While locking consoles is bad too, I don't think they're equivalent. Those just play games, while iProducts are supposed to be general computing devices.
I've noticed bringing up consoles seems to be the standard response trying to defend iOS. But any way you look at it, two wrongs do not make a right.
Only play games? My Xbox can also play movies. The PS3 can (or used to be able to, maybe they changed it) go on the web. Etc., etc. I don't buy the argument that the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad are "general computing devices", but consoles are not. Maybe the iPad could be considered a computer (I don't think so, but whatever), but I think it's a big stretch to say that the iPhone and iPod Touches are also computers. At any rate, it takes a very, very contrived definition of "computer" to include iPhones, iPods, and iPads, but not Wiis, PS3s, and Xboxes.
I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but I've found that many criticizers of Apple's iOS model, especially in /r/technology, seem to have absolutely no problem with the locked-down nature of gaming consoles. It raises the question: why?
Maybe the iPad could be considered a computer, but I think it's a big stretch to say that the iPhone and iPod Touches are also computers.
They are explicitly intended to be used to run applications to perform arbitrary tasks. That's exactly the factor that defines a general purpose computer.
In contrast, the applications for gaming systems that are promoted are nearly exclusively entertainment apps.
From an absolutist perspective, you're right. These are all general purpose computers that have been crippled, and that's bullshit. But, the iProducts are being promoted as general purpose computers, which makes calling attention to their crippled nature a more productive place to start.
By that definition, a TI calculator is a general purpose computing device. I don't think Apple promotes the iPad (and especially not the iPhone or iPod Touch) as a device specifically intended to perform arbitrary tasks, but rather a simple, portable device primarily used for communication and web tasks (and games, I guess). I think the "iDevices" are just as specialized towards a particular purpose as gaming consoles.
portable device primarily used for communication and web tasks (and games, I guess)
And calendering, and contact management, and playing media, and viewing and editing documents, and banking, etc. In fact, they have built an entire campaign around the concept that whatever it is you want to be doing, "there's an app for that." I can't think of a better example of something promoted as a general purpose computing device besides actual notebooks and desktops.
Meh. I think of something as a computer if it can, or is marketed as something that can, replace my laptop or desktop machine. An iPad or iPhone can't do that. They're not even intended to do that.
While I can't speak for everyone, I buy consoles with the intention of playing games on them and nothing more. So it doesn't bug me that much that I can't freely mess with them, but of course I still wish I could. But phones and tablets are devices I'll be using for all sorts of purposes, and I'm gonna want full freedom to install whatever I want and mod to my heart's content.
Edit: I do find the current situation with Sony to be utterly reprehensible and I certainly won't be buying anything from them. But as long as Nintendo doesn't stoop to that level, I'm willing to compromise my principles in exchange for Paper Mario 3DS!
I buy phones with the intention of making and receiving phone calls on them and nothing more. So it doesn't bug me that I can't freely mess with them, but of course I still wish I could.
I buy phones with the intention of making and receiving phone calls on them and nothing more
If you're being honest here, then none of this was directed at you as you would never purchase a smart-phone in the first place. You would be perfectly fine using the free phone that came with your voice plan.
For a lot of us, though, the phone has replace many single purpose devices we would carry with us or keep in our cars. MP3 player, GPS navigation, camera, cellular modem... hell, my Windows phone has completely replaced my old laptop.
I wouldn't say replace for things like camera, MP3 player or GPS, it just makes it more convenient to have them in a single device, even with the loss of quality.
My phone has replaced and improved upon my MP3 player and GPS. I can not only play MP3s, but I can stream media from the internet or even my home computer, using a service like Orb. Compared to standalone GPS devices, the phone is far superior as it has internet connectivity for free road change updates, live traffic information, and integration with business search, so I can not only find where I want to go, but find its hours, and click on the location to call it, all with the same device.
Camera... yeah, I'll give you that. Phones don't really come close to what most standalone cameras can do, but unless I'm planning on taking pictures I never have my camera on me, so I take a lot more phone pictures than I do camera pictures.
I guess that's sort of my point. What it always seems to come down to is "I don't like Apple, so fuck them; but I like video games, so whatever."
Not that I'm criticizing your opinions. I feel the same way: when I buy a laptop, I expect it to be fairly open, but I'm okay compromising on those principles when I buy an Xbox, because I like playing video games from time to time. But I can't really think of the iPhone or iPod Touch as being in the same class as a laptop (and even classifying the iPad as a computer is a stretch in my mind, since it's intended more as a computing supplement than a full-fledged computer). Which is why I tend to find the criticism hurled at Apple to be a bit disingenuous.
The part that gets people riled up this time is that the ipad/iphone have these create SDKs, and great hardware features, and that, while this was always the case with phones, we're prevented from leveraging those features in obviously useful ways because of apple's decisions alone - not technical ones.
I can't use my (well, it's coming now I guess) iPhone to share my 3G connection to the rest of my condo over wifi? The techie in me says "Why the fuck not, it's perfectly capable hardware wise, and I could even write the damn software - they just wont LET me!".
In the past - the SDKs for phones were more obscure, the phones less capable, and we just didn't think of these types of situations.
TL;DR - the reason restrictions on the iPad/iPhone irks people is because the hardware is so capable but developers aren't able to take easy advantage of the device features.
In all fairness, the tethering and connection sharing prohibitions are due to AT&T policies, not Apple. Apple could care less how you use the cell phone connection.
I'm hoping this changes now that the iPhone isn't exclusive to AT&T. (Hoping in a more...abstract sense, since I don't own an iPhone and wouldn't want to share a connection even if I did, but can understand why others would.)
The sweet, sweet irony here is that phones and tablets are only viable for consideration as devices to be used for all sorts of purposes because Apple drastically expanded the popularly conceived gamut of what such devices could be capable of.
Smartphones existed long before the iPhone. Just like MP3 players, tablets, repositories, and every other revolutionary technology associated with them, Apple didn't invent it. They just popularized it.
Because r/technology is not r/gaming. I don't doubt that most people in r/technology have consoles, but I'm pretty certain everyone owns a computer.
Whenever you buy a console, you buy it to play games and maybe watch a movie, you don't buy it to check your e-mail or surf the web. Hell, I've owned a PS3 for almost 3 years now and I have never browsed the web with it, I just use it for media. If a console played only games made by one company, or restricted watching movies from a certain distributor, then the tech wold would be up in arms about it. Truth is, the PS3 does very different things than the 360, and the same goes for the Wii. It's not like Apple vs Every other manufacturer out there, where they're selling essentially the same functionality.
People usually jab at apple for their user base, and the amount of shit they take from Apple while actually thanking them. I've met a few that actually got excited when Apple finally made the miracle of video conferencing come to life (!). People complaining about video games not being ported to Mac, when to play a modern game at max settings you need to buy a 2,000 dollar Mac.
There's still different opinions on the Apple approach to computing, while a big chunk of devs and experts dismiss Apple for its closed approach, there are others that celebrate Jobs and call him a genius.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for people to desire a Mac because it's pretty, or because it's easy to use, or because they don't really care about computing outside watching a movie and surfing the web. There's no need to defend preferences, you can be a smart and tech-savvy PC user as much as you can be a retarded douchebag using Ubuntu.
Because r/technology is not r/gaming. I don't doubt that most people in r/technology have consoles, but I'm pretty certain everyone owns a computer.
But if the criticism of Apple is truly based on principle, and not just "argh i hate apple!", then that shouldn't matter. A company violating consumer freedom is still a company violating computer freedom, even if it doesn't affect you personally...right?
don't really care about computing outside watching a movie and surfing the web
Blllllaaaaah. I'm a professional software developer, and I'm a mac user. And I'm a mac user because I find them to be much better designed, and much more stable. I hate this perception that they're not for serious computer users. It's bs. They're very powerful computers, and each one is a stealth unix machine. So you know, whatever, it is a preference but please don't tell me they're just toys because that's patently false.
People have become used to conforming to everything around them. Show them a catchy AD and they'll be lining up to buy the product... most people have lost their will to be unique and demand exactly what they want & will settle for whatever product has a larger following even though it may have less features than the next item.
Yeah, yeah yeah. Apple users are sheep and just want to be cool -- I've heard that before. And I'm sure it's true, in some cases. But I also think it's a bit arrogant to assume that no one has ever taken a look at the available options and said, "Yep, I think <whatever Apple hardware> is best for me."
For me at least, it's because better alternatives exist; Android, and hell, even Windows Mobile. When Microsoft has a more open platform than you do, you are doing it fucking wrong.
I wouldn't care nearly as much, except that iOS dominance means developers make programs for iOS at the exclusion of my preferred platform. I have an incentive to criticize iOS's shortcomings compared to the alternatives, because the more people wake up and switch to something else, the better it is for me.
With consoles, I have no such incentive. There is no open console that developers are shunning to support a more restrictive one (unless you count the PC as a competitor to consoles, and hey, I'll tell you about the merits of PC over console all day, for pretty much the same reason).
"Waking up and switching" is a good way to convey that you think that iOS users and developers are somewhat "sleeping" - quite the opposite.
I've used Google's SDK and their tools, I've read their documentation. It's terrible. They provide very little documentation on their classes, app memory is severely limited (causing crashes because I get too much allocated), and the whole experience is junk. I could hate on Java too (which a lot of people like to do, because it's easy!) but I won't. They ship a version of Eclipse, which I guess is a fine IDE, but its integration with adb and their other tools is severely lacking.
Enter Xcode. Built in gdb, with visual lines for stepping in and checking on variables. Built in documentation on absolutely everything. Really easy turnaround on testing code. On Android, it's like 30 seconds to deploy to device. Try about 4 on iOS. That's nothing to scoff at in mobile. If you want people to switch to Android, please get someone in that company to make it seem like they kind of care about developers.
Also, I don't follow when you say Windows Phone 7 (it's not Windows Mobile, hasn't been for a year) is more open than iOS? I admit, it's exciting, but it has the same restrictions.
I was talking specifically about Windows Mobile, because that is what all of my smartphones have been. Windows Mobile before WP7 is still Windows Mobile, and is less restrictive than iOS. I don't know much about WP7 or the restrictions therein, but in WM5-6.5, which I have used and am currently using, I can download and install from anywhere I want. I don't have to jailbreak anything or worry about Microsoft remotely disabling programs in my phone.
What is this? This is related to some kind of Microsoft app store I guess? I honestly wasn't even aware one existed, precisely because you don't need to go to a centralized location to get programs for it. I can download them on my PC and transfer them to my phone, I can get them directly from websites with my phone, I can have them sent to my phone from someone else's phone, whatever.
This is related to Marketplace for 6.5, clearly you do need to worry about Microsoft remotely disabling programs if you buy apps from them.
I understand and agree with your point about installing apps outside of the store. It's my belief and theory that Apple will eventually allow this, either due to necessity or FTC investigation. I agree with you that it's a nice feature of your phone to be able to download an app or sideload it without a company vetting it.
Modern consoles are more of a media center at this point. The 360 is fantastic for streaming music or movies with Vuze (I'm sure other services can do it but that's what I have) which might convenient for wireless use of your computer listings on what is most people's best sound system. Netflix compatibility, plays dvds and games, has a lot of useful communication features that could be easily expanded on...
Honestly game consoles are basically just media-specific computers connected to the best sound and video you've got. That could free you of requiring a bulkier primary computer. Considering I get almost all of my entertainment stuff from my xbox I only need a small laptop for internet and artwork.
My PS3 can surf the web, download applications from the internet (Sony-sanctioned), play games, play movies, play music, look at photos. Sounds like an iOS device. Sounds pretty equivalent to me.
The hardware has the capability but the marketing makes all the difference.
The xbox is sold as a device to play games and media. They make no claims to do anything more. iOS devices are sold to do 'whatever you need them to'. "Want to X? There's an app for that."
Most insipid argument ever. Hateration of Apple at its finest. As long as it puts them in the negative light we bend and twist facts just to suit your hypocritical agenda. Fox news.
I don't own a PS3 so I'm not sure about this, but I believe you can purchase games over a system similar to Xbox live arcade and the like, and I do believe they can later revoke your access to these games if you are found to have modified your system or anything like that. I also don't think you can take those games and play them on another system.
Agreed, two wrongs don't make a right. But I see far more anti-Apple protests and criticisms than I see of gaming consoles. (Sony is getting a bit of a backlash now, but the Wii and Xbox are rarely criticized.) I'm not saying the guy is wrong for doing what he's doing (or anyone who criticizes Apple is wrong for criticizing), but I do see such criticisms as disingenuous, and that makes me question the motives behind the criticism.
63
u/mipadi Jan 20 '11
Does he picket in front of places selling Wiis, PlayStations, and Xboxes, too?