Apples iPad is here. It starts at $499. Its a gorgeous, brilliantly-designed device that has the benefits of Apples cleverly-engineered, best-in-class developer tools for mobile. A lot are likely to sell. And unfortunately, to me that means bad news for the kind of creative computing we talk about on this site.
To put it briefly, I think the new, mobile Apple is doing immense harm to the computing legacy the company has forged. We could have had a Mac tablet today. Instead, we have a giant iPhone and thats a decision that has some serious repercussions. Its a blow to open source alternatives, but also to open development in general: the power of interchangeable hardware and software, on which everything we do with music and visuals on computers is based.
For years, the Mac community railed against the perceived closed nature of Microsoft. Now, many are rallying behind an Apple with a vision more closed than Redmonds.
This is important to both CDMs, because its on both these sites that I, along with readers and contributors, have advocated open computing as a creative outlet, for creation, sharing, and distribution of music, visuals, and knowledge.
Im entirely biased by my own perspective. There are certain things I care about, that I believe in. I can talk about the technical, measurable values of each of those, but I can only speak for myself. With that in mind, the iPad, in a single device, embodies the exact opposite of all the reasons Ive invested so much time in computing for the last 25 years...
Limitations are a wonderful thing. Specialized operating systems for mobile make perfect sense. But thats a design decision its about the interface, the developer tools, the hardware. A mobile device can work just as well without being tied to iTunes or with actual ports on it.
I know what the objection will be: but this computer isnt for people like me. But thats the whole problem. Apple threatens to split computing into two markets, one for traditional, real computers, and another for passive consumption devices that try to play games without physical controls and let you read books, watch movies, play music, and run apps so long as youre willing to go through the conduit of a single company.
And, of course, this wouldnt be worth my breath if not for my real concern: what if Apple actually succeeds? What if competitors follow this broken path, or fail to offer strong alternatives? The iPad today is a heck of a lot slicker than alternatives. Its bad news for Linux, Windows, and Android, none of which have really workable competitors yet. Its especially bad for Linux, in fact, which had a real chance to make its mark on mobile devices.
These issues have always been a matter of open debate. Jean-Louis Gassée infamously got an OPEN MAC license plate for his car during the early days of Apple Macintosh. The open vision was the vision we got. Its the Mac II. Its the expansion capabilities of the Mac that allowed PostScript support, which let the Mac launch computer desktop publishing and ensured the survival of the platform. And it was a vision in contrast to that of one (younger) Steve Jobs, who argued against expansion and nearly made the Mac a failure, another forgotten 80s oddity. It was after Jobs was forced out of the company that the Mac platform, the Mac community as we now know it were really forged, built on the expansion and flexibility those later Macs offered. That expansion port was what enabled early products from Digidesign, which would later become Pro Tools the very birth of digital audio production.
Like I said, Im biased by my own opinion. But itd be unfair, after years of being hard on small developers when it comes to issues of openness, if I held back here. This is the worlds self-proclaimed largest mobile manufacturer, the company that, as it reminds us in every press release, launched the computing revolution. I wish I understood why they were now running away from some of the basic ideas that made that revolution possible...
