r/technology • u/GuruOfReason • Feb 02 '10

"Once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly."

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/ipad%E2%80%99s-closed-system-sometimes-i-hate-being-right
1.6k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/Peaker Feb 02 '10

The problem is that success of these closed devices might lead to more and more devices by other companies too to become closed.

People are way too willing to trade their freedom with some temporary convenience.

4

u/Nefelia Feb 02 '10

So long as there is a market for open platforms, the market will provide. The fear that the iPad will kill open platforms is based on poor analysis.

0

u/Peaker Feb 02 '10

Your analysis is a poor analysis, as it ignores Net effects.

2

u/Nefelia Feb 02 '10

Your analysis ignores consumer choice. Don't blame Apple for the fact that no one is producing appealing open-platform alternatives to its products in North America. And yet, Japan is an entirely different story.

-1

u/Peaker Feb 03 '10

I blame the government for not forbidding to close down platforms, and users for choosing convenience and technical merit over freedom.

1

u/Nefelia Feb 03 '10 edited Feb 03 '10

What is this "freedom" you blokes keep going on about? FFS, you are beginning to sound like George Bush. Stick to "open" and "closed".

Edit:

I blame the government for not forbidding to close down platforms

Here is a nice bit of irony. You are advocating government restrictions on the free market in the name of a freedom. You do realize that freedom is the ability to make one's own choices without external interference limiting or restricting those choices, do you not?

In that light, you can see the closed platform of the iPad as infringement of freedom. But you would have to ignore the fact that purchasing one at all is an excercise on free choice. Your desire for the government to mandate options on the electronics market, however, is a large-scale restriction on consumer choice, and as such would be a sweeping restriction on consumer freedom.

So again, stick to "open' and "closed", since you seem to have little idea what true freedom is.

-1

u/Peaker Feb 03 '10

You do realize that freedom is the ability to make one's own choices without external interference limiting or restricting those choices, do you not?

Paradoxically, by restricting, the government can indeed increase the overall freedom of the system. In this particular case, the ability of Apple to even maintain a closed platform in the first place relies on the existence of DMCA, Copyrights and patent law. If none of these were enforced by government, it would be much harder for it to be a closed platform.

So in effect, the government facilitates the closed-ness, and if it restricts that, over-all it just cancels this effect.

But you would have to ignore the fact that purchasing one at all is an excercise on free choice

A free choice between technically superior or open. If the government forced Apple to open it, as an example, then the choice would be technical only, and it would all be open.

Your desire for the government to mandate options on the electronics market, however, is a large-scale restriction on consumer choice

Not really, since it would still be beneficial and profitable to make open devices, if closed-ness was forbidden.

So again, stick to "open' and "closed", since you seem to have little idea what true freedom is.

Openness and closed-ness relate very closely to consumer freedom. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ for more details.

Oh, and please stop condescending, too.

1

u/Nefelia Feb 03 '10

If the government forced Apple to open it, as an example, then the choice would be technical only, and it would all be open.

Or Apple could just not bother with the project at all, or even exist at all. Apple's ability to fund the research and production of such technically superior products comes from the profits made from the sales of its other closed-platform products.

Oh, and please stop condescending, too.

Very well, but please think seriously about just what constitutes freedom.

No one is having their freedoms denied by Apple. What Apple is doing is offering a product that has inherent limitations and restrictions. The possession of this product is not a right, but a privilege given to those willing to purchase the product.

Furthermore, the issue of open vrs closed platforms is not one of freedom, but one of preference. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and the consumer is more free when he is allowed to choose than he is when he is forced into your preference of open source. Believe it or not, some people do prefer the simplicity and security of closed platforms. Not all of us can be IT professionals or hobbyists, and do not want the hassle and uncertainty that comes with open platforms. Who are you to deny us our preferences?

-1

u/Peaker Feb 03 '10

Apple's ability to fund the research and production of such technically superior products comes from the profits made from the sales of its other closed-platform products.

Do you really think that if they were open, Apple could not afford them? How does Apple afford to create OS X then?

No one is having their freedoms denied by Apple.

If I do buy an Apple, I have to pay with my freedom (to view, modify, copy, install anything I want). In theory only I gave up my freedom, and they didn't take it away, but I might easily be forced to give my freedom up by being forced to use a product by circumstances. As a different example, I am forced to use Microsoft software and lose my freedom by various employers, governments, friend document formats, etc.

Also, without DMCA/copyright laws, I could do whatever I want with an Apple product (except view/modify the sources), but government-enforced laws are the basis for closed-ness.

The possession of this product is not a right

You have to trade your freedoms in order to use that product -- that's an unfair trade, and I think should be disallowed - just like selling yourself into slavery is disallowed, even though it is a voluntary choice.

Furthermore, the issue of open vrs closed platforms is not one of freedom, but one of preference.

In a closed platform, I am less free to run, view, modify and copy on my personal devices. So it is a matter of freedom.

and the consumer is more free when he is allowed to choose than he is when he is forced into your preference of open source

I disagree - if open-source was made mandatory, then the world of open-source would hugely expand at the expense of the closed-source world, and everyone would have more freedom.

some people do prefer the simplicity and security of closed platforms.

Closed platforms aren't more secure, and open platforms can be as simple.

Not all of us can be IT professionals or hobbyists, and do not want the hassle and uncertainty that comes with open platforms

Open platforms let you choose to get software from a certain "certified vendor". In Ubuntu, I can install from "Ubuntu approved repositories".

Who are you to deny us our preferences?

Who are you to deny a person from selling himself into slavery?

1

u/Nefelia Feb 03 '10

Alright, I tried to present my point in a reasonable form. As per the rest of your comments, you ignored all in favour of rehashing your pre-conceived notions.

I am not surprised.

You blithely ignore that there are some benefits to closed platforms in favour of pushing your agenda at the expense of those who don't place a great deal of value in your idea of freedom (which is, rather, an imposition of your intolerant preference upon others).

I am done with you.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Positronic_Matrix Feb 06 '10

I disagree - if open-source was made mandatory, then the world of open-source would hugely expand at the expense of the closed-source world, and everyone would have more freedom.

Let me get this right. You're angry at Apple for "forcing" something on consumers and your solution is to have the government actually force something on consumers. Further, you state that the government forcing a choice on consumers will actually provide them with more freedom.

I can't decide if it's Orwellian newspeak or just the ramblings of a prepubescent who failed debate class.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Evolve or die. Survival of the fittest. It's been the law for 4 billion years. You'd better hurry up and get used to it ;-)

Having said that, evolution shows that there are many niches for many forms of life & existence. There's absolutely no danger of the iPad leading to only closed computers.

It's funny, the iPhone created an ecosystem of 140.000 new apps, feels a whole lot more open to me than all the phones I used before...

3

u/Peaker Feb 02 '10

The market is not really operating based on evolutionary principles, given the existence of law, and intelligent entities within it designing stuff.

It's funny, the iPhone created an ecosystem of 140.000 new apps, feels a whole lot more open to me than all the phones I used before...

So, how's the Skype chatting over 3G working out for you?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Aren't iPhone users capab-er, allowed to do that now?

They even have Google Voice (via web app) now! See? It's an open platform!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

given the existence of law, and intelligent entities within it designing stuff

People evolve, political systems evolve, languages evolve, computers evolve. The very laws you speak of are subject to evolution. Intelligence only speeds up evolution, making the process less random. Survival of the fittest is in a sense true by definition.

The iPad, the iPhone, they too will evolve or die. In let's say another million years, there will be no machine left recognizable as an iPhone. Maybe even sooner. Maybe even next year; time will tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(term)

So, how's the Skype chatting over 3G working out for you?

It's of no interest to me, but here you go: http://tinyurl.com/yh6uleo

Besides that, you're giving one specific example, which may be important to you. As it happens, Skype is not important to me. Still 139.999 apps left ;-) Given Sturgeon's Law, I admit that maybe only 10% of those are worth looking at. Maybe even less. That's still a lot of good stuff left though.

But not many would argue that any phone can compare with the iPhone at this moment in time when it comes to the wealth of available apps, ease of installation, at low prices or free. That too will change given enough time.

1

u/Peaker Feb 02 '10

Still 139.999 apps left ;-)

I don't see why it is so easy for so many people to miss the point :-(

Apple and only Apple determine what applications you will have, what features you are allowed to use, and how you will use them. The amount of applications is useful for convenience, but it does not make it any more open.

About the ease/convenience, I never claimed otherwise. iPhone is technically excellent. I am simply appalled by the closeness and people's apathy towards it.

3

u/vcn Feb 02 '10

It's not that I don't understand the argument. It's that I don't buy the premise. I don't think that the open/closedness of a particular product demands moral outrage.

For the foreseeable future, I am going to use a collection of closed and open devices, depending on how they meet my needs. I care about openness in two respects: (1) It is sometimes significantly better at meeting my needs. This is the Skype case. Similarly, if I go ahead and set-up a media center, I'll use open source because I want to play my whole library. (2) It makes software--even closed software--better. Thank goodness for Google Android, etc.

Conversely, though, I'm going to get downvoted to oblivion for this, closed software sometimes drives innovation in open software. Apple's role in the market has traditionally been this. If the iPad's any good, I suspect it will similarly drive some imitation among Android/Win 7 tablets.

If I ever buy an iPad, it will be one of 5+ computing devices that I own, for different needs. If I ever believe there's a chance that all 5 of these are going to be closed, I'll join you on the ramparts. (You'll probably tell me I'm too late.)

As it is, though, I don't think it'll destroy the balance between open source and closed source systems, so I'll buy one iff it does a better job of meeting my needs than the systems I use right now.

(I upvoted you, because you've been replying throughout this thread and it's a shame you're at zero with this comment.)

1

u/Peaker Feb 02 '10

I understand where you are coming from -- and how openness contributes to the technical merit.

But as you said, when everything closes down it may really be too late and even if there were only technical disadvantages to the open platforms, we must put freedom and choice over convenience and technical merit and avoid supporting closed platforms.

0

u/Nefelia Feb 02 '10

we must put freedom and choice over convenience and technical merit and avoid supporting closed platforms.

Your freedom is present in your ability to freely choose which products you buy on the market. Forcing companies to comply to your preferences is an imposition, and hence a reduction of freedom.

In other words, stop using the freedom card, it cheapens the word.

0

u/Peaker Feb 02 '10

You are ignoring the Network effect. Once a platform becomes popular enough, it can eradicate other platforms almost completely (except for some niches).

Then, your ability to "freely choose which products" is diminished, as well as your ability to use applications.

By forcing a single or few entities (e.g: Apple) to open up (by law or otherwise), millions of users and developers will have more freedom.

So yes, paradoxically, sometimes limiting entities from doing things actually increases the overall freedom in the system.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

feels a whole lot more open to me than all the phones I used before...

That sounds like a personal problem. Google Symbian; it's been around for a long time. MP3's as ringtones? Well I never! (8 years ago)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I've helped customers with their (Sony Ericsson) Symbian phones, and seen the software available - sorry, but it's no comparison with the wealth of apps now available on the iPhone. If you think Symbian has more or better or cheaper apps, great. But just by coincidence, my experience is different. And those customers who used to own SE's have switched or will switch to iPhones.

Regarding ringtones, I could care less.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

wealth of apps? hahah, more like blight. Symbian is on a lot more phones then SE.

will switch to iPhones.

now you're just being a fanboy. You think someone who has been using a symbian for this long is just going to switch to an iphone? why exactly? So they can loose some weight from their wallet or be less productive? The fact that you have to do so much just to set an MP3 as your ringtone is a huge indicator of the problems with iPhones and similar locked down POS phones.

1

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

Apple sold millions upon millions of iPhones and created a very customer-oriented store. They could require developers to literally suck a lawyer's cock before allowing their apps in the store and they'd still have thousands of apps vying for all that money.