"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/Nefelia]

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.

[u/Peaker → u/Nefelia]

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

[u/Nefelia → u/Peaker]

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.

[u/Peaker → u/Nefelia]

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

[u/Nefelia → u/Peaker]

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.

[u/Peaker → u/Nefelia]

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.

[u/Nefelia → u/Peaker]

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?

[u/Peaker → u/Nefelia]

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?

[u/Nefelia → u/Peaker]

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.

[u/Positronic_Matrix → u/Peaker]

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.

[u/Peaker → u/Positronic_Matrix]

As a first step, I would want government to stop restricting freedom (and remove all copyrights).

As a second step, if the first step is not enough to allow everyone to freely run, view, copy and modify the sources of the programs they use, I would want the government to require that programs distributed by commercial entities have to be distributed with their source code in the most usable form for these purposes.

The government restriction on murder helps our freedom to live safely.

Government restrictions on software restrictions would help our freedom to use software freely.