Mon 5 Apr 2010
Everyone knows the iPad – Apple’s newest toy, a crossover between an iPhone and a computer. It is nice, sleek, innovative and will sell like hot cakes (in fact, it already does). But there is one paradigm change it pushes that I find troubling: Apple’s software distribution system.
Ever since “personal computers” (as they were called back then) made it to people in late 70-ies owners could load whatever software they wanted onto their machines. They could code their own, buy a copy or upload a shared (“pirated”) software. Whatever they wanted. No one knew what they have on their machines and no one could change that.
Apple’s model is that you can only get software from the central App Store run by Apple. Period. You can’t download off the Internet. You can’t buy a box at a media market nearby. You can’t use Open Source stuff from someone’s site. And you can’t make your own – unless you have another full-blown Apple computer and sign up for a special account in the Apple Dev program. That means your machine is no more entirely yours, it’s just a terminal to a store with shiny toys you have to pay for. And Big Brother Steve controls what toys are there.
This also affects the software business by introducing a new risk for software vendors. Normally your sales don’t depend on the operating system or machine maker. They can intimidate you, buy you out, introduce nasty tricks in the OSs new release you will have to work around, introduce their own bundled, free product to compete with yours (IE) but they don’t control your distribution. Host OS vendor could make your life harder but not kill you overnight.
Numerous times I’ve read complaints about Microsoft being a bullying, ugly monopolist – in fact I wrote a couple myself – but even in the maddest fit of furry Steve Ballmer can’t pull the plug on your entire business just like that. Steve Jobs can and will, with a smile. One day you might be selling hundreds of downloads of your app on the App Store and the next day your revenue stream is gone and your business with it. If that doesn’t make Apple an evil monopolist I don’t know what else they have to do to earn the title.
To be fair Apple didn’t invent this model. It was first introduced on a large scale by Amazon with their Kindle device. It is in fact a terminal to a paid library of books you can’t ever really own – you just rent them at a price to read them (I think Amazon’s stating that you “buy” them is misleading advertising). It is the ultimate perversion of the great concept of public libraries on steroids. Apple just applied that first to iPhone with great results and now it tries to do the same with computing. I’m afraid it won’t end with the iPad…
The thing is I can whine on my blog, and so can others, but this won’t change anything. The carrot, the bait is too big for both consumers and vendors. Consumers get easiest possible way to get software, vendors get instant access to huge market. So everyone will, sadly, play along. It could have been done better – for example through a community-run “App Store” or something – but for the time being the only thing I can do is buy a Linux-powered netbook and thus revert to my roots.
April 8th, 2010 at 10:52
It actually touches things on a more principal level, but the choir in white plastic cases will sing the praise and drown out any concerns.
The principal level? It is easier to be a satisfied consumer than a thinking citizen.
Ubuntu FTW.
April 8th, 2010 at 13:29
Thank you! Your blog post touched on the single, most important reason why I shun Apple products – proprietary control over information. There should never be a gate keeper other than one’s own personal choice. It stifles the voices of creativity, all but Apple’s that is.
April 8th, 2010 at 16:08
There is Rockbox to replace iPod’s firmware and get access to your files around the iTunes, if you don’t like apple’s way of doing things. There will be soon something to hack iPad — I’m pretty sure.
April 8th, 2010 at 16:31
I know you hack your way around this, but this is not the point. Also, I’m not sure I want to give (more) money to a company that wants to do such things.
April 8th, 2010 at 20:16
I’ve always had misgivings about spending too much money for a dongle to run an OS and canned products.
April 8th, 2010 at 20:18
An argument in favour of this level of control is that it prevents malware, viruses and botnets. I am not ignorant enough to believe that information control is a new thing or is getting significantly worse through the app store concept. We still don’t know much about most things that are really of importance because there are “institutions” that maintain information control and have so throughout the ages irrespective of technologies. Apple’s not one of them.
For me the choice is having to worry about unwanted invaders doing things to and with my device without my knowledge or Apple knowing what I load onto my phone. Call me weird, but to me the latter is the lesser evil. But if you beg to differ, there soon will be plenty of alternatives.
April 11th, 2012 at 7:01
I agree with Andy’s mind. Though an old post, it is on the first page in Google for “Ipad is evil” – never thought of such a keyword untill i learnt recently that one teen ager in china sold his kidney for an ipad and iphone and is now struggling with kidney failure.
the filter bubble book is also loosely related though the internet is not as cynical yet and there are still options to go around. But with such platforms in the foray… I think even searching for “open source software” using a web browser would mean “hacking” as it has become of now as for installing a software of choice on a Rs 40k device. Of course malware and virus are there but think about icloud and ivendor and iapp and to scale to millions they might bring in some to technology to “peer host” cloud storage for “approved applications” “available via appstore” and voila… there you go – i have a door to malware/worms/virus. Even as-is all this security is only untill someone finds a way inside-out. The problem is more in ownership degrees. If I buy a device at that price – i would like to use it any possible means I can with resources I can afford. Though I can afford an iPad… i didn’t put my money in their because the ecosystem is cynical. Apple is imposingly distrustful of independant software vendors… and spreads that culture to it’s loyal customers – and they are loyal because they “like” it. But the above news and a lot more I have come across like that – proves that the product has created a rift in the society. There are the “iPeople” and then there are others who are being ridiculed by the iPeople if they tell “i do this and that with my non-i stuff”. This is a rift. And there are other people who think iPeople are cool and feel bad that they are not compliant. And that is again a rift. The touted iQuality is also only a song of the people who are bought-in to the belief and the actual quality – if u approach rationaly to it – is only ranging from average to v.good across different aspects. Which is the same for almost all the products in the market. But the narcisstic marketing and the cynical design makes a huge difference in what the iPeople believe and reflects a lot in their attitude when exhibit a product. I had two friends arguing about the picture quality of another camera phone(apparently the best one from a photography point of view – the guy uses this as a quick shorter for his journalist interests when he prefers timing over SLR-ish quality – carries an SLR and this phone together with him.) against the one from an iPhone 4s. the iPerson is not ready to accept the glaring difference in image quality(by every aspect of photographic sense – colour, lighting, focus, distortion etc etc.) and despite evidence – fails to believe. Now that: is creating the rift – Not a healthy sign from a social point of view.