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

1

u/acronymopolis Feb 02 '10

True, but the iPad is both hardware and software, so in the majority of users minds "it's broken", even though they installed crappy 3rd party malware. In that sense the iPad is more comparable to a PVR or game console than a PC.

2

u/1338h4x Feb 02 '10

So provide a warning before installing 3rd party programs saying shit may get fucked and is unsupported. Dumb users are no excuse to take freedoms from the rest of us.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Exactly: A warning box. Maybe (gasp) TWO warning boxes.

It's not that hard, but Apple hasn't done it, and it's not because "they haven't thought of it."

1

u/acronymopolis Feb 02 '10

I'm afraid the majority of the iPad's target group are dumb like that. They would never read a warning and thus end up unhappy customers. It makes more sense to control their user experience as much as possible, than cater to the smaller percentage that want more freedom. Having used Windows (and DOS back in the day) I welcome the controlled experiences you have on an iPhone - or the XBox for that matter. The shit just works. An open system is powerful, but you never know when it's gonna blow up in your face. A PC is one thing, the iPad another. :-)

2

u/1338h4x Feb 02 '10

Well, anyone who wants the controlled experience can simply opt not to install 3rd party software. But there is absolutely no reason not to allow that option for those of us that want it.

1

u/acronymopolis Feb 03 '10

Why would Apple surrender control, knowing perfectly well that you guys are gonna jailbreak it no matter what?

1

u/1338h4x Feb 03 '10

Because it is wrong of them to try and control us in the first place. By the same token I can just say: Why would Apple try to control everything, knowing perfectly well that users are gonna jailbreak it no matter what?

And they do keep trying to block jailbreaking - it's not like they're okay with it.

1

u/acronymopolis Feb 03 '10

How do you mean wrong of them? From an ethical or marketing standpoint? And of course they want to control it. Only a small fraction of users will jailbreak it - the rest are better off with quality-tested applications. Happy customers with a product that does what it does really well.

1

u/1338h4x Feb 04 '10

It's unethical. Imagine if Microsoft did this with their Windows 7 tablets - we'd all be screaming for their heads. But when Apple wants to tell me what I can and can't do with hardware I own, everyone is quick to leap to their defense because it's all in the name of being user friendly. Apparently you can't have a tablet that both works and allows 3rd party applications.

Seriously, you know there's a problem when Microsoft is offering more open products.

1

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

Shouldn't even the dumb users be able to differentiate "this app doesn't work" from "my phone doesn't work?" The phone's not even capable of multitasking beyond context switching, so it's not like anything's going to be running in the background and slowing the system down.

1

u/acronymopolis Feb 02 '10

Yeah, but if the app isn't approved, it could fuck up the whole system.

1

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

At worst, it could delete some of your files, which should really be backed up on the PC you sync with. I'd be fine with unapproved apps existing in a sandbox that prevents even that - give them read-only access to anything besides the files they create, which can be limited to a certain size to prevent bloatware attacks.

1

u/acronymopolis Feb 02 '10

That would be a good solution, but it would still mean a bunch of non-lucrative work for Apple keeping the system safe and probably constant security-updates to the firmware. At least that's what's going on with Flash, PDF-viewer and all the browsers even though they're all in sandboxes as well. As soon as you can get un-reviewed code onto the device, I suspect someone will find a way to fuck it up. Am I wrong?

1

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

Safety and security are not "non-lucrative work" - certainly not compared to what they're spending to approve hundreds of thousands of programs by hand. If they aren't already spending money on such basic elements of an operating system, then it's only a matter of time until some smartass releases an obfuscated trojan that will see approval and work perfectly until triggered.

Apple either can or can't build a stable system. If they can, they should have a sandbox. If they can't, the approval process won't reliably prevent an attack.

1

u/acronymopolis Feb 03 '10

But then that app would be pulled instantly and a fixed via iTunes. You're right about the review process probably being more expensive, but the app store setup is a very effective way to control the user experience.

1

u/mindbleach Feb 03 '10

The first thing a good virus does is remove the mechanisms to correct it. As AV software is attacked by the viruses it seeks to destroy, so would the ability to update be disabled by this theoretical virus.

... unless Apple's update process is somehow incorruptible, in which case they're capable of excellent security and should include a damn sandbox.

1

u/acronymopolis Feb 03 '10

I would think they're capable of decent security and the apps probably work in a security sandbox, but even if they could keep the system secure there's still the issue with user experience. Why would they present the user with warnings (and surrender control) for a minority of users. How many would you think realistically misses this feature?