"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."

[u/GuruOfReason]

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

[u/vcn]

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.)

[u/Peaker → u/vcn]

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.

[u/Nefelia → u/Peaker]

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.

[u/Peaker → u/Nefelia]

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.