Are there no longer people around that can create or fix TV’s? Of course there are. Just because a device is closed, doesn’t absolutely ensure it will never be understood enough to allow for developers, engineers, programmers and tinkerers to understand, fix, remake or generally work with it on any level other than using it as intended.

Being closed just puts up a wall that prevents casual inspection of what’s beneath. There’s already a fine example of this in action with game consoles. They don’t reveal any of the inner workings to the end0user but we still have a vibrant community of developers creating software for it. There are official channels you need to go down to develop for it but the channels are there and the closed nature of the system doesn’t prevent anyone from developing for it if they want to.

The same applies to Apples ipad. It’s closed but you can still develop for it if you want to.

Now the special circumstance of giving an ipad to a child as their only computing device. That requires more thought. As a secondary device to a main computer it’s a great idea, but on its own? I guess I’d have to decide that on a by case basis. If it were my son or daughter I’d be asking myself if they show any signs of wanting to be a tinkerer. If that’s a big no then really the ipad seems ideal for them.

This idea that you have to go through some kind of forced basic training with computers to make you understand the innards. Forcing some required path to go on to develop for it, well that’s just some bullsh*t that is.

What I can’t work out is why Apple and other companies try and enforce this lock down so strictly. I mean I understand the reason for a closed and controlled system. It relieves any need on the part of the user to have to manage it. No security software to find, no worries about setting up firewalls, no worries about having to defrag or any worries at all beyond just enjoying the apps that come with it or those that have been approved as safe for you to install. I get it.
But why enforce that on people who don’t want it? Let the thing be more easily crackable for the small community that want that. I’ve never understood why the Xbox and PS3 do the same thing and practically outlaw the idea.

Take games as a great example of where closed systems can benefit from being allowed to be opened. Valve, the makers of Half Life ship products that are closed. But if you know where you look you can easily find mods for their games and a whole community exists around this company that cracks open the games and remakes them in whatever way seems cool to do at the time.

Everybody wins in the above example. If you just want to play a stable game that works as intended, you can do that. Tinkerers can install mods and open the game up in ways the developers may never have had time or the inclination to include. Both communities exist and work well. Neither interfere with the other and Valve understand intimately that this cracking community actually benefit them. They keep commercial games selling that have long become tired and jaded. Keep them alive with new content that gets written at no cost to Valve.

Apply this idea to the ipad. Ship it closed, take care of that big community that actually would prefer it closed, but let the hackers open it up and fiddle with it and you’ll be amazed at what cool other things the ipad will end up doing that Apple never thought of, or have time to do.

Will this affect the moms and pops that just want to write email and read the digital newspapers? Absolutely not. Will it harm Apple in any way other than increasing sales to the tinkerers who now see it as a platform they can tinker on? Again, absolutely not.

So where is the harm?

The iPad is enough of a step up from the iPod Touch and iPhone and provides all of the killer apps that define it as a computer for that 95%. If the iPad is ‘good enough’ as a computer for this group then there is a real danger that it will replace the real PC in many homes.

Now, I’m not concerned about “today’s tinkerers”; the people who read Smarterware or TechCrunch or anyone with the balls to jailbreak their iPhone or iPad. My concern is for the kids who will be growing up with iPad (or it’s progeny) as the only computer in the house. They will never have the opportunity to become tinkerers.

Of course that’s a whole business model, but I think companies should embrace and organize hacking of their products, because the easier hacking is, the more people can do it.

Apple should consider that hackers are often also developers.

i use macs occasionally at work, and i would like to do more with them in civilian life. i already have a ton of linux and windows gear and it’s tough to justify the expense of a mac when i can build 2-4 PCs for the price of a mac desktop, and buy 2 nice laptop PCs for the price of a macbook.

apple refuses to make an affordable tower or notebook and at the same time does its best to thwart hackintoshing and this leaves me disappointed. my hackintosh is ok, but would have been nice to have an entry level macOS device.

i don’t care about iphones or ipods. i tried to configure my wife’s ipod touch for google talk and was astounded at how difficult it was to do. at that point i knew i would never own an iphone or ipod because it looks to me like they are meant for people who have more money than technical ability or common sense.

i am all for a good philosophical discussion about open vs. closed systems and hacking, but my disappointment in the ipad is mostly that i want to buy an affordable device to run macOS.

While this category of device is well-overdue, and lots of people have been working on similar concepts (and I do think there’s a market out there for it, even if we don’t know it yet), Apple have broken with tradition and pre-announced a device that they can’t ship yet. This seems to show that they’re very aware of the impending explosion of such devices, and want to be seen as first mover, with all the advantages this entails.

The problem is, when you get this kind of lock-in on mindshare, it’s hard for others to get a look-in. And if the geeks and thought leaders in tech, who would *rather* buy an ‘open’ device (however you choose to define that), end up saying, “the hell with it, I won’t wait, it’s a sexy device and it does so many things right (and I can hack it too)”, well… what market does it leave for those other devices we’d like to see? Not a lot, unfortunately. And Apple have been very clever with the aggressive price point these things start at… this is impulse-buy territory.

If everyone buys the device with the lock-in, and buys into the services with the lock-in, we lose choice. And while the argument that ‘we can hack it’ does have some validity today, will it always? What if somebody brings out a new system that can’t be hacked – at least, within the useful life of the device, and in a simple practical way? It changes the landscape.

It’s been suggested, too, that this device moves us further away from the cloud, not closer. I’m not sure that’s entirely true, but I do know I’d feel more comfortable about being able to avail of my choice of different cloud-based platforms, and they being equal citizens, on a more open device.

So, what I wanted to say, there is a way to fight this. A despotic model Apple adopted would not be possible if there were not legal grounds for it. Screaming at Apple does not work, obviously.

You may argue that market will take care of itself, like it did with Internet Explorer (decision of EU commission came years late and at current market situation seems to be totally unnecessary) – but in Windows, there is not a single egocentric icon that decides which apps I can install.

I am starting to suspect, that disguised under “delivering the best user experience” Jobs might be enjoying not only his money, but his god-like powers even more.

It’s not the savior of the world, it’s not the devil incarnate, it’s just a friggin’ iPod folks! It’s not the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I think it was ever intended to be. It’s not an open platform, and I doubt anyone seriously should have thought it would be. Why would anyone of reasonable intelligence and a grip on their emotions believe that a large iPod would suddenly operate under different principles than it’s smaller kin? When WAS the last time you saw a zebra change it’s stripes?

For some, the closed environment will provide the reliability and stability they seek – they want an appliance, not a weekend/weekly project. For others it will provide the reason they seek not to own one. Good for both groups. Some people need that automatic transmission because life is too hectic to care about the clutch, gears, and all that stuff. Some prefer to shift for themselves and the added feeling of control that provides. Neither is wrong, just different.

Each of us has our own needs. No one I’ve yet crossed paths with has reached the needed deity level required to make all encompassing decisions for others. Apple is wrong for doing it, as were Microsoft, IBM, and oh so many others before them, AND SO ARE THOSE WHO WOULD DENY THIS DEVICE TO THOSE TO WHOM IT COULD BE A USEFUL TOOL.

Personally, I see it as a tool to generate more competition in this mid-range hardware/software market. Competition is GOOD – generates new ideas, better performance, standards compliance, and even redefines and expands those standards as demand for new technologies and methodologies become more mainstream.

All in all, it’s just another new product on the market. Apple, believe it or not, is just another company who is trying to make a buck and keep doing so by not becoming stagnant (ala Motorola’s tendency to stop developing new products every few years and then nearly bankrupt the company in so doing). Steve Jobs is not God. He’s just a guy who is a good salesman and knows good design. Read more into him (or Apple) than that and we have the reason so many people are so disappointed I guess. These people probably also believe every whopper the used car salesman drops on them.

I might remind the doom and gloom crowd that when PCs first came out and for several years thereafter, IBM had such tight control over how compatible competitors could be, they effectively had a strangle hold on the market. You could buy Radio Shack/Tandy or a multitude of other knock offs, but each had different limitations in that they were not 100% compatible. Contrast that with today’s wide open x86 derivative marketplace. Keeping an iron fist only works for so long whether it is ruling technology or countries/people. It’s destined to fail, since there is always some revolution or another just around the corner waiting to happen. Thousands of years of recorded history proves this out.

Some of us would seem to need to take a break and relax out in the wilds of society also. Staying cooped up in Geek land isn’t healthy. Having spent a stint recently working directly with the public repairing computers, I can tell you that the average person is far more interested in getting their email, Facebook, Twitter, IM, porn, games, etc, than tweaking their OS or machine. To borrow Gina’s car analogy again, most people want a reliable daily driver, but the grease monkeys prefer the classic car they can restore to their exact specifications. It’s not a black and white universe folks, one stance does not prevent the need for the other, and there are millions of shades of gray between the two.

In fact, the older I get, the more I find a foot in each camp (both cars and technology, sometimes a project or tweaking just the right setup is nice, other times no maintenance is the theme de jour). Life is short, use your limited time here wisely. When you’re on your deathbed, hopefully a great many years in the future, will it have made a difference whether you could change the background image of your iPad ever so exactly just so? Or was it that you could do a bit of research and come up with that cure to cancer that is more important?

And if anyone seriously thinks I expect a cure to cancer to be made on an iPad, please go back on your medications and think about some in patient time in those nice rooms with the padded wallpaper.