Re: Cory Doctorow on iPad, Apple ][+

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On Apr 6, 1:22 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
> mdj wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 3:50 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Bah, humbug.
>
> >>I completely agree, Dave.
>
> >>That is my problem with "magic" devices that offer no point of
> >>entry for understanding/hacking short of destruction.
>
> > I agree that if it were the only game in town, it'd be a very bad
> > thing ...
>
> Well, for Apple, such devices are pretty much the only game...unless
> you become a "developer".

To be fair, MacOS comes bundled with the developer tools and all the
documentation (including the Intel processor documentation). "Sign up"
is free and you can pay more if you want 'real' support as a
developer. By contrast, Visual Studio Professional is $550.

Of course, the big entry requirement to iPhone/iPad development *is*
the Macintosh, which I suspect makes the barrier pretty high for many.

> >>It's a little like what "computer software" has become--scripting
> >>languages and Flash programming, instead of algorithms and data
> >>structures.  (Thankfully, there remain some real programmers, but
> >>you surely appreciate what a rare breed you are becoming. ;-)
>
> > Although, on the iPhone/Pad platform, you're forced to use the
> > relatively (by today's standards) low-level Obective-C with *no*
> > garbage collection, a far cry from 'scripting' tools used in modern
> > web development :-)
>
> As would be expected for programming any battery powered,
> limited resource device.  ;-)
>
> I don't know what the numbers are, but perhaps the number of (actual)
> developers for the iPhone/iPad are comparable to the number of
> scripters, but it would surprise me...

It's not even close. I hear a semi-constant whine from the web
developers I know about the lack of Flash support on the iPhone (and
how it's stifling innovation etc). I'm in the (perhaps minority) group
that considers the lack of Flash a *feature* :-)

> >>We are in danger of losing our collective ability to create the
> >>mechanisms on which we have all come to depend.  (Reminds me of
> >>what I used to consider far-fetched science fiction scenarios.)
>
> > Meanwhile, the open source community has built an entire operating
> > system and application stack for which the entire source code is
> > available and hackable. Combined with a Linux OS, the modern PC
> > architecture is almost as open as the Apple II. The only part of the
> > system that is closed is the hardware inteface to the graphics
> > subsystem (and I really wish the nVidia's and ATI's of the world would
> > pull their collective heads out of their behinds on that score).
>
> > So I think future generations are for the moment "safe".
>
> Actually, I'm more worried about the kids who used to develop an
> interest in (and some confidence in their capacity to) program a
> machine to do interesting things.  I'm not sure what platform
> caters to them these days.

Lego Mindstorms :-)

> >>Of course, given the economics of the situation, we would never
> >>actually lose that ability--it would just become concentrated in
> >>fewer and less innovative (more risk-averse) corporate hands.
>
> > I pretty much agree with all this in principle, but in practice
> > products like the iPad just echo how ubiquitous information technology
> > has become. It's target market is non-technical people, and I have a
> > feeling they're going to flock to it like seagulls. The 'just works'
> > mantra is a compelling one I admit even for myself who spends a fair
> > amount of time messing around with the 'low level' stuff.
>
> > Radio and Television work because people like to consume media. The
> > latest generation of gadgetry just reflects the fact that 90% of the
> > population that's "on the internet" just want to consume media in a
> > convenient way. For a while, the beige-box PC was the most convenient
> > and cost effective way to do that, but not anymore.
>
> > For the rest of us, the opportunity exists to fire up Emacs, and get
> > busy tinkering with the internals of what is now a pretty advanced
> > system.
>
> I agree with that, too--I just regret how much more daylight there
> is between "users" and "makers" these days...ah, well.

I often find myself torn by newer languages and development tools that
promise to turn users into makers, and the desire to see makers
actually understand the substrate they're building on. I suspect in
that regard we are very similar :-)

> > BTW, did anyone else think of Sculley's Knowledge Navigator when the
> > iPad showed up?
>
> I sure did.  I wish I had a copy of that "concept video".  Several
> companies made "anytime, anywhere device" videos around that time,
> HP included.  ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8

> Of course, they all hark back to Alan Kay's "dynabook", and before that
> to Ted Nelson's "hypertext/hypermedia" vision.

Last I heard Alan was living the dream with Negroponte and Squeak on
the OLPC, which was good to hear.

> Today it likely calls to mind the ubiquitous "tablets" of Star Trek:
> The Next Generation.

:-) Apple's marketing was drenched in images of their screens showing
stills from the new Star Trek movie for a while before the iPad
appeared, and it's still featuring those images once you wade past the
iPad marketing to the Mac pages.

Master class subliminal advertising if ever I've seen it ;-)

Matt