Piling On: More Kibitzing about the iPad

What do I think about the new iPad? Glad you asked. What's that? You didn't, really – or not many of you did. But that's OK, really; at least two other writers argue that we're going from an era of "nearly universal literacy" to "nearly universal authorship", so here's my two rupiah worth.

John Gruber, the blogger behind Daring Fireball, is a justly respected voice on a variety of topics, notably all things Apple. Two of his posts on the iPad, The iPad Big Picture and Various and Assorted Thoughts... are a good starting point if you've somehow just managed to crawl out of a bubble that protected you from hearing anything about it for the past, oh, six months or so, or more crucially the last three days. I also enjoyed reading Stephen Fry's thoughts on the device.

But one bit I would recommend above all to anybody who is thinking about "what does this iPad thing/phenomenon really mean?", or anyone who just cares about free expression, open societies, and all the other progress that humanity has made these past few centuries, should seriously ponder Alex Payne's thoughts On the iPad. Al3x makes some very good, if deeply disturbing, points.

As many people have pointed out, the iPad differs in one critical respect from every personal computing device as computing device that Apple have ever built, from the Apple I on up to the iMac that I am typing this on. The iPad is a device, first, foremost and specifically, for the consumption of digital "content". As James Kendrick says, Apple just want us to push the 'Buy' button, in an endless, mindless Pavlovian dystopia.

"Hang on," you say, "it can't really be as bad as all that. You're just pushing histrionics!" I truly hope so. But consider: Apple has sold every Mac, as well as all their earlier models, on the basis of a small group of generally positive, empowering ideas:

• "It just works better."
• "The power to be your best."
• And, of course, "Think different".

One of the (many) things that make the Mac special is the fact that every single Mac sold comes with a copy of the full development toolset for Mac OS X, right in the box. Anybody who wants to invest the time and effort can become a Mac developer. (The money involved, of course, is in buying a Mac in the first place, but you were going to do that anyway, right?) You. The smart-aleck kid down the street. Your Aunt Tillie. Anyone. That has been one of the core strengths of the Apple Mac platform and product; the ability for anyone, without genuflecting before any sort of gatekeeper, to write anything they can conceive of, using some pretty great tools. And thousands, dozens of thousands have. You don't need to be a big corporation. You don't even need to ask Apple's permission, or use Apple's site to market your creation. All you need is an idea, some persistence, and the willingness to learn.

Apple made a radically different statement with the iPhone. If you want to write a "real" app for the iPhone, you need to submit your bits to the App Store, a process that is the seeming antithesis of open, collaborative or fair. As a practical matter, you need to join the iPhone Developer Program, and pay a fee. Doing so will subject you to various license agreements, limitations of what can be developed, and so on.

Apple justified this by saying "hey, the iPhone is a phone, an appliance. We have to keep some control over things, to make sure that our (non-technical) customers have the best possible experience — and incidentally to ensure that we continue to honor agreements we've made with carriers like AT&T." And the developer community grumbled and moaned, but large numbers went along. And the App Store, by almost any measure, is a raging success in the aggregate — even though most individual developers aren't making much at all.

Now comes the iPad, which has been widely, often dismissively, described as a "super-sized iPod Touch." Which, in several senses, it is. But whereas the "iTouch" is an accessory in one's life, being a combination PDA, music player, and (ostensibly) simple application platform, the iPad promises to be all that and more. Specifically, it's being pitched as this "magical" piece of technology which you'll "always" have at hand. Why? Well, you can listen to music on it, or watch videos, or run the same apps you ran on your iTouch or iPhone along with a new generation of "super-sized" apps. Oh, and Apple did announce that their office-software packages would be available on the iPad — so you can use it for "work stuff."

What about the kind of creative outlets that have been highlighted at each Mac introduction since the 1980s? Well, um, good luck with that. Because, even though this is a "real" computer, it's "really not"; it's an up-sized iPod Touch, which is (officially, mostly) a passive device.

The iPad is being pitched as a "magical", but inherently passive, device that consumers will use to buy (or, usually, rent) "content". There'll be "social media" like Facebook, Twitter and so on; the iPhone already supports those. Anything that can be done entirely over the Web, without the use of plugins like Java or Flash (like blogger.com, is kosher, too. But anything truly creative, "revolutionary", "game-changing", is going to have to survive the App Store gauntlet — which means that it's going to have to be consistent with Apple's view of how the iPad "should" be used. As a passive device which consumers use to buy access to content.

Think "57 Channels and Nothing On," a million times over. Perfect for the top-down, don't-make-me-think society. (I'm sure it will be very popular here in Singapore, for precisely that reason.)

Apple, you can do better. We know, because you've mostly done much better before, and encouraged us, developers and users, to do great things with what you've built for us. The iPad isn't so much a step in the wrong direction, it's a leap of faith worthy of Wile E. Coyote — but we know how far off the edge of the cliff we've gone. And the only way to go from here, is down.

What's wrong with this picture?

Apple chose the only name that ever made sense for their new change-the-world device: the iPad.

So what's not to like about it? Well, that depends on who you are and what you really wanted this to be. No surprise there.

My biggest problem with it was summed up well by James Kendrick in his post, Thoughts on the iPad — Just Push the Buy Button, says Apple: it really is primarily about media consumption - i.e., paying big corporations for temporary, passive access to data. Something to switch your creative intellect off, not on.

And those of us who are often called the "Apple faithful" were hoping, praying if you will, for something so much more. Which in fact this could still be. But for the first time in Apple history, a product with serious computing power is being positioned in the marketplace such that creative, collaborative expression by individuals is almost a subversive act.

We've fallen a long, long way from "Think Different". And it's now much, much harder to argue that Apple is as much a computer company dedicated to creativity and the pursuit of excellence, than to argue that Apple has become "just another" corporate big-media company, helping to turn the Internet from what was once called "the greatest opportunity for expressive, collaborative democratic action in human history" into just another television set. Active creation becomes passive "consumption." All hail the primacy of content, and don't even think about upsetting the applecart. That would be Thinking (too) Differently.

Time v. Money v. Risk v. Frustration

I just spent three hours beating my head against The Joys of Wi-Fi Networking. No doubt because it saved $50 or so, the HDB public-housing flat I live in here in Singapore (which are "affectionately" known as 'chicken coops' for their quality and structural integrity) didn't put telephone jacks in every room. Nor did they run conduit between rooms so that suchlike could be added later. The upshot of this is that my DSL modem, in the living/dining room, is 15 meters and two concrete-slab walls away from my study/office, in a bedroom (with no phone jack and two power outlets).

Up to now, this hasn't been an insurmountable problem, because the DSL modem/802.11g router the government-linked telco sells you when you open a DSL subscription could punch a (barely) usable signal through those two concrete walls; desktop and laptop computers strewn around the study were on the LAN, with quite serviceable WPA2 encryption to keep private bits private. The router (in the living room) claimed to have a 14 Mbps connection to The Net; the aggregate total bandwidth available in the study ranged from 3 to 5 Mbps; not fantastic but usable. The world was in a survivable state of chaotic flux.

Then, yesterday morning, FedEx delivered a bright, shiny (actually used, in a Target bag rather than original box, no longer in the Polycom US catalog but still serviceable) Polycom SoundPoint 501 SIP phone, courtesy of my newest client (thanks, Nathan, Matt and Margaret - I'm not kvetching, honest!). An hour of work with jackhammer and flamethrower cleared sufficient space on the desk for the new trophy. Now to plug it in and fire it up.

Plug it in? To what? My ear?

Just to make sure I had my head straight, I looked at what it would take to run line from point P to R. Two solid concrete/rebar walls, routing around various doors/windows, across the span of the living room.... no, that wasn't going to happen, certainly not by Thursday. Put the phone in the living room? Not a chance. Wait a minute - they have these things called wireless Ethernet bridges; I should be able to get one of those, stick it in the study, connect the phone to it and it to the existing wireless LAN, and I'm good to go.

I went out to the local "IT super-mall", Funan. It's the best place in Singapore to buy electronic gear of whatever variety from reasonably reputable dealers. After visiting some 25 different shops, large and small, I was firmly reacquainted with one of the basic facts of Singapore life.

This is a firmly Stalinist economy in the areas that matter. All imports (which is to say, anything of value) are brought in through a small number of generally well-connected exclusive distributors. When one shop says "finished, already!" (the de facto motto of the city), everybody is going to say the same thing. That is, if you're fortunate enough to even run into some salesperson who actually understands what you're looking for. I could find things easier (and often cheaper!) in Vietnam.

Then I happened to pop into one hole-in-the-wall one-man shop, Crystal Systems. The "one man" said "say, I understand what you're trying to do; I did exactly that for a firm here recently; all you need are two routers." The archetypal light-bulb moment. (Remember, I'm a software craftsman, not a hardware/network engineer.) This is where the "time v. money v. ..." of the title comes in. What I should have done was to buy two identical brand-new 802.11n routers. That would have cost me about S$190 (~US$136 or so), and would have given me a perfect excuse to replace my aging 2Wire 2700HGV-2, But this has already been a bit of an expensive month - new hard drive, various software - so after some consideration I decided to try to salvage the existing router (apparent POS though it may be) and just spend the minimum necessary. So I went home with one S$69 TP-LINK TL-WR340G router.

It features the now-customary browser-based setup - just remember to use a hard-wired link rather than wireless (d'oh!), and it's almost as easy as falling off your seat. Bridging mode is pretty obvious; the TP-LINK wants to know the MAC address of the router you're connecting to, along with its encryption setup.

In bridge mode, the TL-WR340G only supports the obsolescent WEP encryption, not the current and generally superior WPA2. The 2Wire - along with every device currently connected to it, obviously - uses WPA2, and does not support a mixed WPA2/WEP environment.

Back to the store I go tomorrow; the only question now is: one new Netgear N router (which can fall back to 802.11g) or two?