter, because the freedom to develop would completely cement their
position in the market. What they've done now is send several developers over
to their competitor, Adobe being the obvious example.

Their gamble is that they will outsell their competitors despite this. Time
will tell if they succeed. I suppose if they really start suffering they can
always open their platform at a later date.

~~~
m_eiman
They risk next to nothing by keeping tight control while there is little or no
competition. If it turns out that people prefer e.g. Android because of this,
they can easily change their policy and turn it into a positive PR event.

If people don't buy other stuff, they probably need to spend a bit less on
support for users who have installed something bad on their devices than they
would with a more open system.

Win-win.

~~~
tensor
Yes, and this is why I am looking at a Nexus One and perhaps one of the
Android tablets.

On a related note, why is it that the position of "I don't like the closed
environment and will thus invest in Android" causes such fevered responses by
so many people? Is it really necessary for the author of the original article
to insult people such as myself by calling us "snivelling" and to tell us to
"put up or shut up"? I find this article a little embarrassing for gizmodo.

The situation is simple. If an open software platform really does produce
better software, then likely Android will win in the long run. Some of us are
buying into the model we think is better. We will likely recommend the same
products to friends and family.

~~~
m_eiman
The reason for the "stop whining" thing is possibly that many proponents of
Android are saying, more or less, that "normal people" should choose a device
based on what _they_ think are the important criteria instead of what the
"normal people" themselves think is important. It's pretty elitist, and also
missing the rather important point that a device's popularity is only partly
based on its technical and ideological properties.

Either way it'll be interesting to see what we end up with in a few years.
Hopefully Android and whatever Microsoft comes up with will prove to be
serious contenders so that we don't stagnate a la IE.

------
jodrellblank
I submitted a link recently to an open issue on a side project focused on
polishing Ubuntu for ordinary users; they have feedback from an ordinary user
which they acknowledge is exactly the sort of thing they're looking for and
they open the case and move it into progress and then ... it's sidelined. A
request to "fade" icons when files are cut, and it's been open since 2003.

Not for lack of time, clearly. Not for lack of ideas what to do there are
plenty of those. Not for lack of effort or interest - many many people have
been involved. Not for lack of coders, there are patches referenced. Not for
lack of a place to track the issue, there was one, now two.

That's a microcosm of your humanity reaching for the stars but are unable to
manage the last cohesive push and everything collapses into war, civilisation
flickers out and the unthinking void closes over the solar system again sci-fi
story right there. That's your Adobe can't get it's act together tale, but
happening in public.

So what _was_ lacking?

I can't help but tie everything back to the iPad this week, but isn't this
missing thing in the development process exactly what Apple has and the much
pointed to Netbooks and Android and ChromeOS's and Maemo's don't?

A unified vision, a benevolent dictator, a plan by which each suggested fix
can be measured? GvR runs his personal is_pythonic?() filter over any
suggested additions to Python, his way or the highway. Rich Hickey drives
clojure and Miguel de Icaza heads up Mono.

Maybe what the suggested openpad needs is a figurehead with a vision who could
step in and make decisions and force it to coalesce into a particular shape?
And maybe that's incompatible with being "open" shaped. But I wouldn't mind
being wrong about that.

