Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

iPad Is a "Huge Step Backward"

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:21 AM
from the who-needs-rights-anyway dept.
An anonymous reader writes "FSF's John Sullivan launches the Defective by Design campaign and petition to rain on Steve's parade, barely minutes out of the starting gate. 'This is a huge step backward in the history of computing,' said FSF's Holmes Wilson, 'If the first personal computers required permission from the manufacturer for each new program or new feature, the history of computing would be as dismally totalitarian as the milieu in Apple's famous Super Bowl ad.' The iPad has DRM writ large: you can only install what Apple says you may, and 'computing' goes consumer mainstream — no more twiddling, just sit back, spend your money, and watch the show — while we allow you to." What is clear is that the rise of the App Store removes control of the computer from the user. It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look like.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:22AM (#30933536)

    And I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but anyone who buys an Apple product *NOT* expecting it to be locked down tighter than Ann Coulter's vagina deserves to be disappointed. Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like buying something from Sony and being shocked when it only supports some bullshit propriety storage or media format than only Sony makes. Apple is about doing what Steve tells you to do, or at least says is okay for you to do. If Apple could get away with locking down their Macbooks and other PC's so that you could only download their approved software, they probably would.

    Apple keeps it simple: Here's what this does. It's elegant and does what it does very well. We don't want you screwing that up by messing around with it without our approval. If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:26AM (#30933602)

      Thank you for this. The only thing I love more than a new Apple product is Ann Coulter's VJJ. I think I'm in heaven.

    • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy&gmail,com> on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:32AM (#30933700) Journal

      Yep yep. People (especially here) missing the point of Apple is pretty common. Skimmed the iPad article yesterday and had nothing but iPhone flashbacks.

      "It's derivative."

      "It's the same as (crappy, unpolished, user-hostile device that didn't sell) so no one is going to buy one."

      "The hardware has been out for (absurd number of years) so Apple has utterly stopped innovating and will be going out of business next year."

      "No one wants (feature that everyone wants)."

      "It doesn't have (feature that only ubergeeks care about) so no one is going to buy one."

    • by LaminatorX (410794) <sabotage.praecantator@com> on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:40AM (#30933886) Homepage

      I was disappointed to see the iPad following the App Store model rather than full-on Mac OS X. On my MacBook Pro, or my wife's iMac, I feel like I get the best of both worlds: a nice consistant "just-works" gui with all the power/control I might need just a terminal window away.

      FSF is very much on target with the locked-down AppStore model being the biggest threat to user freedom that we've ever seen, bigger than software patents. It's "Tivo-ization" writ large.

    • by pydev (1683904) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:49AM (#30934064)

      Buying an Apple and expecting freedom is like

      OS X is not locked down. This is something that started with the iPhone.

      If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances.

      I will. iPad may not be useful in itself, and it is certainly not the first, but all of Apple's marketing dollars may finally get this market segment to take off.

    • by Bemopolis (698691) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:21PM (#30934744)
      Wait a second, wait a second, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
      Wait.



      Ann Coulter's a WOMAN?!?!?
    • by M. Baranczak (726671) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:30PM (#30934902)

      MacOS is not locked down. I can install any software I want, and most open-source Unix programs compile and run without any modifications or hacking. The developer tools are available at no cost, and there are no restrictions on who can write and distribute apps to users. Also, you can run almost any modern OS on Apple hardware (I've installed XP, Solaris and several flavors of Linux on Macs).

      None of the above is true of the Apple mobile line, which is why I stay away from it.

  • by axl917 (1542205) <axl@mail.plymouth.edu> on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:26AM (#30933608)

    The Apple of today is more 1984-ish than Microsoft ever was at the time of the aforementioned Superbowl ad.

  • by notaspy (457709) <imnotaspy AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:30AM (#30933662)

    it having only one mouse button.

  • Oh, come on. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mea37 (1201159) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:35AM (#30933780)

    The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device. It cannot be compared to, nor can it show the direction of, the market for general-purpose computers. This is like saying that the segway is a major step backward in international travel because it can't fly.

    If the next version of OSX were to have similar limitations, that would be worthy of this line of criticism. Of course, the criticism would then be unnecessary, as the Mac would drop out of the PC market promptly of its own accord.

  • Misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Philotomy (1635267) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:36AM (#30933800)
    I think the complaint misses the point of the device. It's not supposed to be a full-blown personal computer. It's supposed to be an iPod for documents (including web pages and especially books -- note that bookstore), doing for them what the iPod did for music: let me carry it around and interact with it in my easy chair or my bed or on a park bench.
      • by rotide (1015173) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:52AM (#30934148)

        This is exactly what I don't get.

        The iPod was a personal music and later a video and limited "game/app" device. The latter obviously more of a "can do" versus "is made for".

        The iPhone was primarily a phone with PDA functionality and an iPod built in. Feels like either an iPod with phone functionality or an iPhone with iPod functionality. Not sure which, but it was replacing something you already carried in your pocket. Ok, I get the need.

        The iPad.

        Ok, it can't make calls.
        It's an unportable iPod.
        It's an eReader with a bright ass screen that will strain your eyes.
        It can do limited word/spreadsheet processing.
        It surfs the internet the way Apple says you should (no flash, IE: no Hulu, etc).
        It plays limited games so it's not going to dominate the handheld market.
        It only plays video from the apple store but the iPod et al already do that albeit on smaller screens.

        I just don't get what niche this thing is supposed to fill. Is it a crippled laptop or a huge iPod?

        And starting at $500 for the version without 3G surfing capability, which arguably is it's strongest trait, I don't see the "Well, I already had one of these in my pocket (cell phone) and this one does it better plus it does tons more (iPhone), so I must get one." argument.

        It seems to be a solution to a problem, or a replacement for a product no one needed to invent.

  • We organized actions and protests targeting iTunes music DRM outside Apple stores, and under the pressure Steve Jobs dropped DRM on music.

    Jobs was on record as opposing DRM on music long before the campaign started. It was the labels that had to be convinced to change, they were the ones responsible, not Apple. Taking credit for something you had no part in does nothing for your credibility and weakens your ability to work effectively in the future.

  • Amen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mewsenews (251487) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:46AM (#30933992) Homepage

    "We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on." - Steve Jobs, Interview in Macworld magazine, February 2004

    Steve used to preach that you could tell simply by looking at someones posture whether they were consuming or creating. The hacker bent over his keyboard is a boon to society while the couch potato leaning waayy back is a drain.

    Meanwhile, he introduces the iPad while leaning back in an easy chair and telling us how easy it is to buy and consume web pages, music, movies, books from the iTunes store. And it's all DRM infested, right down to the software you may or may not be allowed to run on it.

    Consume, consume, consume.

  • by motorcyclemaintain (1674658) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:46AM (#30934006)
    "What is clear, is that the rise of the App Store revokes control of the computer from the user."

    Wrong. It may "revoke control" from the power user. But, the general public will view the iPad, like the iPod, as a simpler, more friendly way to get things done. It gives them control.

    The general public doesn't care about our App Store hang ups, or cries of "DRM". Previously, the general public has struggled to install and play movies / apps / music at all, now they can tap a finger and it's there. Did these users prefer the pre-App Store world, where you had to have specialist knowledge to access this media? I doubt it. They couldn't access that world at all.

    Here on Slashdot, we see the iPad bringing "DRM", and view it as a "huge step backwards". However, the general public sees the iPad as easy access to movies and apps, simple, straightforward accessible computing. The general public see it as a huge step forwards.

    Our loss of control, as geeks, is most people's gain. Don't you think that complex media should be accessible to the general public, quickly and easily? We cry DRM at Apple, but do we really mean that we just don't want the general public in our clubhouse? What's wrong with the iPad and the "consumer mainstream" derided in the story? Not everyone wants to pop the bonnet and fiddle with the engine. In fact, hardly anyone does.

    The story is seriously blinkered.
  • by dogmatixpsych (786818) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:53AM (#30934162) Homepage Journal
    I don't see what the iPad has to do with OS X. The iPhone OS is built for a completely different purpose than OS X is. iPads are meant to do a relatively few things (read books, consume media, browse web, play games, etc.) very well and intuitively. OS X does a lot of things very well and is incredibly powerful. In our neuroimaging lab we used to run Linux as our main processing OS (we still use it a lot) but we are transitioning over to OS X because we can do everything we need to do that Linux can do plus much more.

    As someone in academia, the iPad would be perfect for much of what I do. I can take notes on it (including notes when I do therapy or psychological assessments), check my email, write papers and reports, read articles and books, listen to music, run all sorts of other apps (including terminal ones with ssh support), transfer and display brain images, and more. With the right adapter I could use the iPad to run Keynote presentations from.

    I do some of these things on my iPod Touch - I use it all the time for my work - but the screen size limits some of what I can do. Could a netbook meet my needs? To some degree but the tablet form factor of the iPad is key for me. I could purchase a different tablet computer but again, their form factors are larger than the iPad. Plus, they usually cost more.

    Besides, the iPad is competing with the Kindle to some degree and a Kindle with a 9.7" screen is only $10 cheaper than the iPad. I know the smaller Kindle is slightly more than 1/2 the price of the iPad but it does far less than 1/2 of what the iPad does (but the Kindle is very good at what it is designed to do, so I hear).

    I'll probably purchase an iPad - maybe not this 1st rev. but possibly when it is updated in a year or two. I think Apple is going to sell a lot of them.
  • Wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by Old97 (1341297) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:55AM (#30934212)

    You can install any application you want on an iPod Touch, iPhone and presumably the iPad as well. If you own or manage the device you have 2 options. You can either get the development environment and install applications directly to each device or you can set up a server (intended for but not restricted to enterprises) that manages all the devices in your control. You can install and remove any application, backup and restore data and setting, etc. What you cannot do without jail breaking the device is violate certain restrictions on using some OS APIs or distribute applications to devices you do not directly manage. You can distribute applications to others without jail broken phones who either have a developer set up or enterprise server. You can distribute pretty much anything to people with jail broken devices.

    As far as I know, Apple doesn’t arrest, prosecute or sue people who jailbreak their devices. They just don’t support them. Fair enough. If you use unsupported APIs on any OS or application you’ll generally find that you won’t get vendor support or cooperation doing that. No one can stand behind a product that is not being used as it was intended. As a customer, your reasonable expectations about a product and its support are those expressed by the vendor. They don’t include anything that the vendor expressly does not support. They don’t include whatever you can dream up.

  • by cdrguru (88047) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:42PM (#30935192) Homepage

    The kind of "freedom" that is the hallmark of Richard Stallman, GNU and EFF is very simple -if you have programming skills you are free. Otherwise, you are, well, unfit.

    The basic problem is that the "open" computing platform has pretty much failed the consumer. No matter what security features are implemented in software, consumers will circumvent them to obtain what they believe they want: free software, porn, money, etc. The end result is a compromised computer that is no longer completely under the control of the user. And such computers can have a very negative impact on all users everywhere.

    The average consumer has no way to utilise the sort of programming freedom that Stallman would like to see people have. They need a checked-out, validated, "App Store" where both useful and useless things can be downloaded and will never, ever compromise their computer. And if an application is found to be bad after it is released it can be "recalled". Period. If we had this today for Windows there would be no spam epidemic, no malware and little or no phishing. Instead what we have is an environment where the Internet is not safe for users with no special knowledge.

    We are certainly going to see less and less "freedom" for users in the name of keeping out the bad stuff. Users, not programmers, do not need freedom but they absolutely need safe computing. We aren't going to teach that. With great freedom comes great responsibility and the spammers, thieves and scammers don't seem to be properly exercising responsibility.

    • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tobor the Eighth Man (13061) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:26AM (#30933606)

      Frankly, it doesn't matter if it happens to OS X. What matters is that it could become the standard going forward, and if we've learned anything from the iPhone and iPod it's that Apple has tremendous influence in driving the standards of consumer electronics. The reason for the app store has nothing to do with security and everything about Apple wringing every last penny out of developers by taking an arbitrary cut of their sales and providing only limited QC and indexing that could easily be provided by any other site or service. If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't. Instead, Apple's making the choice for you. And that's no choice at all.

      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymusing (1450747) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:34AM (#30933758)

        If people want a choice, they should GET a choice - use the app store, or don't. Instead, Apple's making the choice for you.

        Are you serious? Is Steve Jobs now running the government??? You do not need to buy an Apple product. I hear Google has some stuff going on in this area....

      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Funny)

        by StingRay02 (640085) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:34AM (#30933764)
        You're absolutely right. It's such a shame that no one has yet determined a way to break the locks that bind the iPhone and the iPod Touch to the App Store. You could even say these devices are imprisoned, jailed. If only some intrepid group of hackers could find a way to break these devices out of jail, allowing those that wish it a way to modify their devices or install "unauthorized" applications onto them. If only there were some way to get the word out, and allow those that wish to make use of this mythical hack to find it. Perhaps some day such technology will exist.
      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TrippTDF (513419) <hiland@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:35AM (#30933794)
        That's why I prefer Android's approach- they have an app store, anyone can get into it, OR, you can just install packages directly from websites... they give the choice of the nice, clean easy way, OR the DIY for those that want. The Android interface might not be quite as clean as the iPhone, but it gives a world more chioce.

        Not unlike Ubuntu- you have the option of the super clean Apps installer, but there's nothing stopping the power user from doing more.
      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:18PM (#30934662)

        The reason for the app store has nothing to do with security and everything about Apple wringing every last penny out of developers by taking an arbitrary cut of their sales and providing only limited QC and indexing that could easily be provided by any other site or service.

        And the reason that it's working is because it's fucking easy. While you GNU, FSF, & Linux Luddites are arguing over the technicalities between GPL v2 and v3 and why BSD license sucks. Or KDE vs GNOME or how you can configure every damn single thing on either, Apple has released an OS that has 0 configuration, you literally get 0 options other than what page your apps appear on, and it has become more popular than both.

        "Year of the Linux Desktop" will happen when Grandma can get a computer that 'just works'. My grandmother figured out my aunts iPhone no problem. She did never figure out OS X or Linux or Windows. Hell I can't even stand the amount of configuration options in the X window managers. Do I want this font or this font, this size or that. O, I can drag the 'start' menu over here, or over there. I'll spend 5 days figuring it out and never be convinced that it's "right".

        Nothing prevented Linux developers from releasing a phone, other than internal bickering and unresolved issues (How's that openmoko coming?).

        As soon as you introduce choice, all hell breaks loose. So say I can add any repository for apps I want. When I get my mom the 22" iPad so she can just run programs and not have to deal with an "OS" how do I tell her which repository to use? Or maybe she should install the FSF one too, that way she can use GNU/FSF/HURD/Gnome on her new device.... at which point she tries it and it completely fucks up the install. Then what? I get called.

        Jailbreaking is easy enough for a 'technical' user. If I want the iPad and I want to install what ever I want, I'll just jail break it (6 months max) and do that. I don't even want the option available to my mom or 90% of users. Because then they'll find it and use it. Then we'll have Bonzai Buddy for the iPad because some friend sent them a great link to this great repository of smiley faces.

        • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kelbear (870538) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:01PM (#30934330)

          There's another way to look at it:

          If Apple gets away with it, what can their competitors offer to get you to buy their version instead of Apple's?

          Apple can offer a heavily DRMed and locked down experience because they serve it up with a reputation for a highly polished overall user experience right out of the box.

          Can the competitor provide higher quality? Maybe...but they still need to get the consumer to believe that. More innovation? We wouldn't be having this conversation about Apple if it was their competitor leading the way. Lower prices? Yes, definitely, Apple's products tend to be overpriced and are quickly undercut by the competition, but the competition's price cuts hacks directly at their profit margin.

          How about a more open experience? It's a cheap way to one-up Apple, and it saves money on the overhead of running everything through an approval process. Certainly less damage to their bottom-line than engaging in a price war.

          Obviously not all companies will see it the same way, but there is incentive for at least some of them to give it a shot. Particularly if all of them drive at the locked-down approach of Apple, then there will be an underserved niche market of geeks who want to install their own stuff on it. Then some company will try to sell to that market.

        • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:31PM (#30934930) Homepage

          The problem is when the consumer doesn't have full information.

          For instance, I bought an iPod touch primarily as a book reader (I wanted one that could also play music). I did a lot of research, so I thought I knew what I was getting into. To my surprise, one of the most important functions I wanted in a book reader was not there -- I could not import my own documents. So it's still useful, but it's not exactly what I want.

          That's the feature on the iPad I want to hear about, and nobody's talking about it. If it can't load and read my own documents, or docs I download from the web, then it's not useful to me. No 'official' advertising will answer that question yay or nay. I'm going to have to hope that some blogger answers it for me, or I'm going to have to get a chance to try the thing out for myself.

          Choice is great if the consumers are properly informed. Without an informed consumer, choice can be manipulated to the consumer's detriment.

          • by rufty_tufty (888596) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:14PM (#30934598)

            Worse than that, since all the media talks about is the latest trendy new Ford, it soon becomes like you're the oddball if you don't have their latest model. Everyone crowds around Ford's latest models and everyone else is all but ignored.
            Children growing up only see Ford's car and think that is synonymous with a car and soon all there is is Ford and their overpriced overhyped standard.

            Right time for another dried frog pill before the slashdot car analogy gets out of had

            • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:30PM (#30934908)

              I don't think many of these people are buying the "car", but you see, the way consumer feedback works, is that when people have a specific reason for not buying a product that they otherwise might want, they're going to make it very clear to the manufacturer and others just WHY they're not buying it so that hopefully their complaints, along with the complaints of others, will lead to a change.

              This whole "just don't buy it" thing is getting ridiculous. What you're basically teaching the next generation to do is to accept whatever the corporate overlords give them, or go to a corner and shutup. Don't dare try to influence any of the actions of a corporation - you are a mere peon and should just accept that the only thing that is to flow from you is cash or nothing; not ideas, creativity, or ESPECIALLY complaints.

              • by yumyum (168683) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:36PM (#30935062)

                This whole "just don't buy it" thing is getting ridiculous...Don't dare try to influence any of the actions of a corporation

                I'm pretty sure that not buying a product is a strong and clear signal to a corporation that their product sucks. If the corporation is smart, it will listen to the signal and try something else.

    • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kieran (20691) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:29AM (#30933650)

      The FSF isn't saying the iPad should be banned, it's just raising awareness about the need for freedom in software.

      Frankly with the amount of bullshit publicity this (somewhat underwhelming) device has had so far, I'm happy for a worthwhile organisation like the FSF to hijack a little for it's cause.

      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EvilNTUser (573674) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:41AM (#30933900)

        The "just don't buy it retort" doesn't hold any water in my eyes. It's not even only misinformed consumers' benefit that's at stake. 10 years from now, do you want your Free OS being an island of its own that no one tries to be compatible with, because closed platforms represent 99% of the market?

        The other side has their advertising, and we have the FSF. Now all we need is proper awareness of real alternatives.

        • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:42AM (#30933920)

          "[The iPad is] really a toy"

          A toy being hailed by the press as the future of computing. Sorry, dude, but the FSF hit the nail on the head here. If this toy is the future of computing, then computing is in for a bleak future.

    • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Interesting)

      by shoemilk (1008173) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:29AM (#30933652) Journal

      And there's no chance whatsoever that this will ever happen to Mac OS X, so don't lose sleep over it.

      Really? I can totally see Apple releasing a new mac mini with this OS because *it just works*. Then putting a premium on future machines with the OSX variant. I think the saddest part is that for a large portion of the population, that's probably best. Would we have such large bot nets if every Joe could only get their stuff from one place? Doesn't even Ubuntu try to mimic this in some respects with its downloader?

      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Zordak (123132) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:37AM (#30933824) Homepage Journal

        Doesn't even Ubuntu try to mimic this in some respects with its downloader?

        Do you honestly believe that having a repository where people can easily get most of the stuff they want is the same thing as having a single app store that is the only place your computer will let you get stuff from? I don't think anybody would be complaining if Apple had a nice, tidy app store, but still let people run arbitrary code on their stuff.

      • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:52AM (#30934132) Journal

        You would have far less problems with speeding if all cars just work and had a speed limiter installed that just worked.

        There would be less theft if every car was bio-keyed to the person and every person tracked...

        Do I need to go on?

        Why are the privacy nutcases always so ready to imagine the most terrible wrongs about potential abuse of power by the government, but think it is super okay to give all control to a corporation?

        Apple has severe intrest in controlling how people consume their media and their hardware is reflecting this, making it harder and harder to install alternative methods. You can of course believe they won't abuse this, you can but you would be a silly person.

        I really don't know if your kind can ever learn, there have been enough example shown that when companies get to comfortable with themselves, it is bad for their customers. Car companies that only produce the cars they want to make, not the ones they want, tell me, how is detroit doing? MS stopping development on IE because it had won, so why continue to invest? Apple buying up competing software and then stopping development.

        Google is doing it as well, support h264, so that no competing video service can be started easily since they can't afford the millions in licensing costs.

        It is all very subtle and long term, but you only got to be old enough to remember the old unixes to know how right the FSF is.

        And the fact that you claim Ubuntu does the same... sudo -i [your own password] is all you need to do to have total control. One command and you can change everything and access everything...

        If you want to see why the FSF is right, install IE6 as your main and only browser. If you last for less then a day, donate some money to the FSF.

      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by at_slashdot (674436) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:55AM (#30934218)

        "Doesn't even Ubuntu try to mimic this in some respects with its downloader?"

        Don't even try to bring Ubuntu into discussion, there's a clear difference between making things easy to install and locking the OS, Ubuntu can run probably any piece of software that works in any other Linux distribution, even more, you can write your own software, compile it and run it, can you do that with iPad?

    • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Yvanhoe (564877) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:31AM (#30933672) Journal
      I'm not sure how Apple's DRMs are more of a choice than any DRMs are.
      If users like the idea of being locked into the store, fine. RMS, the EFF, Slashdot, "whine" by showing people the bars they are getting into. I must say that I never heard Apple bragging that they locked in users or that it was hard to get the kind of apps you like for their devices. For that I thank those "whiners".
    • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rotide (1015173) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:31AM (#30933676)

      I think he's saying it's a step backwards because they are taking, what is essentially a tablet computer, and 100% locking it down to only do what Apple explicitly allows.

      This thing isn't a phone and it's not an mp3 player, it is a tablet computer that is directly trying to compete with netbooks and even laptops. But again, they are entirely locking down the platform and the software to such a degree that any freedom is entirely lost. You can fully understand a phone being locked down to phone applications delivered by the manufacturer and the same with mp3 players. The software is written for the device and that's all there really is to say about it.

      The iPad on the other hand, again, is a computer meant to be used like a laptop with its own internet connection. Locking it down so harshly is a step backwards in the usability of the device.

      That's my impression, anyways.

      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by blueZ3 (744446) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:43AM (#30933936) Homepage

        It partly depends on what the iPad is. I don't really think that it's a general purpose computer--though I understand why some people might think that. It's more of a Web/Entertainment appliance--like a Tivo with a browser. You don't expect to run arbitrary code on your DVR (or at least most people don't) and I don't think most people expect to do that with their phone (again, at least most people). As long as people are expecting to get an "appliance" rather than a PC, this could be successful.

      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by purpledinoz (573045) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:04PM (#30934382)
        This is why free markets are so great. While there's great debate whether the iPad is good or bad, the destiny of the iPad is solely in the consumer's hands. If they don't like it, they buy something else and the iPad dies. If they love it, the iPad thrives. Just wait a year, and we will see if Apple made a good decision. All this huff about the system being locked down is irrelevant.
    • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slim (1652) <john@NoSPAM.hartnup.net> on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:52AM (#30934134) Homepage

      Here's a similar opinion from a source that's less Free Software oriented [createdigitalmusic.com].

      The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around them.

      Every time Apple decides to close something off - by insisting on approving apps, by not giving you a [general purpose] USB port, etc., and people go for it anyway, because it's slick and nice to use, we get used to a little bit less openness.

      People don't miss openness until it's too late. Then it's suddenly "What do you *mean* I can only use printers that are Apple certified?". "I've bought all these e-books, and now the only place I can read them is on Apple hardware?" etc.

      I know, I know: slippery slope fallacy. But it's a slope we *will* slide down, without a critical mass of openness-aware customers insisting on some openness in their tools.
       

    • by dazedNconfuzed (154242) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:24PM (#30934784)

      Now wait a minute. Before all the FOSS types get into a slathering fury (oops, too late), consider:
      - The SDK is free. Free! Download it and start developing apps already.
      - Distribution is free. Free! There's nothing stopping you from signing up and giving away your self-righteous apps for no cost; include the source code or a link thereto if you like. And if you do want to make a buck (er, $0.99) off each copy of your app, that costs you a measly $99/year (surely your app is good enough to get a hundred people to buy it, right?).
      - The much-defamed App Store censors mostly just take a cursory glance at each submission to make sure the app is well-behaved (not malicious or destructively stupid) and socially acceptable to all audiences (how much FOSS pr*n are you planning to develop, eh?). Is it really too much to ask that someone double-check your work for brokenness before spreading it to the unwashed masses? Have you _seen_ what got thru that process unabated?

      OK, so it isn't totally completely unquestionably end-to-end FOSS. I'll understand if RMS doesn't approve, but that's his shtick, not ours.
      - App Store is the only distribution process. Well, except that you could publish your source code and let anyone with the SDK compile & run it sans censors.
      - DRM everywhere. Well, not really - seems you can put whatever content you want on it via iTunes (music is not DRMed anymore, remember? and I shouldn't have to say anything about videos, right?) and the SDK. I expect the iBook stuff will prove the same: minimal-if-any DRM, easily circumvented.

      And what does the RMS-approved FOSS get you?
      - Android is showing diminishing quality of apps with increasing conflict. Windows has been there forever.
      - "Oh, you just need to ..." isn't preferable to "it just works" for most users, including most of us geeks who don't want to have to screw around with your app which wasn't even given a cursory independent stamp of "not blatantly broken".

      You want choice, you have choice: get a Droid. A lot of us appreciate a little formalized cooperation, at trivial cost, to ensure stupid code doesn't run rampant.

      • Re:Dear FSF (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AndrewNeo (979708) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:51AM (#30934124) Homepage

        I take it that you believe that the Ipad is just a large Ipod with additional functionality?

        It is. Same OS, same type of processor (ARM), same application development environment, same application set, same store restrictions. How is this not a bigger iPod Touch?

    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Thursday January 28 2010, @11:54AM (#30934182)

      I dont think the problem is as simplistic as you make it out to be. I have an iphone and I grudgingly accept its limitations because its a portable device that needs to be rock-solid and not randomly drain the battery on me, or whatever issues Apple has with multitasking.

      Ive been thinking of buying a tablet for some time and have remained somewhat open-minded about this tablet, but you cant sell me the exact same iphone model with simply a larger device. You cant tell me I cant have flash for something that will primarily be a web tablet. You cant expect people to buy flash apps turned into iphone apps for every site. You cant say "Well, its really an iphone, but its not, so when you complain just remember its an iphone sans phone." Its supposed to be a tablet computer not a super ipod touch. Perhaps they should have marketed it as an ipod for your grandpa like those giant remote controls.

    • by happyfrogcow (708359) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:09PM (#30934476)

      So I have to buy the hardware, then I have to buy the right to use the hardware in a way that I want to? I call BS.

      So many people are playing the "FSF is Looney" card. I fully support them in this effort to raise awareness.

    • by gyrogeerloose (849181) on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:25PM (#30934800) Journal

      Personally, I don't see the benefit of such a device - - i must not be the target demographic.

      Bingo--very few of us here on Slashdot are the in the target demographic for this device. We all want something we can play with, hack, turn into a toaster or whatever we choose to do with it. The thing we tend to lose sight of is this: the vast majority of computer users out there don't give a fuck about that! They want something that they can pick up and use without worrying about the nuts and bolts behind it and that's what Apple offers. The iPad is no more a general purpose computer than an iPod is; in fact, like an iPod, it's an appliance for viewing various sorts of media in a easy-to-use way and that's all a lot of people want. In fact, if I hadn't already given my wife my old MacBook, it would be the perfect device for her since all she does with her laptop is surf the Web, send an occasional e-mail and view stuff on YouTube--all things the iPad will no doubt excel at doing.

      Apple isn't going to sell many iPads to people like us but I'll bet they'll sell a lot of them to people like my wife.

      • by slim (1652) <john@NoSPAM.hartnup.net> on Thursday January 28 2010, @12:34PM (#30935020) Homepage

        "Can't you fix it so that I don't have to worry about that?"

        "Sorry, I can't fix anything. It's locked down to just do what it does."

        "Why doesn't the computer just do that for me?"

        "It does what the manufacturer made it do, we can't do a damn thing about it"

        "Just make it work, I don't care how, and I don't want to know."

        "It's a closed system. It just does what it does"

        See how those answers could be different for a reasonably open system? (not necessarily Open Source -- even Windows and OSX are open enough to improve those answers).