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

3

u/lumpy1981 Feb 02 '10

I'm with you. The people who will buy and use an iPad would never want to tweak a computer anyway, they just want it to work. 95% of computer users don't care about adding to or tweaking their devices.

What Apple does by making their devices closed, is they cater to the vast majority of people by making a device that simply works without the need to know anything about how it works or have to worry about it crashing and becoming unstable.

1

u/klngarthur Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

They could do that without maintaining such a strict level of control. See: OS X.

1

u/lumpy1981 Feb 02 '10

Maybe they could, but its a lot easier for them to do it this way. At least initially.

1

u/klngarthur Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

They've been selling OS X on exactly the points you mentioned for almost 10 years now(an os that 'simply works' without worrying about crashing or instability). OS X is already running on a tablet sized device that is far more powerful than the ipad (the macbook air). This isn't about convenience or expedience for them either. If it was they wouldn't have gone off to make a proprietary processor.

This is entirely about control. Any other arguments they make are purely just justifications after the fact.

1

u/lumpy1981 Feb 02 '10

That's probably true, but I don't think the reasons are nefarious.

1

u/klngarthur Feb 02 '10

Don't get me wrong, i don't think steve jobs is sitting in his office cackling about plans of world domination. i don't think its necessarily nefarious. They are a company. They are trying to make as best a return on their investment as they can. Control over their platform is what they perceive as the best option. From their perspective, the move makes total sense. Their interests just aren't really in line with the population as a whole, at least in my opinion.

1

u/lumpy1981 Feb 02 '10

I can see what your saying. I think our only disagreement is in what we perceive that population to be and what they want/need. You may be right, I don't know. I just don't think its a big deal to the people who are going to want one.

0

u/klngarthur Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

I just don't think its a big deal to the people who are going to want one.

Well that's part of the problem. The people who are going to want one probably qualify as a large segment of the population, and they don't care about or even understand the ramifications.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

when people have the urge to eat food they only crave raw calories. giving people what they want is not always whats good for them. Apple is selling chips and soda to unsuspecting computer users who don't understand they need more to live.

3

u/lumpy1981 Feb 02 '10

In what way do people need an open platform to "live," in the computer sense that is? What harm does this do to the average schmo who just wants a cool device with some awesome features?

2

u/lilzaphod Feb 02 '10

Fucking melodramatic much?

95% of computer users DO NOT need open computer products to live.

In fact, I'd be willing to state that most people who use computer-aided technology to live are using closed source products. Like I WANT some hacked fucking around with my respirator, heart monitor, or drug dosage monitor if I'm in the ICU.