Comments on: Education and the iPad’s Architecture of Control http://onepeople.org/node/1759 It's not about free, it's about freedom. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:42:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Will Wilkinson http://onepeople.org/node/1759#comment-269 Will Wilkinson Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:08:43 +0000 http://onepeople.org/?p=1759#comment-269 Gunnar, I suspect Apple has the iPhone, app store, and iPad locked down tight because they make more money that way. No? I'm ambivalent about the school market. They question is what a school district wants to buy. If what they want is a textbook reader able to support educational games, it's not clear why they shouldn't get that and only that. Conventional textbooks don't come with a little typesetting kit, and obviously that's fine. That said, I do think it's worthwhile to try to sell school districts on the significant virtues of devices that let interested students tinker. And it is obviously irresponsible to pay more for devices that do less than the open alternatives. Gunnar, I suspect Apple has the iPhone, app store, and iPad locked down tight because they make more money that way. No?

I’m ambivalent about the school market. They question is what a school district wants to buy. If what they want is a textbook reader able to support educational games, it’s not clear why they shouldn’t get that and only that. Conventional textbooks don’t come with a little typesetting kit, and obviously that’s fine. That said, I do think it’s worthwhile to try to sell school districts on the significant virtues of devices that let interested students tinker. And it is obviously irresponsible to pay more for devices that do less than the open alternatives.

]]> By: gunnar http://onepeople.org/node/1759#comment-268 gunnar Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:21:19 +0000 http://onepeople.org/?p=1759#comment-268 Will, I think you're right that it's incumbent on pro-tinkering folks to address gaps in design and status signalling. At the same time, I think it's a false choice. Tim suggests that Apple could easily make its platforms hackable and unlock a great deal of trapped value in the platform without sacrificing anything in the regular user's experience. I think he's right. Your argument addresses the plain-vanilla consumer market, but I think the game changes when we're talking about a school district buying these locked-up platforms in bulk. Tinkering arguments aside, I think obligating a schoolhouse full of kids to Apple's licensing and market restrictions is irresponsible. Will, I think you’re right that it’s incumbent on pro-tinkering folks to address gaps in design and status signalling. At the same time, I think it’s a false choice. Tim suggests that Apple could easily make its platforms hackable and unlock a great deal of trapped value in the platform without sacrificing anything in the regular user’s experience. I think he’s right.

Your argument addresses the plain-vanilla consumer market, but I think the game changes when we’re talking about a school district buying these locked-up platforms in bulk. Tinkering arguments aside, I think obligating a schoolhouse full of kids to Apple’s licensing and market restrictions is irresponsible.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://onepeople.org/node/1759#comment-266 Will Wilkinson Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:04:04 +0000 http://onepeople.org/?p=1759#comment-266 I broadly agree with both you and Tim. Copying BASIC code out of games magazines on my Commodore 64 was definitely a formative experience. From a certain perspective, complaints about lack of hackability sounds a lot like the complaints older car guys make about computerized transmissions (Is that a thing? I know nothing about cars) and such depriving our generation of the joys of tinkering. But tinkering is a niche hobby. If computerized transmissions make for a better consumer product, the gain to consumers probably more than offsets the gain to tinkerers. But tinkering with cars and computers isn't the same. Consumers can benefit from software tinkerers in ways they can't benefit from car tinkerers. And Tim makes a persuasive case that there are real benefits to sharing a platform with tinkerers. But I think the obvious big question is whether, at any given point in time, the open-to-tinkering device is as good as the closed device in the respects most consumers care about. And I think one has to conclude that Apple has been trashing the field in delivering a powerful combination of functionality and phenomenal design (which is both intrinsically desirable and the basis for successful consumer status-signaling). I think one problem is that the tinkerer community is predominantly an engineering community, and so has been unable to really compete on design and cultural signification in the consumer market. Whether today's 10 year olds will be given open-to-tinkering tablets for Christmas in two years I think depends largely on whether the design, usability, and status-signaling ability of open devices can compete with Apple. Anyway, all that's probably old hat for you! I broadly agree with both you and Tim. Copying BASIC code out of games magazines on my Commodore 64 was definitely a formative experience. From a certain perspective, complaints about lack of hackability sounds a lot like the complaints older car guys make about computerized transmissions (Is that a thing? I know nothing about cars) and such depriving our generation of the joys of tinkering. But tinkering is a niche hobby. If computerized transmissions make for a better consumer product, the gain to consumers probably more than offsets the gain to tinkerers. But tinkering with cars and computers isn’t the same. Consumers can benefit from software tinkerers in ways they can’t benefit from car tinkerers. And Tim makes a persuasive case that there are real benefits to sharing a platform with tinkerers. But I think the obvious big question is whether, at any given point in time, the open-to-tinkering device is as good as the closed device in the respects most consumers care about. And I think one has to conclude that Apple has been trashing the field in delivering a powerful combination of functionality and phenomenal design (which is both intrinsically desirable and the basis for successful consumer status-signaling). I think one problem is that the tinkerer community is predominantly an engineering community, and so has been unable to really compete on design and cultural signification in the consumer market. Whether today’s 10 year olds will be given open-to-tinkering tablets for Christmas in two years I think depends largely on whether the design, usability, and status-signaling ability of open devices can compete with Apple.

Anyway, all that’s probably old hat for you!

]]>