

How A Great Product Can Be Bad News: Apple, iPad, and the Closed Mac - BSeward
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/01/27/how-a-great-product-can-be-bad-news-apple-ipad-and-the-closed-mac/

======
MrSartorial
That Apple is creating a closed system is of little surprise. Steve Jobs is
all about control. It works in the short term, but I believe it will bite them
in the ass over the long-term.

Making use of a closed-system and trying to be the best in a category assumes
that you have access to the most brilliant minds in that field, and the most
brilliant marketing campaign. What makes Apple great? Well, they can control
every aspect of their production because they own all their own tools and can
keep out the crap. Also, they have slick industrial design. For now they also
have some of the most brilliant minds in the industry, but not all of them.
This is why they will never achieve world domination with their products. I
suppose I could make use of their own advertising to make an example : "I'm a
mac, I'm a PC". You are either an apple person or you're not. Their closed-
system allows little flexibility. They would be doomed to what they used to be
were it not for them opening their file formats to standards.

Why is this not the best approach? Because of human innovation. People hate
being held down, forced into one category, etc. This is what apple is doing,
but because their products are so innovative, consumers will go for it.

Google is much smarter; they know what to hold onto and what to open up for
the masses. Even though they employ many geniuses, they are always on the
search for new innovative ideas. That's why they purchase so many startups, or
so I've been told.

That's why I believe in a race between Google and Apple, Apple WILL lose
eventually.

Closed-systems should actually drive innovation because they must be
circumvented. That's why Apple products are cracked all the time. So I guess
the challenge then is, that if you aren't happy with Apple, build a better
product and market it as well as they do. All things being equal, the open-
system product will win every time. You can't employ all of the brightest
people yourself, all of the time. I think Apple will learn this in due time,
and then things will change.

A sidenote is that a large part of Apple's appeal is simplicity because of
their closed-system. If anyone could create an opem-system as turnkey as
theirs, they'd come ahead by far. I think one of the closest systems to being
fully open and turnkey I've seen so far is Facebook Connect, but I'm starting
to become too long-winded, so I'll leave it at that.

~~~
telemachos
> _People hate being held down, forced into one category, etc._

Here's an alternative take on this (with a story). I recently saw Thomas
Keller (chef and owner of Per Se here in NYC and French Laundry in CA, among
others) talking about a new-ish restaurant of his in CA, Ad Hoc.

Ad Hoc has no menus. They make meals and serve them family style. You take
what you want from the dishes provided. You have choice only within that
range.

He argued that true luxury was the freedom _from_ choice. Now in a political
context, this is Orwellian and terrifying. But in the context of a meal, it
made a lot of sense to me. Let a great chef do his or her magic, and I will
try any damn thing they put in front of me and thank them for the privilege.

For us as hackers, computer use is more like politics. We want the openness to
do what we want, to dig around, to break things and fix them again, to change
things. For most people, however, computer use is more like a meal. Give them
some great toys to play with and they won't mind the limitations at all.

~~~
lambda
But, this isn't about giving the users freedom from choice; with 140,000
options in the App Store, that's a lot of choices.

This is explicitly about locking developers down, and not allowing them to do
things that Apple does not approve of. Want to write a competing web browser?
Sorry, you can't. Want to write an awesome JIT that optimizes itself for their
shiny new chip? No can do.

Imagine if this policy had been in place on their desktop or laptop computers.
Half of the technologies that they themselves use and tout as great would not
exist. LLVM/clang? WebKit? Heck, the Mach and BSD kernels that this is all
built on. None of this would have been created in a closed ecosystem with
restrictive policies, and yet Apple is perfectly happy to take advantage of it
while not letting anyone else play in _their_ sandbox.

The hypocrisy of their policies makes me sick.

~~~
izendejas
Your third paragraph sums up the link very well. Yes, many customers win in
the short-term, but they will lose in the long run. I'm one that thinks web
apps are the future, anyway, so Apple's focus on specialized apps that can't
be ported to other platforms very easily and without having to invest a whole
lot up front is going to bite them hard.

When html5 matures and is more widely adopted, developers will sidestep the
ridiculous shackles of the app store approval process... effortlessly. At that
point, it'll be a competition between the best developed browsers and the most
inexpensive mobile devices that will still deliver a very good experience.
Google, I think, will come out on top then w/ Google Chrome OS.

~~~
krakensden
When html5 matures? Seriously? Have you ever done any web development? Have
you looked at html5? It's an incremental upgrade, nothing that's going to let
you do new interesting things with all the new, interesting hardware we have.
Plus, it will still be very, very slow compared to code running through fewer
layers of indirection.

------
zacharypinter
This post adequately sums up my concerns.

Here we have a device that doesn't support USB thumbdrives, doesn't support
dropbox (at least system-wide, I assume the dropbox iphone app would work), is
unable to run ruby or any of my other dev scripts/tools, cannot install
firefox or firefox plugins, etc.

I do not want to see computing head this direction.

~~~
coffeemug
My dad, mom, grandma, and grandpa can watch videos, look at photos of their
kids/grandkids, send e-mails to their relatives oversees, and read their
favorite books on it, all without the need for a "computer-savvy guy" who has
to teach them how it works, and fix it when it's broken. In other words, it's
a logical conclusion of the personal computer revolution. I understand you
need to run your Ruby scripts, but this product was designed for the 99% of
the people in this country instead. You're not the target audience.

~~~
lambda
The thing is, without an open platform, the new, innovative ways of working
with this machine will never be invented.

This is about far more than running your own Ruby scripts. It's about the fact
that true innovation cannot exist in such an environment. And the problem is,
you will not see what you're missing; people won't bother developing new
technologies that have no platform they can legally run on.

Would the Web exist if Microsoft had been able to ban Netscape from running on
Windows? What new, groundbreaking technologies are we missing out on because
it's not worth the time and effort to create something new if the platform
vendor can simply forbid you from publishing it?

~~~
mattmanser
This is alarmist nonsense.

The App store and the iPhone have fostered a colossal amount of innovation,
and made a lot of normal non-techy people very, very happy. And a bunch of
techies too.

And in the end I hope it doesn't come down to open source advocates getting
their way so they can install vim, but it being about my Mum being able to use
it without having to phone me saying that it's all gone wrong again and can I
talk through 3 hours of trying to fix the damn thing.

~~~
andreyf
_I hope it doesn't come down to open source advocates getting their way so
they can install vim_

Installing vim isn't mutually exclusive from having a usable system.

~~~
telemachos
Some of us might argue that installing Vim is the sine qua non for a (truly)
usable system. (For what it's worth, I just love me some Vim. Overall, I'm on
the "this device is perfect for most people" side of this actual argument.)

------
mortenjorck
There is only one thing I want Apple to do at this point.

Open up developer ad-hoc provisioning. Keep the App Store closed, heck, make
it even stricter, but give that alternative, ad-hoc channel a chance. You
don't have to publicize it; all you need to do is to change a single number in
a plist somewhere on your activation servers from 100 to unlimited.

Then the hacker community will focus on adding features to your product
instead of on compromising its security.

------
Todd
I know of no other company that can charge $100 for 16GB of flash memory.
Differentiating on real features like 3G is good and expected. Differentiating
on commodity hardware like memory is unfair.

With the ubiquity of SD and micro SD and need for more and more storage due to
the explosion of digital media, they don't even provide a port. Obviously,
they don't provide a port because it would destroy their product line. When
you have the cheapest digital electronics providing these ports and high-end
hardware like the iPod/Phone/Pad not providing it, that says a lot. It says
"we don't care about anything except our product the money in your wallet."

It's ironic that MS gets so much flack from developers in the OSS purist and
Apple fanbois camps about their closed products. They've always been the most
open from the hardware perspective and they've always been great to
developers. Apple is just the opposite.

If we care about an open future in computing, we need to think clearly about
which platforms to develop for.

~~~
raganwald
_I know of no other company that can charge $100 for 16GB of flash memory.
Differentiating on real features like 3G is good and expected. Differentiating
on commodity hardware like memory is unfair._

Ahem: [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/blu-ray-maker-re-
boxe...](http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/blu-ray-maker-re-
boxes-500-player-charges-3500/)

~~~
Todd
LOL. That's one of the best.

------
samd
The revolutionary thing about this tablet is that it's not a Mac. Tablets have
been around for a while and haven't caught on because nobody wants to buy a
keyboardless laptop running a normal OS.

If you are worried about openness, then look to Android. I'm sure we will see
a plethora of Android tablets that will be like a large Droid/Nexus One just
like this tablet is a large iPhone.

~~~
yesimahuman
But the design will be shit and you won't have the user base.

~~~
keltex
"design will be shit"? I think that the Nexus One has eliminated that
argument.

~~~
wooster
Really? Everyone I know who has used one says that bottom touch bar is a PITA.
It keeps getting hit by accidental touches. Speaking of which, if you have a
touch screen, why do you need that many hardware controls?

~~~
orangecat
Huh, I like it. Especially the universal back button; it provides a much
better flow than the iPhone where you have to go back to the home screen and
relaunch the app you were in when you got a text message.

------
chaostheory
Unfortunately, this is what people like my mom and my sister want: something
dead simple and easy to use like iPhone.

Both OSX and Windows still give them a lot of trouble.

It's hard to pair both freedom and flexibility with ease of use and
simplicity.

~~~
mannkind
Unfortunately? Yeah, how dare they want something different than you!

~~~
chaostheory
Yes, it's unfortunate that the system they want comes with apair of handcuffs.
I guess there is nothing wrong with it if you don't notice it.

~~~
Maktab
Restrictions only matter when they limit you from doing things you want to do.
For the vast majority of consumers, the closed nature of the iPad isn't a
restriction, it's a convenience.

We need to understand that the average HN reader is not the target market
here. We're generally more technical and are willing to tolerate more
complexity and maintenance in return for a greater level of freedom over our
software and devices. The things we regard as important are not seen the same
way by most people. They just want an appliance that makes the things they do
every day as easy and hassle-free as possible.

~~~
chaostheory
As I've mentioned in my original post I understand it. I was just clarifying
to a reply as to why I'm not happy with it.

------
fierarul
I bet someone at Apple is thinking hard about how could they seal the MacPro
case too. It's the only system they sell that you are allowed to open and
upgrade or tinker (beyond something limited like a RAM upgrade).

Apple is no longer called Apple Computers because they will not sell computers
anymore. They will sell closed devices with a closed software ecosystem. They
will also sell the best devices money can buy.

~~~
ericd
What? They have clearly segmented the market, they're not taking a "let's seal
everything" approach.

The Mac Pro is made for power users and developers, it's made very easy to
open and add hardware to.

The iPhone is made for everyone on the planet who can afford it, it is made to
be very easy to use for normal use cases and very hard to screw up to the
point where someone needs someone else to fix it.

------
Kilimanjaro
I want my tablet for entertainment, not for work.

And the iPad fits the bill 100%.

$499? Unbeatable!

------
randrews
Eh, every time I hear this argument my response is the same: if they stop
making open Macs, I'll stop buying Macs. I'm not married to it, and there are
open platforms to switch to.

When they make a new thing I don't want, it doesn't make the old stuff I did
want any less cool.

------
jakarta
Apple has managed to maintain consistency and provide a level of experience
over the years by tightly controlling the platform. This is just another
manifestation of that. Look at the App store, the fact that you have to use
hacks to get OS X running on a PC or that you buy Apple computers with OS X
being pre-loaded as examples of that.

If you don't like the closed platform you can grab a PC, but I think this is
just how Steve Jobs does things -- he likes to have as much control as
possible so that Apple can deliver a certain type and level of experience to
users.

~~~
orangecat
Macs are wide open. Apple creates the default user experience, but you're free
to develop and run any software you want without begging for permission.
Apple's total control over the iPhone/iPod/iPad platform is a change for the
worse.

------
aerique
My position is if I pay good money for hardware it's mine and I will do with
it as I please. And I will not buy it until it has been hacked (and I can
install Linux on it ;-) ).

Same with my iPhone. It wouldn't be half as useful without being jailbroken.

------
mmphosis
I am reading a lot of concerns that Apple has created a closed system. You are
right, Apple has a closed system. That's what Apple has mostly sold for years.

What I think is exciting is that this device breaks new ground. It's only
version 1.0. Better devices will come out. Hopefully, from companies other
than Apple. There's virtually nothing stopping another company from selling an
open platform, one that runs open software, has open hardware, has WIFI, has
USB and has higher screen resolution than the 1024x768 that my 8 year old
iBook has. And, hopefully someone will deliver a device that uses low power
open cores.

Stop complaining. Start dreaming up something better.

------
metra
I believe Apple's success stems from its portable devices, mainly the iPod and
the iPhone. Both of those devices could take full advantage of Apple's closed
door policy. The iPod and the iPhone are _extremely_ well built because Apple
had complete control over all the parts. All the other phones on the market
just felt like cheaper plastic knockoffs. Furthermore, Apple is somewhat lucky
that the functionality you'd want from these portable devices is very limited
and so Apple didn't miss any of the market by providing such limited
functionality.

However, devices bigger than iPhone - in the netbook/iPad range - need
significantly more functionality. I believe Apple missed the boat with the
iPad, especially if it really is targeting grandpa and grandma. People are
becoming more tech savvy and they will be less and less willing to shell out
money for an inflexible device that only serves a rigid set of predefined
functions.

The iPad, I'm sure, is constructed extremely well. However, taking it to the
bathroom, to bed and around the house in general isn't the same thing as
taking it everywhere you go. Apple's success is in building beautiful durable
portable hardware. The iPad just isn't portable enough or flexible enough for
people to want it.

------
mark_l_watson
I agree with the article. I look more forward to a light weight Chrome
netbook. I don't know if it is the offing or not, but perhaps a Chrome netbook
could forgo a physical keyboard and have a popup virtual keyboard like my
Droid (although that adds the expense of a touchscreen). Bonus points to
hardware manufacturers: sell a Chrome netbook that looks like a iPad, but has
a slide out physical keyboard like my Motorola Droid phone.

------
slapshot
Apple has become the prime example of closed computing. It has its benefits:
the iPhone is painfully easy to use, has very few viruses, and works pretty
much all the time (except when AT&T drops, but that's a separate worry).

Google is trying to take the opposite pole: you can do pretty much anything on
an Android phone, but that includes buggy software with bad UI design.

There will always be both positions. Both have benefits to different people.
To a HackerNews audience, the open system will almost always seem better --
HackerNews types enjoy tinkering and will tend to be advanced users. But not
everyone shares the HN love of tinkering.

------
ashleyw
At first I was let down with it being closed system. But after a night to
sleep on it, I'm starting to warm to the idea.

I'll never use the iPad for work, and in the same way I can't bring myself
round to using a Mac Mini as my media centre, I don't want the hassle of a
full OS over a purposely built OS for the task(s) in hand. All I'd want to do
on the iPad is browse the web, read, watch videos, and perhaps play some
games.

Overall as long as this isn't Apples future strategy for the Mac platform
(which would be suicide), I think it's a nice product, which by the looks of
it, will do the job it's made for brilliantly.

------
umut
This could be the big step for the developers' dream of using the actual
target device as the host for developing(end-to-end toolchain and the
debugging host of course). Success of open systems(both HW and SW) comes from
this marginal-looking(huge in fact) idea. So, the hardware is there, but
unfortunately they lack the determination. It is sad to see Apple performing
even worse than MS on this very department.

I personally will insist on "not" buying any Apple product unless they develop
a strategy to innovate(as they did in the past) instead of trying to
monopolize the scene...

------
BerislavLopac
Personally, I don't have a problem with iPad being closed. I have problem with
a lack of an open alternative (or several). I'm using an iPhone, but I'm sure
as hell glad there is the Android.

------
tel
I think the biggest obvious point people are missing is that Jobs intends
many, many people to own a MacBook _and_ an iPad. Probably an iPhone, too.
They serve different niches in the ecology of your technological life.

(Oh, and if you've got some other laptop and pick up an iPad just how long do
you think the average user will last before drooling a little more over the
MacBook lineup?)

------
mildweed
If I were Adobe, I'd be furious. Exclusion of Flash from this platform is a
slap in the face, despite Jobs' perspective of how it would break his App
Store model. If it weren't for Adobe focusing their Creative Suite development
on Jobs' platforms, Apple wouldn't have had the design community's support
that it had for so many years. Apple owes Adobe.

~~~
ptomato
If it weren't for Apple, Adobe wouldn't EXIST. Considering what Photoshop was
first developed for and solely for Macs for several years. And the only reason
Adobe even still bothers to develop for Mac is because of the very high
percentage of the design community who are married to their Macs and won't use
anything else. If I recall correctly, something like 40% of Photoshop installs
are on Macs, which considering the general desktop userbases percentages is
fairly dramatic.

~~~
jacquesm
No, it would mean that Photoshop would have been developed for PCs, or
possibly for the workstation class machines of that era.

------
uuilly
I see the iPad as a communal home machine that floats around the house. It
replaces newspapers, books, magazines, remotes (for music and hopefully TV),
picture frames, and for some video game consoles. Eventually it will control
your oven, door entry system etc. To me it's a "home computer."

------
scotty79
Funny thing that under the article advertisement for this appeared:

[http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-
iph...](http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-
iphone-3g-3gs-halloween-collection.html?gclid=CPGX153TxZ8CFcGAzAod7hGRgA)

------
DavidPP
I see the iPad not as a "PC" but as an appliance, albeit a really
sophisticated one.

~~~
mannkind
Exactly, it's an appliance like your microwave and refrigerator.

------
c23gooey
i'd like to see one IRL - but i dont see the iPad being especially easy to use
with regards to its size.

on an iPhone you can easily type with your thumbs, grip it firmly and you can
use all sorts of multi-touch gestures.

i cant see that happening with a 10 inch tablet.

you would need to hold it / balance it on one hand and then awkwardly control
it with your other hand. Doesnt seem ergonomic.

maybe one of the accesories they should release is an iArm, so we can hold it
with two arms and confidently use gestures and such with your iArm

------
elblanco
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1082824>

------
teeja
I can hardly wait until some astute techies pop this thing open and take off
its whalebone corset.

------
ecq
It's really easy.

You use the iPad to:

\- read a book \- surf the web \- organize/look at/show off photos \- watch
videos/movies/tv shows \- listen to music \- send/receive emails \- play games
\- use maps/calendar and the 140k+ apps available in the app store

Anything else, use a Mac (or Windows/Linux).

------
sscheper
In my mind:

For surfing the web: iPad > netbooks

For reading books: Kindle > iPad

~~~
sant0sk1
You've never even held and iPad. How can you come to either of those
conclusions?

~~~
Niten
Because we all know how much more comfortable it is to stare at e-ink than at
a backlit LCD for hours on end? Also, battery life.

