/me stands up and cheers. On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Joe Nuxoll (Java Posse)" <[email protected]> wrote: > <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.
