No ads? Contribute with BitCoins: 16hQid2ddoCwHDWN9NdSnARAfdXc2Shnoa
Apr 232010
 

If you get yourself one of Apple’s iThingies (an iPhone, iPad, or iTouch) you are officially restricted to installing software onto it from the selection in Apple’s App store. Which is hardly news, as is the news that geeky types do not like this – which is why the iThingies have been “jailbroken” to allow the addition of unauthorised software.

At this point I would like to point out that I am not an Apple hater – I own an iPhone 3G and intend to upgrade to an iPhone 4G (when it comes out). I also use a Macbook Pro as my work laptop. I like Apple products. But Apple gets and deserves some criticism …

Much of the criticism of Apple’s software model for the iThingies has revolved around the continual censorship of the applications allowed into the App store. This is fair enough, and indeed Apple has made itself a laughing stock with inconsistency applied standards with applications rejected for breaching conditions not applied to other applications. In addition even Apple’s published standards can be become more restrictive leading to situations where you can find it impossible to restore an application that you have paid for!

But despite these disadvantages, the App Store method of software distribution does on the surface offer something genuinely advantageous to the average consumer. The applications in the App Store have been verified by Apple as being appropriate for use – reducing the malware problem considerably. One of the regulations is that applications should not be capable of interpreting code (approximately) which reduces if not eliminates the damage a compromised application can cause.

But a single source of applications is limiting and potentially dangerous. Indeed it can even be considered to be a restriction on trade as Apple is the gatekeeper (and insists on a rather large toll) for any developer who wants to develop for the iThingies. Perhaps ordinary consumers do not care about this especially when you consider that many applications have a very reasonable cost.

But it is still of some concern. The restrictions make experimentation more difficult.

But perhaps more seriously it prevents tinkering by ordinary consumers. This can be an advantage but is also a significant disadvantage as the very people who developed the iThingies would have tinkered with consumer devices as children on their way to becoming developers. By restricting tinkering by children we restrict the size of possible people who go on to become the techies of the future.

The obvious counter to this are the existence of other devices that are far more open – even equivalent devices to Apple’s iThingies such as the various Google Android devices. But if Apple’s App store model is successful enough (and it certainly seems to be heading that way), we could find ourselves with the same model being extended to not only competitors to Apple’s iThingies, but to more general purpose computing devices – netbooks, laptops, desktops, or even servers.

We could end up in a situation where the only devices you can buy are devices that can only run software sanctioned by the vendor. A dangerous possibility.

Apr 022007
 

Firstly I’ll point out that I don’t really believe that the types mentioned in the headline really exist … all people have artistic sides and scientific sides even if they deny them. I know! I thought I was purely scientific without an artistic bone in my body, but couldn’t stop writing (incompetently) and now I’m obsessed with creating pleasing images (unsuccessfully). However many people do believe that they exist.

I have just finished a book where a literary woman insists that her father is ignorant because he doesn’t read despite the fact that he is a neurosurgeon (which does involve lots of reading) and is a serious music listener. There is enough clues in there for some to guess the book and the author, but I won’t name either because it is a relatively common tendency to run down the knowledge of “scientific types”.

Why? I mean any kind of knowledge is valuable and deciding what knowledge is more valuable than the rest is the kind of game that only the foolish indulge in. Of course “scientific types” have been known to think the opposite … that “artistic types” are the ignorant ones, although for some mysterious reason we don’t get to hear this point of view in the media or great literature.

It is too easy to think of someone who does not spend time learning your knowledge is lazy and ignorant without considering that they may spend a great deal of time learning other stuff that is valuable to them. I don’t as a rule read great works of literature because I either don’t have the time or I am too tired to do the work justice. That doesn’t mean I don’t read.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close