Category: Media / Sociology

iPad lousy for geek education

I was aware of the Free Software Foundation‘s protests outside of the iPad release event, but I’ve been impressed at the reaction of some insightful bloggers and programmers. They are all expressing their frustration with the device’s restrictions on “tinkering.” On a normal computer, a user can install whatever application they like, and with the right skills a user can dig into the guts of the machine–and in this process learn a lot. What I really like about these posts is that they highlight how tinkering is absolutely necessary to spawning interest and creativity.

I started with Mark Pilgrim’s assessment (thanks to Slashdot), which begins with a great hook:

When DVD Jon was arrested after breaking the CSS encryption algorithm, he was charged with “unauthorized computer trespassing.” That led his lawyers to ask the obvious question, “On whose computer did he trespass?” The prosecutor’s answer: “his own.”

If that doesn’t make your heart skip a beat, you can stop reading now.

He continues to explain how his experience with Apple’s own ][e started him on the path of tinkering with computers at a very early age. He concludes by pointing out that future tinkerers have two choices: buy an annual $99 development license from Apple (beyond the budget of most pre-teens), or as his final assessment states:

And I know, I know, I know you can “jailbreak” your iPhone, (re)gain root access, and run anything that can motherfucking run. And I have no doubt that someone will figure out how to “jailbreak” the iPad, too. But I don’t want to live in a world where you have to break into your own computer before you can start tinkering. And I certainly don’t want to live in a world where tinkering with your own computer is illegal.

Once upon a time, Apple made the machines that made me who I am. I became who I am by tinkering. Now it seems they’re doing everything in their power to stop my kids from finding that sense of wonder. Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world. With every software update, the previous generation of “jailbreaks” stop working, and people have to find new ways to break into their own computers.

Pilgrim quotes a statement by Alex Payne about the iPad offering a better model for the average user–one where the computer is a simple to use device that has all of the complexity hidden away. He pointedly argues:

Apple’s decision to make the iPad a closed device is an artificial one. It’s been several years since I worked in security, but as best I understand, there’s no practical technical reason why the iPad must be its particular flavor of closed in order to be usable and reliable. It’s still possible to enforce sandboxing and resource limitations in an open system; it simply requires a different approach.

His view can perhaps be summed in a quote by yet another blogger, Lifehacker’s Adam Pash: “To say that ‘either a device is user friendly or it’s open’ is a false dichotomy.”

Essentially the argument of all three is that there is no reason to lock tinkerers out of the iPhone and iPad. What’s more, they argue that for future geeks it’s actually important that users be able to look under the hood if they want to. The culmination of these technical locks, the law protecting those locks, and the processes created to restrict the software that runs on these devices is not conducive to creativity as Apple might have you believe.

To answer Pash’s question “As power users, do we really want to send the message to Apple and other hardware manufacturers that we’re cool with them taking away our choice?” I think those of us who believe the answer to this question is “no” need to collectively let Apple know how important this is.  We need more than just a poll.

Maybe it’s time to read Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet again.

We live online

The Times is reporting a recent Pew study that has some revealing findings about the amount of time kids spend online.

Those ages 8 to 18 spend more than seven and a half hours a day with such devices, compared with less than six and a half hours five years ago, when the study was last conducted. And that does not count the hour and a half that youths spend texting, or the half-hour they talk on their cellphones.

Even academics in communication are shocked:

“This is a stunner,” said Donald F. Roberts, a Stanford communications professor emeritus who is one of the authors of the study. “In the second report, I remember writing a paragraph saying we’ve hit a ceiling on media use, since there just aren’t enough hours in the day to increase the time children spend on media. But now it’s up an hour.”

What I find interesting about this report is how integrated the Internet has become in the daily lives of youth. It almost seems silly to call internet use “being online,” because there’s really not much of an “on” anymore–it’s as though we’re always there.

My feeling is that this may also have implications on how much we will be able to regulate internet use (ie: laws on downloading, etc). At a minimum, these laws may meet some resistance, and attempts to regulate structurally (packet inspection) won’t go unnoticed.

via If Your Kids Are Awake, They’re Probably Online – NYTimes.com.

New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers

It appears as though the Times might be getting ready to start charging online readers.

The Times has considered three types of pay strategies. One option was a more traditional pay wall along the lines of The Wall Street Journal, in which some parts of the site are free and some subscription-only. … Another option was the metered system. The third choice, an NPR-style membership model, was abandoned last fall, two sources explained.

As a long-time subscriber, and recent iPhone reader, I say it’s about time! I’m glad to see that they’ve considered more than just two options (pay/no pay), yet I’m surprised they didn’t see yet another–pay for more than the first paragraph. Many online readers are looking for a quick fix of news on the go, and writing in the inverted pyramid should already accommodate for this. I’ve said before that sites like Newser could point the way, but the execs haven’t quite grasped that the technology might allow them to intricately tailor what their readers see/pay for. As former deputy managing editor Jon Landman said:

The idea of two camps is just wrong. There’s many shades to this.

via New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers — Daily Intel (New York Magazine),
via Slashdot News Story | NY Times To Charge For Online Content