Apple Tablet

Are you sure? I know I've seen reports of some, but they only affected jailbroken phones, which doesn't count since I won't be jailbreaking my relatives iPads.

I'm not certain, but I believe the malicious one affected any device, jailbroken or not... I'll have to do some looking.

TheGameguru wrote:
Malor wrote:
I'm not sure the "content" holders would approve of that..

What right does anyone have to tell me what I can do with my own computer? "Content holders" have some rights to their content, but not to my hardware.

I think its safe to say this.

You just don't get it.

To be fair, there are some antitrust issues around the idea that Apple is closing their system for the sake of driving people to their store alone.

Microsoft got slapped around for the much lesser offense of putting IE in their OS install.

farley3k wrote:

(although to say that Windows OS is open is bull).

And yet, the fact that Windows is wide open compared to the topic of discussion is not a comforting thought.

Nobody calls Windows "open" because the idea of being able to install whatever applications you want has always been assumed.

With the iPad, we're now looking at a computing device (beyond just a smartphone) that has taken away that assumption.

There's a lot of things about the iPad in terms of specifications, compatibility and yes, openness and freedom of choice that I don't like. So I'll be keeping my $500 and telling others I know who are curious about it that they should probably do the same. I don't see why it needs to be a bigger deal than that.

Until Apple has Microsoft level of influence over the PC market (which I personally never see happening), I don't see the worry about them influencing anything else. Dell, HP and others already have concept pad computers out there that run Windows or Linux, both of which you're free to do with as you please. I see some of the real anti-Apple postings almost as people who really, really want to buy an iPad but can't because it compromises their principals. But Apple should change because well, they really want one. I don't like a lot of things about Apple but that's why other than an iPod Nano I was given as a gift, I don't own anything they make.

EDIT: Also, do you get really pissed off when you buy a DVD player because it doesn't allow you to make movies?

No, because there's no way the hardware can do it. I do get very angry at the unskippable bullsh*t, which is why I usually watch DVDs on a computer, where I CAN skip scenes if I wish.

There'll be no skipping over ads on an iPad.

I'm not sure why this keeps being decried as a horrible thing. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you do buy it, try to know what the limits are beforehand. Above all, be an informed consumer. Is it that complicated a notion to come to terms with?

*Legion* wrote:

With the iPad, we're now looking at a computing device (beyond just a smartphone) that has taken away that assumption.

To be fair, there are tons of computing devices that do not allow you to run arbitrary code on their hardware. I could list a dozen right now off the top of my head. So my question remains, why single out this one has the bringer of doom?

Malor wrote:
EDIT: Also, do you get really pissed off when you buy a DVD player because it doesn't allow you to make movies?

No, because there's no way the hardware can do it.

Y'know, I can fry an egg on my engine block, but I don't go around complaining that Chevy's 8-cylinder models don't have nonstick surfaces.

psu_13 wrote:

To be fair, there are tons of computing devices that do not allow you to run arbitrary code on their hardware. I could list a dozen right now off the top of my head. So my question remains, why single out this one has the bringer of doom?

Partly because it's a general computing device, not a piece of hardware for a single specialized task, as a game console is.

Partly because of its influence. A locked-down piece of hardware from Archos has no detectable impact on the industry. The new overly hyped product from Apple, however, does.

Partly because it caught everyone off guard. An Apple tablet is something people pictured for a long time. But that mental picture was of a tablet PC, Apple style. Not an overgrown, locked-down iPod Touch.

I don't share Malor's doom-and-gloom scenario viewpoint. At least, not to that extent. But I do have serious concerns about the idea of the general public accepting locked-down, walled-off hardware for their general computing use.

*Legion* wrote:

Partly because it's a general computing device, not a piece of hardware for a single specialized task, as a game console is.

I think this is the crux of the matter. You say it's a more general purpose device than (say) an Xbox. I counter that the Xbox has more CPU, certainly more GPU, more disk storage and probably a comparable amount of RAM. So which is really more general purpose? Each machine is purpose built to run a particular set of applications that have to be cryptographically verified to be allowed to run on the machine.

So what this whole argument boils down to is that you believe that the iPad is, or should be, a "general purpose" machine and I don't. A difficult quandry.

peterb wrote:
Malor wrote:
EDIT: Also, do you get really pissed off when you buy a DVD player because it doesn't allow you to make movies?

No, because there's no way the hardware can do it.

Y'know, I can fry an egg on my engine block, but I don't go around complaining that Chevy's 8-cylinder models don't have nonstick surfaces.

Use a frying pan. BAM! How's that for a plugin?

*Legion* wrote:
psu_13 wrote:

To be fair, there are tons of computing devices that do not allow you to run arbitrary code on their hardware. I could list a dozen right now off the top of my head. So my question remains, why single out this one has the bringer of doom?

Partly because of its influence. A locked-down piece of hardware from Archos has no detectable impact on the industry. The new overly hyped product from Apple, however, does.

I'd say that's the biggest aspect that has people worried. A fear of "As Rome goes, so goes the world."

But that hasn't happened with any Apple product, has it? Their MP3/iPod model dominated the market, but even they eventually made DRM-free music available, and the Amazon, Zune, and eMusic stores offer alternatives as well.

But that hasn't happened with any Apple product, has it? Their MP3/iPod model dominated the market, but even they eventually made DRM-free music available, and the Amazon store and eMusic offer alternatives as well.

If anything, it shows that Apple is not willing to learn from past endeavors, and that despite the user-friendly nature of the device, they're not really consumer-friendly.

Ultimately, the market is diverse enough that if the iPad is truly problematic for users at some point, competitors can play up their advantages.

I've never once said anything about general doom and gloom in relation to the iPad. Maybe someone else did, but my sole observation is that locking down a general-purpose computer, one for which a full development kit already exists, when it's only going to be used on local networks, is unconscionable. And I think anyone signing up for that kind of treatment is very foolish indeed.

The lockdown is not for your benefit.

NSMike wrote:

If anything, it shows that Apple is not willing to learn from past endeavors, and that despite the user-friendly nature of the device, they're not really consumer-friendly.

Ultimately, the market is diverse enough that if the iPad is truly problematic for users at some point, competitors can play up their advantages.

I think that's a valid argument to make, but I don't think they're unwilling to learn. It just depends on what you think the lesson is. The window between their adapting to the new away of doing things and their original ultra-closed/ultra-DRM made them boatloads of cash. So why not try it again? I'd say it's us consumers who are unwilling to learn from past endeavors, ha.

psu_13 wrote:

I think this is the crux of the matter. You say it's a more general purpose device than (say) an Xbox. I counter that the Xbox has more CPU, certainly more GPU, more disk storage and probably a comparable amount of RAM. So which is really more general purpose? Each machine is purpose built to run a particular set of applications that have to be cryptographically verified to be allowed to run on the machine.

That's a silly argument. I owned computers in the past that are less powerful than what is inside my wireless router today. Yet one could not make any sort of reasonable argument that the latter is more of a general purpose machine than the former. Raw computing power is not the crux of the argument, especially since raw computing power outpaced the needs of "general computing usage" some time ago.

The iPad is intended for a lot of general computer usage. Apple's own website calls it, "The best way to experience the web, email, photos, and video. Hands down." Their site has as long of a laundry list of general personal computing tasks that you can do on the device as they could come up with.

So, yeah. Arguing against it as a general purpose device is inane.

*Legion* wrote:
psu_13 wrote:

I think this is the crux of the matter. You say it's a more general purpose device than (say) an Xbox. I counter that the Xbox has more CPU, certainly more GPU, more disk storage and probably a comparable amount of RAM. So which is really more general purpose? Each machine is purpose built to run a particular set of applications that have to be cryptographically verified to be allowed to run on the machine.

That's a silly argument. I owned computers in the past that are less powerful than what is inside my wireless router today. Yet one could not make any sort of reasonable argument that the latter is more of a general purpose machine than the former. Power is not the crux of the argument.

The iPad is intended for a lot of general computer usage. Apple's own website calls it, "The best way to experience the web, email, photos, and video. Hands down."

So, yeah. Arguing against it as a general purpose device is inane.

I dunno, seems like they aren't saying "best computer," they're saying "best at these 4 things." Is this all that different the Xbox being my game console, music player, DVD player, UPNP Video client, Netflix client, twitter & facebook client, slideshow viewer and webchat system? Because it does all those things too. And last time I checked, my PSP was marketed as multi-media device as well. The difference is Apple will actually probably do a lot of what the PSP tries to do.

I dunno, as someone who also does a lot of unpaid techsupport for luddite friends and family, the idea of an entirely closed web-thingy is like an incredible breath of fresh air. There's no way in HELL I'd let my mother near a Netbook, even though she brings up the idea every month or two. But she figured out her iPhone in about 3 minutes.

I counter that the Xbox has more CPU, certainly more GPU, more disk storage and probably a comparable amount of RAM

The 360, as an aside, would be a terrible computer. It's Turing-complete, but the hardware is highly specialized for gaming-style code. Running regular applications on it would be horribly slow, because the CPU just doesn't work well that way. The PS3 is even worse. But there are some groups that would benefit from hacking those, and I applaud efforts to break them for good uses, like turning them into real media servers instead of ones that only work with particular software.

I should also point out that buying wireless routers that don't run open firmwares is much poorer for you than buying ones that do. You can turn your WRT54GL into a tiny general-purpose server on your network; this is useful. You own the damn hardware, why the hell shouldn't you be able to do anything you want with it?

rabbit: you can do that right now with unlocked hardware; just don't tell your mother the root/administrator password, and make her user account a regular User with no admin privs. Voila, problem solved.... but if she develops the need for something new, locked hardware means you're sh*t out of luck. Or if Apple decides to change the rules on you midstream, you're also SOL.

rabbit wrote:

I dunno, seems like they aren't saying "best computer," they're saying "best at these 4 things." Is this all that different the Xbox being my game console, music player, DVD player, UPNP Video client, Netflix client, twitter & facebook client, slideshow viewer and webchat system?

There's no question that game consoles have become more general use systems than in the past. But let's be real. One of these things has an app store filled with various general use computing software. One of these things plays games and also has a few built-in, hard-coded apps that do other things.

I dunno, as someone who also does a lot of unpaid techsupport for luddite friends and family, the idea of an entirely closed web-thingy is like an incredible breath of fresh air. There's no way in HELL I'd let my mother near a Netbook, even though she brings up the idea every month or two. But she figured out her iPhone in about 3 minutes.

There's ground between the two extremes. Android OS allows you to install software from anywhere, but this capability is blocked by default. It is enabled with a checkbox in an advanced setting panel that no non-techie is ever going to find their way into.

There is zero reason that the iPad couldn't have a similar advanced user option to allow installing and executing unsigned code, and it would not compromise the walled garden experience for people like your mother one iota.

*Legion* wrote:

The iPad is intended for a lot of general computer usage. Apple's own website calls it, "The best way to experience the web, email, photos, and video. Hands down." Their site has as long of a laundry list of general personal computing tasks that you can do on the device as they could come up with.

So, yeah. Arguing against it as a general purpose device is inane.

A blackberry, droid, iPhone, etc. can all do those things too. Are they general computing devices too? To me it is silly to think a device with no real keyboard, no mouse, no CD-ROM drive could be considered a general computing device.

Malor wrote:

The lockdown is not for your benefit.

All this sturm und drang is probably unnecessary as I'd imagine that Apple is planning on creating a more powerful version of the iPad (iPadPro or something equally annoying) that will run a version of OSX.

And that will not be to benefit anyone but themselves and their sales. Which, you know, is why they make computers. And "handheld devices."

The first thing I did with the phone I own now is jailbreak it so that I could run what I wanted on it, like using the built-in GPS hardware without having to pay a monthly fee. And I can do very nice tethering with my laptop when I need to. Had I not jailbroken it, I wouldn't be able to do that.

Locked hardware is total bullsh*t. I didn't buy the phone until I knew I could take proper control of it. I'm not trying to run Nethack on it, I'm just trying to use the hardware that's there in the way I choose.

I paid for it, I own it, my rules.

*Legion* wrote:

The only reasonable definition of "general computing device" would have to center around what the device can do, rather than the makeup of their input and I/O devices.

And by that definition - because it is locked down - the iPad is not a general computer device. So we can stop being annoyed at it for not being what it isn't!

Greatest handheld console ever!

farley3k wrote:

A blackberry, droid, iPhone, etc. can all do those things too. Are they general computing devices too?

Yes. That's pretty much the definition of "smartphone". These devices are, of course, hamstrung by their size and relative lack of power.

But my G1 does most of what my laptop does.

To me it is silly to think a device with no real keyboard

I thought you just said Droid.

no CD-ROM drive

Haven't been using many netbooks lately?

could be considered a general computing device.

The only reasonable definition of "general computing device" would have to center around what the device can do, rather than the makeup of their input and I/O devices.

farley3k wrote:

And by that definition - because it is locked down - the iPad is not a general computer device.

The logic is empty in that statement.

Let's easily disprove it. Imagine my Windows PC exists with all the software it does now, only that software all had to come through an approval process, and everything that didn't come through the process is locked out.

Does the PC cease to be a general purpose computing device? No. It still does the exact same tasks.

Closedness does not somehow disprove "general computing device", unless you decide to make "general computing device" synonymous with "open platform".

Which, if that's what you want to call it, fine, but you're arguing a completely different point than anyone else.

It's not a hard concept to wrap one's head around.

The iPad is clearly intended to be able to perform the tasks that many people predominately use their computers for.

Web. Email. Pictures. Video. For a lot of people, that's the majority of their personal computer usage.

Game consoles and other specific-use devices don't generally do those things - and they're definitely not designed for those things first and foremost.

Trying to nitpick the definition of "general use" is a great big exercise in willfully trying to miss the point.

Probably everything my wife does on her computers, she could do on an iPad. That's definitely not true of a game console. That's the point, that's what makes it a "general computing device" by a meaningful definition of that term. So let's quit with the mental gymnastics that are trying to dance around that point.

Man, how many times have I written and deleted comments instead of posting again in response to the crazy vehemence on this thread? Many. And I regret none of those times.

This one, though... This one will make it through. Oh yes.

For the overwhelming majority of potential iPad consumers, the concept of a piece of hardware being "closed" or "open" makes no difference to them. What matters to them is whether or not the iPad can do what they want it to do. For most people, improving their iPad will consist of going to iTunes and grabbing the latest app.

The people for whom improving their iPad consists of having access to the OS and the guts of it consist of such an incredibly small percentage of their customer-base that they might as well not even exist.

*Legion* wrote:

There is zero reason that the iPad couldn't have a similar advanced user option to allow installing and executing unsigned code, and it would not compromise the walled garden experience for people like your mother one iota.

This is like reading a design for a perpetual motion machine that says "First, assume there is no friction or gravity."

There may be zero technical reason (although I can actually think of a few), but in the real world of actually shipping a product, adding options - even 'hidden' options - takes design, engineering, and QA cycles, often iterative cycles. It's really easy to say "doing [thing x] would be trivial" when you're not the one responsible for meeting the schedule.

Put another way: every engineer man-hour Apple (or anyone else) puts into an "advanced optional feature" in the iPad (or any other product) is an engineer man-hour not spent on making the things that are actually important to the core use cases work great. That, to me, is the definition of taking on a risk of compromising the experience.

peterb wrote:

This is like reading a design for a perpetual motion machine that says "First, assume there is no friction or gravity."

There may be zero technical reason (although I can actually think of a few), but in the real world of actually shipping a product, adding options - even 'hidden' options - takes design, engineering, and QA cycles, often iterative cycles. It's really easy to say "doing [thing x] would be trivial" when you're not the one responsible for meeting the schedule.

You're right to a degree, although I think you vastly overstate the issue.

The point is that the feature absolutely could have existed without compromising the "normal" experience. And if it had been an intended feature from the start, I think it would be fairly safe to say that it would hardly be the biggest, most time-consuming part of the development cycle.

I am not suggesting that the impact on something like QA would be nonexistent, but I will operate under the assumption that it would not be a feature that would have crippled product development had it been a requirement from the start of the project.

peterb wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

There is zero reason that the iPad couldn't have a similar advanced user option to allow installing and executing unsigned code, and it would not compromise the walled garden experience for people like your mother one iota.

This is like reading a design for a perpetual motion machine that says "First, assume there is no friction or gravity."

There may be zero technical reason (although I can actually think of a few), but in the real world of actually shipping a product, adding options - even 'hidden' options - takes design, engineering, and QA cycles, often iterative cycles. It's really easy to say "doing [thing x] would be trivial" when you're not the one responsible for meeting the schedule.

Put another way: every engineer man-hour Apple (or anyone else) puts into an "advanced optional feature" in the iPad (or any other product) is an engineer man-hour not spent on making the things that are actually important to the core use cases work great. That, to me, is the definition of taking on a risk of compromising the experience.

Explain jailbreaking to me then? As far as I have used it on my iPod Touch, jailbreaking is simply a non-Apple-approved flag that does the same thing, except the non-trivial part was getting around Apple's blocks against such a thing... Which makes me wonder just how much time they spent engineering it to stop that, which could've otherwise been given over to exactly the kind of option that Legion is talking about.

It's a choice in the development cycle for one or the other, not the absence of something Apple simply didn't want to make.

As a matter of fact, I'm certain closing it makes more work for Apple than any QA and development cycle for such an option ever could have.