<diatribe warning> // this was going to be a single quick point... doh!
I'll just make a few quick points: (1) Thread title: "Why the iPad is bad for tinkering". The iPad is bad for tinkering because it is quite specifically NOT *for* tinkering. It's an actual computing appliance - bringing the power of computers and the web to the masses in a clean and effective way. Get the engineers the F out of the way of people getting things *done* using modern technology and the web. This device is all about the users, not about the programmers. If you're concerned about hacking your iPad - you're not part of the target market. Please drive through. (2) Several points brought up in this thread are actually false, which is a bit annoying. The Apple SDK and tools are free, and are pretty much state-of-the-art (tool religion battles aside). You have to pay to play in the App Store, which is quite by design - because it eliminates open-source-only whiners that don't understand business or real customer demand. Apple has a quality control process in place (which has improved in speed and transparency) that protects consumers from crappy apps that compromise the user experience. This is a BIG deal, and is only bitched about by developers, not by consumers. There are a few anti-competitive maneuvers that ruffle consumer feathers - but they make sense from Apple's perspective as a business. Those consumers can go ahead and hack their iPhones and do whatever they want. If you want access to 125,000,000 paying customers with one-click access to purchase your app, you have to pay ($99/year, aka NOTHING), and you have to play by Apple's rules. They're not stupid, and those that bitch are - because they haven't done the value calculation of what Apple has *brought* to developers: A real, sizable, meaningful, accessible, paying audience. (3) None of us have used an iPad yet. When you get a chance to use one, the paradigm shift will make sense. It's not a small laptop with no keyboard. It's not a big iPod touch. It's new, and it will be very useful for getting actual stuff done by people that focus on real things - and not just tinkering with electronics. Watch the apps space - medical, industrial, entertainment, media, real estate... This user experience is going to change things big time. How do I know this? Well, I don't. I do know, however, several of the folks that spent the last year slaving away at a totally new way of interacting with a computing device, and they are the best in the business. Those that have used it have made the point to say that using it is jaw dropping. I am prepared to be impressed. (4) Open source is not a model unto itself - it is a business decision made by a company or person (contributor) that aligns with the overall objectives of that company or person. Not all software should be open source. Building software is hard work - as you know - and people deserve to be paid for their hard work, just like musicians deserve to be paid for their music; Music stealers are a lot like software pirates. This goes for all software at every level in the stack. They open source some of their work (like webkit), but If more of Apple's stuff made sense to open-source, then I'd be all for it. However it doesn't make sense to their business. Doing that would be stupid, which they are not. (5) It annoys the heck out of me that so many engineering folks have not spent any of their vast mental cycles on understanding business models. It's like the simplest patterns book you could imagine. Simple algorithms. Simple inputs, simple outputs. The food on your table is not donated to you by open-source food producers. It's business. You pay for it because you value it. You pay what you pay because (a) you and others have decided you are willing to take on the cost burden for the benefit, and (b) because it costs something *less* than that to make. Companies that submit software to open source are *paying* for its development via some other business mechanism, or THEY WILL DIE. Oh hai Sun! - Joe On Feb 14, 8:33 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > There's a fairly long spiel on podcast 297 about why the iPad isn't > "evil". I got the impression none of the posse understand what's at > stake here. I'll be brief - if you think this stuff is interesting and/ > or important, search the blogsphere, you'll have _plenty_ to read. > (spoiler: You can't sign the NDA you need to agree to do become an SDK > developer until 18. Apple is morally in the wrong for not considering > this). > > Those who have some reservations about the iPad usually foresee a > great future for the device. I know the standard sales pitch is for it > to be a 'third device', but I think that's just shortsighted. What > would your average family need to do that the iPad cannot do (let's > make a few provisos, such as a way to sync phones and cameras to an > ipad)? Play really complex games? Sure, but, you'll probably buy a > games console and not a PC to fill that niche. Programming? This is > about people who are just tinkering about before they actually realize > they'd even want to try programming. What else is there? Serious work, > spending many hours behind the screen? Working stiffs (and > programmers :P) will do that, but why would a family need to consider > that? Also, there's the keyboard dock. Even Mac OS X is so complicated > my parents just don't understand it. They've got 8 screens worth of > apps on their iPhones though, and I never showed them anything for it, > whereas I try to explain their macbook to them every time I'm over. > > But therein lies a problem. Game consoles are already closed NDA- > protected fiefdoms, and the iPad is no different. > > Joe specifically said: Just get the SDK - but that costs money, isn't > all that great for tinkering (you don't put $99 up front for a whim, > and the tools aren't made to just screw about for a bit. It's not like > apple also ships a logo-like environment so kids can learn to program > too, and there's no way to make something like this either, as you'd > either break the NDA or you'll run afoul of the app store policies), > and you HAVE TO BE 18 YEARS OLD! I was less than half that age when I > wrote my first (ridiculously simple and juvenile) program. > Nevertheless, it was a program. > > Apple is a ground-breaking company that is in the business of > redefining how the world interacts with automated systems. If you want > to be in that kind of visionary position, you have to think of this > stuff, and I'm very disappointed that they either haven't considered > this, or did, and decided not to care about it. They don't have to > open up the platform much to solve this issue. By relaxing the rules > on apps that themselves also run apps just a little, you could make > awesome programming environments almost anybody can tinker around > with, it would turn the iPad from a force of evil into a force of > good, as far as increasing the pool of technical creative people is > concerned. > > *THAT* is why apple is morally on shaky ground. Which, in the modern > age, needs to be written as "apple is EEEEVIL!" because headlines > always ridiculously overstate everything in a silly grab for > attention. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
