Future Shock
Friday, January 29, 2010 at 10:39AM I'll have more to say on the iPad later but one can't help being struck by the volume and vehemence of apparently technologically sophisticated people inveighing against the iPad.
Some are trying to dismiss these ravings by comparing them to certain comments made after the launch of the iPod in 2001: "No wireless. Les space than a Nomad. Lame.". I fear this January-26th thinking misses the point.
What you're seeing in the industry's reaction to the iPad is nothing less than future shock.
For years we've all held to the belief that computing had to be made simpler for the 'average person'. I find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than that we have totally failed in this effort.
Secretly, I suspect, we technologists quite liked the idea that Normals would be dependent on us for our technological shamanism. Those incantations that only we can perform to heal their computers, those oracular proclamations that we make over the future and the blessings we bestow on purchasing choices.
Ask yourself this: in what other walk of life do grown adults depend on other people to help them buy something? Women often turn to men to help them purchase a car but that's because of the obnoxious misogyny of car dealers, not because ladies worry that the car they buy won't work on their local roads. (Sorry computer/car analogy. My bad.)
I'm often saddened by the infantilising effect of high technology on adults. From being in control of their world, they're thrust back to a childish, mediaeval world in which gremlins appear to torment them and disappear at will and against which magic, spells, and the local witch doctor are their only refuges.
With the iPhone OS as incarnated in the iPad, Apple proposes to do something about this, and I mean really do something about it instead of just talking about doing something about it, and the world is going mental.
Not the entire world, though. The people whose backs have been broken under the weight of technological complexity and failure immediately understand what's happening here. Those of us who patiently, day after day, explain to a child or colleague that the reason there's no Print item in the File menu is because, although the Pages document is filling the screen, Finder is actually the frontmost application and it doesn't have any windows open, understand what's happening here.
The visigoths are at the gate of the city. They're demanding access to software. they're demanding to be in control of their own experience of information. They may not like our high art and culture, they may be really into OpenGL boob-jiggling apps and they may not always share our sense of aesthetics, but they are the people we have claimed to serve for 30 years whilst screwing them over in innumerable ways. There are also many, many more of them than us.
People talk about Steve Jobs' reality distortion field, and I don't disagree that the man has a quasi-hypnotic ability to convince. There's another reality distortion field at work, though, and everyone that makes a living from the tech industry is within its tractor-beam. That RDF tells us that computers are awesome, they work great and only those too stupid to live can't work them.
The tech industry will be in paroxysms of future shock for some time to come. Many will cling to their January-26th notions of what it takes to get "real work" done; cling to the idea that the computer-based part of it is the "real work".
It's not. The Real Work is not formatting the margins, installing the printer driver, uploading the document, finishing the PowerPoint slides, running the software update or reinstalling the OS.
The Real Work is teaching the child, healing the patient, selling the house, logging the road defects, fixing the car at the roadside, capturing the table's order, designing the house and organising the party.
Think of the millions of hours of human effort spent on preventing and recovering from the problems caused by completely open computer systems. Think of the lengths that people have gone to in order to acquire skills that are orthogonal to their core interests and their job, just so they can get their job done.
If the iPad and its successor devices free these people to focus on what they do best, it will dramatically change people's perceptions of computing from something to fear to something to engage enthusiastically with. I find it hard to believe that the loss of background processing isn't a price worth paying to have a computer that isn't frightening anymore.
In the meantime, Adobe and Microsoft will continue to stamp their feet and whine.
Reader Comments (286)
Why settle for SECOND BEST with an iPad? Already in stores, no DRM, accepts OpenSource and has oodles of fu features AND has been on the market for YEARS. Archos. http://www.archos.com/products/imt/archos_5it/index.html?country=ca&lang=en.
Funny how the media have such short term memory…
To the person who said that the iPad only consumes. Look at the launch event where Brushes was demo'ed. http://brushesapp.com. Let's see that on a netbook. An Intuos tablet alone would cost more than the iPad itself.
To the person who was bitching about multitasking as applied to instant messaging. There's something called notifications. I suggest you look it up. I'm using Beejive and Whatsapp and they run in the background.
To the people who complain about the lack of ports and everything that you think you need. You don't. The original iMac didn't ship with a floppy disk drive and went on to be a successful product. I think the iPad will also be nicely positioned to not rely on these things. Cloud-based storage with automatic syncing is the way to go.
This is possibly one the best blog posts I have ever read. You can buy a netbook, but this is usually a full OS which contains bloat that we just don't need which causes complication to everyday users which is why us computer types are always asked to help fix things when things inevitably go wrong. Original operating systems have evolved over the years and while there has been new features, not much has changed with Snow Leopard or Windows 7, it is just like Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 on steroids.
With the iPhone, Apple has gently eased people in to a new and easier way of computing with an App Store and unless you jailbreak you can't really break the iPhone by messing with stuff you don't need to as an everyday user.
One of the reasons why I got a Mac was just wasting my time day after day doing stupid things. With Windows I would have to wait for virus checks, I would have to actually turn my computer off because sleep mode was next to useless. Ubuntu would just randomly stop working with my soundcard or just give up with wireless. With my Mac I could just put the computer to sleep at night and in the morning be looking at my email or browsing the web in seconds. It still has its disadvantages and vulnerabilities which is why the iPad is the next step. It treats the computer more as an appliance, like a TV or a refrigerator. Anyone can work these simple things. Like you point out in the article, the important things in life are things like teaching and healing. Technology is meant to make life easier for people. I think some things like Twitter and Facebook which help connect people have been beneficial and I think the Internet has helped gaming become more social, it has also helped give people a voice and helped small business, but it also has a lot of negatives and become a hassle with viruses, malware, invasion of privacy, piracy... there are some people (grandparents, even people my parents age who don't work with computers) who just don't want the hassle so just don't bother. That is sad because technology can help people, can help productivity, but at the moment, the waters are just too murky.
The iPad can be the start of technology actually helping the masses without the headaches that technology usually presents.
@pablo
"The bottom line is that Apple seems to be saying: "Let's make things easier for the user, let's screw the developers, and let's squeeze as much money as we can out of both of them".
If that's what it takes to make a computer (actually an appliance) that my Mum and Dad won't be frightened to use, then so be it. I don't think you realise how much of an obstacle the 'normal' computer and operating system really is to the vas majority of ordinary users who. Those are the users the iPad is aimed at.
Well, in some sense Jobs has finally being able to implement Raskin´s ideas.
Frankly, judging from the reactions of the people around me, the actual shock is that the future is not quite here yet: everybody was mounting disproportionate hopes on the ability of the mythical Apple tablet to revolutionize computing, and they had to come to accept the reality that the iPad is not intended to replace your computer.
I'm not wholly convinced that making things simpler has to go hand-in-hand with offering fewer functions. I totally agree that Mac OS X is difficult, and your example of the unexpected absence of a Print command in the File menu is a good one. But the interesting question here is: Is it difficult because a personal computer OS has to be difficult, or is it difficult because of poor implementation?
I'm inclined to think the latter, and then the question becomes: Why didn't Apple work sooner and faster on making Mac OS X easier to use? Is it perhaps because Steve kind of lost interest in the Mac's OS and diverted Apple's best people to designing different cases for the Mac and to the iPod and iPhone OS, rather than making the Mac OS as good as it could be?
In an alternative universe where the iPhone didn't exist, "the future" might be a Mac that's not just marginally better than a Windows PC, but is drastically easier to use and virtually bug-free. And it would still have the present advantages of the Mac, such that we could obtain software and content from anywhere we wanted, and the providers of that software and content could charge a fair price.
Of course, Apple has the right to come out with whatever devices it wants to, I believe the iPad will be useful and pleasant to use, and I intend to buy one. But I worry that referring to it as "the future" risks conflating a whole range of issues, on some of which Apple is moving us forward but on others of which it's taking us back. And I very much hope that the iPad direction doesn't become the de facto standard for what tablet devices "should" be.
While I agree with most of the article, this bit made me chuckle:
"Think of the millions of hours of human effort spent on preventing and recovering from the problems caused by completely open computer systems."
Arguing in favor of an easier-to-use system is one thing. Arguing in favor of a closed system is another thing entirely - one of the problems with the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad is that any applications run on the device must be downloaded through the App Store, which contains only apps that have been approved by Apple. For "generic computer user #1847234," and for a mobile device in general, this is just fine as you have relatively limited system resources to work with, but I'd shudder to think of what a desktop OS that only allowed software approved by its creators would be like. "Hey, I need a program to do task X, but such a program doesn't exist on this system. Even though I can program for this system, I can't write the program because I'd have to go through the submission process, and even if I make it that far, there's not a 100% chance the program will be approved anyways. Guess I'm screwed."
Very well written piece, thank you. I like that it talks about people and how we treat them - and not about THE new device.
Personally, I think that the iPad revolution is mostly feared by techies due to the new level of independence it will bring to ordinary end users.
Imagine this: no more chances to impress the chicks with (often questionable) "expert" knowledge. No more truly helpless parents or grandparents, or way less frequently. No more bosses in desperate need of a tech savvy secretary.
My highly skilled (within their respective industry) customers remind me very often of what is important for them: getting things done. No techno babble, no in-depth explanations, just make this strange machine acting as wanted.
In the end, they pay our bills so that we can enjoy our tech and gadget wonderland with all the freedom we enjoy so much. So we should set them free as much as possible.
This is THE best written and best thought out tech-commentary I've read ever.
Let's hope the "normals" don't want to access flash content, because no amount of "technological shamanism" will get it working on the iPad in it's current state.
Maybe they could coin a new tagline for these (many) sites: "It just doesn't work"
Yes!
Not well written article. There are two points:
* make computer simple to use
* become the gatekeeper of what can be submitted/run on the device
It certainly would be possible to implement Raskins ideas without beeing the sole judge of what is acceptable and what not. Apple is big now and would have a responsibility to address the second point in a more 'freedom-of-speech' fashion. Of course there should be rules but not Apple the only one deciding.
You focus on the first point but neglect the second, which is, imho, what people are complaining about.
There is a reason apple has fans and not just customers. The fanboy term really justs adds to their credibility..
Anyway I'll probably wait til' the second gen, this woul be great for university and business apps.
I love how people can knock a product they have never used.
The PCs and Macs and netbooks and notebooks today are legacy office equipment.
Their DNA is filled with productivity goals and office-place metaphors.
Consumer electronic devices don't need this stuff. They need to deliver functions without the complexity. If you desperately want to edit a Dreamweaver document - Apple already makes a whole line of computers to do that sort of stuff. Rest assured, they are not withdrawing the Mac.
There is only one thing wrong with the iPad - and that is its dependence upon a "proper" computer. When we can give our parents an iPad (and just an iPad) then the revolution will have started in earnest.
C.
Flash will be dead in a little while. Thanks to HTML 5.
And nobody should make full websites in flash. The only real flash elements are adverts on a site.
I love Apple's ideology. Stay simple. Key features first. Build up later.
Read 37signals getting real, and you will understand apple.
It's hard to come by an opininated corporate company.
i totally agree, too. an easy to use accees to the internet. that's it.
no complex installing - no multitasking. perfect to concentrate on things to do.
Great post Fraser! I'm surprised by how many people dissing the iPad seem to be iphone owners or who have experience with one. I remember that first weekend after the iphone was released sitting on the couch surfing the web and thinking how cool this is and how much greater it will be when it's tablet size. The multi-touch interface is so intuitive that my then 2 year old quickly figured out how to turn it on and go to photos and browse pictures.
I thought the iWork part of the demo was the real star of the show Wed. That showed the power of the device to do real work in a multi-touch environment. Once developers get their heads around what is possible with a multi-touch interface AND a decent screen size their will be some killer apps coming our way. I can't wait!
Those of us seeking consecration to the IT priesthood -- and those of us seeking elevation to the College of Cardinals -- aren't always made happy by such devices. Steve Jobs? Heretic!
"As well as the loss of running a browser that isn't Safari, running office software that isn't iWork, and having developers run through a broken, hit and miss approval process where it can take anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months to get anything out to users."
It's become geek chic to berate Apple for the app approval process -- though it's nowhere near as bad as people make out. Average approval time is one week, and the vast majority of rejections are because of bugs that should be fixed. And of course there are alternate web browsers, document editing apps, and the like. There are open source apps as well.
But no one points out the plus side. How would you windows fans like a platform entirely free of viruses, free of malware, a platform where every program that you run across has been checked out by a third party, at least briefly?
No doubt some malware will eventually get through -- but 140,000 apps later it's still virtually zero.
I've not seen one person, techie or Normal, that thinks the iPad is a good idea. Nobody wants a limited functionality system like the iTouch/phone that is the size of a full function system. In what universe does that make sense?
Great Read ! I wholeheartedly agree. As a medical doctor I only can say, all those who mischievously lament about the iPad's presumed shortcomings are in essence judging a newborn child for all that he/she is not. Look at that awful baby, what a laugh, has no hair, can't talk, can't walk, needs a diaper. Don't worry my sweet child, the day you're grown up no one will remember Flash and all the other stuff you haven't been borne with. Am I getting my point across ?
I think you have been suckered on this one. The real arguments against the iPad aren't the technological arguments, they're the marketing arguments, the customer service arguments, the profitability arguments. Apple makes products for people who like shiny things. The surface aesthetics are so good that people overlook the fact that the functionality is limited. The iPad is like a Smeg refigerator, or a Dolce & Gabanna T-shirt. Retailing is full of attempts to infantilise the customer, in case you hadn't noticed, and people can be persuaded to pay excessive prices that result in higher margins for the supplier.
Apple afficionados will buy the iPod right now because it's shiny and new, and a year from now they'll buy it again, to get the extra features, like multitasking, or a camera. Both of those features could have been implemented in this year's model, but they weren't. This is exactly what we saw with the iPod, which when it started was a third rate MP3 player (with a great surface aesthetic) and the iPhone. The first iPhones weren't 3G, and last year there was a huge fanfare when the iPhone finally got cut and paste!
Scott Plumlee's comment nails it: the iPad is being promoted for day to day consumption of media tasks, not power computing tasks. It's been designed to allow Apple to exploit iTunes and the iPhone app store to sell more stuff, rather than to deliver any benefit to consumers. It won't replace your phone, your laptop, or even your Wii. This isn't future shock, but It will make a lot of money. Because the real genius of Steve Jobs is that he can produce the computing equivalent of an $80 designer T-shirt, and sel itl to people who think that adding cut and paste to a word processor is a big deal.
"Although calling Apple a "control freak" may sound clever, it's just flawed reasoning."
@corbetti - not quite. To give but one example: the cat and mouse game of Apple updating iTunes to actively prevent it from synchronising with non-Apple devices, e.g. the Palm Pre. How is this in support of controlling UX? It's about effecting lock-in and protecting revenue, pure and simple. And as for the discriminatory App Store and preventing backgrounding etc - there is no reason why they could not offer an opt out of the single-minded Apple experience. To use the car analogy: I could swap out the engine in my Ford for a custom one - I'd void my warranty, but Ford wouldn't try and stop me.
Hats off to Apple for their innovation in UX and for coming up with products that frequently look far better than all the competition. But, shame on them for taking away their customer's freedoms. UX may be high on their list but, sadly, protecting revenue and their image come higher and at their customer's expense.
So true, it's all about usability.