matt hamann

The world of computing has come a very long way since the ’90s. We’ve gone from extraordinarily closed and proprietary systems (where you had to buy RAM from your machine’s manufacturer in order to ensure compatibility) to largely open and interoperable systems where standards enable communication between processes and systems, flexible hardware specifications, and software packages that run on a variety of systems and configurations.

This is not the vision of Apple Computer.

In an unfortunate display of indelible defiance, they launched the iPad on April 3rd–a device that supports very, very few standards (or supports them in very proprietary ways). It’s connectors are proprietary. It’s operating system is proprietary. It is not expandable. It’s software is barely upgradeable. Peripherals must be Apple-approved. You cannot modify any portion of the core functionality. You cannot run multiple applications simultaneously. It’s a world of “can’t”!

No matter how cool you think this device is, or how innovative you feel that it is, or how awesome it’s going to be for your grandma–you should absolutely not buy this device. Why? Because it is in no way enhancing the computing industry. It isn’t bringing about good change. It is not encouraging the next-generation of evolutionary computing. It does not support a viable future.

Why?

Because it assumes that people are inherently stupid and should be limited by walled gardens and a host of iApps that must be developed on an Apple-constructed operating system and development environment. This is a terrible calamity. Instead, we should be encouraging users of all paths to explore the world of computing around them. We should be giving them the chance to try out new things, playing with the gears and inner workings. We need to help users improve themselves in a manner that will make them more computer-savvy. That’s the vision and future of computing in a very global sense. This is not the vision of Steve Jobs. His ultimate goals are control, power, and money.

I’m not saying that making money is wrong or a poor motivation. I have no problem with people that make money hand over fist on their products. I openly support companies like Google, RedHat, IBM, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Twitter that openly support the notion that their products should be adapted and expanded by avid fans and other users. Software for Windows isn’t required to go through a nasty approval process. Google enables users to quickly extract information, build on some of its services, and supports open-source communities and products. IBM is a huge force behind awesome open projects like Eclipse. Mozilla builds a browser that can be modified by anyone. Twitter allows 3rd party developers to tap into their API and build completely new web applications built around their infrastructure–but that are useful outside of the service.

Apple, with the iPad (and most of its other devices), does none of this.

In fact, the only really useful open technology Apple has produced in the past decade is the WebKit web browser engine. And that wasn’t even their idea–it’s the offspring of Konqueror’s KHTML engine.

Ridiculous.

Many of my admittedly critical comments of Apple are aimed in their direction simply because they pig-headedly use the “cool factor” to further their own proprietary means. It honestly scares me that this company has gained such a huge following even though they openly defy the rest of the computing world. They embrace exclusivity. They act as an island caring about no one but themselves. How selfish.

Apple makes some cool products–not even I can dispute that. But making cool products at the expense of evolutionary computing is indubitably short-sighted and could ultimately set the entire industry back by 5 to 10 years as other companies find themselves responding in order to save their marketshares. That’s like renting an apartment for the rest of your life because it’s cheaper this month alone; however, you end up spending far more on rent over your lifespan than you would buying a rather expensive house. The problem within Apple Computing and their almost forced competition response lies in that products on both sides of the fence are rarely truly innovative beyond their very limited scope. It becomes a question of picking the lesser of two evils (and the lesser is never Apple).

The iPhone was a pretty innovative product, but as it stands now is doomed to eventual failure because open-infrastructure systems like Android will ultimately crush it under foot. Oh, sure–the fanbois will always choose the iPhone over anything else because they always choose Apple over everything else. But in the end, there aren’t enough of those people to save the device (or the company).

Many people have compared the negative predictions regarding the iPad to those aimed at the iPod back in 2001. What those individuals fail to take into account is that the iPod is just a media player whereas the iPad attempts to position itself as a true computing device. It may have topped the original iPhone by selling 300k units in the first weekend of release. It may very well sell several million units before the end of the year. But, eventually people will realize that the device they hold in their hands is little more than a glorified calculator capable of surfing the web and reading email.

Naysayers of this article, say what you will, but the iPad is doomed to failure in the long run. Just watch…