[OSX-Users] Re: ipad?

[Nick Gibbins]

On 29 Jan 2010, at 09:54, Leslie Carr <lac at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 28 Jan 2010, at 15:25, Nick Gibbins wrote:

>> It isn't a laptop replacement, it isn't an iPhone/iPod Touch  
>> replacement, it isn't a netbook replacement, and it isn't a  
>> replacement for ebook readers (like the Sony PRS505/700 or Kindle)  
>> at the size it is.
>
> I call you out on the whole Kindle replacement thing. On a trip to  
> washington the other day I saw two people using Kindles in public  
> and I had to stop myself staring. And laughing. And not in a good  
> way. Kindles are fugly (have they been constructed from lego?) and  
> seem to have really appalling contrast ratio (dark grey text on  
> light grey backgrounds) that make them look like literary Etch-a- 
> Sketches. I want to do what people do with Kindles (read! download  
> books instantly!) but I would like a better-designed one. Oh yes,  
> and one that worked in the UK.

Kindle, or Kindle DX? The former isn't pretty, but it's only slightly  
larger than the PRS-505, which is itself the size of a thin B-format  
paperback. The iPad is not jacket pocket-sized, nor does it look like  
it will be handbag-sized.

>> It may be that my singular lack of imagination is blinding me to to  
>> obvious purpose for this device, but I'm finding it hard to think  
>> of anything it does that isn't done better by something else.
> That's the problem with General Purpose Computers. At least the  
> iPhone provided a new set of communication functions to distinguish  
> it from a laptop.

With a general purpose computer, I'd like to be able to do whatever  
tasks I wanted, not just those for which Apple told me I could buy an  
app.

>> Most of all, I'm disappointed that they've kept with the closed  
>> platform/AppStore model. I shouldn't have to resort to jailbreaking  
>> to make a computer do what it's capable of.
> It's getting really embarrassing that a device/software platform  
> that encourages so much software development (and such a big  
> software market) gets labelled "closed". Jonathan Zittrain managed  
> to pull that off in the days before the SDK and the App Store, but I  
> think it's an argument that is past its best now. Sure it's  
> controlled, but exactly what is closed about this platform?

Off the top of my head:

- You need to pay $99 before you can put software that you've written  
on a device that you own. Yes, the SDK is free-as-in-beer, so why this  
fee?

- Only one outlet for applications. I'm not sure that I believe  
Apple's statement that the App Store doesn't make them any money;  
they've created an effective monopsony in which they get a cut of the  
price of every app sold, and yet they're claiming poverty? Methinks  
the lady doth protest too much. Besides, can you think of another case  
of an OS/hardware manufacturer demanding kickbacks from application  
developers?

- The App Store vetting process. You paid your money, you've written  
your app, and you still have to go before Apple's star chamber before  
anyone can purchase your app. If there were other app stores, this  
might not be quite so bad, but the opacity of the process (and the  
implicit commandment that Thou shalt not threaten Apple's intentions  
wrt future products) is another way in which the platform is closed.

- The vetting process also doesn't seem to work: the App Store is a  
good example of Sturgeon's Law in action, and recent developments  
involving AdMob and unexpected premium rate phonecalls suggest that  
the process isn't making the platform any safer.

- All apps are equal, but some are more equal than others. You can't  
multitask on an iPhone (and presumably also an iPad). However, if  
you're an Apple-written app (the music player), you can run in the  
background. The hardware and OS support multitasking, as the  
jailbreaking crowd have demonstrated, but Apple is intent on crippling  
the device you've bought so that you can't do this.

- Inter-app privileges. Apple-written apps are allowed to share data.  
Third party apps have to resort to a bunch of gnarly hacks (often  
involving external websites) to transfer data. Stop insisting on  
sandboxes, and let us decide whether we want apps to have full access  
to the filesystem or not. While you're at it, fix your security.  
Giving every device the same root password (alpine) and having almost  
everything running as root isn't too smart.

Phew. Enough ranting.

(written with a complete lack of irony on my iPhone)

Nick