
Is Apple Evil? - larrykubin
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ipad
======
akeefer
I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: because they think it
provides a better consumer experience. That, in turn, is what translates into
more money and more sales. (I believe they said on their conference call
earlier this week that don't make much off their cut of app sales).

The iPhone and iPad are not computers: they're extensible consumer electronics
devices. The iPhone sells so well precisely because it just works, and it's
_really_ hard to screw it up relative to a computer. How is creating a
consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer?
Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Because
they're attracting developers to their closed system? How is this any more
evil than Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft making their game consoles relatively
closed systems?

We should all keep in mind that computers as such are a usability and
maintenance disaster for 95% of the population who has no idea how to deal
with viruses, install or remove software, resolve crashes or
incompatibilities, or even navigate a file system so they don't lose their
documents.

Maybe I'm too cynical about computers and give Apple too much of the benefit
of the doubt, but their devices are good precisely because they exert so much
end-to-end control, and computers are broken for so many people precisely
because they're so open.

~~~
tolmasky
I think its important to realize what you miss out on as much as what you get.
Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we
may have never gotten a web browser.

Apple has explicitly disallowed any interpreter other than the one built into
Safari, simply because it would be impossible to have a web browser without
JS. Some would argue that they've severely crippled it by removing Flash,
which demonstrates just how far they are willing to go.

Now imagine if the iPad had arrived before the browser. They would have never
allowed this browser idea, with this crazy "javascript" thing, on the App
Store. There would have been no special exception because it "might change the
world". I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most
important developments in not just computer history, but human history, even
if we had to do it at the cost of those confusing file systems and other side
effects of open systems.

The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser".
The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE
party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.

Its possible to create a great, easy to use system, that is also open.
Arguably the web is precisely this. The web is also usable by my grandparents.
The web can also eliminate the complexities of the file system (each web app
stores its files). But the web is still open.

~~~
gaius
_Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we
may have never gotten a web browser._

That's a really weird thing to say because it did. Atari 2600 anyone?

But Apple have never even pretended the iPhone et al were "open" computing
devices. Contrast that to the just-as-limited ChromeOS.

~~~
grhino
The core of the ChromeOS is open,
[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-
os...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os-open-
source.html). Chrome OS is espousing a new style of computing which is all
done through the web browser. Chrome OS has a standards based, no gatekeeper
method of delivering new applications to users. It's called HTTP.

------
dannyr
"That’s not to say the iPad won’t sell, or that I don’t want one. The scariest
thing is that I think it probably will. ... I love Apple products. I’m a huge
Apple fan. I’d buy an iPad right now if I could."

This is why Apple will continue to do what it is doing right now. People
complain about its controlling policies. People call them "evil". But these
very same people will not back up their words with action and continue to buy
products made by an "evil" company.

As long as Apple continue to hit its peak in stock price, as long as it earns
record-breaking profits, as long as it sells millions of products, it will not
change its ways.

To the author, you can blog all you want about Apple's policies. The only
thing that matters is for you to turn that into action. If you think Apple is
"evil", don't buy its product. Stop patronizing "evil".

~~~
wmf
I am boycotting the iPhone/iPad (I have the open N900), but I don't have any
illusions that it will change anything. In a world where 1% of the people
create all the innovation, boycotts by innovators are pointless. For the past
~20 years the masses have been effectively subsidizing
tinkerers/hackers/developers by buying open PCs even though they didn't really
need them; now that has come to an end and it looks painful to those former
beneficiaries.

~~~
pyre
It's not 'coming to an end.' Business users will still use laptops. No one is
going to be writing novels or creating complex spreadsheets on an iPad. 'The
masses' will need a computer that can do those other things well (for school
or such), and they don't have the budget to buy a general-purpose PC/Mac + an
iPad + an iPhone.

~~~
DougBTX
That's not as clear as it sounds. Most people don't write novels or complex
spreadsheets. For short stories and simple spreadsheets, the dock plus a
wireless keyboard And iWork Touch might suffice.

My hope that there will always be an open Mac is based on the thought that
they need to sell something on which to write apps. Hopefully they keep one of
these devices in laptop form factor.

~~~
pyre
What I think is funny, is that Apple has tried to encourage people to be their
own content generators with things like iMovie, GarageBand, etc. People can't
do those things with the iPad. The iPad (for the most part) relegates the user
to just being a consumer.

In general though there will _need_ to be an 'open' Mac for a number of
things: audio editing, video editing, photo/video storage (I have 40Gb+ of
photos and I only have a little point-and-shoot), photo editing, 3D modeling
(for movies/design/engineering, etc.

This is not the death of the general purpose computer. Think of the number of
amateur photographers out there, enabled by software like
Photoshop/Aperture/LightRoom and the afford-ability/accessibility of DSLRs.
Think of the number of people editing their own videos and/or music out there?
They can't do this on an iPad. Granted, these people aren't a majority of the
population, but there are a significant amount of younger people that are
adopting these hobbies because they are so accessible now (thanks to the
general purpose desktop computer).

------
gr366
I don't know the answer to this, but have we seen evidence that Apple's
commitment to OS X is waning? They seem to have discussed multiple product
lines today, one of those being the "computer" market, and the others being
part of their new "mobile device" markets, namely iPhone/iPod Touch and the
new tablet.

I do know that as far as tech support, I've had to help my girlfriend out a
ton with her MacBook (curse you spinning beach ball), but the extent of
support I've had to provide for her iPhone has been, "switch it off and switch
it on again."

Perhaps Apple is distinguishing between full-fledged computers (for those who
have the technical skill and desire to tinker) and consumer devices that are,
yes, tightly controlled but less likely to get screwed up by your average
person who likes to email, browse the web and watch videos.

~~~
tjmc
I think that's the key point - this is a great "computer for dummies". A
machine your grandparents could use.

I don't need an iPad in the same way I don't need a car with built-in radar to
help me reverse. But there are plenty of people who do need that help. I'm
happy for the choice to be there, just as long as I can still buy an open
machine. Personally, I don't see Apple giving up on that area.

------
whalesalad
I think people are confusing corporations succeeding in a capitalist market
with "evil". This is AMERICA, where we compete for everything and anyone can
do anything, as long as they can do it better than someone else. Apple is not
evil. They're a company that likes to make money, and likes to make devices
that people blow their loads over.

I worked at apple for a while... they gave me some cool things like a free bus
pas ($50 in Hawaii) every month to encourage use of public transit. They're
certainly not evil, not any more evil than Google, Microsoft, HP, IBM, the
list goes on...

They're just the most successful. And it always sucks at the top, because
everyone is trying to bring you down. Imagine all the companies that are
trying to get at Apple's trade secrets, it's no wonder they have such intense
security.

~~~
jacobolus
Who said anything about secrecy or getting at their trade secrets? Aaron is
sad that Apple’s long-term strategy, as far as he can tell, is to build
locked-down platforms where they take control away from device owners. This
makes those of us who like to tinker – who believe in constructivist education
and free culture and open systems and decentralized power – sad, because the
more successful these devices are, the more they threaten to undermine those
values.

~~~
mos1
Our lives are full of devices that _could_ be general purpose, but were made
more specialized for ease of use, maintenance, battery life, or w/e.

I don't understand why so many people are getting their panties in a knot
because somebody is selling another non-general-use device with a processor.

And I know that hyperbolic rhetoric is fun, but let's be realistic. This is
_not_ undermining constructivist education, free culture, decentralized power
or open systems in any meaningful way. If you really think it's accomplishing
all that, go take your medication.

~~~
orangecat
_I don't understand why so many people are getting their panties in a knot
because somebody is selling another non-general-use device with a processor._

They actually are general-purpose devices, just deliberately limited by Apple.
And I'm sort of ok with that; I'm not ok with them actively trying to stop you
from removing those limitations on your own device, and calling you a criminal
if you do. A seller trying to control how you use a product after you've
bought it is an attack on your property rights.

 _This is not undermining constructivist education, free culture,
decentralized power or open systems in any meaningful way._

Not by itself. But if closed devices like the iPad marginalize open devices,
it becomes much easier to enforce user-hostile laws like CBDTPA
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act)).

~~~
mos1
1) You've attacked "general-purpose" computers that are turned into controlled
platforms.

Without moving from my chair, I can see the following "general-purpose"
computers that have been turned into controlled platforms.

A Directv HD DVR. A Sony Playstation. A Nintendo Wii. A TomTom GPS. A Samsung
Television. A Treadmill. A BlackBerry. An iPod Touch. A Logitech Remote
Control.

Precisely when should I be outraged that a device's capabilities aren't as
general-purpose as you'd prefer? Heck, some of those devices (the television,
GPS, and treadmill) even run Linux, yet are "crippled" by their manufacturers.

2) I'm not ok with them actively trying to stop you from removing those
limitations on your own device,

Every trade has two sides. If a seller says "I will sell this to you for X if
you agree not to do Y", that's a trade that you can either accept or reject. I
fail to see why you, as a buyer, should have a right to demand that _all_
rights transfer for a particular price if the seller doesn't want to transfer
them all for that price.

So long as it's reasonably clear, and disclosed, I fail to see the problem.

3) "calling you a criminal" ... "easier to enforce user-hostile laws like
CBDTPA"

Blaming a specific, unreleased non-general computer for laws you don't like is
almost comic. I say 'almost' because it's really kind of annoying that you
want to strip the rights of innovators to make what they want, in the name of
'freedom'.

If I want to wrap a processor, input method and display up in a manner that
precludes using it for general purpose computing, as a means to solve a
problem, I should have every right to do it and sell it. And you can buy it or
not buy it.

But claiming it's responsible for every law you don't like, that it's an
assault on property rights, and that it's an attack on constructivist
education, free culture or decentralized power is utter and complete rubbish.

~~~
jacobolus
No, the device itself is not an attack, and it is perfectly reasonable that
all kinds of devices exist. The fear, however, is that this device, and others
like it, will someday vastly reduce the market for general-purpose devices.

There is no particular person in the wrong, and I wouldn’t call it “evil,”
exactly, that all of our devices are now impossible to repair for the average
person, or even the enthusiastic hobbyist: clocks, cameras, radios,
automobiles, telephones ... everything we use is becoming too complex for
people to understand, except in a rough, schematic way.

This has tremendous benefits, as we can make more sophisticated devices, with
useful features, and our lives become more comfortable. But you must admit it
also has a down-side: we lose the ability to repair, to tinker, to reverse-
engineer, to understand our surroundings, to personally implement incremental
improvements, etc. Each user sacrifices a little bit of control for a little
bit of comfort, incrementally.

The bit of knowledge we do have about science ends up coming from top-down
mandated curricula, purely theoretical understanding learned through books,
rather than from practical experience cooking our own meals, tending our own
gardens, crafting our own furniture, fixing our own appliances.

I believe that computers are amazingly useful and powerful general-purpose
devices, and understanding how to program them can be extremely empowering,
because it allows people to solve their own problems. If all you have is an
iPad and a DVR and a built-in car GPS and a cell phone, you can only use them
on the problems that other people already solved, and if your problem is
different, you’re shit out of luck.

~~~
mos1
if all I have is an iPad, I can write lots of potentially interesting software
for it. They _are_ still programmable, after all.

That said, the fact that you seem to think that cooking meals, gardening,
woodworking, and appliance repair are also impossible indicates to me that
you're not really railing about the iPad.

These are great days to tinker. Just a slightly different kind of tinkering,
is all.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> if all I have is an iPad, I can write lots of potentially interesting
> software for it. They are still programmable, after all.

There is only 2 way such a thing is possible.

(1) By default, the iPad let you write, compile and run programs in it without
requiring any external device (like a iMac with XCode). That would mean it is
easy to distribute such programs without going through the App Store, just
like with a plain old desktop computer. I don't believe it for a second.

(2) You had jailbroken it.

Therefore, it is safe to say that by default, the iPad is _not_ programmable.

~~~
mos1
If you're afraid that general purpose computers are going to be destroyed by
the iPad, you have far more faith in the level of success it can achieve than
I do.

If you're not, jacobulous's ridiculous hypothetical scenario isn't worth
treating seriously. And I treated it with all the lack of seriousness I
believed it to deserve.

~~~
loup-vaillant
I'm not scared, but I think it is worth to look out, because this kind of
scenario has already happened, for instance with web-based mail: webmail is
convenient, limited, and pervasive. Plus, spam is evil. Result: most ISPs
block the outgoing SMTP port without too much complaints.

Now, imagine that devices like the iPad are the majority (like Windows is
now). Plus, viruses and netbots are evil. Result: Trusted Computing
everywhere.

This is of course the extreme, very unlikely scenario. However, this is so
serious that I think it is worth to watch out, even knowing that the odds are
almost nil.

------
seldo
_I don’t know why they’re doing it. It’s hard to see how it makes them more
money. (Curating all those apps must be expensive, not to mention the lost
sales from the unapproved ones.)_

It seems like a 30% cut of any app sold for your operating system would far
outweigh the cost of approving those sales.

~~~
akeefer
Apple, at least, claims they don't make much money there. Per their latest
quarterly call: "iTunes and App Store are still running 'a bit over break-
even.' We’re investing a lot in these stores – that’s where the revenue is
going." <http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/25/apple-q1-2010-results/>

~~~
pyre
Wouldn't _"W're investing a lot in these stores"_ translate into "lots of
fixed costs are being spent building ourselves a platform to profit off of
this?"

------
s3graham
I'm not buying it.

Agreed, Apple is certainly trying to close things down, but there's sufficient
competition in the space that I don't see the "frightening future".

If pads take off now, there'll be a decent Android GoogPad, WinMo ZunePad,
with Amazon selling no-DRM media, etc. and you can decide if you want a
slightly less sexy design in exchange for device functionality/flexibility.

------
volida
The are betting on their platform which should be more than enough for the
average user, therefore the lack of Flash. Whether that will fire-back to them
remains to be seen. It probably wont for the time being.

But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash? Except
playing videos (for which there are alternative) I don't see much other use.

The average user doesn't care what OS you give them as long as you are meeting
their expectations. As long as Safari is full compliant with the web standards
I don't care about anything else.

Anyhow, if this is going to be a successful product other hardware makers will
follow and you will be able to install Windows.

~~~
dandelany
_But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash?_

Two reasons:

1\. It's Apple, everything is supposed to just work. As a web developer, I not
a huge Flash fan. But if I'm on my iPhone or iPad and I get the "missing
plugin" brick, I'm pissed: I'm missing out on content. Steve Jobs wasn't
telling the whole truth when he said it was the "real internet".

and 2. Flash was introduced _almost 15 years ago._ The fact that Apple is
today announcing a magical device with a touchscreen and a blazing fast mobile
processor, but one that cannot run a plugin that my grey Gateway 2000 Pentium
I desktop had no trouble with just seems backwards. I don't know if it's an
Apple problem or an Adobe problem, but it's what you get when you mix two
companies with closed software standards.

~~~
volida
Your points are valid, but I don't see how they affect the average web user.
I'd be iterated too if there was a missing plugin. But most pages don't depend
on flash so the odds of that happening are less.

With the upcoming compilation of Flash to native applications developers will
be able to tunnel their apps through the App Store. Not perfect but for Flash
game developers it's not so bad.

------
zppx
How will developers create new applications for the iPhone OS without the Mac?
Just think about this question to see how this article is utterly nonsensical.
Contrary to what the Apple apologists are saying Apple do not have "user
experience" as it main concern. What is really happening is just a transition,
Apple is becoming more and more a digital content distributor and less of the
hardware/software company that it was in the past will remain, but it will not
be obliterated, and the iPad is just a materialization of this police of a
company that is trying to win more money in this market.

------
jsz0
As long as Apple doesn't do anything to harm alternative platforms I admire
their determination to provide the most elegant, usable, consumer devices
possible. I want the most usable device possible and I'm willing to accept
some limitations to get it. It's a choice that's just as valid as buying the
most hardcore Linux/OSS device you can find because you want the maximum
flexibility and freedom.

------
greenlblue
Any time there are ideological stakes and interests there are bound to be
"evil" plans to preserve them. In the end it's going to be consumer choice and
as long as Apple keeps their customers comfortably numb I don't think they are
going to change their ways to be friendlier to the developer community.

------
stanleydrew
_It’s clear that Apple plans for the iPhone OS to be the future of its product
line._

I don't like that they are making such a big push with the iPhone OS either,
but how is it "clear" that Apple plans to make it the foundation of its future
product line?

~~~
netcan
Thinking of it, I'm surprised that they haven't made more moves in that
direction yet.

Can you think of anyone you know who would be better off with an Iphone like
OS for their primary machine? Streamlined & controlled app installation. No
file system access. No virtual desktop. No desktop at all.

I know several. The reality is that most people still feel awkward with
computers. They have to ask for help. They qualify sentences with "I don't
know computers." It's not just about what they can do (they can usually get
their work done), it's about how that feels. It feels crap.

I seriously think that if you put an iMac sized iphone in front of them with a
Word app and such, they would feel a lot better with it. They wouldn't need to
ask for help. They wouldn't feel like they don't understand. They would be
able to get their work done just as well. In fact, an iPad with 3g & a
keyboard dock is almost there. Maybe it is there.

Why should Apple want the world of computing to look like this? They are good
at that world.

------
kenshi
The iPad and other closed systems (PS3, Xbox) don't magically make Windows
PCs, Macs, Linux or the Web go away.

As developers we have more choices than we have had in a very long time in
terms of picking the platforms we want to develop for. Every platform has its
pros and cons, as a developer you get to choose what's important to you when
picking a platform to target.

People who want to write software will always pick open systems. People who
aren't techies or creatives just want technology to serve a purpose (users of
information appliances), and just want things to work with the minimal amount
of fuss. Locking things down simplifies a lot of things for end users.

The panic over every platform that gets released that isn't suitably open,
just makes me think of this Alan Kay quote:

"In fact, let’s not even worry about Java. Let’s not complain about Microsoft.
Let’s not worry about them because we know how to program computers, too, and
in fact we know how to do it in a meta-way. We can set up an alternative point
of view, and we’re not the only ones who do this, as you’re well aware."

Source: <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523>

------
gsmaverick
If you think it's so bad then don't buy it. As long as you continue to buy
Apple products you are supporting their policies.

------
robg
What if they're simply aiming for a bigger slice of the PC market? They came
to dominate smartphones (and Music distribution) well-after the fact by
simplifying everything. I don't see why the PC market is any different. Apples
were always supposed to be easy to use and they've made software installations
and updates much easier by controlling the process. 8% of the market leaves
plenty of room for improvement and I'd bet a majority of users would gladly
give up freedom for simplicity.

[http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-
market...](http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-market-
rebounds-apple-slips-into-5th-place-in-us.ars)

------
ronnier
>It’s a frightening future

It's not that frighting, use Windows.

~~~
neilk
I think you mean "Ubuntu".

~~~
ronnier
Either one, my point is that other options exist.

------
derefr
The important thing to remember here: there will always need to be a platform
to run your IDE on to _develop_ the closed-platform apps. Even In a completely
locked-down world, the platform SDK has to be running on _something_.

------
lssndrdn

      it’s not hard to imagine Apple doing their best to phase 
      out the Macintosh in the next decade, just as they phased
      out OS 9
    

I completely disagree. There's a need for high end machines for image, sound,
and other professionals who use these machines because they are really good.
Sure, some people who would have bought a iMac will end up buying an iPad
instead because really all they need to do is surf the web and check their
mail. But from there to discontinuing Mac OS X altogether it's a big leap of
the imagination which I find unfounded.

------
JacobAldridge
At what point do they run into the restrictions that came up in the Microsoft
/ IE situation? Do they need to be more dominant first?

~~~
wmf
Do you mean antitrust scrutiny? It seems like Apple's cream-skimming strategy
allows them to be really profitable without ever getting large market share.

------
lurkinggrue
They are not evil, just a bit Authoritarian.

That dosn't settle well with many geeks but shiny can overcome that in some.

~~~
gwern
I disagree; I think Apple's alignment is more Lawful Evil.

~~~
lurkinggrue
Hmmm... that would explain a lot.

------
awa
I don't think it would be long before somebody is able to root the device and
install a version of linux or android on the device. The nook was rooted
within days and the iPad would be definitely more tempting to hackers to
tinker with.

------
tzury
Dear Mr. Jobs, You have just announced the most restricted personal computing
platform ever! evil, even with a slick look remains evil

<http://twitter.com/tzury/status/8312812934>

------
dnsworks
The real evil I see with Apple is the App Store. It's very anti-competitive.
Since you can only sell ipod/ipad applications through their store, they own a
monopoly on it. This is problematic because it's a model that will never allow
any competition. If I wanted to start a store that takes only a 5% or 10%
commission of every ipod/ipad application sale, I am unable to do this.

Apple is preventing me from selling other people's software more competitively
than they can. Imagine if Walmart told all video game manufacturers that they
were no longer allowed to distribute through any other channel besides
Walmart.

~~~
philwelch
That's a bad analogy. A better analogy is, "Imagine if Microsoft told all
video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to sell Xbox games
without having them approved by...oh, wait."

(If console games were small enough for digital download to be feasible, do
you really think Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo would let you buy them at
every damn store? Would they even bother putting drives in the machines
anymore?)

~~~
dnsworks
Don't you get the feeling that Apple is trying to phase our their OS X model
towards a more iphone-like ecosphere where they can own everything? I do.

~~~
philwelch
If they had done anything with the Mac, then maybe. But they haven't, and they
have little reason to if only because they need to sell Macs to iPhone/iPad
developers.

------
ecq
"And the iPhone OS will only run software that they specifically approve. No
Flash or other alternate runtimes, no one-off apps or open source
customizations. Just total control by Apple. It’s a frightening future.

I don’t know why they’re doing it."

I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience.
You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience.
And it works for them and their users. 99.999% doesn't give a shit about your
concerns.

That's the reason why iPhone sales trumps Nexus One/Droid/etc.

~~~
pyre
> _I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user
> experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user
> experience._

If Apple applied their logic to the Universe (or at least Earth) we would all
be living in an episode of Leave it to Beaver to 'improve the user
experience.' What if you don't want to live in a Leave it to Beaver universe?
Too bad.

~~~
CamperBob
When Apple starts paying off legislators and bribing judges to outlaw the
possession of Linux- and Windows-based PCs, you'll have a point. I don't see
that happening, do you? Nobody is forcing you to live in Leave It to Beaver-
land; you're just bitching because your cable company added an oldies channel
that carries it.

~~~
cageface
What happens when the only way I can read a book I want to read or listen to
an album I want to hear is through Apple's channel?

It's the combination of a closed delivery system and their increasing
dominance of digital content that's worrisome.

~~~
ecq
that's not going to happen.

~~~
cageface
It already has with some music. The only legal distribution channel for the
digital version is through iTunes.

