
Daring Fireball: The Kids Are All Right - kilian
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/kids_are_all_right
======
SwellJoe
Things have never been better for kids and technology than they are today, and
I agree with Gruber that it's a bit myopic to suggest otherwise.

But, it is dangerous to ignore negative events, just because the overall trend
has been positive for the past 30 years. Apple has been responsible for a
number of very negative events in the past few years. Going back to more
closed systems is not a good thing, even if the iPad is awesome and seems like
magic and kids love it (and I'm sure they do). The iPad and iPhone are more
closed, more hostile to tinkerers, more hostile to adventurous users, than
most other similar devices. This is a _bad_ thing. One shouldn't apologize for
a company doing bad things, just because things in the industry as a whole are
better than they were ten or fifteen or twenty years ago.

Open Source software has made dramatic improvements in the landscape for kids
learning technology today. Apple is fighting those improvements, and they
_should_ be called out for that bad behavior. Apple is behaving in ways that
are bad for developers, and bad for kids who might become hackers. Just
because they also happen to build awesome products, and do happen to provide
an approved relief valve for their closed ecosystem, doesn't make it OK to be
hostile to developers and would-be hackers.

~~~
DannoHung
Sorry, but how do you qualify negative events?

First, let's take a look at what I suspect you think are negative events:

1) iTunes Music Store has DRM encumbered music

2) iTunes Video Store has DRM encumbered video

3) iPhone App Store has closed ecosystem with infuriating approval process

Now, let's peel back the bullshit and look at the reality of the situations:

1) Before the iTunes music store, the only way you could get music legally on
the internet was a $10 a month subscription to the Real Player music store.
You did not own your music and you could only play it on a number of devices.
Concurrently, many music publishers were trying to develop technological means
to prevent users from taking music from CDs they had purchased and ripping
them to MP3's.

Overall, I rate that as a win for consumers. A double win considering the
later removal of DRM from iTunes music.

2) Before the iTunes video store, you could buy a few DRM encumbered videos
from Amazon (pretty sure they were the only game in town at that time). Some
of the current stores for digital video don't even allow you to view video on
a device different from the one you purchased it on. There is still not a
really great source of High Def video.

Overall, I rate that as a neutral to slight win for consumers.

3) Before the iPhone App store, the only way you could get an application was
through a carrier approved store. The apps themselves were 99% garbage and if
you changed phones, good luck transferring them. With the iPhone App store,
there has been a cambrian explosion of mobile software. Despite the denial of
apps in several specific categories and contentious policies regarding
duplication of built in software, for the most part there is an app for that.
The best part though is that applications do not depend on carrier approval
for the most part and handsets are free to transfer across networks provided
they are hardware compatible. I would like to remind you again that before
June 2007, this shit was fantasy.

Overall, I rate that as a win for consumers.

~~~
SwellJoe
_1) Before the iTunes music store, the only way you could get music legally on
the internet was a $10 a month subscription to the Real Player music store.
You did not own your music and you could only play it on a number of devices.
Concurrently, many music publishers were trying to develop technological means
to prevent users from taking music from CDs they had purchased and ripping
them to MP3's._

This is simply, and provably, untrue. I had an eMusic account several years
before iTunes existed. It has always distributed DRM-free MP3s.

 _2) Before the iTunes video store, you could buy a few DRM encumbered videos
from Amazon (pretty sure they were the only game in town at that time)._

I don't know about this, as I'm not a big movie/TV watcher. I'll leave it for
someone else to debunk.

 _3) Before the iPhone App store, the only way you could get an application
was through a carrier approved store._

Demonstrably untrue. There was a thriving and open application market for Palm
devices, Windows mobile devices, and others, long before the App Store. The
Sidekick had a similar marketplace model to the App Store and a similar
approval process, and it was in place for many years before the iPhone. Pretty
much all smart phones allowed installation of applications from third parties
before the iPhone and App Store. The success of the App Store, for Apple's
bottom line, was the primary motivation for several other vendors introducing
similar markets.

But, I wasn't talking about iTunes (though there are probably things to say
about iTunes, I don't really know enough about it; as I mentioned, I've been
an eMusic user for many years, and have never wanted anything iTunes had to
offer; besides that iTunes doesn't run under Linux, so I can't use it). I'm
talking about specific negative things Apple has done for openness and
creativity in the technology world with the iPhone and the iPad, which is the
subject of all of these rants.

The iPhone and iPad are the most tightly controlled ecosystems in their
respective niches (if we count netbooks and other tablets as in the iPad
niche, which I kinda think we have to, for now). This is a _bad_ thing.

And, I was saying that the kind of apologia you're using is enabling Apple to
do these bad things. One shouldn't apologize for bad things Apple has done by
presenting the good or neutral things Apple has done. We know that the closed
nature of the iPhone/iPad and the App Store ecosystem is bad for developers
and bad for tinkerers and would-be hackers. We should call them on that bad
behavior.

Praise them all you want for other behaviors, but don't use it as an excuse
for the bad things they do.

~~~
tptacek
eMusic distributed DRM-free MP3s for artists that most people didn't care
about.

~~~
SwellJoe
And the eMusic catalog has expanded through the years to encompass most of the
artists that matter. By the time iTunes came along, eMusic had a pretty good
catalog...by the time iTunes started offering DRM-free music, the eMusic
catalog included a huge array of major label acts.

But, I'm not really talking about iTunes. I'm talking about the hacker culture
and the chilling effects of the closed iPad/iPhone ecosystem. I just couldn't
let an utterly untrue statement go uncorrected. But it's not really the point
of my rant.

~~~
tptacek
Seriously, I mostly listen to independent music, and I don't steal music, and
I haven't bought a physical CD in something like 5 years so I'm pretty sold on
downloading, and when the iTMS launched eMusic was absolutely not a draw for
me. I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that eMusic solved the same
problem Apple did.

The original statement simply wasn't "utterly untrue". Sorry. I hear where
you're coming from.

------
orangecat
_You can buy a new car, drive it for years, and never once open the hood
yourself. That’s the iPad._

If the iPad were a car, it would be _illegal_ to open the hood.

Yes, there's some 13 year old kids writing iPhone apps. There are even more 13
year old kids writing PC and Mac apps, so I'm not sure what that proves. What
there won't be by design in the iPad world is disruptive innovators like Linus
Torvalds. As I've said before, that's good for Apple and bad for everyone
else.

~~~
0x44

      If the iPad were a car, it would be illegal to open the hood.
    

That's incorrect, if the iPad were a car opening the hood would void the
warranty.

~~~
orangecat
No, that would be reasonable. Apple has specifically stated in filings to the
Copyright Office that jailbreaking is and should be a criminal act:
[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-
jailbreaking...](http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-
illegal)

~~~
pyre
I guess it depends on what we mean by 'opening up the hood.' Sticking to the
analogy I would take that to mean cracking open the physical case. Most of the
'black boxes' in a cars engine are also protected with various DRM methods to
make it illegal for others to reverse-engineer them (therefore making it so
that mechanics have to pay the manufacturer for access to the devices). I
would associate those with the actual chips inside of the iPad/iPhone as well
as the OS.

~~~
biafra
"make it illegal" in the USA. Reverse engineering is not (yet) illegal in
other (most?) countries.

------
Dotnaught
Gruber's argument isn't an argument. He acknowledges that Doctorow, Pilgrim,
and Payne have a point and then fails to address the real issue: Apple's veto
power over apps on its devices.

His answer: Be happy you can write Web apps.

That's like saying freedom isn't an issue in China because Hong Kong has
freedom.

There's simply no rationale for Apple to reject apps based on content that's
not illegal, like political speech.

The car analogy fails because cars are not useful for content creation, the
way computers are.

Gruber suggests its a trade-off, in which something is lost and something is
gained. But that which is gained -- an effective online market for apps
through iTunes -- isn't necessarily linked to what is lost -- Apple's
dictatorial control over its hardware and third-party apps.

There's no reason it can't just be something gained and nothing lost, at least
with regard to content approval.

Access to hardware is a related issue and there Apple could afford to be open
too.

~~~
ubernostrum
_He acknowledges that Doctorow, Pilgrim, and Payne have a point and then fails
to address the real issue_

Except the "real issue" isn't actually an argument either. There _is_ a
tradeoff happening here: for the average non-programmer, devices which have at
least a certain level of "no user-serviceable parts inside" can be made to be
much simpler, much easier to use and at least slightly more secure (in that
attacks which depend on duping a user into installing/executing malware will
fail) then devices which are completely "tinkerable".

The problem lies in failing to acknowledge that this tradeoff exists or that
it should be considered on its merits rather than ideologically rejected out
of hand; this takes it from the level of rational argument down to the level
of blindly applying dogma.

Most of the rest of the "argument" is merely a classic slippery slope
(allowing just a few devices to have just a little bit of control built in is
assumed to lead automatically to all devices having total control built in),
and as such doesn't really stand up on its own.

------
MrFoof
_"Such is the march of progress. 40 years ago you could open the hood of your
car and see and touch just about every component in there. And you had to,
because many of those components required frequent maintenance. To properly
own a car required, to some degree, that you understood how a car worked.
Today, you open the hood of your car and you see a big sealed block and a
basin for the windshield washer fluid. You can buy a new car, drive it for
years, and never once open the hood yourself."_

(Warning, car guy!) First, I don't think this is a bad thing. The average
person doesn't want to perform any maintenance anyways. Heck, oil changes.
They're still just as easy to perform. You're not even saving any time by
going to the dealership and back, plus waiting around. You're certainly not
saving any money (I can save $45 changing my oil myself). People just don't
want to expend the effort.

In the case of cars, at least in the US, they went from an object to pride
to... a nuisance for most motorists. They want to be comforted, coddled, and
have as much as possible done for them so they can chat with friends, sip
their coffee, or have a conversation via text message.

That applies to many things. I know plenty of folks who spend $10-12 a day on
lunch. $10-12 of ingredients gets me a _far_ better lunch for the entire week.
Even saves me time, because I don't have to wait in a line every day.

It's not cheaper. It's not even less time. It's the time spent is "lower
impact" I guess. That's what's paid for. Consumers are given a choice, and
many choose the path of overall least resistance. I'm sure there's plenty of
other psychological factors at play (i.e., "Well I have the money to not need
to cook for myself all the time!", advertising making things seem more
appealing), but the reality is when presented with all the options, folks just
want to do the least work possible.

Give people more iPads. At least in the current consumer culture, it's exactly
what people want. They don't want to explore or program. It's the path of
computing least resistance. Enthusiasts and people who have a serious need for
one will still buy computers.

~~~
kscaldef
> You're not even saving any time by going to the dealership and back, plus
> waiting around. You're certainly not saving any money (I can save $45
> changing my oil myself).

Actually, even this has gotten a bit debatable. My dealership has wifi
available, so I can take my car in for an oil change and I don't have to take
any time off work to do it.

~~~
MrFoof
I'll concede that... to a limited extent. Not every job makes that possible.
Even the ones that have the possibility, the number of employers that would
allow that is also limited.

VPN access, in my experience, is in the hope that people will do MORE work
when they normally aren't expected of it. As opposed to having a more flexible
work environment.

------
jerf
"Something important and valuable is indeed being lost as Apple shifts to this
model of computing. But it’s a trade-off, because something new that is
important and valuable has been gained."

This is true, but for people like me, beside the point. A car is either open
or closed, to the extent the terms mean anything. A computer doesn't have to
choose! It can be closed, until you press the "Yes I Want To Possibly Break My
Box" button and all it has to do is _stop checking executable signatures_ and
let things that aren't from the official source run. (Isn't this how Android
works? I don't have one.)

This is not a fundamental tradeoff that Apple with some regret has been forced
to make to make their product easy to use. Gruber is hiding his arguments
behind a technical tradeoff that is entirely manufactured by Apple in the
first place.

A few weeks ago I bought my wife an HP Mini running Windows 7. She will never
crack the hood. It is an easy to use machine, browser here, open office there
(which, by the way, _I was allowed to install_ ), IE locked away behind this
icon over there to access her ActiveX-based time-and-attendance system. It is
one application install away from having an "app store"; for instance, Steam
could probably be installed in about five minutes.

And I could turn it into a Linux machine in about half-an-hour. Because none
of that ease-of-use actually _requires_ the machine to be tinkerproof.

~~~
sstrudeau
This is exactly my complaint. I think everything about the iPad and App Store
is brilliant and the closed defaults make sense. But preventing _everybody_
from opening the device because _most_ people shouldn't/won't is the problem.
This is not a _necessary_ trade off. If I want to run my own code on my own
device, make me jump through a hoop (so I know what I'm getting into) but
don't stop me from shooting myself in the foot (and don't make me pay you a
$99/year subscription).

------
jsz0
I'm starting to become a defeatist on open platforms. I'd love to see them
succeed but it just doesn't seem like the quality and usability is there. If
it annoys me it must drive the average person totally insane. Now if you'll
excuse me I have to go back to trying to figure out why Dolphin on my Android
phone crashes on startup and how to restore the original built-in browser
which I must have deleted.

~~~
zavulon
I couldn't agree more.

I would LOVE to use something that's open vs something that's closed. Ubuntu
instead of Leopard. Android instead of iPhone. OpenOffice instead of Microsoft
Office. Gimp instead of Photoshop.

Problem is, all those things are inferior compared to their closed-source
counterparts (my opinion only), and don't let me do the job I need them for
nearly as well, or in as much comfort.

I am a "tinkerer", programmer, tech geek, etc. Am I going to sacrifice my
iPhone just because it's closed-source, and start using something else? Never
in a million years. I have enough things to tinker with in my life.

Some people may disagree, and that's fine, but for me and majority of others
it's just not such a big deal if the damned thing works as it's supposed to
and I'm happy with it.

~~~
yters
This seems to be a fundamental problem of open source: people contribute
because it is fun. However, the stuff that brings value to your average user,
i.e. nice UI and good documentation, is boring.

So, OS is great for hackers, some of the best technologies are open source.
But, it tends to suck for the end user.

------
Titanous
While I agree that being able to sell apps on the iTunes Store is a good
thing, and worth $99, I don't think that Apple should limit owners of their
iP* devices from creating and installing unapproved applications. Why should I
have to pay $99 just to sign my own apps for personal use? You don't pay the
car manufacturer for a license to modify your car. This is the only problem I
have with these devices.

In my opinion, Apple should just do what Windows does with downloads, and warn
users when installing unsigned apps. This provides the best of both worlds.
Keep charging for the privilege to sell on the App Store, but please, just let
me use my device how I want to.

~~~
pyre
A possible solution:

* Apple still charges $99 for a developer license/kit

* Apple still runs their AppStore

* Apple releases specs/API for creating your own AppStore

* People create competing AppStore implementations

* By default, Apple's AppStore is the only one configured

* The interface for adding extra AppStores is a bit hidden and rough around the edges, so that people have to be motivated to actually do it. (i.e. raise the bar a bit, so that the people that do it know what they are doing)

The majority of people would still just use Apple's AppStore, but this would
allow Apple to side-step the "We can't approve that because it would be bad
for our company image to have it in our AppStore" type of issues. Apple could
even void the warranty for people that use competing AppStores as a way to
raise the barrier, but at least it would still be there for the people that
wanted to use it.

~~~
_phred
If the majority of iPhone users are satisfied with the current arrangement,
what would be the incentive for Apple to open up the venue for other App
Stores? I can't see benefit to Apple from doing so, aside from a theoretical,
"more geeks will like us because they can have more control over the
distribution of their software."

Would I like to be able to use more crazy, non-standard , non-Apple-approved
software on my iPhone? Hell yes! If I were Apple, would I allow others to
distribute software for my device? Hell no!

If I had created both the device(s) and application market, I certainly
wouldn't let other people compete with me in my own business -- that's just
foolish, especially since the current business model works, and works well.
Appeasing a minority of highly technical users doesn't make sense in this
market.

Besides, how is Apple's model different from what set-top console makers
(Nintendo, Sony, Sega, ...) have done for years? $99 is cheap for a console
development kit; since you must have Mac to run it, it'd be about $700 total
for a development kit + Mac Mini -- and that's still inexpensive in the
console devkit market. It's a unique niche, and I'm more than happy to pay to
play in it.

------
kilian
The point that's worth mentioning is that, in the olden days, families had
just one computer, they cost a small fortune. That isn't the case anymore. In
my family of 5, there are currently 10 computers of various sizes in use. This
is mostly my fault since I own 5.

An iPad can be used for viewing the photos that someone just edited in
photoshop on their 'regular' pc. They're complimental.

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

(Sacrificing karma to illustrate double standard.)

EDIT Clarification: double standard remark is wrt my guess on how comment
voting would turn out.

~~~
tptacek
What double standard? I agree with you. This isn't news.

------
stcredzero
Last two paragraphs:

 _If you could go back and show my 10-year-old self an iPad — millions of
colors, video, photographs, gorgeous typography, a touchscreen interface,
networking (wirelessly!) — and offered to let me write web apps for it in
exchange for my agreeing never to touch an Apple II again, I’m pretty sure I
know what the answer would be.

Something important and valuable is indeed being lost as Apple shifts to this
model of computing. But it’s a trade-off, because something new that is
important and valuable has been gained._

I'm sure a lot of early audiophile tinkerers would be gobsmacked if someone
shoved a Bose system at them through a time portal.

Perhaps our fears of the death of tinkering are like laments about the death
of penmanship. Maybe what's essential survives in a different form?

------
extension
The iPad is more open than a game console and less open than a personal
computer and you can't use either comparison alone to predict the future. The
point of being in a new category is that it won't replace existing products,
though it will change the way we use them.

I sincerely doubt that the children of tomorrow will grow up without personal
computers just because the iPad is around. Computers are dirt cheap, can do
way more stuff, and kids aren't afraid of them like "mom" is.

It's difficult to say whether the iPad will be a net win or loss for software
freedom, in the long run. Never have so many developers been so tightly
controlled by a single vendor. However, the iPhone/iPad platform has opened up
a world of opportunities for developers, inspired the creation of other, more
open app stores, and will probably encourage, far more than deter, aspiring
young developers, as Gruber's anecdote illustrates.

------
there
whether or not the ipad is a step in the wrong direction, i feel bad for the
kid learning how to program by having to save up to pay for an apple developer
account (and having to use his parents' bank account information since he's
under age), learning with apple-supplied-and-regulated documentation, then
submitting his work to apple, stressing out over whether they'll approve of it
and think it's good enough, and then probably not making much money at all on
the whole thing and taking that to mean he's a bad programmer. not to mention
all of the idiots dismissing his software with "this app sux" on the app's
review page.

~~~
conesus
The reality is that this 13 year old kid has positive reviews on his app, has
the increased confidence to go along with actually making something, and will
undoubtedly use that confidence and passion to create more substantive
projects as he gets older.

The bar is ostensibly higher for the inexperienced to get involved with
programming. But $99 for a developer license is nothing compared to the cost
of an Apple ][e, Amiga, Atari, etc. Most kids already have a Mac anyhow. And
if they don't, a Mac mini + LCD is not prohibitively expensive. PcC developers
have to start on something, too.

I see the iPad as an easier way for a 13 year old to show off his work. And at
that age, since you're not living off the money you make, you are largely
living off props. And what better way to boost confidence than to have real
live customers.

~~~
there
i think we both know that the particular 13 year old mention in this article
is rare and that developers of any age have a hard time making a hit iphone
app. it's nice to focus on the few that have made lots of money, but the
reality is that there are many thousands of apps that haven't made any money
(especially considering the $99/year fee) and some that were never approved in
the first place.

while you state that "most kids already have a mac", which i'd disagree with,
the costs to acquire that and the iphone/ipod touch that they're actually
using to run the app, are much higher than an old computer running linux,
where they can make whatever they want for free and distribute it on the
internet or at school without having to have anyone else approve it or
anonymously judge its quality.

~~~
ubernostrum
_i think we both know that the particular 13 year old mention in this article
is rare_

I think most of the commentaries have overlooked the fact that the people who
fondly remember typing in programs from the back pages of magazines are
themselves extreme outliers, and only become more so with the passage of time.
Many more programmers today get their start playing around with web
technologies, for example, or through simply deciding to take some classes in
college and learn how to do stuff.

------
zppx
Apple has a negligible global penetration, and I believe iPad will have a user
base smaller than 1% of the total number of computers in the globe in the next
5 years, so even if Apple intends to be evil this will not affect any would be
developer. Maybe in the US the case is different, but the iPad will probably
not affect how a guy in China, Russia or India learns how to develop an
application.

------
nexneo
The way my 4 year old interacts with iPod Touch and does some amazing things.
Learn words, numbers, play kid's games.

I think he will learn lot more interactively on iPad.

~~~
statenjason
The apps are not the problem. That's actually a great use of the platform.
Rather, when/if your child becomes curious about creating something of his
own, he's met with a $100 barrier to entry.

~~~
hackermom
No; he's met with a $100 barrier if he wants to supply his software to others
via Apple's App Store. Creating and developing for OS X and for iPhone OS on
iPod/iTouch/iPad is entirely free. The XCode suite and the SDKs cost nothing
to download.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
No, he's met with a $100 barrier if he wants to load that app onto his
iPhone/iPod touch/iPad, or submit it to the AppStore.

~~~
hackermom
This does not hinder someone from developing software, which is what "op" was
under the impression of.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
I was merely addressing an inaccuracy in your post. And sure it does: there
are tons of scenarios where the Simulator doesn't work like the real hardware
or doesn't work at all: location-based apps, many audio and graphics
scenarios, Youtube video playback, etc.

------
Dotnaught
Can a 13-year-old legally be an Apple developer? Doesn't one have to be 18 to
be bound by a legal contract like the Apple Developer Agreement?

------
mscarborough
While the App Store allows (at Apple's discretion) many people to write
applications and have them available to a large user base, that is not even
close to being 'open'.

All of these apps, and any content you want to buy and consume on your iPad,
is going to be routed through Apple. To paraphrase an insightful author (who I
cannot remember right now), it is an expensive device: apart from the initial
investment, you will be paying Apple in order to tailor the device to your own
desires, whether that involves downloading an app, a book, or a magazine to
read.

Also, there's something else that gives me something to consider before
contemplating another Apple purchase: the whole Flash dilemma seems to fit in
too well with Apple's business goals for everything to be about Adobe being
'lazy' and having a poor-quality product in Flash. While Adobe may have its
issues (can have high RAM requirements, particularly in Linux), I think they
have enough talent that it could be fixed, at least for target platforms
(probably not Linux, sadly, but at least popular mobile devices). On the other
hand, Apple has no reason to allow flash. Why would you buy a $5 game if there
were other, ad-supported versions that you could get for free through Safari?

I'm not panning Apple in general. I run Linux for work, but just started to
complement those workstations with a couple Apple products for personal use.

It just doesn't ring the free/open platform bell for me; however, it's an
ambitious and interesting project...I'm curious to see where it goes.

------
dpatru
Perhaps Apple products represent the progress of innovation. Since Henry Ford
was young, the kids tinkered with gas engines and buggies. Now, automobiles
are a mature technology and largely black boxes. Consumer electronics have
gone the same way. There used to be a time when kids tinkered with radios. Now
radios are black boxes. Progress, though, has not destroyed opportunities for
innovation. On the contrary, opportunities have grown. Robot technology, for
example, seems to be just beginning.

~~~
doron
Would that be the fate of software? will that be a benefit, if software like
Apache be closed? and only vendors with closed technology sell closed
software?

------
megaduck
I'd like to call a moratorium on iPad speculation until the damned things
actually ship. You know, wait for some concrete data, rather than bullshit
hypotheticals.

Our imagined use-cases are usually _wrong_. Telephones were going to be a
broadcast mechanism. Java was going to be an embedded systems language. Wave
was going to replace email.

Sorry to be such a grump, but I feel like all useful analysis has been
exhausted. Wait until people actually buy (or don't buy) the device, then we
can talk some more.

~~~
wmf
In this case we're speculating about market evolution that will take place
over the span of a decade or so... and by the time we have hard data it will
be too late to change anything due to path dependence.

------
grendel
The reason things are so good for us now is the free software and free culture
that gave us the tools we have. Apple firmly sits on that back.

------
misuba
Where are the open-systems advocates who want to make something even better
than the iPad instead of complain about it?

------
dskhatri
Not to be snarky, but why isn't John Gruber an evangelist at Apple? Surely
Apple would want him on their team.

~~~
dpritchett
He's already evangelizing for Apple as a somewhat objective 3rd party.
Bringing him in-house would cost them money and compromise his perceived
reliability.

~~~
samps
He's currently doing a good job of at least appearing neutral. See his recent
comments on Apple's patent litigation against HTC -- he doesn't like that at
all.

[http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thin...](http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thing)

(And I, of course, am a completely neutral third-party John Gruber
evangelist.)

~~~
pavs
Yeah, John Gruber is neutral about Apple the same way Cory Doctorow is neutral
about open platform.

~~~
ugh
I’m quite confused about the meaning of neutral in this context. Being neutral
in itself doesn’t seem like a virtue to me. Being neutral is a useful position
if you don’t know what you are talking about. Being neutral is a useful skill
if people expect you to present facts.

Both of those things don’t apply to either Cory Doctorow or John Gruber. It’s
just normal that they hold and present certain views in their writing. Calling
them out on not being neutral (or saying they successfully appear to be
neutral) seems to not make any sense.

I expect them to not be neutral. I don’t read BoingBoing or Daring Fireball
for news.

~~~
pavs
My comment was meant as a sarcasm. Of course both of them are not neutral, its
hard to say if one can be truly neutral but at least we expect most
journalist/author/reviewer/whatever-you-may-call-them to be somewhat objective
in their views when doing reviews. Both Doctorow and Gruber have very
polarized views on this subject.

Expecting Gruber (or Doctorow) to have neutral (or even an appearance of
neutrality) views is quite silly.

Fan-boys will remain fan-boys and Gruber is a classic example of a fan-boy who
will take any criticism of apple or their products, personally.

Yes, even fan-boys can say things against their idol occasionally, doesn't
make them any less bias.

~~~
ugh
Ad hominem, dude. Ad hominem. “He is a fanboy!”/“He is not neutral!” is a
classic ad hominem when not backed up by actual arguments :)

~~~
pavs
How long have you been reading his blog for? In order for my arguments to make
sense to you, you will have to read more than just couple of his recent blog
post.

I don't think it is ad hominem, I think it is widely accepted that he is an
Apple fanboy. Your mileage may vary.

I am a happy macbook/iphone owner (but not exclusive apple user) and I think
he is an apple fanboy.

~~~
DavidSJ
_I don't think it is ad hominem, I think it is widely accepted that he is an
Apple fanboy._

The truth or falsehood of a claim is logically separate from whether it is an
ad-hominem attack.

------
lanstein
On the topic of Atari 2600 BASIC, at least there was PEEK and POKE, not that
it was easy to figure out the different addresses without a manual.

Amusingly, I have a floppy on my desk that my little brother wrote on when he
was about 4 or 5. It has two commands on the label - POKE and PEAK :)

~~~
whyenot
There actually was an amazing little book published by Compute! that contained
information on every memory address of interest on the Atari 400/800, and what
peeking/poking different values at each address did. It was fantastic, and a
tinkering teenager's bible.

------
majma
I'm not demeaning the actual work of Sam Kaplan, I applaud it, but I think
argument from cute kid tinkering should only work once for each child in
question.. (see video below) please find another 13 year old poster child
whose love of technology and entrepreneurship has been kindled by apple's
closed ecosystem.

[http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1377966471&play=1](http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1377966471&play=1)

also, does this kid have parents with marketing backgrounds or what? :)

all I'm saying is, maybe Sam Kaplan isn't the average kid on the block
consuming apple products?

------
webwright
Yeah, the Atari comparison is ridiculous-- it's comparing the defending closed
system with an older and MORE closed system.

Let's change it to, "Imagine a 13 year old in 1995 who could produce&sell his
own internet game/app on the web." and see how the comparison flies. Because I
can imagine that just fine.

I see the benefits

------
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".

------
msie
It's a credit to Apple's importance to the industry (and future hackerdom,
apparently) that noone is having the same debate over the JooJoo tablet.

------
more_original
Tinkerable or not, a platform where Apple decides which applications can be
distributed stinks!

------
cageface
Faulty analogies. Computers are not cars. Web clients are not gaming consoles.
The iPad is a closed client for an open system.

------
papachito
> Something important and valuable is indeed being lost as Apple shifts to
> this model of computing. But it’s a trade-off, because something new that is
> important and valuable has been gained.

Why should it have to be a trade-off? Because Steve Jobs said so? With Chrome
OS, there's a dev mode where you can do/install everything you want and get
into console mode. And Android is totally open source too. So as much as Apple
wants us to believe there's a necessity in restricting, the truth is that
there is absolutely not, it's an artificial restriction.

~~~
replicatorblog
There is a big trade off the other way. Android has a terrible UX. There are a
lot of examples but one is their store. App prices are listed in Dollars,
Euros, Pounds, and Yen and that is just a small sampling of apps I've seen.
What you gain in openness with open OS you lose majorly in polish and
usability. There is no perfect platform that satisfies all needs.

~~~
orangecat
_Android has a terrible UX._

To the extent that's true, it's not _because_ Android is open. The Android
Market does have many shortcomings (my favorite WTF is the 325 character
description limit), but fixing them in no way requires adopting a closed
model.

 _There is no perfect platform that satisfies all needs._

Agreed. I have no problem with the existence of a walled-garden platform that
has armed guards facing both in and out. I do have a problem with that being
the only model for mobile computing, which is exactly what Apple is aiming for
with their lawsuits asserting that Android is illegal.

------
mooted
If you are regular guy using a car to go from A to B, you definitely don't
want to open up the hood. But if you bought a car to learn a thing or two
about the engine inside, then you are in trouble with a locked down hood. The
same with kids who wanna be hackers.

If your kid want to be a hacker and learn things, he is definitely going to be
in big trouble with locked down devices like iPad and companies like Apple .

