Slashdot Mirror
iPad Is a "Huge Step Backward"
An anonymous reader writes "FSF's John Sullivan launches the Defective by Design campaign and petition to rain on Steve's parade, barely minutes out of the starting gate. 'This is a huge step backward in the history of computing,' said FSF's Holmes Wilson, 'If the first personal computers required permission from the manufacturer for each new program or new feature, the history of computing would be as dismally totalitarian as the milieu in Apple's famous Super Bowl ad.' The iPad has DRM writ large: you can only install what Apple says you may, and 'computing' goes consumer mainstream — no more twiddling, just sit back, spend your money, and watch the show — while we allow you to." What is clear is that the rise of the App Store removes control of the computer from the user. It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look like.
And I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but anyone who buys an Apple product *NOT* expecting it to be locked down tighter than Ann Coulter's vagina deserves to be disappointed. Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like buying something from Sony and being shocked when it only supports some bullshit propriety storage or media format than only Sony makes. Apple is about doing what Steve tells you to do, or at least says is okay for you to do. If Apple could get away with locking down their Macbooks and other PC's so that you could only download their approved software, they probably would.
Apple keeps it simple: Here's what this does. It's elegant and does what it does very well. We don't want you screwing that up by messing around with it without our approval. If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if it happens to OS X. What matters is that it could become the standard going forward, and if we've learned anything from the iPhone and iPod it's that Apple has tremendous influence in driving the standards of consumer electronics. The reason for the app store has nothing to do with security and everything about Apple wringing every last penny out of developers by taking an arbitrary cut of their sales and providing only limited QC and indexing that could easily be provided by any other site or service. If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't. Instead, Apple's making the choice for you. And that's no choice at all.
The Apple of today is more 1984-ish than Microsoft ever was at the time of the aforementioned Superbowl ad.
iPod Touch.
iPhone.
They're both spectacular devices. The iPad will work within a similar ecology and thus has a good chance of being a pretty sweet device (time will tell, of course).
But.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Simple.
The FSF isn't saying the iPad should be banned, it's just raising awareness about the need for freedom in software.
Frankly with the amount of bullshit publicity this (somewhat underwhelming) device has had so far, I'm happy for a worthwhile organisation like the FSF to hijack a little for it's cause.
If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't. Instead, Apple's making the choice for you.
But that's exactly the choice any iPhone or iPod Touch user has right now! They both perform their primary functions perfectly well without the owner ever using the App Store.
For that matter, owning either device is also a choice. Don't like the fact that you can only (officially) purchase and install apps that have been approved by Apple? Use a different phone/media player.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I think he's saying it's a step backwards because they are taking, what is essentially a tablet computer, and 100% locking it down to only do what Apple explicitly allows.
This thing isn't a phone and it's not an mp3 player, it is a tablet computer that is directly trying to compete with netbooks and even laptops. But again, they are entirely locking down the platform and the software to such a degree that any freedom is entirely lost. You can fully understand a phone being locked down to phone applications delivered by the manufacturer and the same with mp3 players. The software is written for the device and that's all there really is to say about it.
The iPad on the other hand, again, is a computer meant to be used like a laptop with its own internet connection. Locking it down so harshly is a step backwards in the usability of the device.
That's my impression, anyways.
If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't. Instead, Apple's making the choice for you.
Are you serious? Is Steve Jobs now running the government??? You do not need to buy an Apple product. I hear Google has some stuff going on in this area....
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device. It cannot be compared to, nor can it show the direction of, the market for general-purpose computers. This is like saying that the segway is a major step backward in international travel because it can't fly.
If the next version of OSX were to have similar limitations, that would be worthy of this line of criticism. Of course, the criticism would then be unnecessary, as the Mac would drop out of the PC market promptly of its own accord.
That's why I prefer Android's approach- they have an app store, anyone can get into it, OR, you can just install packages directly from websites... they give the choice of the nice, clean easy way, OR the DIY for those that want. The Android interface might not be quite as clean as the iPhone, but it gives a world more chioce.
Not unlike Ubuntu- you have the option of the super clean Apps installer, but there's nothing stopping the power user from doing more.
I think the complaint misses the point of the device. It's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer. It's supposed to be an iPod for documents (including web pages and especially books -- note that bookstore), doing for them what the iPod did for music: let me carry it around and interact with it in my easy chair or my bed or on a park bench.
Doesn't even Ubuntu try to mimic this in some respects with its downloader?
Do you honestly believe that having a repository where people can easily get most of the stuff they want is the same thing as having a single app store that is the only place your computer will let you get stuff from? I don't think anybody would be complaining if Apple had a nice, tidy app store, but still let people run arbitrary code on their stuff.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
The "just don't buy it retort" doesn't hold any water in my eyes. It's not even only misinformed consumers' benefit that's at stake. 10 years from now, do you want your Free OS being an island of its own that no one tries to be compatible with, because closed platforms represent 99% of the market?
The other side has their advertising, and we have the FSF. Now all we need is proper awareness of real alternatives.
My Sig: SEGV
"[The iPad is] really a toy"
A toy being hailed by the press as the future of computing. Sorry, dude, but the FSF hit the nail on the head here. If this toy is the future of computing, then computing is in for a bleak future.
It partly depends on what the iPad is. I don't really think that it's a general purpose computer--though I understand why some people might think that. It's more of a Web/Entertainment appliance--like a Tivo with a browser. You don't expect to run arbitrary code on your DVR (or at least most people don't) and I don't think most people expect to do that with their phone (again, at least most people). As long as people are expecting to get an "appliance" rather than a PC, this could be successful.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
We organized actions and protests targeting iTunes music DRM outside Apple stores, and under the pressure Steve Jobs dropped DRM on music.
Jobs was on record as opposing DRM on music long before the campaign started. It was the labels that had to be convinced to change, they were the ones responsible, not Apple. Taking credit for something you had no part in does nothing for your credibility and weakens your ability to work effectively in the future.
"What is clear, is that the rise of the App Store revokes control of the computer from the user."
Wrong. It may "revoke control" from the power user. But, the general public will view the iPad, like the iPod, as a simpler, more friendly way to get things done. It gives them control.
The general public doesn't care about our App Store hang ups, or cries of "DRM". Previously, the general public has struggled to install and play movies / apps / music at all, now they can tap a finger and it's there. Did these users prefer the pre-App Store world, where you had to have specialist knowledge to access this media? I doubt it. They couldn't access that world at all.
Here on Slashdot, we see the iPad bringing "DRM", and view it as a "huge step backwards". However, the general public sees the iPad as easy access to movies and apps, simple, straightforward accessible computing. The general public see it as a huge step forwards.
Our loss of control, as geeks, is most people's gain. Don't you think that complex media should be accessible to the general public, quickly and easily? We cry DRM at Apple, but do we really mean that we just don't want the general public in our clubhouse? What's wrong with the iPad and the "consumer mainstream" derided in the story? Not everyone wants to pop the bonnet and fiddle with the engine. In fact, hardly anyone does.
The story is seriously blinkered.
I take it that you believe that the Ipad is just a large Ipod with additional functionality?
It is. Same OS, same type of processor (ARM), same application development environment, same application set, same store restrictions. How is this not a bigger iPod Touch?
You would have far less problems with speeding if all cars just work and had a speed limiter installed that just worked.
There would be less theft if every car was bio-keyed to the person and every person tracked...
Do I need to go on?
Why are the privacy nutcases always so ready to imagine the most terrible wrongs about potential abuse of power by the government, but think it is super okay to give all control to a corporation?
Apple has severe intrest in controlling how people consume their media and their hardware is reflecting this, making it harder and harder to install alternative methods. You can of course believe they won't abuse this, you can but you would be a silly person.
I really don't know if your kind can ever learn, there have been enough example shown that when companies get to comfortable with themselves, it is bad for their customers. Car companies that only produce the cars they want to make, not the ones they want, tell me, how is detroit doing? MS stopping development on IE because it had won, so why continue to invest? Apple buying up competing software and then stopping development.
Google is doing it as well, support h264, so that no competing video service can be started easily since they can't afford the millions in licensing costs.
It is all very subtle and long term, but you only got to be old enough to remember the old unixes to know how right the FSF is.
And the fact that you claim Ubuntu does the same... sudo -i [your own password] is all you need to do to have total control. One command and you can change everything and access everything...
If you want to see why the FSF is right, install IE6 as your main and only browser. If you last for less then a day, donate some money to the FSF.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Here's a similar opinion from a source that's less Free Software oriented.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around them.
Every time Apple decides to close something off - by insisting on approving apps, by not giving you a [general purpose] USB port, etc., and people go for it anyway, because it's slick and nice to use, we get used to a little bit less openness.
People don't miss openness until it's too late. Then it's suddenly "What do you *mean* I can only use printers that are Apple certified?". "I've bought all these e-books, and now the only place I can read them is on Apple hardware?" etc.
I know, I know: slippery slope fallacy. But it's a slope we *will* slide down, without a critical mass of openness-aware customers insisting on some openness in their tools.
"Doesn't even Ubuntu try to mimic this in some respects with its downloader?"
Don't even try to bring Ubuntu into discussion, there's a clear difference between making things easy to install and locking the OS, Ubuntu can run probably any piece of software that works in any other Linux distribution, even more, you can write your own software, compile it and run it, can you do that with iPad?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
These artificial limitations that Apple puts in place are completely unnecessary, and unjustifiable.
Maybe if I use a car analogy, you'd understand it better. These days, virtually every consumer-grade vehicle has a gas tank that can be filled at virtually any gas station. If you want to buy from one station instead of another, you're perfectly free to do so. After all, there's no justifiable reason to put any limitations in place. It's your car, you should be able to fill it up however and wherever you want.
Now suppose Ford comes out with a new, trendy car that appeals to yuppies, hipsters and homosexuals. It comes in flamboyant colors, has no controls but a steering wheel and an accelerator, and costs a fuckload more money than any other comparable car on the market.
Ford wants to exploit these fools even more. So they create their own line of gas stations, that sell the same fuel as everywhere else, but at five times the cost. Then they change the hole in the gas tank to a star shape, so that you can't fill the car up anywhere but at their gas stations.
Ford doesn't have a legitimate reason to do that. It's outright exploitation, facilitated by artificially-introduced limitations.
Now, some of the smarter fools realize that they can create an adapter that lets them fill their cars up at any normal station. This is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, given that the constraints they're facing are completely artificial. But thanks to lobbying certain politicians, some car manufacturers have gotten legislation passed to make the use of such adapters illegal!
That is exactly what we see with Apple today. The limitations they put in place are artificial, and completely unnecessary.
There's another way to look at it:
If Apple gets away with it, what can their competitors offer to get you to buy their version instead of Apple's?
Apple can offer a heavily DRMed and locked down experience because they serve it up with a reputation for a highly polished overall user experience right out of the box.
Can the competitor provide higher quality? Maybe...but they still need to get the consumer to believe that. More innovation? We wouldn't be having this conversation about Apple if it was their competitor leading the way. Lower prices? Yes, definitely, Apple's products tend to be overpriced and are quickly undercut by the competition, but the competition's price cuts hacks directly at their profit margin.
How about a more open experience? It's a cheap way to one-up Apple, and it saves money on the overhead of running everything through an approval process. Certainly less damage to their bottom-line than engaging in a price war.
Obviously not all companies will see it the same way, but there is incentive for at least some of them to give it a shot. Particularly if all of them drive at the locked-down approach of Apple, then there will be an underserved niche market of geeks who want to install their own stuff on it. Then some company will try to sell to that market.
If the iPad fails, it will still drive the rest of the industry to up their game in the tablet space. The original iPhone wasn't all that great, but look at what we have now. You might still not like the iPhone, but would Android and WebOS be where they are now without it?
This is why free markets are so great. While there's great debate whether the iPad is good or bad, the destiny of the iPad is solely in the consumer's hands. If they don't like it, they buy something else and the iPad dies. If they love it, the iPad thrives. Just wait a year, and we will see if Apple made a good decision. All this huff about the system being locked down is irrelevant.
Exactly. Depending on perspective, the iPad is either a great internet appliance, or a piss-poor portable PC. Apple's challenge will be to control that perspective - seeing how good they've been at that in the past, I'm going to say this product will be a success.
Learn about Photography Basics.
So I have to buy the hardware, then I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to? I call BS.
So many people are playing the "FSF is Looney" card. I fully support them in this effort to raise awareness.
The reason for the app store has nothing to do with security and everything about Apple wringing every last penny out of developers by taking an arbitrary cut of their sales and providing only limited QC and indexing that could easily be provided by any other site or service.
And the reason that it's working is because it's fucking easy. While you GNU, FSF, & Linux Luddites are arguing over the technicalities between GPL v2 and v3 and why BSD license sucks. Or KDE vs GNOME or how you can configure every damn single thing on either, Apple has released an OS that has 0 configuration, you literally get 0 options other than what page your apps appear on, and it has become more popular than both.
"Year of the Linux Desktop" will happen when Grandma can get a computer that 'just works'. My grandmother figured out my aunts iPhone no problem. She did never figure out OS X or Linux or Windows. Hell I can't even stand the amount of configuration options in the X window managers. Do I want this font or this font, this size or that. O, I can drag the 'start' menu over here, or over there. I'll spend 5 days figuring it out and never be convinced that it's "right".
Nothing prevented Linux developers from releasing a phone, other than internal bickering and unresolved issues (How's that openmoko coming?).
As soon as you introduce choice, all hell breaks loose. So say I can add any repository for apps I want. When I get my mom the 22" iPad so she can just run programs and not have to deal with an "OS" how do I tell her which repository to use? Or maybe she should install the FSF one too, that way she can use GNU/FSF/HURD/Gnome on her new device.... at which point she tries it and it completely fucks up the install. Then what? I get called.
Jailbreaking is easy enough for a 'technical' user. If I want the iPad and I want to install what ever I want, I'll just jail break it (6 months max) and do that. I don't even want the option available to my mom or 90% of users. Because then they'll find it and use it. Then we'll have Bonzai Buddy for the iPad because some friend sent them a great link to this great repository of smiley faces.
Personally, I don't see the benefit of such a device - - i must not be the target demographic.
Bingo--very few of us here on Slashdot are the in the target demographic for this device. We all want something we can play with, hack, turn into a toaster or whatever we choose to do with it. The thing we tend to lose sight of is this: the vast majority of computer users out there don't give a fuck about that! They want something that they can pick up and use without worrying about the nuts and bolts behind it and that's what Apple offers. The iPad is no more a general purpose computer than an iPod is; in fact, like an iPod, it's an appliance for viewing various sorts of media in a easy-to-use way and that's all a lot of people want. In fact, if I hadn't already given my wife my old MacBook, it would be the perfect device for her since all she does with her laptop is surf the Web, send an occasional e-mail and view stuff on YouTube--all things the iPad will no doubt excel at doing.
Apple isn't going to sell many iPads to people like us but I'll bet they'll sell a lot of them to people like my wife.
This ain't rocket surgery.
So why have the restriction at all if all it adds is inconvenience to customers?
I don't think many of these people are buying the "car", but you see, the way consumer feedback works, is that when people have a specific reason for not buying a product that they otherwise might want, they're going to make it very clear to the manufacturer and others just WHY they're not buying it so that hopefully their complaints, along with the complaints of others, will lead to a change.
This whole "just don't buy it" thing is getting ridiculous. What you're basically teaching the next generation to do is to accept whatever the corporate overlords give them, or go to a corner and shutup. Don't dare try to influence any of the actions of a corporation - you are a mere peon and should just accept that the only thing that is to flow from you is cash or nothing; not ideas, creativity, or ESPECIALLY complaints.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The problem is when the consumer doesn't have full information.
For instance, I bought an iPod touch primarily as a book reader (I wanted one that could also play music). I did a lot of research, so I thought I knew what I was getting into. To my surprise, one of the most important functions I wanted in a book reader was not there -- I could not import my own documents. So it's still useful, but it's not exactly what I want.
That's the feature on the iPad I want to hear about, and nobody's talking about it. If it can't load and read my own documents, or docs I download from the web, then it's not useful to me. No 'official' advertising will answer that question yay or nay. I'm going to have to hope that some blogger answers it for me, or I'm going to have to get a chance to try the thing out for myself.
Choice is great if the consumers are properly informed. Without an informed consumer, choice can be manipulated to the consumer's detriment.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
"Can't you fix it so that I don't have to worry about that?"
"Sorry, I can't fix anything. It's locked down to just do what it does."
"Why doesn't the computer just do that for me?"
"It does what the manufacturer made it do, we can't do a damn thing about it"
"Just make it work, I don't care how, and I don't want to know."
"It's a closed system. It just does what it does"
See how those answers could be different for a reasonably open system? (not necessarily Open Source -- even Windows and OSX are open enough to improve those answers).
First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2. What the hell?!?!??! So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone? I'm going to have to hack the damn thing just so I can run an unapproved application? Great. Thanks for that, Apple.
Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories :/), no flash support, no multitasking (oh great, so I can't have AIM and Safari open at the same time? Epic Fail.)...it just seems to be an extremely restricted device considering the $500 entry price.
Third, what exactly are you getting for that price? Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version. For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade. For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop! But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.
Fourth (and this isn't that big of a deal, but it is still a missed opportunity) Apple should have included a stylus with the system. Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers. If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet. Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus. Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.
Honestly, my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system. By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing...they should have either ported over OSX (which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes) or just built a new operating system from the ground up. But no, they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they'll buy it! They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it!
Basically, this COULD have been an amazing device...but regardless of what they did right, Apple made some unbelievably stupid decisions that puts it firmly in the "what's the point" category for me.
It is also worth mentioning that if this tablet had been announced with all the same features (both missing and included), but it had a Microsoft or Google logo instead of an Apple logo, people would be treating it like the plague. Fanboyism is a terrible disease.
Living With a Nerd
I'm pretty sure that not buying a product is a strong and clear signal to a corporation that their product sucks. If the corporation is smart, it will listen to the signal and try something else.
Not buying the product means SOMETHING caused me to not lay down that money. It could have been priced too high. It might not have been fast enough. It might not have run Windows. It might not have had an integrated keyboard, webcam, or removable battery. The 3G connectivity might not have been compatible with my preferred carrier. It might have exercised too much control as to what software I can run.
If the corporation is smart, they want some level of feedback from the people who didn't buy it so that they know just where the hell they went wrong. Otherwise the next generation could very well be "iPad - now with a floppy drive!!!!!" and they're still left scratching their heads as to why certain people aren't on board.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The issue is that if a sufficient number of people do buy the "closed" cars, "open" cars become commercially unviable.
I think this has actually happened to an extent. Cars come with sealed engines such that only authorised mechanics can work with them. That gives the car manufacturer an effective monopoly on parts and labour -- via franchises.
Anticipated profits from this channel allow these manufacturers to push the retail price of the car down. Now a user-servicable car is more expensive than a non-user-servicable car. Fewer people buy the more expensive car. A positive feedback loop is established.
Now the manufacturers are free to push up the cost of parts and of service franchises, which is bad for the consumer. Due to the closed nature of the cars, you can't get any old grease monkey to fix your car for cheap.
We're not there yet for all components of a car, but I think it's getting pretty close for some core components.
The analogy to computers is pretty easy to make.
I like how you gloss over that whole middle ground where, if you see a need for a device or other product that the market hasn't filled, you go into business and make a shitload of money filling that need.
These are the dirty little secrets that none of the "open and free" advocates want to admit to:
1) The "freedom" you're spouting off about is only valuable to a consumer if they have the technical expertise to take advantage of it. 90+% of people do not, and of the maybe 10% who do, a vanishingly small number of them actually care to spend their days hacking devices that already work.
2) You're lazy. If there was truly a vast demand for a "free" version of this product, you'd go into business and make a mint for yourself producing it. But you know in your hearts that what you're demanding is for - at best - a small niche / hobbyist market, so you take the safe route and bitch about Apple instead.
Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?
Because that's not the purpose of the FSF. If the only way to warn the public about a Potential Harmful Thing is to create your own multinational corporation with the engineering power to create open competition, that's somewhat going to limit the informed debate...
Watchdog organisation: "Look, this make of washing machine regularly blows up and kills anyone nearby"
Company's apologist: "People are buying it, so obviously the market is deciding! Create your own non-explosive type and sell it"
Sometimes people don't know all the consequences of the purchase they make, that's what the FSF are trying to do. Guess what, sometimes the market gets it wrong...
Separately from the locked-down issue, do you *honestly* think that people are not going to be a bit surprised at some of the limitations of the device? No Flash therefore no Vimeo, Hulu and lots of websites will be hamstrung? It looks like a laptop without the physical keyboard, people are going to expect similar functionality.
You wont to know why EVERY major business uses PCs?
Because they went with the conventional choice decades ago, and now migrating would be a huge expense.
Because whoever made the choice knows Windows and nothing else.
(Note: This is not an argument for using Macs or iPads instead)
The "just don't buy it" thing is precisely HOW you influence the actions of a corporation. If Apple can't sell these things because of the closed-ness, it will change overnight. If 90% of consumers don't care and buy it anyway, then the vocal 10% that do care will just be ignored. The "just don't buy it" thing is far from ridiculous. It is precisely how you vote in the corporate world--with your dollars. If you buy it, then you are endorsing the product and encouraging the company to keep doing what they are doing. My guess with this iPad, however, is that like the iPhone many people simply don't care about the open/closed debate and will buy it anyway. That or they are happy that unlike Android, there aren't known malicious apps being downloaded in the app store.
And I'm not saying I like the closed system. I'm an app dev and I would much prefer to skip the annoying approval process, but the bottom line is that consumers don't care or they really wouldn't have bought it.
The iPad is not a computer - it is an information appliance.
Sure it has computer components, but it is not meant to be a general-purpose computer. It is a sealed-box with tightly controlled access to tools and data. It is aimed at the same crowd that buys a TV and pays for a cable connection. They can only choose what is being offered to them.
This has been Job's dream since before the first Mac, when Jeff Raskin convinced him that computers were too hard for non-technical people to use. The smart thing about this design is (like a TV) it just works. Most people will accept the limitations, because too much freedom may not be a good thing. These are the same people who run as admin on a Windows PC, and click on any little thing that pops up. Their "freedom" turns their PC into brick in short order. So a limited device that just works is fine for them.
I'll wait for the more open clones to appear and do what I want. Apple is rightly aimed at the crowd that is willing to cash for the comfort of not thinking. The thinkers/doers will wait for something more open. This is not a product meant for us.
Place nail here >+
Personally, I contend that it's wrong to look at the iPad as a computer. That's not the intention of the product. It is an appliance much as a washing machine, coffee maker, or toaster. It's designed to do some specific things and do it well just as the previously mentioned examples hopefully do their respective functions well.
An appliance such as a coffee maker isn't designed to be hacked into. It's designed to be functional and simple for the average consumer to use. This is what the iPad is.
OS X will continue for its market base, the user who needs the complexity of a full operating system and the iPad is perfect for your mom or grandmother to finally get on the internet, email, download books, etc. without needing a part-time geek to hand hold them through the process each time.
(as an aside to that, my 90 year old grandmother bought a Kindle and really likes it, but needs help getting through the menu system anytime she wants to buy the next book.)
Not everyone wants to fiddle with every little setting in an OS. I would say a majority just want to pick up the device and the device works. This is the primary reason the iPhone has done so well and is likely why the iPad will do really well.
Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
A couple of years ago everyone realized the computer was on it's way to becoming an appliance like your toaster or microwave, and were pretty optimistic about it. Well, the future is now... and people still complain about it. As others have stated, this isn't a general all-purpose computer, and it's not meant to be. Jobs was right when he said the netbook doesn't do anything better. It only does things smaller and, with every passing generation of the netbook, they're increasing the size of the device until it's indistinguishable from a laptop. The iPad is in practice what the original netbook was supposed to be - a device just for surfing the net, watching videos, reading books, playing games, and looking at photos. It's a useful appliance. All the Apple hate is pretty ridiculous, as with this they are progressing technology. Without the iPad, we'd see 10 more years of netbooks getting bigger, phones getting smaller, and Microsoft releasing Slate PCs as if they're new. If the iPad takes off, which it probably will, in 2 years time everybody will be scrambling to get a iPad like device out there, and enough of them will run existing OSes that you can install programs to and hack to your hearts content and you know what? They all won't compete with the iPad because people don't want freedom in computing... they want an appliance that they can rely on not to get viruses and have their kids come fix every 2 months.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Which devices? The iPod that made Apple a household name? Mac workstations which are used widely by creatives? The iPhone which from day 1 was derided as too closed / not functional enough by the geek cognoscenti here at Slashdot?
Scary thing is, I think you actually believe this. But you're wrong. Apple did not become a 50Bn company by catering to a couple thousand neckbeards in their parents' basements. You did not "put" Apple where it is, and they do not "owe" you anything. If you like their products, buy them. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. If you think they've overlooked a segment of the market and you have a killer idea, go into business and compete with them.
"our" devices? ignoring "everything we say"? If you don't like it, GO MAKE YOUR OWN. If there's as much demand as you seem to think, you should be wildly successful.
"From what I can tell, the only thing you get with the iPad is the app-store."
And perfect synchronisation with my iPhone and Mac: contacts, events, documents all available without having to rely on web-apps (e.g. Google Docs) when I'm in the middle of nowhere. Oh, and an interface that's been vetted by an obsessive perfectionist.
An interface that doesn't get in the way of what I'm trying to do is a major selling point for me.
Well, even coffee makers today have coffee pad systems. Instead of being able to use any coffee powder or roasted beans i like, i have to buy the correct format from the manufacturer. The whole world is becoming a fucking ink jet printer!!!!