Is is just me or are they trying to kill the whole "personal" computer thing? ...how in earth can people accept and buy these "i-whatever" OS stuff where it's all locked down?
As soon as it's a "tablet" or can have a sim card in it, it's suddenly OK for it to no longer be "my" PC? I can't download anything I want. It's locked down to some kind of weird data mining marketplace to suck down all my personal info etc.
I recently tried out one of these Android galaxy phones...
Mark my word, if this continues... 10 years from now, we will all have little locked down "TV"s in our hands instead of a "personal" PC... as in... MY PC... as in... I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO AND INSTALL WHATEVER THE H*** I WANT ON IT.
And of course, forget about making an application and selling it on your own. Everything must be "approved" by the big corp boys because you only can have these "Apps" ( such an insulting word ) in their marketplace.
Get ready because Cable TV version 2.0... here it comes!
EDIT : I guess as long as people can play the latest Angry Birds, they are OK with anything.
could not agree more with you.
What you're describing are mere social trends in the application of computational power for consumer products.
There will always be demand for computers-as-we-know-them, and there will always be software there to service that need (read: Linux/BSD).
You may lament the departure of the 'traditional' smartphone in favour of the 'curated experience' pushed by Microsoft and Apple and forsee a similar application for desktop computers, but it can be argued the change has been for the better: making the learning curve more shallow, reducing entry barriers and improving usability. The controlled market makes it easier for independent developers to become successful (debatable).
@turrican: I'm looking forward to the day I no longer have a personal computer. (let me finish!) I am talking about the fact I don't need personal hardware. The only reason I have personal hardware right now is because it's mine to maintain.
But I would love it if my complete experience I have right now is not bound the physical machine. The physical machine makes it safe and give me certainty it will work smoothly. If online I could log in anywhere and have all my app,data,settinggs right in the spot.
When I look at what google is doing with Chrome OS I don't really agree. There solution to this is pushing every app into the browser and trying to use the hardware * much as possible in the browser.
I would ove to still have my real desktop apps (Live Mail, Photoshop, Photo Gallery) with there real power. But always in the same state as I left them on any computer.
I disagree. Computers continue to be an open platform be it Mac, Windows, or Linux.There has been no sign of that changing in the near future.
While mobile devices are locked down you have to consider that there is a genuine public demand for it. Forcing software through a filter removes a lot of the crud and spyware. When you talk to people about their Mobile Phones they want very different things relative to their computers. The term "to just work!" springs to mind.
Like Manip - the "just work" thing and also this:
what I see is a whole raft of devices that are in some way a "computing device" with multiple connection methods (Internet, bluetooth, USB, WiFi, 3G, 4G etc,,,,) they will in many cases "compliment" a PC and in some cases be an alternate to a pc.
for example using the iPad for quick browsing and chat on the couch. but you still have the pc with your outlook and browser and stuff.
I would like an iPad like device that would remote to my pc and would share music and video with my pc...
and if the prices for some of the smaller portable stuff goes down then great.
let my pc be a hub that other things send files to or get files from.
if "Locked down" means that it works and i do not have to spend time maintaining the OS then that's fine by me.
I think the biggest problem is that we are being conditioned to believe that it is ok for someone like Apple to decide what we are or are not allowed to put on our own devices. Now MS is following Apple's example. If MS did this before the iPhone existed, they would have been raked over the coals for the exact same thing. Now it is perfectly fine for MS to do it too. See what happened there?
Next up is our home computers. Apple already said they are moving their app store to work on the Mac. So then once again they will be the dictators for what end users can or can not run from this app store. Initially you would still be able to install any other software on the system, but I think this "open" software approach will become less and less in demand until some new version of OS X sometime in the future just stops allowing you to install something that wasn't approved by Steve Jobs (OS XI, OS XII? Oh, wait, that doesn't sound like "s.e.x."... Talk about being a controlling nanny but using a subliminal s.e.x. reference to sell an OS ). And all this time MS will follow suit because "that is what consumers want", and in the process losing more and more control over our own devices.
Ummmmm.... you can sideload apps on Android... Easily do the same when you jailbreak iOS or WP7... C'mon show that you're worthy of your geekcreds and jailbreak them devices.
I don't have a problem with companies locking down devices... There are crappy apps out there
That is not the point. The point is that we are more and more being conditioned to think that it is fine to lock down what we can do with our devices.
Nobody said we can't hack our current phones to side-load apps. Eventually it will become harder and harder to do that until the hardware is so locked down that it becomes essentially impossible to do. Nothing prevents them from eventually locking devices that are jailbroken out of their network, essentially killing the practice.
@BitFlipper: And having a wide-open app model is a detriment to that platform. Witness the OS/virus/antivirus eco-system. Until we have a way to know of the intent of an app, I'm glad there's a way to remote-kill apps... a vetted system (albeit minimal) for apps.
I think the ability to sideload apps will be widely adopted as that market force make its way. But the app store is a good discovery/marketing place for buyers & sellers.
@Minh: There's no reason you can't have both a vetted system -- choosing from a marketplace that comes with the device -- and still be able to install what you want if you're an advanced user.
@brian.shapiro: Android allows THIS today. And if it's a popular feature, iOS and WP7 will adopt it too.
Yes, but, you need to make sure there is enough iPoop advertisment. Because media >>>> truth.
The "ubiquitous computing" idea has been around for a while now -- as computing hardware gets smaller, more powerful and cheaper, we're going to see more 'smart devices' with locked down, specific functionality taking over the jobs that we currently might use a PC for; an array of small, specialised devices rather than a single, generalised one.
Non-geek users don't care about lock-in - they just care that they can switch something on and do what they expected to be able to do. They don't care that their TV runs Linux and that it could be hacked to play games; they only care that it does what they expected it to do (watch TV, stream media, browse web).
Geeks will always have desktops because we want to 'tinker' with computing in the same way that our parents tinkered with their cars, plus I expect programming will always be done on a larger, generalised machine.
Apple locking down the Mac to use only an app store? I don't see them locking down completely, because that would stifle the developer community and I don't think Apple would be that daft.
The fact that its harder to tinker with cars nowadays also matters, it means that in order to have your car serviced reliably you need to go to the dealership, have them order parts from the manufacturer. And thats all very expensive.
I'm not a car geek, but I'd like it to be cheaper to have my car fixed.
Wasn't there a time when car dealerships tried to prevent you from doing scheduled maintenance on your car at Bob's Auto Shop by saying it would void your warranty? Didn't some law change that said you can do such scheduled maintenance at other places without voiding your warranty?
I'm not sure but there seems to be some analogy in there related to telling you what you may or may not install on your device.
.... If MS did this before the iPhone existed, they would have been raked over the coals for the exact same thing. Now it is perfectly fine for MS to do it too. See what happened there?.....
This really just shows you that 22% of Apple stock is worth it.
It really comes down to perspective. If you look at Sync, there is absolutly no way to modify it, and that is actually a must requirement. If you make console games, they are required to pass manufacture standard. It is actually quite hard to draw the line. And ultimately, we, the customers are the one making final decisions. If you don't like Apple's way, don't buy it. I don't have anything hardware related to Apple at all. There is WinMo and Android for open phone.
But, IMO, we should think about "Safe Customization". If you want your platform to be customizable, make sure it is safe, because people don't know how to protect themselves. I am actually much agree with single-tasking smartphone because you can really eliminate the posibility of malicious background process. IMO, all OS should try to focus on "Safe Customization" because that's how we can reach general populations.
People want things to work. And people don't want to get a virus without realizing it. And OS should focus these as top priority.
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.