Pseudorandom Engineer

For Apple, it’s not about killing off tinkerers, but ensuring that not everybody who wants to use a computer has to be a tinkerer. – Macworld (snippet via Brent Simmons)

This is exactly how I see the iPad from a typical consumer point-of-view (or even a traveling businessperson who needs something that “just works” to quickly and easily check email, news, etc.).

There’s a lot of talk about what the iPad means for the future of computing. Fraser Speirs suggests that it may help people to do what they do best with the aid of a computer instead of being afraid of it. Steven Frank talks about a paradigm shift to computers that are incredibly easy to use, although they have lost some of the general purpose freedom that computers used to have. My friend Nathan Vander Wilt is concerned about the future of Apple and what it means for him as an indie developer.

After having some discussions about this, I don’t have any answers, but I have a collection of thoughts. Here they are, as coherently as I am able.

• After helping many people with computers, from individual help to Computer Services at Dordt College to the class I currently teach at Heritage College, I agree a lot with Fraser. People are confused with multiple applications on the Mac; people are confused with files and folders and organization; people aren’t very good at understanding the tie between a file and the program that created it; people are confused with all the buttons and menus and key combinations. People don’t understand computers. I think the iPad and similar devices has the possibility to make people comfortable with computers.
• Continuing with that thought, I want people to be able to use computers and not be afraid. I want them to be able to use computers correctly without hours of instruction from technologists like ourselves who make mock them behind doors because they don’t know how to avoid viruses. I don’t want computers to get in the way of a person’s work because they don’t have a plugin or a software update; I want them to “just work.”
• We have a nasty habit of wanting everyone to be able to use computers (and mocking them when they do it wrong), but not helping everyone achieve that, either by teaching or by changing paradigms. Yes, it’s closed. What if a closed system is the only way to achieve this goal of everyone understand computing? I don’t think it is, but what if?
• Those of us who want or need more or a computer won’t lose out. We still need more computer in order to program for something like the iPad or even the web. Not every computer is going to be like the iPad. If every computer does go the route of the iPad, they’ll have figured out how to give power users more of what they need. In the meantime, we can just buy Macs and be content. Granted, we won’t have all the niceties of a touchscreen, but you need an interface built for that.
• I showed a video of the iPad to my classes a couple of days ago. It probably wasn’t the right video to show off the device and what it was capable of. Many of them didn’t seem to be interested. So it is possible that I’m wrong when I think it can be great for a lot of people. On the other hand, they may have become accustomed enough to the current system that the iPad doesn’t seem like anything significant (and it seems like just a large iPod Touch). Could that perception change if they tried one out in person? I think it’s possible.
• I can see myself liking an iPad or similar device. At least when I’m traveling, the first few things I care about are email, Twitter, and other information I get via the web. While I am in the act of traveling, sitting in the airport, etc. I want something quick and easy. The iPad could be perfect for that, and better for reading than my iPhone because of the larger screen.
• An iPad is also perfect for casual computing, as Craig Hockenberry points out. Yes, I’m a geek. I like to fiddle with gadgets. I like doing a lot of things at once. But I also appreciate the liberation of doing one thing at a time on a device that I don’t have to think about updating, backing up files, etc.
• I’m positive there are designers out there who are capable of equaling or besting Apple. Where are they? Why aren’t they competing with Apple? Why aren’t developers going to the Palm Pre and Android and showing us that the iPhone isn’t the only platform with good taste (not that everything on the iPhone is good taste…)? Right now the impression is that a closed system is the only way to get good design. Not that it always breeds good design, of course.
• What if we look at the situation from the point of view of a novice user? They don’t know where to find new programs. They don’t have a clue about MacUpdate, VerstionTracker, or even Apple’s Downloads page (even though there is a handy link in the Apple menu). Something like the App Store looks just amazing to them. “Look! I can just search for something and it’s right there!” I’m sure they would care about rejections to some degree, but a lot of them are probably thrilled that they can install software now and uninstall it and know what they’re doing. So much so that the closed natured may be off their radar.
• Continuing that thought again, the main reason people can install and uninstall is simply the underlying mechanism of the App Store. Could Apple open it up and give that benefit to every developer? Sure. If they were to do that, people will blame them for apps that don’t work, for apps than are distasteful, etc. Yes, there are already apps like that. But again, your everyday user doesn’t understand software that’s coming from many different developers.
• Continuing again. The App Store at least gives the appearance of narrowing down the choices. Geeks have no problem weeding through lots of choices, avoiding the bad ones, finding the good ones, etc. How would an everyday user do that? How are they going to know if an app is a credit card logger? The platform does have limitations in that regard, so they’re never going to know. To those users, apps with a “blessing” are a “blessing.”
• Continuing again. Geeks know what they’re doing when installing a program or testing it or uninstalling it. There are some people that really should not be installing programs willy-nilly because they have no idea what they’re doing. For all it’s imperfections, the iPhone/iPad/App Store gives them some protection.
• You can still tinker. Yes, it’s $99. Yes, that’s per-year. Are we so old that we’ve forgotten that we used to have to pay for developer tools? Yes, it feels like a step backwards to pay for them again. Yes, we have restrictions. How about gaming consoles? Why does there seem to be no complaints about the closed nature of gaming consoles? I am speaking out of severe ignorance on this part, but I’m not sure I understand the difference.
• A closed review environment may be too risky for businesses to enter. Is the low market share of Android a better choice? For ideals, yes. For business? Maybe, maybe not.
• Yes, Apple has different priorities than developers do. Developers want power and options and the freedom to do what they want. Apple appears to want to bring computing to the common person. Isn’t that what a lot of us want, too?

Bottom line: I think the iPad (and similar devices) can be a really good thing for a lot of people. I don’t want a working knowledge of computers to become an expectation that few can actually achieve. I do hope it can open up in a manner that doesn’t exclude the common person. Nevertheless, I’ll try to keep my files and other information in a format conducive to a quick switch to Linux.

Other people have already beat me to the punch today, but I decided I would still throw this out for the world.

The iPad is perfect for a lot of people. As my brother pointed out,

App Store issues aside, Apple appears to have invented a “computer for the rest of us” for the second time. – David Hjelle

because

The iPad is much more akin the the original Macintosh’s outer simplicity than, say, Mac OS X. – David Hjelle

I think this is quite true. As I have helped people with their computers (with Computer Services at Dordt College and family/friends) and am now teaching people about computers, I have come to realize something about the way people use computers. Most people get a computer to get on the Internet. Pure and simple. They access webmail, they visit YouTube, they read news, and they play games. Occasionally people want to write a paper or make up a spreadsheet, but those are much smaller in comparison. I’ve even realized that when I’m on the go, I don’t care about spreadsheets or word processing; I care about getting my email, checking Twitter, checking the news, checking the weather, and other things that rely on Internet access.

Any computer that someone may buy can access the Internet, and many will be capable of more than the iPad due to the ubiquitous nature of Adobe Flash. Granted. But there’s more than just having Internet access. Most people don’t understand computers. They don’t know how to use folders, they don’t know what files are, they don’t know where their files are, they don’t know how to install programs, they don’t know how to uninstall programs, they don’t understand how they get viruses or what they can do about them, etc. The list is tremendously long. I would argue that part of this is because people are not taught how to use computers (correctly or at all) and because computers have become complex enough that it is hard to come in at this point and understand what’s going on (compared to those of us who have been using computers since the 80s and have watched the whole progression).

For people in both camps, the iPad (and similar devices and OSes like Chrome OS) are perfect. It has Internet access that is easier to deal with than a typical desktop computer. It takes away a lot of the complexity of computers; it offers the simplicity that someone new to computers wants (just like someone new to calculators only needs a 4-function calculator, not a TI-92). Filesystem? Hidden. No folders or files to worry about. Programs? All right there in front of you or on the Internet. Installation? The App Store takes care of that for you. Viruses? Well, not impossible, but less chance. Certainly less concern about anti-virus programs, etc.

The point is that this is exactly what a lot of people want. They don’t want to worry about viruses or finding programs to do what they want. They want to use the Internet; they want everything in front of them, not hidden in contextual menus or folders or bundles or behind other windows, etc. This is the kind of computer that people understand.

My brother wrote a post about health care over on his blog. I attempted to leave a comment, but discovered that I had written so much that it might have been truncated. So I’m posting that comment here instead.

Read his post first.

“Some speculations:

1. What about communal responsibility and character? That is, yes, we have our own personal responsibility and character than we need to be concerned about, but as a community of Christians, we should be looking out for the well-being of the poor and needy among us. Yes, this should be the community of Christians (in other words, the church), but is getting help with this task from a secular body (the government) so bad? Or is there something deeper here as well? I suspect that, similar to capitalism vs socialism (or communism; I don’t know my systems well enough), people would argue that having the government help deprives us of motivation to help our neighbor, but is that a problem with the system or with us as Christians?
2. It’s good to have the sense of personal responsibility and control. I’ve heard that a good way to help people whose lives are a mess is to get them to do/change one small thing, such as washing their car. Doing that task helps them feel in control of their circumstances again, makes them feel good for accomplishing something, etc. I’ve been told that in Canada, people actually go to the doctor instead of waiting because “I don’t have the money.” Which sounds like a good thing—preventative care instead of purely reactive care. Of course, it’s not always a good thing (“going to the hospitals/ER for no good reason”), but when you have a health concern, it seems that it would be better to deal with it early, rather than wait. That’s a reason for taking care of ourselves in the first place, correct? To prevent problems and complications later? That said, it seems to me that having costs largely reduced can fit both of those criteria. Ideally, people will go in earlier because it’s not such a cost burden (assuming health is a priority for them and they are not being foolhardy) and they will continue to feel that it is their responsibility and that they are taking care of themselves. However, I still wonder how that relates to the truly poor among us (see first point).
3. It’s hard to know what’s really true sometimes with different health care systems. Certainly I can see how government control could easily tend towards long wait times, longer lines, etc. But it does seem that we largely know of these things by personal stories, which don’t always reflect the larger picture. As a contrast, I know of a Canadian who was having back trouble and while their surgery wasn’t scheduled for some time (don’t recall the specifics, perhaps a month?), the surgery was pushed up because the pain was too great and that made the surgery a much higher priority. Is that typical? I don’t know. Just tossing out another example.
4. Along with the previous two points, I’ve been told that though some wait times may be longer, the surgeries don’t tend to be as major, so some leeway is acceptable. This is paired with the point that since people visit doctors earlier, problems are caught earlier, and the solutions or surgeries don’t need to be as major. This seems to make sense, though I don’t know how well it works out in practice.

I have no conclusion on the matter. I simply wanted to bring up some things that have been brought to my attention that seem worth consideration (and yes, it’s probably easy to figure out where my information came from regarding Canada).”

I’ve always thought about starting a blog. For years now, it’s been “the thing to do.” But there never seemed to be a topic that I wanted to share with the world. That is, there wasn’t a topic that I felt I would continue to write about week after week and still have something new to say.

But I started a blog now. Not that I envision myself having anything profound to say. However, if that does occur, I’m glad you enjoyed it. It’s more likely that posts will come in spurts of inspiration. The good news is that I now have a place to share with the world, if anything becomes worth sharing.

That said, welcome. ☺