Greg Hard

Yesterday Apple announced the imminent launch of the Mac App Store, an iOS-style App Store for Mac applications. Just like the iOS App Store, it will provide one-click downloading and updating of Mac apps, and the purchased apps are licensed on all of your Mac computers. Apple also announced other changes in the new version of OS X, dubbed "Lion", that further signals Apple's shift towards "modal computing", including the announcement of full screen app functionality. This emphasizes Apple's increased focus on simplified, task-based and app-based ("modal") computing, as seen on the iPhone and, more importantly, the iPad.

The App Store, in and of itself, seems to me to be a positive thing. It will simplify the process of finding, buying and updating Mac software, which is a chore even for power users, let alone novice computer users seeking simplicity. Personally, I'm sure I will end up using the store to find and try new software, and probably as my primary means of purchasing software. If it can do for my Mac apps what the iOS App Store did for mobile apps, such as keeping them updated and available across my Mac computers, I'm all for it.

So why am I concerned? After all, this store will only be one distribution system; you can still download apps from outside of Apple's closed ecosystem, and they made no mention of this changing. This is absolutely true. And there is no real problem with the App Store or modal computing so long as the platform itself remains open and Apple doesn't get obsessed with control the way they have with iOS devices. The iPad was really a paradigm shift in the way we, and Apple, think about computing; not as a mostly open, scalable system that is designed for flexibility, but as a simplified, modal, and highly controlled platform. This works fine for a specialized mobile device like the iPad, but not so much for a full-fledged computer.

What I don't want to see is the "iPad-ization" of the Mac platform, or computing generally. The day that I can't install an unapproved application on my primary computer is the day that I stop using that platform. Unfortunately, Apple has strong profit-driven motivations towards this model: it simplifies computing, so more people would adopt the Mac; they get a cut of the sale of apps; and they'd get full control over the entire platform, which makes Steve Jobs happy. The first point regarding simplification has its positive points, however in the process of simplifying computing, you run the risk of removing choice and making the computing experience less functional and more sterile. The last point, however, has potentially disastrous implications for computing as well as for consumers; problem is, the consumers have no idea what the implications are.

It’s been over 24 hours since the “official” beginning of iPad mania has begun. Twitter was buzzing with nothing but iPad related tweets for the past 36 hours or so, and as tiring as that has been, what is even more tiring is the rather absurd claims being made by some regarding this device. I’ve heard that it is the most revolutionary device since the iPhone, which may very well be true. I’ve also heard people say that it will replace laptop computing, which is a claim that actually first made me laugh, and then made me cry. The most recent edition of TWiT was brimming with positive thoughts on the iPad, as were other shows on the TWiT network.

I think, then, it is time to sober up from our iPad intoxication and look at what the device is and what it is not, so I’m providing some of my favorite iPad comments and reviews from around the web.

Simplifies Computing and Content Consumption

Leo Laporte said it best throughout the weekend, most recently on TWiT: It is a “content consumption device.” He’s very correct that the iPad will be an amazing device to watch movies (for travel or in bed, perhaps), read books, play interactive games and consume much of the internet (so long as you don’t need flash). From the early hands-on demonstrations I’ve seen, it will do it all with a glamor and sense of ease that no computer can claim. I want one for some of the amazing apps that are available, and those that will come.

Steve Wozniak called it a “reboot”, going back to a time when computing was simple and fun, rather than a chore. In reality, I can see it doing just that for those who aren’t interested in doing anything more than consumption and simple web browsing. But for those of us who want to push our computers, who game for real, who create content AND consume it, who desire to be a part of the open and social web, it simply isn’t enough of a computer and is too limited and controlled. What it does well is augment our laptop for portable consumption of content.

Andy Ihnatko’s review touches on its utility as a real computer, and he covers many of the important points, such as lack of real multitasking and an open file system, that reduce this utility. I agree with many of his points, including the fact that it isn’t a replacement for a real, full featured computer.

iPad is a Closed System

Jeff Jarvis wrote a piece outlining his concerns about the return from creation to mere consumption, what I call a regression to the old web 1.0 where we were told what type of content we wanted, and how to consume it.

The iPad is retrograde. It tries to turn us back into an audience again. That is why media companies and advertisers are embracing it so fervently, because they think it returns us all to their good old days when we just consumed, we didn’t create, when they controlled our media experience and business models and we came to them.

This is a concern that didn’t occur to me, but it augments the other concern I have regarding the closed nature of the iPad. He argues, and I’m convinced by his arguments, that the iPad facilitates this transformation from content creators back into mere consumers. Web 2.0 brought us into a time when we are all able to create, promote, comment on, and determine the content in which we are fed, and the means by which we consume it. Not so much with the iPad.

Cory Doctorow wrote a rather scathing critique of the iPad, and I agree with many of his points, especially on the closed nature of the iPad. He argues that the iPad “infantalizes hardware”, that the iPad is designed for the stereotypical illiterate computer user, and he isn’t completely wrong: I feel it is a consumer electronics device more than a computer, and its closed nature reflects that fact. Not only is the device itself closed, the application development channel is completely closed and Apple controlled as well.

If you want to live in the creative universe where anyone with a cool idea can make it and give it to you to run on your hardware, the iPad isn’t for you.

Will I buy an iPad? Actually, I might - but not yet. As of right now, it fills no gaps in my life. I see no place where an iPad would fit, and that includes media consumption. I’m more interested in seeing innovative, effective and seamless IPTV solutions for my HDTV than I am to consume media on a tablet PC. That isn’t to say I won’t eventually get one to augment my travel computing needs, but it may be the next iteration of the device before I see the need. Despite all of these criticisms, they won’t prevent me from getting an iPad - but they will prevent the iPad from ever replacing a fully featured notebook or desktop computer, which as of this writing is a MacBook.