"The real disappointment is the fact that the device is locked down and we'll never get the chance to use it to innovate the way we interact with our real computers."
It's not a computer, though; it's a device. Apple doesn't want you to interact with it like a real computer.
It's disappointing but if you wait someone will come out with a computer that size and you'll get all of the interactivity you want from it. Hell, Dell has one in the wings.
I can live with a locked down device. I have a friend who may "love" such a feature, given her light use and the fact that her Windows PC has been wiped 4 times to remove malware.
But when such a device has the potential to take over the market and eliminate other channels of delivery and "ownership", I become very concerned. That's what most concerns me about the iPad; that in a year -- or more likely three -- I'll have to have one in order to access content. And then I'll only have a temporary, non-transferable, revocable-upon-whim license to said content. Bah.
I don't mind paying a reasonable amount. I do mind being locked in to whatever a monopoly dictates, in terms of cost but also in terms of rights. And I mind paying over and over and over for the same thing, as the platform changes.
And when "big media" so controls the content, what's to prevent the effective revision of history? What torture pictures? What treaty details? (What "Catcher In the Rye"?)
I guess some of us will have to resort to taking pictures of our iPads, just to document what was said. Let's just hope we're still able to do that.
(Finally, a personal grudge: I can tolerate advertisements, but ones involving motion and/or sound COMPLETELY distract me. Will the content become unusable for people like me, because the delivery channel forces an overwhelming level of distraction?)
I also hate the animated ads, and like most everyone else use Adblock or Ad-art. But on a completely locked down device it's highly unlikely that this type of customisation would be available to you, since ads of whatever annoyance level mean maximization of revenue.
Devices like iPad are exactly what "big media" want, and if we let them it's just what they'll get. Anything inconvenient, be it torture pictures, leaked information or whatever could be erased from millions of devices at the centralized click of a button. Think you own that library of ebooks you paid for? Think again. Want to transfer your content from one locked down device to another? You'll have to pay us first. Think you have any fair use rights whatever? Not on this device, baby.
Boo hoo... You proclaim that the problem with the iPad is the restricted environment for 3rd party applications, and then justify this by saying that the iPad would make a great multi-touch VNC client if only Apple would allow. I say "VNC client" instead of mouse because I think this accentuates the lack of creativity on your part in dealing with what are quite minor restrictions. Here are Apple's restrictions (simplified):
You can't write an arbitrary code execution environment.
You can't publish someone else's software.
Your software must carry an appropriate age rating.
Hardware devices have to go through the dock connector.
Only one app can run at a time.
You cannot access the data of other applications.
For a low resources, everyday user device, none of these are unreasonable. You can even run unsigned code on any device you want, it just costs you a developer license.
BTW, there are already both traditional VNC clients and multi-touch "mouse" applications for the iPhone.
I don't fully comprehend all the angst over the "closed" nature of the iPad. Where were all these people when Sony brought out the PS3? or when Microsoft brought out the Xbox? How about the Wii? DS? PSP? Amazon Kindle? Nook? All of these are specialized computing devices. All of them are officially "closed" (though a great many are hackable). The fact that those systems are closed dosen't threaten mainstream general purpose computers. Why should the iPad? It's a device built for a specific purpose: consuming entertainment and media content as well as some work-related tasks like email and word processing.
I am wondering what led you to expect that the ipad would be something different; was it apple's history of making non-locked-down devices? its tendency to produce metric truckloads of insanely popular consumer devices?
I am thinking of a general answer to posts of this sort: If you don't like it, don't buy it. And further, given the nature of this board, if you see a need (e. g., something people want), build it. Apple has seen a need, and it is building something that people want. You are seeing a need for something else, and it is possible that other people want it too, so why not go build it?
> I am wondering what led you to expect that the ipad would be something different; was it apple's history of making non-locked-down devices? its tendency to produce metric truckloads of insanely popular consumer devices?
I don't think I ever thought it would be open and hackable, however one can always hope!
In reality though, some piece of me always believed that the iPhone was so locked down for reasons of getting it on cellular networks who seem not be so keen on the idea of letting folks do as they please with their devices. I've heard that in years past, getting a developers kit for something like the motorola RAZR was impossible, though that was word of mouth.
And of course the iPad will have GSM support, so that may still remain true.
> I am thinking of a general answer to posts of this sort: If you don't like it, don't buy it.
I won't.
> And further, given the nature of this board, if you see a need (e. g., something people want), build it. Apple has seen a need, and it is building something that people want. You are seeing a need for something else, and it is possible that other people want it too, so why not go build it?
In this specific case, I don't know if there's a want for it aside from my own. It's my Pony. The biggest reason to not go build it is the threat of patents. But, that aside, I don't have the resources or know-how (easily obtained myself, or by partnering with someone who does of course).
There's no reason why Apple can't come out with higher priced "professional" versions which have an open sandbox, or which are totally unlocked. Alternatively, they can create an alternative site where devs can post unsigned apps, to be downloaded by others who have some sort of SDK-installed sandbox.
So long as they can keep such things separate from their walled garden of an App Store, they can maintain the seamless user experience for the end-user consumers.
A virtualized "sandbox" could have a bandwidth-rate cap built into it, so the concern about "protecting the mobile network" could also be satisfied.
Yeah, but there's no reason to think that they will either. In fact, I would highly doubt that they'd do that given that they haven't for the iPhone and they're notoriously minimalistic when it comes to making different versions of the same product.
It's very misguided to extrapolate in that way from the iPhone. After all, it's a phone! That is its primary function. It's just dandy that the iPhone can also act as a powerful information tool.
This thing, it's an information tool first and foremost. Also, professionals are willing to pay top dollar. Apple already makes lots of unlocked top-dollar hardware aimed at creative professionals.
But the real kicker -- Apple could sell almost the exact same hardware, with a few tweaks. Voila, a new product with even higher margins.
It's not a computer, though; it's a device. Apple doesn't want you to interact with it like a real computer.
It's disappointing but if you wait someone will come out with a computer that size and you'll get all of the interactivity you want from it. Hell, Dell has one in the wings.