When it comes to Apple-watchers, they don’t get much more thoughtful or insightful than John Gruber of Daring Fireball.
So when Apple unveiled its long-awaited iPad device today, we knew who to call.
A shorter version of Nora’s interview with John will air on Spark 101, but you can hear the full, uncut interview below, or download the MP3. [runs 15:43]
Play audio:
If you like hearing these extended interviews, why not subscribe to Spark Plus? You’ll get regular weekly episodes, plus additional blog-only content like this. [Subscribe via RSS] or [Subscribe with iTunes]
A messages from the FSF said it as good as I could:
"Today, Apple launched a computer that will never belong to its owner. Apple will use Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to gain total veto power over the applications you use and the media you can view."
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5113
Another locked device where someone else holds the keys. This is a device I won't be considering for purchase or use (even if handed for free).
Game changer? This tablet isn't new or interesting, except in how Apple is tethering it such that they rather than the owner will control it. Apple is then able to sell this remote-control to other business partners (content industry, etc). How do people feel about Apple selling to third parties the control which the owners should have?
I am looking for a tablet, and with all the unlocked Android based ones launched at CES there will be many to choose from.
This guy is a complete Apple fanboy. Why did CBC interview this moron again?
Thanks for your comment, Andre.
If you're familiar with John Gruber's work, then you'll know that yes, he is an enthusiastic user of Apple products. That said, he's certainly not shied away from critiquing Apple's products and decisions.
Spark is a program that tries very hard to look beyond product announcements, gadget reviews, and "tech for tech's sake." We aim for the bigger picture, and I think that's what we got with this interview.
When it comes to covering something like the iPad announcement, I'll take the thoughtfulness of John Gruber over the collective, "Ooooh shiny!" of many other gadget-watchers any day.
Dan,
I believe it is good to interview fans of these products, especially those who believe they "think different" when in fact what they want is for Apple to do all the thinking for them. This is a product where Apple hides the OS and locks it down so the owner isn't in control. This is the ultimate in outsourced IT to the cloud without fans even realizing they are doing this.
That Apple fans don't even realize they are outsourcing their IT decisions into the cloud is an important thing to report on. This is why you covered the dark side of cloud computing in a recent show. Hopefully there will be followups to talk about the dark side of other outsourcing of IT decision making, with Apple being the extreme of remote control. We need people to recognize that it is the question of who controls the software and not the geography of the disks that matters.
That said, you did get an "Ooooh shiny!" review from this person. From a hardware point of view this is just yet another touch tablet, and "touching it" only changes it from being a big-iPod touch for those who are fans of Apple and are OK their business practices.
John Gruber is an Apple enthusiast. But his analysis is very thoughtful. For example, in the interview he does say things like "I may be wrong…", "I don't know if it will be disruptive…". Pure fanboys would not say such things.
Secondly, Gruber does take Apple to task when he deems it necessary. For example, here is Phil Schiller's response to Gruber's take on the App Store process: http://j.mp/9vXkKO
I agree with Gruber as much as I disagree with him. But I always appreciate his thoughtful analysis.
We're back up and running now. Thanks WP Super Cache.
I have seen this product demoed, and to me, it is a "super sized" version of the iTouch. While Apple does make some great products, and has won awards for its cutstomer service, I do not like where the market is going for this product.
Touch screens and tablets are nothing new. Hewlett-Packard offered a touch screen PC back in the late 1980s, namely the HP 150 model that ran MS-DOS, has 3.5-inch floppy drives, and a touch screen monitor for input, in addition to the keyboard. (3.5 inch floppies were a new concept at that time). Also, Hewlett-Packard manufactured computers with graphics tablets in that decade for engineering.
At Valparaiso University (where I went to school in the mid to late 1980s), we have several HP workstations with graphics tablets, and some of the HP 150 models in the computer lab. These were used primarily by College of Engineering students.
If I wanted a tablet PC, I would purchase one of the Hewlett-Packard or Lenovo models and install Fedora 12 (or another Linux distribution) on it. (Fedora has support for Tablet PCs out of the box.) rather than spending the money on an iPad.
Hey Russell McOrmond, I hope you use a Lemote Yeelong like Richard Stallman, anything else is heresy for a Free Software Fanatic.
You can be against the fact that the iPad is not 100% free software, but to dismiss it's quality or importance based on that criteria alone is pure narrow-mindedness.
Here is something you (and other quick-opinionated people) should read:
http://cruftbox.com/blog/archives/001592.html#001…
This isn't about Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS). It is about it being a tethered device where all software choices (regardless of the license, FLOSS or non-FLOSS) is being made by someone other than the "owner" of the device.
I don't fault individual technology owners for making the choice of non-FLOSS, but I do fault corporations and governments which remove that choice.
Like discussing politics in the context of whether a country is democratic or under a dictator, it is legitimate to be "quick-opinionated" when the other details are minor or insignificant in comparison.
http://yehudakatz.com/2010/01/27/the-irony-of-the…
So if I understand you correctly, you don't like the iPad because the only way to add applications is via the App Store, compared to Windows or Mac OS where you can run any app you download from the net or build yourself?
Also, you say Apple is "is tethering it such that they rather than the owner will control it". So while you can only run iPhone OS (AFAIK) on the iPad, Apple doesn't "remote control" the iPad once you buy it. Apple can't install remote updates, unless you allow it. Apple can't spy on your usage habits. You are free to jailbreak it if you wish.
One last minor point, but the iPad isn't just "another touch tablet" from a hardware point of view. If its touch screen is as good as the iPhone (most probably), it's one of the best in the industry. See http://labs.moto.com/diy-touchscreen-analysis/
Also, one of the recurring comments about people who have used the iPad is that it's very fast, no doubt because of the custom processor Apple built for it.
Disappointing how he seems so behind the product while it so clearly falls way short. Even as a ebook reader it only supports one format. Such a failure. Nice if you want your life to be under control of Apple I guess. He keeps talking about the speed of the browser. But makes no mention that it doesn't run flash in the broswer. Or that it doesn't multitask.
At least with any other pc laptop, netbook or other product, I could install what I want on it and not have to be over charge by accessories. I could have a choice. Apple takes away our freedom and leaves me with the only choice which is not to support them in the future. They need to open up. It seems to counter productive to run a company like that, and so opposite of the image Apple tries so hard to represent.
Since 2001, the iPod has always been closed. So the fact that the iPod touch is closed is nothing new. Personally, I don't mind having closed "satellite" devices, as long as I have full control of my main desktop computer.
What is the problem with being more open? It harder to create easy to use devices. By controlling the app distribution channel, Apple ensures you never get any malicious apps or viruses on your iPod touch.
I would be great to have some sort of "advanced mode" that you could enable the Pod touch/iPad. This would give you the freedom to install any app you wish.
That sounds like a good idea. However, do not expect Apple to implement such a feature for obvious reasons. Let us not forget that Compaq Computer Corporation came to being back in 1982 when the people who started that company created a IBM-PC clone without EVER seeing the original specifications of the IBM-PC, and without reverse engineering the original IBM-PC BIOS, yet they were able to implement a clone that functions as close as you can get to the original IBM-PC.
The philisophy Apple takes for its new gadgets is the same philosophy IBM took for its machines built from the 1950s to the early 1990s, before IBM spun off its Personal Computer division. (Today's IBM is more open than ever when it comes to development of technologies.)
Note that Apple DOES have competition for its products. If you do not wish to purchase an iPhone, you can always opt for a Palm Pre, a Blackberry, an Android-powered phone. If you do not wish to deal with iTunes, you can always purchase a standard music player and go to Jamendo, Magnatune, ccMixter or Freesound and download your music there.
Re: Competition.
While Apple is one of the worst offenders, and exists in a distortion field where its fans get angry at you if you mention the emperor has no cloths, they are not alone. This is why gradual changes in what people are willing to accept trouble me.
A few days ago I was pointed to an article on SlashDot talking about Rogers imposing a Rogers-manipulated/infected firmware change on Android users — including those with unsubsidised phones.
It is disturbing to me that I didn't hear much about this elsewhere the media. This wouldn't be the case if the same thing were happening outside of digital technology.
Say the phone company said that as a condition of providing phone service you needed to give them a copy of the key to your home. That way they could come in any time without your permission to "fix" any problems with the phone service (and anything else they felt like doing in your home while they are there).
People would be rightly upset and if the policy was pushed it would end up in the courts and parliaments with laws clarified and/or passed against the practise pretty quickly.
But if you do this with digital technology you get piles of apologists claiming that there is no problem — or to just switch vendors. They remain unconcerned about the gradual social and legal trend towards accepting the unacceptable.
I suspect it has something to do with the immaturity in societies thinking about digital technology. The problem is that some pretty nasty social behaviour might become commonplace before people have a chance to understand the repercussions.
Sorry for the spelling errors. Typing on tiny keyboard is tough, should of used the spell check.
I used to like Apple though, but it's hard not to notice how controlling Steve is with the company and products. What is the problem with being more open? I got a ipod touch recently and was going nuts until I was able to jailbrake it and feel like it was my own again. Even looking at the apps you can run once you jailbrake the device shows how many features apple has forbidden us to use. Why?
It really makes me sad, and it keeps getting worse. I hope someone new will come into the company and get back to Steve Wozniak's original dream of sharing. Why was that dream so lost upon Apple?
Part of this is because Apple is competing not only with Google, Nokia (of which Apple had to say a substantial amount to for patent violations regarding the iPhone), Motorola (which used to be the supplier of microprocessors for Macintosh and Apple II systems), Palm, and of course Microsoft, the latter of which Apple has been a nemesis from the very beginning.
Of course, Apple has always appealed to the education and visual and audible arts markets. Much of the niche for those systems are people who want something that is easy to use, and do not need to learn a programming language, or even know how to fix a computer. The slogan "the computer for the rest of us" refers to that niche, and that tradition carried on to the gadget market.
Today's iMacs are as open as ever, when compared to previous Macintosh systems. iMacs include language compilers and development tools. All you need to do is add Fink or some other X Toolkit to be able to port Linux/UNIX software to Mac OS-X. You do not get ANY development tools with any version of Windows. Hence Apple is more open in that sense when compared to Microsoft.
from the article:
"With the iPad, Apple has created two platforms. First, they have produced a heavily proprietary, native platform that requires Apple approval and has significant Apple restrictions. But ironically, with their heavy focus on improving the quality of Safari and the HTML standard, they have shipped the iPad with a platform based on open, unencumbered technologies.
…Apple has remained at the forefront of these technologies, literally building some of them for mobile devices (hardware-accelerated animations were built for the iPhone, and by extension, the iPad). The Open Source Webkit project has remained extremely active, and in fact, has only accelerated progress since Apple first released its Native SDK, so Apple’s 'locked down' strategy has a very carefully carved out intentional exception."
This is why I suggested to someone else that this debate isn't about whether the software was Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) or non-FLOSS. It is not the choice of what license agreement software is under that matters, but who is making that choice.
As we have seen with the TiVO and many other technologies dependant on FLOSS, it is possible to use FLOSS to build a device that doesn't respect the rights of the owner of the device.
While there was an attempt to fix this legal loophole with GPLv3, these licensing enhancements don't apply to a majority of FLOSS software — and definitely not any of the FLOSS that Apple, Microsoft or other similar companies use.
It's amazing how many people have opinions about the iPad without having used it yet. I think the product is a game changer with great potential that hasn't been realized yet.
Steve Jobs isn't forcing anyone to use an Apple product that will spy on you (Russell, you sound just a wee bit paranoid). You can always buy a Zune or an HP 150 or a Palm Pre. The fact is that Apple is an innovative company that changes the way we use technology.
Microsoft or Samsung would kill to have just a little bit of Apple's success with innovative products or ideas, instead they just copy them.
BTW, Russell, you sound a little paranoid to me
*smiles*
I'm not paranoid, just possibly a little older than some of the Apple fans here. I remember when Apple copied the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) interface from Xerox and made it more mainstream commercially successful. I remember when Microsoft came around and copied it again, but was a far more open platform so developers moved from Apple to Microsoft.
At that time (and this is only the 1980's) few gave Microsoft much attention, and would never have predicted the influence this company would have on the industry. The rest was, as they say, history.
(Back then I was an Amiga fan, and thus never really got emotionally invested in any of the tech companies that survived into the 1990's)
I agree with you that what Apple is doing is potentially a game changer. Where we might disagree about is whether this is for the better or for the worse.
I don't need to use (or be used by) the gadget to contemplate its impact, as I don't think the most relevant impact has anything to do with what you can see or touch on its surface.
I have spent a lot of time in the last decade discussing these issues with other citizens, authors, lawyers, politicians and government bureaucrats. The conversations I have participated in over that decade would give anyone reason to be concerned. I realise many are looking only at the shiny surface of this device (most only having seen pictures) and haven't been in these policy meetings, which is why I'm trying to let people know about what is going on behind the scenes.
You're a good sport Russell. I actually remember when Apple copied Xerox and rolled the interface into the Lisa!
As a graphic designer and web developer, I'm an Apple fanboy at heart. I can't help it. When I was at York University in the late 80s/early 90s I got to see some of the Apple Computer Knowledge Navigator videos (which have evolved into the iPad).
I agree with some of the comments you've left here and I understand where you're coming from in terms of policy and openness in terms of technology.
Thanks for your insightful comments here.
In fact, Xerox DID patent the graphical interface back in 1968. Sadly for them, that company never took action againat Apple nor Microsoft for implementing the graphical interfaces we use, nor did they take action against MIT for development of the X Window System (back in 1984).
As a result, we have Windows and Mac OS-X for commercial GUI implementations, and we have X.org, and its subsequent projects such as GNOME, KDE, WindowMaker, AfterStep, and Enlightenment as a complete open source implementation of how we interact with our computers.
I remember the Lisa all too well. When Steve Jobs left Apple the first time, he formed NeXT (this was in 1988), and came up with a hardware and software solution that was hardware compatible with the Macintosh, yet ran on the Mach kernel. Having read "The NeXT Book", I was impressed with what that system had to offer.
The NeXT system cost $5,000 USD, and included a CPU, housed in a 6 inch cube that was placed under your desk. The machine had 16MB of RAM, 20GB hard drive, an optical drive that functions similar to a CD-RW, but the discs came in enclosed cartridges. (CD-ROM drives were not around at that time.) This was back in 1988!
As for software, NeXTStep was the operating system, and was built on the Mach (UNIX) kernel. This is the same kernel used in today's Mac OS-X systems.
The graphical interface was very innovative at its time. Right clicking on the desktop brought up the system menu, and there was a dock on the upper right hand corner where you placed frequently used applications. This is the same interface implemented in WindowMaker for Linux/UNIX systems.
Like today's iMacs, the NeXT system came with development tools, notably the GNU Compiler Collection and GNU development tools. Objective-C was the official programming language of NeXT, and is the official programming language of the iPhone, iTouch, iPad, and of course today's iMacs.
Yes, Objective-C is also available with many Linux distributions.
In fact, it was a NeXT system that was used to develop the first web browser (Mosaic). As for notable applications, Lotus Improv, a quite innovative spreadsheet program, was also available for NeXT in addition to the Windows 3.x version (which also runs on WINE and OS/2's Windows 3.x support).
Given this history, we can see how innovative Apple really is today.
In fact, Xerox DID patent the graphical interface back in 1968. Sadly for them, that company never took action againat Apple nor Microsoft for implementing the graphical interfaces we use, nor did they take action against MIT for development of the X Window System (back in 1984).
As a result, we have Windows and Mac OS-X for commercial GUI implementations, and we have X.org, and its subsequent projects such as GNOME, KDE, WindowMaker, AfterStep, and Enlightenment as a complete open source implementation of how we interact with our computers.
I remember the Lisa all too well. When Steve Jobs left Apple the first time, he formed NeXT (this was in 1988), and came up with a hardware and software solution that was hardware compatible with the Macintosh, yet ran on the Mach kernel. Having read "The NeXT Book", I was impressed with what that system had to offer.
The NeXT system cost $5,000 USD, and included a CPU, housed in a 6 inch cube that was placed under your desk. The machine had 16MB of RAM, 20GB hard drive, an optical drive that functions similar to a CD-RW, but the discs came in enclosed cartridges. (CD-ROM drives were not around at that time.) This was back in 1988!
As for software, NeXTStep was the operating system, and was built on the Mach (UNIX) kernel. This is the same kernel used in today's Mac OS-X systems.
The graphical interface was very innovative at its time. Right clicking on the desktop brought up the system menu, and there was a dock on the upper right hand corner where you placed frequently used applications. This is the same interface implemented in WindowMaker for Linux/UNIX systems.
Like today's iMacs, the NeXT system came with development tools, notably the GNU Compiler Collection and GNU development tools. Objective-C was the official programming language of NeXT, and is the official programming language of the iPhone, iTouch, iPad, and of course today's iMacs.
Yes, Objective-C is also available with many Linux distributions.
In fact, it was a NeXT system that was used to develop the first web browser (Mosaic). As for notable applications, Lotus Improv, a quite innovative spreadsheet program, was also available for NeXT in addition to the Windows 3.x version (which also runs on WINE and OS/2's Windows 3.x support).
Given this history, we can see how innovative Apple really is today.
Holy Cow! Someone actually still believes that Apple's abstracting the details and allowing only safe/complete content means they are an Evil Empire or anti-freedom? Do you insist your car manufacturer let you put the steering wheel in the back seat and gas up with nitro ? Wake up! You don't see what you are looking at.
Not sure who you were responding to, but if it was me then you misunderstood my critique.
Apple's abstracting the details and giving people clean software and content options isn't an issue, and for many people is a very good thing. See the earlier discussion on cloud computing, and how for many people outsourcing IT decisions is a good (and often necessary) thing. If not clear, I think iTunes is a great idea (ignoring the DRM aspects for the moment).
The point is that the customer/citizen needs to understand that they are outsourcing IT and other decisions, and need to know that they must trust the vendor they are granting all the control to. People intrinsically understand this relationship with Google because of the physical location of the computer and hard disk (apps run on Google's premises), but they misunderstand the relationship with Apple because the computing resources appear to be in their possession.
My discussions with relevant policy and legal people has lead me to believe that in the case of Apple this relationship obfuscation is deliberate. It is this obfuscation and their lobbying for specific anti-property-rights government policy which is why I suggest they are acting like an "Evil Empire or anti-freedom".
Your car analogy is telling: The issue here is a vendor that is actively working with the government to make it illegal for you to drive your own car, or even hold the keys and get into it without their permission. This isn't at all about seatbelts or nitro, or even speed limits.
I do agree with what you are saying. What is more interesting is that today's iMacs are actually more open than previous generations of Macintosh.
Yes, Mac OS-X can only be installed on iMacs. However, iMacs can also run Ubuntu, Mepis, Fedora, OpenSuSE and other distributions, with some repartitioning using Apple's utility.
Mac OS-X does come with some development utilities, including language compilers for C, C++, and Objective-C, of which are compatible with GCC.
Apple's acquisition of NeXT, Inc brought Steve Jobs back to Apple as CEO, as well as the UNIX kernel, which became part of Mac OS-X. NeXTStep was an attempt to be a Windows replacement for PCs, but that never went over too well with the public.
The interface, however, lives on as WindowMaker, for the X.org window manager, and GNUStep for the desktop environment. (I have both of these projects on my Slackware-based laptop.)
"Yes, Mac OS-X can only be installed on iMacs."
Just remember that this is not a technological limitation, but a legal limitation lobbied for by Apple. They abuse anti-circumvention and other aspects of "Copyright" to disallow people from installing legally purchased copies of this OS on hardware of their choice.
While it should be their right to waive any warranty if installed on unsupported hardware, it is wrong for the law to be changes to protect this level of excessive control by (in this case) a software vendor.
Molly Wood's review on CNET today was a breath of fresh air.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/buzz-report-special-ipad-e…
Not to mention how I couldn't even view that on my iPod Touch since there's no flash. So people with the iPad will run into the same empty page.
I agree that the iPad will result in a new day for tablet computers. I do not ascribe this to the iPad's features, but to the loyalty of the Apple user base. It sounds as if one-function-at-a-time is the order of the day.
This technology is not particularly revolutionary. The DRM remains regressive.
The lack of flash is a major disadvantage.
Yet an energized Apple core user base may make this a success, which would be a form of game-changer. My hope is that the change in the game is not yet another change away from user freedom to translate content among brands and among devices. Time will tell.
I am very impressed with Apple's marketing. I am not so impressed with the early news of the iPad.
For $325 I scooped up the X41 Tablet PC w/ docking station (CDR/DVD). 1.6 GHz, 1.5 Gig ram, stylus touch-screen, 10/100/1000 ethernet port, USBs, SD slot (amazing), PC Card slot, 60 gig hard drive, finger-print sentry, screen flips around flat and I read PDF's for school long ways and can increase the size of the text w/ the stylus, light-weight, decent battery power, wi-fi built-in -and this came out over 4 years ago????? Jobs must of had one.
A quick note to say there are mockups of Google's vision for an Android tablet.
While Google doesn't themselves lock their OS, some of the third party companies shipping Android based devices do (See SlashDot story about Rogers infected phones). While you get a similar simplified/fast touch interface as you would with an iPad, you have better opportunities for people who want to actually purchase and control their own devices.
Seems like something too much in the early days, and I suspect early adopters will get burned.
From what I have read and seen of the I-PAD it does not appear to me to be a game changing device. It is attractive looking but it is still expensive. The Canadian price will likely be higher. The fact it does not do mult-tasking will prove to be a real disadvantage. I will stick with my $275 Cdn. 10" netbook running Windows 7. I am looking forward to upcoming tablets from other manufacturers running Windows 7 which has built-in touch and will be a full functioning computer and not this overpriced limiting device
What excites me about the iPad is not so much the iPad but that it seems to be a response to the Kindle and that's good. It's a let-the-games-begin moment in mobile computing that will hopefully soon lead to the mass consumption of e-books and a drop on paper based books. Don't get me wrong. I love sitting in the front room of my home surrounded by books as much as the next person, but I am slowly letting go of that romantic attachment to books for the sake of the environment. I also teach at a community college and I am thrilled with the idea that soon my students will replace a back pack full of heavy text books with a single light weight device. Because I teach a paramedic program, my students will be able to read their books, log their clinical competencies, download my Podcasts from iTunes U, document patient encounters using e-charting (confidential information excluded of course) and download free drug reference guides and drug calculators!
There are exciting times indeed!
cheers, Rob
http://paramedictutor.wordpress.com
There is a entire sub-market within the discipline of the cellular cell phone market place related to the jailbreak or unlocking of the mobile phones so that they can be employed on any cellular network, and latest Supreme Court decisions in the USA handed down have confirmed that the jailbreak marketplace is legal and authentic. That is, finish-consumer buyers are quite within their legal rights to do what they wish to their mobile cell phone handset to enable the telephone to work on other network carriers which is commonly recognized as jailbreak or unlocking the network block.
Learn how to Jailbreak your iPhone
The one aspect I can’t bear in regards to the ipad is the truth that you can not see flash content. That’s I beleive the tabs with Android working system are an excellent substitute… even when the Android working system drains your battery like crazy.