
I Don’t Want a Freaking Computer - mcxx
http://www.baekdal.com/articles/technology/i-dont-want-a-freaking-computer/
======
barrkel
Even my girlfriend (iPhone 3G and 3GS user of over a year) is jealous of my
Nexus One.

But he's right, in a different way. When I use a computer, I make it do
things. I give it commands, and it executes them, faster than before. I can
write a script to transcode ripped DVDs overnight, according to my
specifications, and automatically calculating crop values, pixel aspect
ratios, etc. to produce the appropriate output for putting movies on my
handheld devices. I can write programs that manipulate masses of data in
heterogeneous formats and emit summaries, graphs, animations, visualizations
of my design, not limited to the preconceptions of some third party software
designer thousands of miles away.

I use my computer as a computational device. To compute things. iPad, iPhone,
iPod Touch, these aren't computational devices. They are a different kind of
thing; but my need and desire for ad-hoc computation are not limited to my
current location or equipment, so I want my phone to be similarly flexible.
But the things an iPhone etc. can do, I can also do.

------
hobb0001

      > I even tell my dealer to change my tires twice a year
    
      > I even drilled a hole my wall, and bought a 60 feet cable, at the cost of $300
    

What?! Is this guy completely oblivious to the way he spends his money?

    
    
      > Yep, I am one of the drooling mac fanatics.
    

Oh. Well, there you have it.

~~~
fragmede
That's actually more insightful than I first realized. You have to be
oblivious to the vendor lock-in that results from Apple's control and the
resulting costs. The 'no usb, no SD slot' complaint about the iPad? Thats
because to get the 32 gigbyte iPad vs. the 16 gigabyte iPad is another $100.

But I already have a 16 gigabyte USB stick, or a 16 gigabyte SD card I bought
from Frys, on sale, for $40. Apple's going to charge me $100 for something I
already have, _and_ they're gonna charge me two times the price? If there was
an SD slot, I could buy the 16 gigabyte iPad and use the SD card I already
have, instead of buying the $600, 32-gigabyte iPad vs. the $500, 16-gigabyte
version. It's a nickel-and-dime to the tune of 99-cents an app, and I don't
like it. Nor can I really argue against the current success of the iPhone. If
it costs me extra to get something that actually works, I'll actually get it,
because it'll actually work.

(edit: clarified '...charge me $100...')

~~~
GHFigs
_Apple's going to charge me $100 for something I already have, and they're
gonna charge me two times the price?_

Could you explain what you mean by this? I don't understand how Apple fits in
to your previous purchases.

~~~
mbrubeck
He's saying that Apple has a large markup on the flash storage options for the
iPad, and if it supported USB or SD like most computers then they wouldn't be
able to have such a price differential between models. (Or maybe they would;
Apple has previously charged 2-3x market prices for RAM upgrades in build-to-
order Macs, when users _could_ save hundreds of dollars by buying their RAM
elsewhere.)

~~~
GHFigs
That doesn't explain the relation to his previous purchases. I don't see the
connection at all.

~~~
fragmede
I have a 16-gigabyte SD card.

In order to have a 32-gigabyte iPad, I have to purchase the 32-gigabyte
version for $600.

If the iPad had an SD card slot, I could hypothetically purchase a 16-gigabyte
iPad for $500 and use my previously purchased 16-gigabyte SD card.

~~~
GHFigs
You've restated exactly the part that I do understand. What I don't understand
is where you see a _connection_ between your previous purchases and what Apple
charges for what they produce. You specifically said that Apple would charge
you for what you already have, but it isn't clear where that occurs.

~~~
fragmede
Ah, I misunderstood your question then.

The connection isn't to Apple's prices: they made it, they get to decide
pricing (and features).

The connection is between my previous purchase, and my next (considered)
purchase and the connection there is _me_. Buying doesn't happen in a vacuum,
though 'cost to me' is perhaps a better way of looking at it.

The 'charge' occurs when Apple omits a card slot though it is their right to
do so. This locks me into their pricing structure, which means I have to pay
their prices. I _already have_ 16-gigabytes that I could use in a device with
an SD slot, but the lock-in requires that I pay their prices, and if I want
the 32-gigabyte iPad, then I have to pay what Apple charges and I cannot use
my previous purchase to offset that cost.

------
loup-vaillant
In my opinion, this article fails to draw a crucial line: the limit between
what a user has to know and what he can ignore.

Speaking of cars, users have extensive knowledge of it. To the point that no
one can legally drive a car without a driving licence. This represents
_dozens_ of hours of specialized learning and training.

And I was talking about a single purpose device. Computers have many purposes.
No amount of user friendliness is going to hide this essential complexity. No
matter what we do, users will have to know basic things like the difference
between a computer and a program, between a browser and a the Internet, or
between the address bar and the search box. If they don't, they could lose
their privacy or their money. Just like driving left without looking can be
lethal.

Many computer users lack this kind of knowledge. The only way we can give them
a "great experience" is by teaching first. Until we do, they will stay
dependent, helpless, and happy. (At least as far as computers are concerned,
which is further and further, these days.)

~~~
GHFigs
_The only way we can give them a "great experience" is by teaching first._

Who do you mean by "we" and what exactly do you think should be taught?

~~~
loup-vaillant
"We" are developers, teachers, and even just any people who know some very
basic stuff well. And we should teach:

First the very basics. What is a computer? A program? An OS? A network? The
internet? A web browser? A web site? A URL? A search engine? A file? A text
editor? Email? Web based mail?

Then, a bit about privacy and security. What is a virus? An anti-virus? A
firewall? Spam? Fishing? Spam filters? Cryptography? TLS? How to spy on your
husband? Can you trust strangers and companies on line (compared to IRL)? What
is a weak password?

And finally, a crash programming course in a super-easy programming language
so they can write a hello world, do some calculations, and a basic interactive
program (like a dichotomy game). It shouldn't take more than a few hours
(maybe even just one). But it definitely should teach that computer errors are
often programmer errors. That it is possible to do personalized automation of
tedious tasks.

Ideally, all these things should be taught with the help of GNU/linux
machines. Not only to push the philosophy, but also to put everyone in an
unfamiliar environment, then get them familiar with it. Just to teach them
that they can actually _learn_.

------
AndrewDucker
I don't want a freaking computer either. But I do want something that will let
me listen to a streaming music app while writing emails.

------
robotron
I would like to see him write that post on an iPad. On second thought, I have
better things to do with six hours.

~~~
mechanical_fish
I'd enjoy that joke while it lasts. It probably won't seem as funny once the
iPad actually comes out, because the thing supports keyboards, even wireless
ones. People who want to write long-form essays will sit a keyboard down in
front of their iPads and type.

This won't be a common use case, of course. Because writing anything longer
than a sentence or two is not a common use case. Unless you're me.

------
kamidev
The author of this article is interesting because he is so obvious: "It's
about giving people a great experience."

In other words: it's all about selling stuff to consumers. Which is a great
thing to say if - like Baekdal - you are marketing yourself as a guru to
people to want to sell stuff.

Many "usability" discussions have the implicit (sometimes explicit goal) of
making it easy for users to do things without having to learn anything first.
This may be fine for generic routine tasks that everyone has to do from time
to time. We are all thrilled about our shiny new phones. But consider this:

1\. Not long ago, most things were hard, confusing or impossible to do on any
phone 2\. Even if 80% of all things you can do on an iPhone are dead simple -
are these things that really matter to you?

Things worth well are usually not generic routine tasks. When you love what
you are doing and try to make it as good as you can, using the right tools in
the right way is a major part of the experience. But that kind of experience
is impossible without making an effort to learn new things.

My personal belief is that those of us who want to create our own experiences
benefit from getting our hands dirty with technology now and then.

~~~
GHFigs
_When you love what you are doing and try to make it as good as you can, using
the right tools in the right way is a major part of the experience._

That's the point: "It's about giving people a great experience".

You made a mistake right off the bat by setting up the argument that "it's all
about selling stuff to consumers" instead of the one actually made in the
article. You're disagreeing right past agreement.

------
sreitshamer
This guy's like the author's friend in _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance_.

------
davidw
I do. I like programming and playing around with stuff and have since I put my
hands on a Commodore PET. Granted, I like to do what I want to do, rather than
fixing broken stuff, but there's so much interesting stuff out there, that
having source for it just makes your life that much more pleasant.

------
philk
I don't want a freaking iPhone that won't fit in my pocket.

------
resdirector
"I really don't want a computer. I hate computers. But, what I do like is the
power and convenience that a computer gives me."

Same. I want carefreeness of the 60s, with the convenience of the 10s.

