Doctorow on the iPad

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Trenien

Before the advent of devices that could play music for you, playing an instrument/singing together with friends/family was something very widely spread. It doesn't matter however badly it was done, or if people kept playing the same musics and song over and over again: it was creation on a very personal level.
It's only our modern society that has fostered the idea that professionally produced material is the only kind that is worth any sort of attention.

Fortunately, the advent of the internet has broken that mold. Take a look around, see what kind of stories, webcomics and so on exists, you'll be surprised. People want to create. Many, for whatever reason, will not have the drive to keep at it, or even to begin - creating is hard work. But if the environment you provide fosters such behavior, you'll see more and more people attempting to make something, just for the heck of it, for creating something is very rewarding.

Fundamentaly, Doctorow's critic is that a device such as the ipad is one step further toward making people into passive consumers: you are not supposed to create anything with it, you're just supposed to use it to buy, again and again (newspaper subscription, books, comics, movies, you name it). As is, you mostly can't make anything with it. It says something very interesting about Apple when Microsoft, of all companies, has a project with which (if it is ever released) is more geared toward you creating something with what you get out of the box.

Not wishing to sound cranky, but how many created a new song? That was the point I was trying to express. That level of creativity is not common.

The internet has given much wider access to such people, which is a good thing, but I don't think it has increase the ration of creative to non-ctreative people.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily make me right......

[PKFFW]

I'm not sure creativity and society as a whole will be stifled because the iPad is a closed set-up.

Just as I'm sure creativity and society as a whole will not come crashing down if we get rid of copyright or otherwise allow free reign on the copying and "sharing" of digital media.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Trenien

Fundamentaly, Doctorow's critic is that a device such as the ipad is one step further toward making people into passive consumers: you are not supposed to create anything with it, you're just supposed to use it to buy, again and again (newspaper subscription, books, comics, movies, you name it). As is, you mostly can't make anything with it.

While true, I really don't see anything wrong with that. You could say the same thing about radio, television, theatre, art galleries, and even such things as professional sports - all are there to be "consumed" rather than "participated in". There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of that.

[dadioflex]

Edit.

[Gurvan]

Just one question...

How many people buy a computer to actually program it ? Probably quite a lot less than the ones who use it to surf the web, play games and write some emails or do some personal accounting... Which, by the way, are things that you can do on an iPad...

Thus his point that the iPad will stifle creativity by not being open is not really valid... To publish on the iPad is a bit more complicated but also still possible. Fire up the SDK and start programming that next killer-app... Won't be easy but then nobody said creation had to be easy !

Frankly that piece of journalism really read like a "It was better before"... Coming from a supposedly young guy, it makes me sad !

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Gurvan

Fire up the SDK and start programming that next killer-app.

As long as Apple decides that the application doesn't compete with something of their own, or offends them in some way (such as "adult content".) Then, your killer-app will be tossed on the garbage heap by Apple and you will have no other option but to bend over, grab your ankles, and think of England. THAT is how Apple stifles creativity.

Path for making a PC program:

1. Write program
2. Make program available (be it through your web site, shareware sites, torrents, even retail if it is good enough.)

Path for making a iPod/iPhone/iPad program

1. Write program
2. Hope that Apple likes your program, because if they don't, you are SOL because there are no other distribution channels.

[DawnFalcon]

Moreover, Apple have been notable inconsistent with the way they've handled apps, have turned around and banned categories of apps one day without notice and given exceptions only to big corporate partners... etc.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Gurvan

Fire up the SDK and start programming that next killer-app...

I may be wrong about that, but I remember reading somewhere you had to pay to get the SDK and, in case, it doesn't give you access to all of the hardware (although I may be confusing it with another device)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/02...nt-either.html

(slow applause, quickly building in speed to a standing ovation)

Thanks for that link! On this he and I agree!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by riemann42

Here is the problem: If applications must be approved by Apple, and only sold by apple, and this is accepted, then real innovation is stifled, which is bad for progress. The argument isn't that it isn't a useful device, a fun device, what have you. It is that it is an unhealthy device for society and progress in general.

Let's back up and make an analogy. We all hate DRM, don't we? Imagine if every aspect of your computer had DRM?

Imagine if all innovation had to be approved by a single organization. Want firefox on your iPad? Too bad, duplicate functionality. Want flash. Too bad, Mr. Job's thinks it's glitchy and tacky. Want to develop your own application. Sure, just pay $99 a year, and agree not to share it with anyone else, unless Mommy Apple approves.

"Allowing" Kindle and Kobo apps is seen as an example of Apple being magnanimous. That's like praising a Dictator for allowing citizens to criticize the government if the critique is on an approved list.

We all understand the short term business reason for the Walled Garden. The problem is that it ends up being paternalistic and stifles progress for society as a whole.

So yeah, I think the iPad is unsuitable for as all, in the same way that I think government censorship is unsuitable for as all, even those of us who like what the government is doing.

Edit: Full disclosure: I have an iPhone. I jailbreak it so I can develop for it. I looked at programing for Android. It is 1000 times easier and fault: divide by zero times cheaper.

And that is what holds it back.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

... I'll be picking up my iPad today as a replacement for my Sony 505 eBook reader......

Be sure an let us know how well it works on the beach in bright sun light.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Trenien

I may be wrong about that, but I remember reading somewhere you had to pay to get the SDK and, in case, it doesn't give you access to all of the hardware (although I may be confusing it with another device)

The SDK is Mac-based, I think. I don't know whether it's a free SDK or not, but lots of software development tools cost money; I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Gurvan]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

...you will have no other option but to bend over, grab your ankles, and think of England. THAT is how Apple stifles creativity.

First of all, seeing where I live, I would most certainly NOT think of England in such a case !

Anyway, judging by the number of stupid apps around, that does not seem to play such a factor ! Because you seem to forget a factor here : "If your App is not approved, go out and sue Apple for violating human rights in the most public fashion !" That would at least, if your app is that good, make people listen to you...

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The SDK is Mac-based, I think. I don't know whether it's a free SDK or not, but lots of software development tools cost money; I don't see anything wrong with that.

The SDK is free. As are all the development tools for an Apple (XCode). You can develop and test your app for free. However, the distribute it you do need to pay a $99 fee. I'm not sure if it is one time or annual. (Of course the cost of (legitimate) entry is also buying a Mac. The least expensive one would be a Mini refurb for about $500.)

Of course, if you want to release it under Cydia for jail broken devices I think it is free. But, if you want to see it paying $99 to have access to 100 million plus potential customer seems a bargain.

BOb

[tyche]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The SDK is Mac-based, I think. I don't know whether it's a free SDK or not, but lots of software development tools cost money; I don't see anything wrong with that.

Yeah, take a look at what msdn costs for devs or Visual Studio by itself.

The Apple SDK is free. It's Mac only, it's their OSX based application software you are using. You can write your software but if you want to install it on your device(s) you need to be a developer. The cost is $99/year. With this you can use either the App Store or Ad Hoc (up to 100 devices) to push your apps. There is also an enterprise sub for about $300/year and you can install apps on in-house (company-wide) devices.

/edit Bob beat me too it