machine501

When I talked to my wife about the iPad I mentioned that I was glad I was a programmer because it would give me an opportunity to buy it, otherwise, I wouldn’t bother. I wouldn’t bother buying it because I saw it as a machine on which I couldn’t make stuff, which mostly meant I wouldn’t be able to program in it.

So there’s a meme out there that the iPad is mostly about consuming media, that you can’t really monkey with it because of its closed nature.  For example, in his post about the iPad, Alex Payne thinks that if this is the future of personal computing then he finds it to be disturbing.  He sees it as the possible “tinkerer’s sunset,” that it’s closed nature will prevent someone from messing with the machine, poke it, test out dangerous stuff, to develop  an interest in what makes it tick, and eventually lead them to discover programming. I’m a bit more optimistic, since I’ve been thinking about this since I wrote similar thoughts in another post, only then I had the iPhone in mind.  Let’s talk about how much things have changed and how much they have stayed the same.

A Consumer Device

The iPad looks like the ultimate consumer device.  You can watch video, read books, read the web.  Yes, they showed you can do spreadsheets and docs, that you can do work.  But can you really work?  During the presentation we saw Steve Prang demo his great Brushes application.  This is an application I use on my iPhone whenever I can’t take my pochade box or plein air watercolor kit with me.  Yeah, the screen is not pressure sensitive like my Wacom tablet, but I’m not looking for it to replace my dedicated Photoshop setup.  Restrictions like these have only given me a new way to learn to work with paint and a new way of having to think about how I approach a painting solution given that I’m missing certain capabilities I was already used to both from real life and from my Wacom table.  I’m always making drawings that I share with folks, and drawings that are studies of light and color.  It’s not a computer related activity, but it’s not just a consumer experience.  It doesn’t have garageband, but maybe someone will write an application that’s a scaled down version of Reason or just an entirely different application for musical live performances.  Something that is small and useful for on the go.  Again, it won’t replace your dedicated setup for the really professional work, but it’ll let engage in your work in contexts where you might otherwise have been limited.

If you’re in IE you won’t be able to see the above videos. Seems like I can’t get it to work in FF either. =(

Maybe someone will write a game like chipwits, where you control a tiny robot on rollerskates, and start some young person’s journey into computer science.  Even game consoles awaken the desire to learn how it works, to look under the hood, yet not only are game consoles systems on which you can’t build stuff, but they often require significant investment in time and money, AND the blessing of the company before you can develop on it.

I can imagine a photographer or a web designer showing up at a client’s with an iPad in hand and showing off their portfolio.

Here’s a quote from IO9: “But those activities are not the same thing as programming the device to do something new.”  That’s just lack of imagination.  Most computer users don’t open up a terminal and start programming.  They don’t install OS X dev tools, or download the free edition of visual studio, install python, or even do something as simple as open up a text editor and write .BAT file.  Can you do that on the iPhone or on the iPad?  Not in the same way.  Most likely because it’s in Apple’s business plan to keep people from writing applications that circumvent the AppStore approval process.  But the physical nature and mode of interaction doesn’t lend itself to that type of customization either.  I wouldn’t want to program anything on my iPhone and I probably wouldn’t want to write an extended program on an iPad.  Maybe there ought to be a way to upload stuff to the machine and make it do stuff.  But you can!  You can edit an HTML file on some server and load it on the browser, or you could download the SDK, pay $100 and upload to your own phone. I have written apps on my iPhone that my 19-month-old can play with.  Maybe your app won’t be approved for the AppStore, but you got the chance to mess with the device.

Human curiosity is enormous and we will always want to know what makes things work.  We’re still going to need developers and developer machines to write stuff for these slick, opaque, personal computing devices.

A Closed System

There’s no denying the iPhone and the iPad are closed systems.  You have to play by Apple’s rules (stated or unstated) or you’ll get booted or denied access to the system and your app will not see the light of day.  What if you want to jailbreak your iPad? Will Apple detect this and brick it? With DRM on products from the BookStore you’ll most likely not be able to share or loan your eBooks.  When it comes to books, it’s not all on Apple’s hands to force publishers to provide books without DRM.  And, like the Joe Hewitt and others point out, when it comes to control over apps, the door is wide open for webapps.

NIMBism

One thing I’m a little ashamed of is my NIMBism (Not in My Browser) when it comes to Flash.  I’m ashamed that I’m glad Apple has decided for me that I won’t have Flash content in the iPad’s browser.  I guess it just saves me the trouble of installing FlashBlock.  I could say that I don’t want Flash on my browser because it’s a CPU hog or because I’m annoyed by intro screens, but the truth of it is that my naive hope is that this will push forward HTML5 adoption by the sheer power of Apple’s muscle.

This feeling goes completely against my political, moral, and ideological leanings.  Nobody’s perfect ;)

Connected

The thing I see missing here, and the biggest weirdest thing that struck me while watching the presentation was that there was little talk about connecting to other devices.  You can synch up to your desktop.  But, that’s so old-timey.  Here’s where my desire was not fulfilled. I wanted the tablet to know there were other devices it could talk to and interact with them.  I wanted to do this wirelessly, instantly.  To be able to transfer information, collaborate and engage in activities, and begin to bring all those disparate little devices into a web.  I wanted a machine that would take a giant step towards a vision of ubiquitous computing.  Instead, I got a white cable.

So Now What?

I’m doubtful about iPad adoption.  The iPhone took off because there was a ready market out there: cell phone users.  Can the iPad reach people in the same way?  If it does, and it becomes the way most people interact with computers then I’ll be glad because it just might be the product that pushes other companies to make polite, pleasant, enjoyable computing devices.

As a developer, I see it as a tremendous opportunity to develop and try out applications for people in different contexts.

As a consumer, I could imagine it replacing my laptop.  But only if I had to travel often and I only if I didn’t need to code while traveling.

We all had too much riding on this.

Tagged: ipad, technology