« GovGab, a New eGoverement Blog | Main | AT&T Doesn't Want Critics as Customers »
Think Similarly
This post at CrunchGear showing a 1989 Apple ad encouraging people to “think different” by challenging the status quo, followed by a video about Apple not allowing third party apps on the iPhone touched a nerve following the most recent iPhone update.
The latest iPhone update is the first that’s fixed anything more than security flaws. There were some minor UI changes—nice to have—and a new icon for the iTunes music store. Besides ruining the symmetry of the application list, the addition really rubbed my nose in the fact that this is a walled garden. “Hey, buy some music from us!”
The update also “reactivated” the phone, meaning that iTunes went off to check that the phone had a valid account and had a good SIM, etc. For people who’d hacked their phones, the process did not go smoothly, to say the least.
I’m not saying that Apple doesn’t have the right to sell any product they like or that we were forced in any way to take the iPhone. I still love mine and will continue to use it. Apple was also upfront in saying that modifications voided the warranty—that’s standard. The first rule of hacking is: hack at your own risk.
Still, we’re seeing a real clash of expectations here that could have significant repercussions. People have long accepted that consumer devices (like an MP3 player) would be single purpose and locked down. We’ve also expected that computers would be extensible and modifiable.
Is the iPhone a consumer device or a computer? Both actually and therein lies the problem. Computer manufacturers have long envied the lock down that purveyors of consumer device were able to get away with. They’d love to lock the devices down and force people to use the devices the way that they intended when they designed them.
For all the grief Microsoft has taken over the instability of Windows, it is largely a result of trying to build a platform that is infinitely extensible by users who will do things you have no control over. There is justifiable concern by manufacturers about the stability of open platforms.
I believe, however, that for all their warts, the computer industry we have today exists because of open platforms. From the very start, computers have been things that were programmable—by users. That set them apart from every machine that had been produced before and accounts for their incredible versatility. Most of the important advances in the computer industry were not by the people who created the platform, but by people who used it for something it’s designers never intended.
Does Apple have the right to close down the iPhone? Sure. But I maintain that it will be more important and more influential if they embrace those who “think different.”
Posted by windley on October 1, 2007 8:41 AM



Comment from eric Norlin at October 1, 2007 9:29 AM
some quick thoughts on "open platforms":
http://defragcon.com/Blog/?p=135
Comment from matt harrison at October 1, 2007 10:31 AM
Not sure I understand your "windows is unstable because people develop apps on top of it" argument. Linux doesn't crash when my program crashes. Or perhaps linux doesn't have as many people developing apps for it, and those isn't exposed to as many bugs as the "many fingers" of software developers hack away on it? (Can we call this the "windows law" instead of "linus' law"? :) )
(ok, if you include X then it's easier to "crash" linux, but you are really hanging X. Also since MS includes their windowing system in the OS ....)
Comment from Phil Windley at October 1, 2007 10:47 AM
You're right--there's an incomplete thought there.
Linux is MORE stable than Windows, but not immune to user installed software causing system problems. Linux and Unix share an architecture that has 3 decades of design going into it. Windows has gotten much better over the years, in part because they're taking the same steps that Linux and Unix use to protect against user programs. Even so, if I install a bad driver on Linux, it can become quite unstable.
I've experienced this with OS X, normally a pretty stable platform. But if you get a bad kernel extension, that stability goes out the window.
Comment from Mark Wahl at October 1, 2007 11:49 AM
"That set them apart from every machine that had been produced before and accounts for their incredible versatility."
Well, not without the US DoJ consent decree, which from 1956-2000 required that IBM offer their midrange and mainframe systems for sale, not just for lease, and support customers who bought used systems with spare parts.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1996/0715.pdf
Otherwise the typical model for computing would be that the device, the operating system, and applications were all provided and integrated by the vendor, who would lease them to the end user to provide a particular function or service.
Leave a comment
I encourage you to leave a comment below. Your email address will not be displayed on Technometria, but allows me to communicate with you directly. Your email address won't be displayed, but will be used to compute a MicroID for your comment.