Slashdot Mirror
Shall We Call It "Curated Computing?"
medcalf writes "Ars Technica has an opinion piece by Sarah Rotman Epps on the iPad and other potential tablets as a new paradigm that they are calling 'curated computing,' where third parties make a lot of choices to simplify things for the end user, reducing user choice but improving reliability and efficiency for a defined set of tasks. The idea is that this does not replace, but supplements, general-purpose computers. It's possible — if the common denominator between iPads, Android and/or Chrome tablets, WebOS tablets, and the like is a more server-centric web experience — that they could be right, and that a more competitive computing market could be the result. But I wonder, too: would that then provide an incentive for manufacturers to try to lock down the personal computing desktop experience as well?" And even if not, an emphasis on "curated computing" could rob resources from old-skool computer development, as is already evident at Apple.
"It's very cold, and very beautiful, and you're not allowed to touch anything."
Sorry, I'm more of a hot-rodder than a passive consumer.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Please just bite the bullet and call yourself an Applogist. (Geddit, Apple Apologist?)
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
It's a "managed freedom institution".
As a 30 year old man I love having big brother make all the decisions for me as I never grew out of a child like mental state and can not possibly make a choice by my self
Can't Slashdot editors find ANYTHING newsworthy that isn't about Apple ?
Fucks sake, the content of this article boils down to "Apple's latest iDevice is equivalent to a gold plated toaster, where user choice has been minimized, but leads to a better overall toast experience".
It might be gold-plated, but it's still a turd underneath, and no amount of iHype or Apple apologists will change that.
Bye bye karma, see you again sometime.
Walled gardens have obvious benefits and drawbacks. But more relevantly to this story (or summary, heh heh) this terminology already exists and no new phrasing is required.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The key distinction is: Are you buying a hardware? Or are you buying a hardware encumbered with license restriction that effectively says you cannot "hack" where "hack" is whatever the vendor deems undesirable?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
It's not like developers are en-masse converting to develop for mobile platforms.
Major video game developers have already en-masse converted to develop for game consoles.
Yeah, that's the thing I don't get.
I have an iPhone. I use it to make phone calls, email, listen to music, do light web-browsing, take pictures. That's about it. Sure there are other niche things I use on it, but for the most part those are the big 5 I use it for.
My laptop, I use for everything else.
Why do people think these "niche" devices have to be everything to everyone? They aren't. Here's your car analogy:
People commute in cars to work every day. They also use those cars for various other travel reasons. If they want to store a LOT of materials in the back of their car, they're limited to either making several trips, borrowing a truck from a friend, or something else. If they were moving a lot of materials constantly, it would make more sense for them to use a truck.
In short. Trying to force the idea on the public that having one of these devices will render any other computer obsolete shows a serious lack of critical thinking. (Just like my car analogy does)
Sent from your iPad.
Can't Slashdot editors find ANYTHING newsworthy that isn't about Apple ?
It's not just about Apple. It's also about Microsoft, which uses the same App Store structure for Xbox 360 indie games and Windows Phone 7 apps. (In fact, Apple appears to have copied much of the structure of the iPhone developer agreement and App Store from Microsoft XNA Creators Club and Xbox Live Indie Games.) And it's also about Nintendo, which was the first to require that all apps be approved by the device manufacturer.
``Ars Technica has an opinion piece by Sarah Rothman Epps on the iPad and other potential tablets as a new paradigm that they are calling 'curated computing,' where third parties make a lot of choices to simplify things for the end user, reducing user choice but improving reliability and efficiency for a defined set of tasks. The idea is that this does not replace, but supplements, general-purpose computers.''
That's fine and dandy, but we don't need *locked down* devices for that. You can make the choices for the end users just fine, without taking away their ability to make different choices. Ubuntu is a good example of this: you can get the streamlined desktop experience that Canonical provides by just going with the defaults, or you can adapt the environment to your liking, starting with things like changing desktop backgrounds and installing packages from the main repositories, and continuing all the way to running a custom kernel and third-party software completely independent from the repositories.
By contrast, many of the 'curated computing' providers will sell you a device where you are prevented from doing many things, all _in the name_ of making things easier and more reliable for you. But really, that's a false dichotomy - your ability to deviate from it does not impact the ease of use and reliability of the default configuration.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I think that to focus on the "curated" aspect really misses(or obfuscates) a critical and ugly point.
Consider the following analogy: You want your house to be aesthetically pleasing and pleasant to use; but know fuck-all about color matching and picking furniture. So, you hire an interior decorator. They "curate" your space and emit a list of suggestions. You can then make it so, or not. On the other hand, if you go to a museum, the curator's decisions are not suggestions, and they are generally tailored to fit the desired audience as a whole, not necessarily you. You cannot add, remove, or substitute anything. Your only choice is to attend the museum or not.
In computing terms, the "interior decorator" situation is basically equivalent to the OEM providing a set of sane defaults, chosen for some mixture of security, ease of use, power, and cost. You can pick your interior decorator and, if you wish, you can deviate from their suggestions.
The "museum curator" option, on the other hand, is the iDevice/carrier lockdown situation. You can either take it or leave it; but if you take it, that's it. the OEM retains cryptographic control over "your" property forever.
The big difference is whether your "curator" is providing a list of suggestions, or a list of orders. The former, frankly, is something that OEMs(particularly the wintel guys) really ought to do a lot more and a lot better. Sane, secure, usable defaults are a good thing. The customer shouldn't have to blow the stock image to hell and rebuild from scratch just to get a desktop worth using. However, any set of defaults that doesn't include a "screw this, I'll do it myself and take the consequences" button, somewhere, that allows you to reject advice and do your own thing is ultimately invidious and will inevitably be used as a tool of rent-seeking(as in consoles, where the OEM extracts a tithe for the privilege of being allowed to sell programs that run on the hardware, or as in the App Store) and likely censorship and all sorts of other fun stuff.
So, here's a question. Does the "average" user who picks up an iPad expect it to be capable of more than what it does out of the box?
This is something I just don't know, I bought a Netbook last year and even with that I could install whatever would run on it reasonably, I know I don't like the feeling that I'm limited to what I can run not because of hardware limitation but because of a conscious designer-driven decision (but that's just me.)
crazy dynamite monkey
The key distinction is: Are you buying a hardware?
The fear expressed in a lot of these articles is that the popularity of "curated", "walled garden", or "hobbled" devices will erase the economies of scale of hardware that you buy outright. A "PC" will likely become a niche product used only by established publishers. It has arguably already happened in some fields, such as games, where the major couch-multiplayer titles are either console exclusives or multi-console with no PC port.
I thought it was a better term. or maybe Consumption Computing?
I like microcars
Let's face it. We are geeks. We are always going to like the freedom and power to do whatever we want with our computers.
But we are not the majority.
Most people don't really care if their operating system allows them to recompile their kernel, write a new text editor, or even install arbitrary software. They would be happy enough to be able to install the stuff their friends have, not have to worry about viruses, and surf the web and chat with the aforementioned friends. And do some occasional work.
Some of this stuff is still Not There Yet on the iPad. And maybe the iPad itself will not be the dominant device of its type once things settle down in a few more years. But I think it's foolish to expect that the completely-open, easily breakable, general-purpose PC is going to be the only, or even the primary, computing device that most ordinary people use in 10 years.
PCs will certainly still be around. Business applications, by and large, will always be a poor fit for the iPad and similar devices. So will programming. So will some types of games (but not all!). And, heck, at least for the time being, the iPad requires a computer with iTunes on it for managing it.
But for the vast majority of people, a fully-featured PC is overkill for what they want to do. We're entering a period of transition—and, I would say, moving further toward the maturity of the computer age. As many people have pointed out in previous discussions, in the 1950s, if you owned a car, you more or less had to know how to do a bunch of basic maintenance tasks. Now, many of the parts you had to maintain no longer exist (such as the carburetor, as I understand it—I'm not a car person), and most of the others you can't maintain on your own: you have to take it to the dealer or an authorized service center, or void your warranty. Computers today are just starting to move past where cars were in the 1950s. It's no longer absolutely necessary to know how to perform maintenance tasks, but it still makes things run much more smoothly. And with the iPad, not only do you not need to do those tasks—you can't.
For some people, that will always be a dealbreaker. And you know what? That's OK. Apple doesn't care if everyone buys an iPad, any more than they've ever cared that not everyone buys Macs. The world will go on, but changed: instead of just computers, we'll have computers and "curated computing" devices.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Why do people think these "niche" devices have to be everything to everyone? They aren't.
Until they're everything to almost everyone. At that point, if you're not in the class of "almost everyone", then the record industry, movie industry, and business software industry will assume you to be either A. an employee of an established, licensed, and bonded company, B. a student training to be an employee of such a company, or C. a pirate.
I can't imagine why they got tired of catering to whiny pirates who refuse to pay for anything and turn every game into a cheating contest. That must have been such an awesome market to serve. How could anyone voluntarily give that up is beyond me.
The word is 'appliance'.
...between reducing user choice but improving reliability and efficiency myself.
Why do non technical people believe the words that pour out of Jobs' gob? The man, and Apple's advertising, is infamous for saying things he knows are not true. Hell, my favorite recent example of this was when he bashed Flash about being designed for PCs as one of the reasons not to use it on the iPhone/iPad when his company makes you use Objective-C! LOL. Guess what Objective-C was designed for?
Loading...
"My friends, each of you is a single cell in the great body of the State. And today, that great body has purged itself of parasites. We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts. The thugs and wreckers have been cast out. -- And the poisonous weeds of disinformation have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let each and every cell rejoice! For today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directive! We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thought is a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on Earth. We are one people. With one will. One resolve. One cause. -- Our enemies shall talk themselves to death. And we will bury them with their own confusion. -- We shall prevail!" -- Apple, 1984. That's the copy from the famous Apple ad with the guy speaking to an audience of people in grey from a big screen.
The Apple fanboys hate that paragraph (and will mod it down to "Troll" in about 30 minutes). But that's a clear statement of Apple's "walled garden" approach. They even use the same terminology: "A garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths". As for the "Information Purification Directive", see the the EFF's analysis of the Apple iPhone Developer Agreement. Apple tries to keep the Developer Agreement secret, but they accepted a NASA app, which made it subject to a FOIA request, and now anyone can read it.
And minor and independant game developers have already moved in to cover that niche.
Chances are, if developers start moving en-masse to mobile platforms, the same will happen to the desktop market. Neither market will be killed, there'll just be more developers overall than before.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
This statement alone is enough to disregard the entire article.
And hackers think they are cool because they change the background image or download a naughty application. I am with them. There was a time when I thouhgt putting the Bill&Opus motif on my mac was the end all, I thought I was hot. But that is really an adolescent rebellion against anything that is forbidden, not any kind of technical issue. For most of us we have things we hack and things that we need to work. The PC is every office because it can be administered and locked down in a way that few other OS can. No one cares about hacking it because that is not it's purpose. The same goes for the iPhone and iPad. How many people complained that they could not hack their Razr. It was a good phone and that is all we cared about.
If one wants to fiddle go and buy a copy of Make. What we don't need to do is think that Apple or whoever all of sudden violated some basic human right. Most of us don't care that we can't pull out the water pump from our car, and do car that we only have to see the mechanic once a year instead of every week. Most of us don't care that our televisions can't be repaired, but are happy that they give us a few years of good service then die so we can upgrade. Most people don't want a phone or a computer that they continuously have to fiddle with and upgrade. Those who do have cheap ones they can buy. Just not the iPad. Which is ok, because if one is a really a cool hacker, one does not need to show off with an iPad.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
And minor and independant game developers have already moved in to cover that niche.
And how many gaming PCs do you see hooked up to the family TV, vs. how many consoles?
Clearly most Slashdot users prefer more choices over someone making choices on their behalf when it comes to computing. That's because we're computer geeks. The average person, however, is getting real benefits from having a group of experts with more control over the device on their behalf. They also get real negative consequences, such as some applications they want never making it to the device they use and less ability to migrate devices without losing one's investment in apps.
Okay, we know all that already, right? So now we come to what people are doing about it. Half the venders are ignoring the benefits Apple has provided, secure in the knowledge that Apple's innovation will lose in the market. Half of them are emulating Apple, betting Apple is right. What none of them are doing, that I've seen, is innovating. Is there really no way to create a system that provides both the benefits of their "curated computing" while not bringing about the drawbacks? Can't someone build a central marketplace for apps that are vetted, and hosted by any and all comers? Can't a phone or series of phones be built where there is a guarantee that the apps will be portable between those phones and have been vetted for security and performance concerns so the user can make informed decisions? I've long advocated that the average desktop user doesn't have the information they need or the OS level control they need to effectively know what apps to run and how much to trust those apps. I've long advocated that the only way to get proper unbiased information is to build into the OS a way to get greylists of what apps are trusted from multiple sources, weigh them, and then take good, automated action on behalf of the user while providing them the details they need. It's easier to put all this power into the hands of one company, but then you end up having to trust a single party (be it Apple or MS). So who's going out making a better solution? Come on Google, I'm looking at you.
Using an app store should be a process of getting data from many parties. "Three out of four of your security feeds say the battery performance of this app is unacceptable and should be avoided". "Warning: this app only works on this phone and has no vendor promise to allow you to support other AndroidCert phones going forward. Be sure to take this into account." "Warning: this app is rated as malicious by two of your four security feeds. You will need to change your app settings to download it. This is not recommended." In addition, devices should be doing the right thing in the background, sandboxing apps and severely restricting ones that have not been vetted... maybe even refusing to run unsigned apps by default.
It is not impossible to create a decentralized app store using data and servers from a variety of companies... a personalized store that only shows users the apps that meet their security, performance, and compatibility requirements; or at very least makes the needed data available to the end user. People complain about the Apple iPhone App Store, but complaining is not really very useful. Who's making something better? Who's making something that is going to take hard work, but which will make a store that gives users all the benefits of Apple's store and freedom besides?
"...a new paradigm that they are calling 'curated computing,' where third parties make a lot of choices to simplify things for the end user, reducing user choice but improving reliability and efficiency for a defined set of tasks."
How about "censorship" instead?
Ok, I know I am playing devil's advocate but if the slashdot headline was "China develops computing model where users have reduced choice but increased reliability, with the choices made by the State Education Department", I know the word censorship would be bandied around pretty quickly.
Depends on who you want to make the decisions for you and of course a big question is how much opportunity you have to affect those decisions if you'd like to get involved in the process.
Why do people here on slashdot have this crazy notion that slashdotters are everyone? They're not. They are the minority. Most people couldn't tell you the difference between GPL, BSD, xfs, and X Windows. And they don't care. You give them a device and the first thing they care about is how do they do [some function]. The shorter the learning curve, the more they'll think it's some sort of magical device.
Technology intimidates most people. Think of your average grandparent. They like the TV. They like radio. They have DVD/VCR players that have the wrong time. They hate computers. Why? Because they only want to learn just enough for them to use [some function]. They don't need to program the time on the VCR/DVD. They know to put in the media and press PLAY.
There are products designed for slashdotters; Apple doesn't however design products for slashdotters. They design consumer products for the average consumer. They design professional products (MacBook Pro, Mac Pro) for the design professionals (graphic artists, photographers, musicians, film makers). Even their server line is designed for specific users. None of these are designed for geeks like you and me.
The iPad is a limited device. It is not designed to replace the desktop. It is designed to be an extension of it. It is designed to consume media with limited ability to create. It is not for me but this fits for most consumers. They check their email and surf the web; they don't code.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
How the hell is this new? Because Apple did it? Have none of you been aware of game consoles for the past several decades? How is an iPad particularly different from a Nintendo DS or Sony PS3?
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
More and more I find my self in the "everyone else" category. Sorry, but I no longer have a desire to build a machine and spend all weekend hacking something together. I want something that just works. Apple's products do that for me. After I bought my Dad an iMac, I've spent exactly 2 hours in 3 years upgrading his computer to OS 10.6 last christmas. Before when I went to visit, it was 3 - 4 hours of me fixing his PC. Which usually meant formatting and reinstalling everything.
Honestly, I look to replace the iMac with an iPad 3G for my Dad next year. All he does is check email, track his stocks, read the newspaper online and that's it. Maybe a video from Youtube from time to time.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
This seems more like a device which is intended to be used differently from your existing devices, and quite possibly in conjunction with them
It would be great if these devices worked in conjunction with the other devices in my home, but the sad fact is the more 'curated' they are, the less able they are to do so. My iPod touch talks to one machine at a time in my home, I need to be physically connected to that machine, and I need to use a specific application on that machine. That's it! How boring.
Sure if I want to I can load an app that uses some anonymous server that is in some anonymous location as long as it is approved by Apple but if I want to use all the machines in my home I can forget it. Frankly I think it is an absolutely abhorrent development to computing and it is about a dozen steps back.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The AC can try to spin it however he wants, but if you jailbreak the gear you won't get:
You will get the shell, and the ability to run "whatever you want." However, if you want a shell and an open environment and no media stores, why don't you just buy an Android phone?
This complaining about the iPhone OS as if it were the only game in town, or ever could be, is pointless.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
If you're dealing with 'files' and 'processes' when you start your web browser then you're doing it way wrong. I start my system and double click on the big blue 'e' or the little picture of the flaming fox and I'm on my way.
Really, people make too big a deal out of the complexities of simple tasks on normal operating systems. It's not really that hard to start a browser.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Why do people think these "niche" devices have to be everything to everyone? They aren't.
Not yet they aren't. But some people already want them to be and Apple really likes that. People are already used to smart phones being on non-neutral networks. The iPad is just about half way between a smart phone and a laptop, and it's on a non-neutral network. The next version of the iPad will have a slightly larger screen, have a little more memory, and come with a stand that lets you prop it up on a desk and use a keyboard. Jobs has already said, and this article is echoing the sentiment that this is a new way of doing personal computing. This is Apple's way of squashing net neutrality. So if you bought an iPad, congratulations, you are letting Steve Jobs tell you what you can and cannot do with your own computer and you are paying top dollar for the privilege. If you are a developer that is working on an app for the iPad or iPhone and you aren't also releasing that app on other platforms, thanks, you are helping make net neutrality a thing of the past. You may like your Apple products now, but a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. The iProduct might have everything you could possibly want right now, but the moment you can't get something you want because Apple says no, remember you were warned, and I hope it stings...a lot.
Until they're everything to almost everyone.
Why do people here on slashdot have this crazy notion that slashdotters are everyone?
No one here is assuming that, at least not the GP post by tepples. Notice the "until"? It is used to indicate an expectation/fear/possibility that such-and-such might happen in the future. So your word "are" is misplaced. Use future tense (in a non-certain manner i.e less than 100 percent probability), and you might be closer to what the GP post means.
Now, why such a expectation/fear/possibility ? There are more people who might be happy with just an appliance, with losing some of the flexibility of a full-fledged openly architectured because they don't use much of that flexibility. This makes the flexible computers expensive because fewer people use it, there is less demand and hence less economy of scale for the manufacturers.
Now, why express this expectation/fear/possibility rather than keep it to oneself? Simple : self-interest. For better or worse, historically computers have been very flexible. Even if most people don't use much of the flexibility. If this changes, it obviously goes against slashdotters - who actually used the flexibility.
What is so surprising in a slashdotter making such a post, that too on slashdot?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
The one thing developers fail to understand (if they haven't tested before), is that developing for a single piece of hardware for a single platform using a single language and api calls is very, very easy to test, and test alot. More testing = more bugs found = more bugs fixed = higher quality.
This is why the experience of playing a game on console is consistance and bug free. While you (may) get improved function on a PC, your quality is going to go down significantly.
The same principle can be applied to any product that caters to a specific platform.
Note also, that this is why (for crossplatform applications) open source is so strong. It takes A LOT of eyes to make sure everything is quality across platforms, devices, hardware, etc.
This pretty much gets to the crux of things. Yes, you can't do everything with this device.
You mean, "No, you can't..."
But the things you do want to do are more usable, and better designed.
That very much depends on what you want to do.
This is a different device for doing different things differently than you do them now.
I think you got a little carried away there, sport.
But sitting in the back yard, or in my recliner, or what have you ... it allows passive web surfing, reading a book, or propping it up in the kitchen like a cookbook with a recipe I got off the web.
So does my netbook.
I'm really interested in one of these once the price comes down a little. The early adopters are shelling out money for them now, but I can see a lot of people eventually getting one of these.
Did you get paid? I don't think you were flamebaiting, but I could see you might be shilling. You're ridiculous. By the time the price of the iPad comes down by some trivial amount, there will be competition, and who knows what it will look like? Right now you can jump on eBay and get an ARM-powered MID running Android for a hundred bucks plus shipping. It does most of what the iPad does. Are you really going to argue that the base iPad does them four times better?
Now, I am not actually going to argue that such a device is a suitable substitute for an iPad for all users, or perhaps even most users. However, it's only a matter of time before a device with more headroom (and more real estate) comes along at $200, and it will suit the needs of most users. Calm down, and consider one of those when they hit the street. With any luck, this multitouch thing will blow over by then too :p
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"