By Cory Doctorow at 3:01 pm Sun, Apr 4, 2010
Jee-sus people, and Cory. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy it.
Stop whining about it’s “limitations” and take your business elsewhere.
So tired of the manufactured drama and fake outrage.
I think Clay Shirky makes the case for simple, accessible tablet computing platforms that can be used by the masses without a priori mad skillz: “when the ecosystem stops rewarding complexity, it is the people who figure out how to work simply in the present, rather than the people who mastered the complexities of the past, who get to say what happens in the future.”
Next I shall quote Leviticus to argue for free lunches.
I’m a bit tired of Cory ranting and raving about anything that isn’t open source and free. Cory, if it all sucks so much, then show me the alternative. Show me a tablet device that works as well as the iPad, with a good developer ecosystem and a *great* user interface. If you can show me one of those then I’ll be the first in line to buy one.
I used to work as an embedded Linux developer, and many of the projects I worked on were concept internet/web tablets. We could never pull off what Apple managed with the iPad – I tip my hat to their dev team and I’m going to buy one as soon as they’re available in Canada.
Actually, scratch that. I’m going to buy two iPads, and I’m going to name the second one Cory.
Please don’t post exceedingly similar posts in two different threads, within minutes of each other.
And if you don’t like a particular post, scroll on by.
Sorry Arkizzle, I’ll make sure not to do that in the future. I guess the content of the two threads was so similar that it dictated a similar response in both.
Ok, try to listen this time:
Your consumer choices affect people other than you and the producer.
Put another way:
What you buy has an impact on me.
Personally buying (or not buying) products is not the only acceptable way to express opinions about corporate practices.
You buying an iPad pushes the market and the overall gadget norms that much further from freedom. That market and those norms are something that we all have to live with, so we all have an interest in what happens to them.
Calling for the boycott of a product is a time-honored and totally reasonable response to a bad corporate policy which affects all consumers.
It’s really frustrating that we have to recapitulate these basic concepts constantly, but I guess it’s better than not recapitulating them.
Yes, Product Boycotts are a time-honored and ultimately futile effort. They can often push some leverage against a manufacturer to modify their business process on ethical grounds…but only just barely and usually only as a PR move. There’s a far cry from the Selma Bus Boycott to convincing DeBeers to change diamond mines or getting Apple to open up their platform more. And let’s not forget that often it’s not an actual boycott that elicits change, but political action. ‘Dolphin-free’ tuna came about due to changes in US fishery technology and federal legislation (particularly embargoes against buying tuna from countries that used dolphin-killing practices), NOT from a consumer boycott.
Ok, try to listen this time
Step off the soap box, please.
Your consumer choices affect people other than you and the producer.
Put another way:
What you buy has an impact on me.
I call bullshit. Your life isn’t affected in any meaningful sense if someone ignores your obviously superior advice and buys something which you do not personally approve of.
Personally buying (or not buying) products is not the only acceptable way to express opinions about corporate practices.
Within the confines of capitalism, it’s the most significant. Everything else is a distant second.
Boycotts are the last gasp of naive college students and activist hippies. They rarely accomplish anything except to make naive college students and activist hippies feel like they’re accomplishing something.
Sorry, folks, but I find product reviews to be useful. In this particular case, I had no intention of buying the New Shiny Thing, so I didn’t actually NEED the reviews, but this set of circumstances does not negate their value. For people who are unfamiliar with a product, or who are undecided about one (especially those of us in the majority who do not get early access to such products), reviews are valuable tools. This is why movies, books, CDs, plays and thousands of other things GET reviewed. So that the rest of us can use the reviews to help us make more informed decisions about how we spend our money.
In order for reviews to be most useful, we the readers are well advised to familiarize ourselves with those doing the reviews. I have found that I tend to agree with Cory, so I’m prone to listen a little more closely to his advice. It didn’t matter in this particular case, but it did make me feel a little better about a decision I had already made.
I am a little amused by the polarized view that’s being taken on this particular subject, though. Do we really have to call people names simply because they like (or dislike) a particular product (or company)? When reviewers wrote positive reviews of Up did anyone call them Pixar Fanboys?
The simple possession of an opposing viewpoint does not necessarily make another person wrong. It’s just an opinion, and everyone has the right to their own.
Sorry, folks, but I find product reviews to be useful.
How exactly does a philosophical rant by a person who has never used the product in question constitute a “review”?
I daresay Cory’s fans (myself included) would be put off by a “review” of one of his books by a critic who had never read it and didn’t want anyone else to either.
“How exactly does a philosophical rant by a person who has never used the product in question constitute a “review”?”
Not a ‘product’, but relevant:
Awkward metaphors aside (is the iPad supposed to be Santa Claus?) I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone describe that editorial as a “review.”
As usual, you’re failing to get it. I’m inclined to think it’s purposeful. I’ll try to explain.
The point is that a philosophical point of view and a review are not antithetical. There is no reason why a product cannot be argued for or against on purely philosophical grounds. Look at fur coats, if you need an example. Veal is another.
Taking a philosophical stand against a product (or a company) is a completely legitimate course of action. What about organizations like Greenpeace? Does their philosophical approach invalidate what they say?
Interestingly though Terry, fur, veal and Greenpeace are essentially set around the notion that someone is being wronged who hasn’t a voice (nature, animals, etc.) and that someone needs to speak for them.
Taking a philosophical stand against a product (or a company) is a completely legitimate course of action.
Of course it is. It just isn’t the same thing as a “product review.”
What about organizations like Greenpeace? Does their philosophical approach invalidate what they say?
No, but picketing outside an establishment that sells whale meat is not the same thing as writing a restaurant review.
On the other hand if you use the word “religion” instead of “philosophy” it gets a bit more interesting of a discussion. And change “stand against” into “for or against” as I think that better describes the situation some people find themselves in.
“Taking a philosophical stand against a product (or a company) is a completely legitimate course of action.”
I used to really think it was admirable until my friend was deeply depressed and refused to take any anti-depressants made by evil pharmaceutical companies.
When you grow up taking stands like that gets a lot less important.
The cynic in me thinks that CD’s virulent anti-iPad stance is pure PR – every naysaying article translates into traffic and huge comment streams, and helps to advance his personal agenda beautifully.
The dreamer in me thinks that CD’s virulent anti-iPad stance is an open prayer for a world he’d prefer to see – one in which people bake cookies from scratch, raise their own chickens, fix their own transmissions and generally know how to assemble a computer from scratch in the dark.
The pragmatist is just enjoying watching an otherwise thoughtful writer and commentator lose his s__t over something that just isn’t that important in the big scheme of things. Release the Kraken!
For the record, I did not tell anyone what they should or should not buy. The point of my post is that this mad rush to fawn all over, and line up to buy, something that will be superceded and outmoded in a very short time by not only its own creator but by any one of several competitors is indicative of a portion of society so caught up in the act of consumption simply for the sake of doing so that there is a very good chance that their critical thinking is set aside for the sake of the short term, hence “orgasmic”, satisfaction of purchase.
And I find that disturbing. I feel it is a direct result of what someone else here called the corporate zombie memes.
Somneone asked: What right do you have to pass judgement on what someone else buys?
Answer: The exact same right you have to disagree with my judgement.
“‘Discriminating critical thinking?’ Sorry, all I see is smug, self-congratulatory, techno-geek backslapping.”
In hindsight I think you may be right. However, I think the, erm, other side is displaying an even more non-discriminating, self-congratulatory form of fanboy/girl whipseedoodle glee.
danfan also said:
“Speaking of which, since you guys hate it so much, where IS the awesome alternative that’s so much better? Surely if this thing sucks so bad, there must be something great out there we should all be using instead, no?”
Well, I guess my questions are: alternative to what? What’s the need we must find an alternative for? What meaningful purpose, other than profitting Jobs, does it serve? What need has been gapingly apparent that this toy is filling?
In my opinion the iPad is like the iPhone in that it fulfills a need that only became apparent after the marketting, advertising, bot-blitz meme artists, and product placement created that need.
I don’t fully agree with your assessment. I think that while some people have been pretty immoderate with their praise (Andy Inahtko, for example), others have been a lot more even-handed (NY Times comes to mind).
I think that people who claim not to see the use for this device are people who’ve never been plagued with tech-support calls from Baby Boomer parents. Or people who’ve tried to help their grandparents use a computer. Or, really, a lot of people who need to participate in the online world (email, web surfing), but are non-technical and hate computers.
I have yet to see a good argument for why people who are bad with technology must be forced to grapple with it. I know a guy who has zero interest in computers, and finds dealing with his a daily hassle. All he needs to do is send emails, use the internet, and perform basic text editing. The iPad couldn’t be more perfect for his uses.
I think it’s really weird to label the iPhone’s usefulness as somehow invented out of thin air by marketers. That comment simply paints you as a hater, whose either never used one, or never met anyone who uses theirs to do real things they need to do.
I have used my iPhone to edit website documents in a terminal session. I’ve used it to restart web servers. I’ve taken it on vacation overseas where it replaced a bunch of awkward printed maps and heavy guidebooks. I’ve used it on airplanes as entertainment instead of carrying a DVD player or several books. I’ve used it in a pinch when I don’t have my camera with me. The list goes on and on.
Bobbcorr – I couldn’t agree more.
It fits an agenda perfectly. If you wanted to offer an honest critique of the iPad… you could talk about the fact it’s impossible for a blind person to use, the same goes for the iphone/ipod touch… or you could take an even more difficult position and critique chinese labour practices or government policies– that’s a pretty big deal?
Instead the posted critique mentions the app approval process… can you think of ANY store owner that doesn’t test and approve products he or she features in his or her store? Apple has a prudential impetus to approve applications, just as every store owner approves the products he or she sells.
Focusing a critique on such petty, and narrow issues deprives it of it’s validity. You might as well just sit there and say I don’t like it because it’s silver.
I agree with much of Cory’s lobbying, but sometimes it comes off as a bad PR stunt.
“What you buy has an impact on me.”
Ditto. Now what?
The main issue underlying these issues is lack of any file system access and the closed of nature of the iPad. It is not a computer than can join your network of devices.
More details of mobile os for ipad here:
No folder os and closed network:
Yeah, Xeni did a De Niro and bulked up for the role.
“… can you think of ANY store owner that doesn’t test
and approve products he or she features in his or her store?”
Um, Walmart? FutureShop? Canada’s Harper government?
I’m not buying the whole “it is the best tablet computing device and is therefore awesome” argument. iPad-lovers understand that the entire anti-iPad/iPad-indifferent stance is “we don’t understand why this is a thing we’re supposed to want”, right?
Laser, I think you’re falling into that same trap others have – that it’s a “you’re with us or your’e against us” kind of deal. It is black or white, us or them for some on the opinion bell curve, but the majority don’t see it that way or even care that much about the extremes.
We get enough of that in modern politics with people trying to pull us to the far left or far right despite the fact that most wouldn’t mind being in the middle. I’m starting to wonder if it’s just symptomatic of the times and nothing to do with politics.
I don’t really see this as a black & white issue. I currently fall in the “iPad-indifferent” camp that is the large part of the bell curve. I just don’t understand how anyone can think that the only reason people don’t love the iPad is because they think there’s some other, better, and more underground tablet computing device. It is simply a product that looks interesting, but it’ll take some time and some awesome games before I’m all “I need this to live”. I’m pretty much that way with all technologies that cost over a few hundred dollars. Let the fanboys line up and buy a product I don’t see the appeal of, and let the iPad-haters call them stupid for doing so. I’ll be chilling the middle with the majority wondering if the thing will ever be worth parting with $500 over, and/or simply not caring.
“the last gen macbook pro (Xeon 4,1)”
Err, no. A Xeon in a laptop would make as much sense as a lit match in a gas tank. You’ll have a core 2 duo and like it buddy boy.
I’m of the opinion that anyone who tells anyone else what they should or shouldn’t do, buy or think is secretly ( or unconsciously) insecure about what they themselves do, buy or think.
What do you care if I buy an iPad, unless you secretly feel inferior if you don’t own one?
Granted, you may have cause to be concerned about the vendor lock-in. But you know what? That truly will be decided by the market. If people care enough, it won’t happen. Apple is now bigger than Wal*mart, and is encroaching on Microsoft-size territory. If they start losing sales because of DRM, you can bet that they will reverse direction faster than you can say “lock-in.”
“I’m of the opinion that anyone who tells anyone else what they should or shouldn’t do, buy or think is secretly ( or unconsciously) insecure about what they themselves do, buy or think.”
That must be a very handy heuristic for dismissing any opinion you do not already hold. However, you might find some downsides to relying on it.
“we don’t understand why this is a thing we’re supposed to want”
Exactly. It’s not just “Why should I want an iPad?”, but “Why should I want this sort of device?”.
Let’s be honest – the iPhone was a game-changer. When they hit the stands, I looked at them and thought: ‘I want one’. Then I looked at the cost and decided I didn’t want one that badly. And when other companies started producing similar devices, I realized that I didn’t, in fact, want an iPhone. I just wanted something of its sort. More importantly, I wanted it for a rational price.
But when the iPad came along, I looked at it and thought: ‘Meh’. And I LIKE gadgets. I REALLY like gadgets. But I just don’t see what an iPad (or any iPad-like device) has to offer that I would actually care to have.
It IS shiny, though.
Well, what can we extrapolate from the amount of commotion I’m seeing here vs. the arrival of Windows 7?
Just a point of clarification to any of you who think that the BoingBoing readership has been divided into pro-iPad and anti-iPad factions, but I would like to stand up for those in the “I really don’t care one way or the other about the iPad” crowd.
Seems like y’all are talking past each other at this point.
So, in summary:
Amen – now lets just close the comment thread.
Anyone who cares that much about this to the point of scorning people who do / do not do what you think they should, is just off their rocker. And needs to step away from the computer, take a walk in the park, and realise there are better things to flame on about then a bloody CE product.
I love BB’s schizophrenic editorial stance on this product. It gives me hope for the new journalism.
Sledgehammer girl reminds me of Xeni.
Interesting. That’s a YouTube video, but the way you embedded it, it doesn’t play on my (shiny, awesome) iPad the way other embedded youtube clips do.
Welcome to The Ministry of Half Eaten Apples. Rotten to the core.
More on topic – if you’re going to taker a shit on a classic (and the 1984 spot is, love or hate Apple) – add something worthwhile.
The theme is ripe for good, if not great, satire… this is a load of the dogs’ bollocks. With crap production to boot.
Good call, I agree that it is nice to see the same place have several strong options about something, and to express them with not only with adore but also with skill.
Now if only she were throwing a banana…
I completely agree
The unfortunate thing (for me) is that I wish I wanted one
I want the one that could have been.
Excellent clip. Cory, it’s good to see discriminating critical thinking, rather than the rabid glee of dysfunctionally overamped consumerist addiction, in action.
I think it is a deeply worrisome trend that so many folks jump on the vacuous consumer product bandwagon so witlessly whenever the bells and whistles of a momentarily orgasmic new product launch drowns out pragmatic purpose and meaningful function. Like the iPhone before it, this numpty iPad is the adult consumer version of TeleTubbies, Cabbage Patch dolls, et al.
Discriminating critical thinking? Sorry, all I see is smug, self-congratulatory, techno-geek backslapping.
While I love open source web server software, open source’s performance as a viable desktop alternative for the average (i.e. non-technical) user has been one embarrassing failure after another.
If you dorks were so rad, you’d have come up with something better than the iPad by now.
Speaking of which, since you guys hate it so much, where IS the awesome alternative that’s so much better? Surely if this thing sucks so bad, there must be something great out there we should all be using instead, no?
I think it is a deeply worrisome trend that so many folks jump on the vacuous consumer product bandwagon so witlessly whenever the bells and whistles of a momentarily orgasmic new product launch drowns out pragmatic purpose and meaningful function.
I think it’s deeply worrisome that so many people feel obligated to tell everyone else what they should or (in this case) should not be buying. I mean, seriously: who elected you emperor? What right do you have to pass judgement on what someone else buys?
“I think it’s deeply worrisome that so many people feel obligated to tell everyone else what they should or (in this case) should not be buying.”
I assume you have a pretty big problem with advertising.
Or is your problem with sincere argument? Most advertising is so insincere it is easy to dismiss. Apple tells us to buy their products because they will make us cool or we will gain rebel street cred (the 1984 ad). That’s easy to ignore because we know it’s a cynical sham – even though we know darned well that Apple really has manufactured those images. Serious critique, however, is not so easily avoided by cynicism or irony. It forces us to consider where we stand.
Though we like to imagine that the choices we make as consumers are private arrangements between a willing buyer and a willing seller, those choices all have wider social consequences. We donâ€™t like to think about that (myself included). Advertising encourages us to believe, not to doubt. Critique makes us question.
It seems like you’re passing judgement right back at him, calling him an emperor and all, which seems a bit melodramatic. He’s just giving his opinion; he’s not forcing you to do anything.
Actually, John Greg’s post is pretty inflammatory. You can’t refer to “discriminating critical thinking” with a complimentary tone, then in the same breath reference “the rabid glee of dysfunctionally overamped consumerist addiction” in an insulting one without showing a clear “black or white, us or them, red or blue, R or D” type of bias.
There’s a really big bunch of us on the bell curve in between who when asked, “And what side are you on?” reply, “Oh I didn’t know I had only two choices.”
subengy, I agree with MJ and holtt.
I think John Greg’s comment is nought but hyperbole and dramatic mischaracterization.
John, observation is a three edged sword, not two.
Like the iPhone before it, this numpty iPad is the adult consumer version of TeleTubbies, Cabbage Patch dolls, et al.
I’m trying to imagine someone sitting a child down to explain why they really shouldn’t enjoy their new Teletubby or Cabbage Patch doll without that person seeming like a complete asshole. So far no luck.
Buy it, don’t buy it, like it, don’t like it, all valid options. Telling someone ELSE not to like something that brings them happiness? Dick move.
The point of the movie is that Apple has turned from a subversive computing company into a conservative content provider
Apple’s computing platform is still there- and still offers great value. But the iRange is not a computing platform.
Going head-to-head with the music industry must have taught Jobs that your platform has no value if it doesn’t pay the rent for the content provider.
So this is how it is: creative people should not create on the iRange. You don’t write, develop, draw or video edit on your current phone or mp3 player, neither.
But it’s great for selling your stuff on- it’s locked in, provides an app, ebook, music and video sales platform, and an ad system for web sites- iPad users are going to be good, paying, citizens.
Which is nice, but that’s not what computing is about.
So back in 1984 you had Apple claiming it was about freedom of personal computing- versus what exactly? There was no molochian all-controlling competitor that forced people to watch one giant screen for every conference room. Powerpoint was yet to be born.
We chose to think that big brother was IBM. Certainly those working at IBM would see the similarities.
But it could more accurately be said that personal computing would free people from the one-way passive TV couch potato model.
It certainly did.
And now, with the iRange, Jobs is switching users back to passive couch potato mode.
Someone should re-edit the movie so that the runner runs into the conference room next door. Where intelligent, independant people are writing, coding, creating.. using the Macintosh range of products.
It’s not really very clever, but at least it’s not funny.
I am a graphics person by trade
been using a mac to make a living since the IIci running os 7.5.1 with photoshop 2.5
I waited and saved $$$ for years before i bought for my home office.
I finally bought the last gen mac pro (Xeon 3.1) and the last gen macbook pro (Xeon 4,1) 2 iphone 3gs 1 ipod touch
seems like when jobs blew a pancreas and took a leave is (in my mind) kind of when the paradigm shift toward darkness became complete to the point of no return.
Uh.. understanding that is.
Why no “Previously” link to Xeni’s positive review of the I-Pad?
“It’s not really very clever, but at least it’s not funny.”
I thought this was a fairly weak attempt at realizing a meme that we are all pretty familiar with, by now. It hasn’t progressed the meme at all, just illustrated the (already kind of lame) Apple/1984 gag in a 1:1 fashion. I don’t think there was even one clever reference or flip to it.
After two of my posts in another thread were wiped without comment, I am done talking about the iPad. I like it here and I don’t want to get banned.
Check your mail. Your comments were off-topic and inflammatory, and you were notified when they were removed.
notified? Does that happen automatically? Or was JSM manually afforded this courtesy?
It does not happen automatically.
There are probably a lot of people too young to recognize the apple commercial that this is based on (and largely comprised of)
Maybe so. Here’s the original, for anyone who hasn’t seen it.
This clip is a reminder to me that
what you rebel against you will become
Well, I laughed. Does it mean I’m shallow?
As I see it, Boing Boing isn’t telling you to buy or not buy, it’s offering personal opinions on the subject.
Why do so many people see this as about Apple fanboys and Apple haters?
Apple does some cool stuff. However, the ipad? Hm. An Apple Newton of our day.
As I see it, Boing Boing isn’t telling you to buy or not buy…
With one notable exception.
With one notable exception.
There’s a big difference between “do not buy this” and “I don’t think you should buy this.” The former is a command, telling you to do (or not do) something. The latter is an opinion, certainly intended to persuade but not an out and out edict.
So all someone did was insert some video of Jobsy talking? That’s it? That’s so clever? Well, no. It’s scarcely more interesting than this week’s Downfall subtitling.
Hey! Did you add the 1984 vid because I mentioned the comparison in a blog entry (http://goo.gl/tfbC) that links back to your iPad post? BTW, great piece….
“Results 1 – 10 of about 4,640,000 for iPad 1984.“
Coulda at least shooped in a penguin insteada the hammer for extra lulz…
I thought you were talking about the book! It’s not yet available on the Kindle.
Yes it is. The whole flap was about whether Orwell is public domain (as he is in counties that have the life + 50 years rule), or whether his works are still covered by the Byzantine copyright laws that exist in the US. For buyers in the US, the simple fact is US copyright laws apply. Therefore, to avoid getting their asses sued off, Amazon had to buy back the copies that were illegally sold. There’s nothing stopping people from buying the legal copies of 1984 for the Kindle (which are available). The whole hatred of Amazon over the issue would have been better directed at the draconian US copyright laws.
While I don’t really like the iPad (vendor lock-in, limited access, etc, blah blah blah), my real issue is that I DON’T CARE WHAT SOME CORPORATION is trying to sell me. Especially in the realm of commercial computer consumerism.
I DETEST that these companies turn your headspace into a war zone. Jobs is P.T. Barnum. Google is NOT an underdog, nor are they trying to build an open internet for your benefit.
These companies are trying to make money and they behave like the only way to do that is to be “at war”.
They can take their “fight” somewhere besides MY brain.
FUCK THE CORPORATE ZOMBIE MEMES.
This is wild! What is it about gadgetry that makes everything soooo personal and philosophically important. Back in the day, I would stand in line all night for Pink Floyd concert tickets, and no one made fun of me. No one wondered if I had a life. No one complained about the walled garden of Pink Floyd’s back catalog (no, dear, they won’t play Bowie material at the show…). No one argued that the Floyd were being all Big Brotherly because they offered a product that appealed so much so to their fans that they would line up to buy an experience, sight unseen, based solely off of previous, positive, experiences. We weren’t mindless zombies. It wasn’t us vs. them. It was about fun and good times. When and why did people get so serious and graven about silly shit? The iPad is an inanimate object that truly means no harm. Some people like it. The 1984 stuff makes for strong imagery and good marketing, but even Apple was overwrought by co-opting this message back in the day. 1984 was about a controlling, all-knowing government and the individual’s lack of choice and freedom. I just don’t see how those themes relate to a market where consumers actually do have have freedom of choice.
Floyd? Dude, you could have been listening to Real Rock And Roll! Only weak, simpering Barrett-fanbois would go to a Floyd concert instead of the free, open garden of Led Zeppelin — who played a lot of other people’s music (even if they accidentally omitted crediting aforementioned people).
Ahem. Anyway, I seem to remember music battles too. I suspect any domain with more than one option has its debates.
@Modern Jess: “I mean, seriously: who elected you emperor? What right do you have to pass judgement on what someone else buys?”
Yeah, and while we’re at it, who is this a-hole Martin Luther King, and what right does he have to tell us not to ride those busses?
He’s someone who stood up and did something. He didn’t stand on a soap box and go, “You guys all suck!”. He got down in there into the thick of it to make it better.
And he got killed for what he did.
And it’s insulting of you to use his name in this kind of context.
Heh! I think valdis@31 has found the polar opposite of a Godwin.
As much as I hate defending companies, this stupidity has compelled me to sign up.
Corey et al, what gives with this hysterical “APPLE IS OPPRESSING ME” babble? Seriously, are you six years old? How does an edited video of Steve Jobs shopped into a cheesy 1984 advert add anything worthwhile to the walled garden/free device discourse? Apple isn’t the only one making mobile devices, but fucking hell you’d think they were by some of the arguments people are making. Not only that, only 2 hardware product lines use this walled garden concept. And while the walled garden approach DOES stink, there are also superbly good reasons why a company would go for it. And putting aside the paradigms weaknesses and strengths, the most important point is that Apple isn’t lobbying for the locked-down iTMS software ecosystem to be some sort of industry-wide standard.
So instead of posting a worthless 40-second youtube video to get all the cool enlightened kids to high five you and each other, maybe you all could spend some time solving the added layer of abstraction and instability that non-walled garden mobile devices suffer from or build a better proposal to the walled-garden concept.
Full disclosure: I’m a developer / visual artist and I can’t fucking stand Apple’s walled garden or it’s equally obtuse Objective-C environment. But I can’t stand this whiny nonsense and the alleged Apple-enforced world dominating, goose-stepping villainy. Roar, angry comment on a blog, what have I become.
Long time mac user immune to the siren song of the iPhone and iPad. Can’t really get too excited either way about the product. Just standing back here looking at the ways all these personal electronics are changing people’s behavior IRL and not subtly or slowly, but in fast, intense ways and thinking; Wow, how is all this going to pan out. Still, not overly wrapped in the the love/hate fest going on this iPad deal,
Excuse me but,”cheesy 1984 advert”?!?!? Have you no respect for anything, Helveticade? That is classic Ridley Scott and it was not cheesy in its day. In its day, it was a glorious kick in the head.
Sure, it might’ve been rad when it came out, but you can’t tell me that it’s aged well.
PS: the dishonesty in sections of the anti-iPad crowd reeks of Obama-death-squad levels of fearmongering. Apple is big brother because they won’t let you install a fart app or a virus on your smudge-covered iPhone? Get real.
This is very interesting to me. I understand Apple tends to have a polarizing influence, in particular because they have high production values, a secretive/control-oriented corporate culture, and highly influential advertising.
But why it’s a religious war, I don’t know.
If there *were* no alternative, I could understand Cory’s sense of fear / distaste for the Apple model. But there *are* healthy alternative ecosystems, and they’re numerous and successful.
As for the iPad, I don’t see myself ever getting one. But I do see the value in what they’re trying to do. I deal with a lot of people who couldn’t care less about computers and all the technical finicky details that Windows or Mac OS make you deal with in order to do what you want. They want to watch mashups online, or “do” email, or play games.
In a sense, it’s a lot like most people’s relationship with their transportation (be it cars or bicycles or skateboards). Many people just want to get from point A to point B. Some people want to tweak their trucks or set their gear ratios or adjust their low-end torque. Some people think the paint color is the most important aspect.
In the end, what kind of transportation people use is often strongly influenced by those desires.
Again, I’m not in the market for one of these.
But if you think the iPad is simply and solely a tool of corporate media, I defy you to play with an app like Star Walk. I was absolutely delighted by it… and the only media I “consumed” was public information and images (admittedly through a proprietary and non-free interface).
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Business, Entertainment, Flash, petard
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin