⇥ Why iPhone OS is not as closed as you think
I come back from the dead just so that I can write a few thoughts about this post by Cory Doctorow, which has culminated a week of words from people who seem to be stuck in 1980 and not willing to move—but all too willing to nag the rest of us about it.
Let me, first of all, say that this is not about DRM. I hate DRM, and I have made damn sure that it’s out of every product that we sell. I don’t want you copying my work, but I have no illusions that DRM is going to prevent you from doing that. DRM is absolutely, completely, positively useless.
What this is about is the concept of openness. Be warned—this is a long post, but, I hope, worth it.
I will take mine with a bonnet, please
Fifty, or even thirty years ago, you had every opportunity to open up your car and change it to your heart’s desire. In fact, you had to, in a way—the cars were so unreliable that a basic knowledge of automotive mechanics was as commonplace as today’s ability to type an SMS message at the speed of light. Tinkering was natural and expected—which is why you’d get a fairly detailed set of schematics with each car. For example, I remember my dad’s Fiat 127′s manual as coming with a complete electrical diagram and a cutaway drawing of the gearbox.The fact that you could tinker with an automobile, however, has not created a generation of mechanics or mechanical engineers. Instead, the car has evolved, and today’s vehicles come with manuals that spend a considerable amount of time explaining how to tune your radio rather than how to change your oil. Engine blocks are now more likely to be exactly what their name implies: compact, all-in-one blocks with no user-serviceable parts.
That fact is pretty indisputable. But the question is: does that mean that today’s cars are less open?
By the standards of 1950, the answer is absolutely yes. But, and follow me closely now, because this seems to be something that the Apple bashers don’t quite seem to get: we don’t live in 1950.
If we could magically transport a person who lived at the height of the Cold War across time and present them with one of today’s cars, they’d probably complain endlessly about how they wouldn’t even be able to change their own oil.
On the other hand, interest in automotive “tinkering” is alive and well. Even as cars have moved on to electronic engine management, there are plenty of people who are interested in playing with their insides to their heart’s content. Perhaps the most obvious example of this are Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, the hosts of Mythbusters: one has a high school diploma, and the other a degree in Russian literature, and they yet they are the ultimate tinkerers in everything mechanical and electronic.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can go from point A to point B knowing that the likelihood of the car breaking down on us is minimal—and that, if it does, someone who is reasonably qualified will be able to help us. We are, in other words, users and we can use a car even if we have absolutely no intention of learning how it works.
This is called progress.
The atomic chip
It’s easy enough to see a parallel between the car and the computer, so I don’t see much value into going into it from a general perspective.I do, however, want to ask you to consider this: where does openness end?
Consider the Apple ][, which was the computer to which every other computer today owes its existence. Doctorow hails it as the ultimate open computer, since it came with schematics and all sorts of documentation.
But, now, how open is the platform really? Could you change the CPU and replace it, say, with a motherboard? Could you disassemble the CPU and make your own?
Of course not—the CPU was nothing more than a thin sliver of silicon embedded in a much bigger block of plastic. You would have been no more likely to “tinker” your own CPU into existence than Woz could.
The reason for this was not a giant conspiracy aimed at preventing us from learning electronic engineering—it was a simple matter of progress. Without the CPU, we'd still be stuck in the days of computers that filled rooms and required small power generation stations to run.
In the name of progress, we have instead foregone some of the tinkering freedom in exchange for more accessibility. People who are interested in microprocessor design still have plenty of options, many of which are relatively inexpensive and entirely open to all forms of experimentation.
Perhaps Doctorow refers to the fact that, with manual and schematics in hand, you could easily create new peripherals and extend the power of your computer. That is, of course, true—except that it's actually easier to do so today than it was twenty years ago, because almost every computer today uses a completely standardized set of interfaces for communicating to the outside (it's called USB, in case you're wondering). PCs have it, Macs have it, and so do all iPhone OS devices.
Nor is your ability to mess around with the ports hindered in any significant way: recent versions of iPhone OS, for example, support USB connectivity (with some significant exceptions—read below).
So, exactly, where is the lack of openness? Should we go back to 1980 and type all our programs from a magazine so that we can feel part of a special club? Should I pull out the 80-column extension card from my Apple ][ so that I can, um, not use it in another computer?
Doctorow says that even a battery requires specialized knowledge to change. I fail to see how that's a relevant point—you can open your iPod or your iPhone and replace the battery with tools that you can buy at any hardware store (I've done it). Of course, your average person will have neither the know-how nor the patience to do it, and Apple is banking on the fact that they will take it in for additional revenue. That, however, doesn't mean that we will run out of programmers, or hardware specialists. You can change your car's oil with nothing more than a wrench—which, of course, most people do not own because they take their car in to the shop.
It's the passion, stupid!
What makes a device “open” is not the number of screws on its back or the quantity of parts you can change by yourself. It's its accessibility. And what makes a person a tinkerer is not a screwdriver or a schematic in a manual, it's passion.The people who decry the bygone era of the Apple ][ seem to have forgotten how much that machine cost. I haven't, and I am all to aware of the fact that I owe my entire career—all twenty years of it—to the fact that my father, by far one of the smartest men I know and a master tinkerer in his own right—found a broken Apple ][ in the street, took it home and, bless him, managed to make it work. Had he not been so good (and so lucky), I would probably be doing something else today because there was no way my family could afford to buy a computer that had a base cost of $4,500 in 1980.
By contrast, tomorrow I will buy an iPad—a device far more capable than an Apple ][—for $500 in today’s money. Forget the iPad—I can buy a laptop for the same amount, and have at my disposal all the tools I need to create as much software as I want. But let’s be clear that this is made possible by the very same process that Doctorow claim are destroying our ability to tinker: computers get cheaper because they are less “open.”
The same concept goes for the fact that one needs to pay $100 in order to write applications for the iPhone. First of all, that’s not true: you can get the entire Apple developer stack for free—including an iPhone emulator that will allow you to run your programs without even having one of their devices. Second, $100 is nothing. Nothing. It’s less than most people spend in meals every week. It’s less than you spend in coffee every month. It’s less, I bet, than your cell phone bill. It’s really the worst possible excuse that you can come up with—if you have the passion to program for iPhone OS, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing so.
The kernel in the kettle
In principle, I join Doctorow and many of my friends in disliking the fact that Apple has appointed itself gatekeeper of what gets to play on the iPhone. On the other hand, I see the App Store as integral to the kind of evolution that the iPhone represents. One only needs to look at the gargantuan (and largely pointless) effort that Microsoft has undertaken to try and keep viruses and malware off of a typical Windows machine to realize that the App Store has enormous advantages for your average user.Note that nothing prevents you from exchanging code with other iPhone OS developers. There are tons of open-source code for the iPhone that you can download from a multitude of sites. In fact, many of the graphics, sounds and physics engine used by even the most popular iPhone OS games are entirely open source.
One thing that is interesting about the App Store is the fact that it is, in fact, much more open than the vast majority of distribution channels in existence. Sure, you can write an application for Windows without Microsoft telling you whether you can sell it or not, but… have you ever tried dealing with a distributor? Think that you, small developer, will get the same shelf space as Office at your local Best Buy? Will you still think that the 30% “Apple Tax” is prohibitive when you find out that your typical distribution deals start at 45%, and all sales are on consignment?
Of course, you can sell your product over the Internet and avoid paying anyone anything. There’s no disputing that—which is why I say that, in principle, I agree that the App Store is far from perfect, but that’s a far cry from saying that Apple is trying to turn us into an army of mindless drones. I’d say, rather, that Apple is trying to make sure that we don’t have to worry about what’s inside our computers unless we want to—in which case it provides us with the tools to happily shoot ourselves in the foot as long as we don’t point the gun at anyone else.
After putting my thoughts to virtual paper, it seems to me that tinkering is going nowhere. It’s just evolving alongside the rest of our world, so that applying old lessons to it makes absolutely no sense.
Comments
I personally think the first half of your and Corey’s argument is a bit of a red herring. Even in the Apple ][‘s day full schematics for your hardware was not a common occurrence, and as hardware got more and more complicated things had to be abstracted to the point to where now all one does is find a slot that fits your expansion card and go (no more pulling jumpers and organizing your IRQ address space). Given the fab size of modern Intel processors, having the schematics isn’t going to do you a damn load of good.
However I think you tread into very dangerous territory in your semi-defense of the iPad’s software ecosystem.
You say: “I’d say, rather, that Apple is trying to make sure that we don’t have to worry about what’s inside our computers unless we want to—in which case it provides us with the tools to happily shoot ourselves in the foot as long as we don’t point the gun at anyone else.”
I respond to your statement by asking, in what way does Apple provide us with the tools to shoot ourselves in the feet on the iPad/iPhone/iPod?
Sure I get an SDK, but the non-developer who wants to install Google Voice can’t be bothered to sign up for Apple’s developer program, download XCode, download the Google Source (as this would be the only way outside of warranty-voiding jailbreaking), compile, and install a developer copy on your phone. Even still, I, as a developer, can’t distribute my application outside the App Store (9 times out of 10 there’s no point to developing if I can’t share the application with others) and Apple explicitly forbids applications that “duplicate existing functionality” so I can’t have a choice and contribute to/benefit from Mozilla or Opera’s answers to the mobile internet, or Google’s creative improvements on phone calling.
My only choice is to use tools not only not provided by Apple, but actually void my warranties and other agreements with Apple.
However, declaring that Apple is turning us into mindless drones is pulp conspiracy theories at best. I could go on for days about the slippery slope of consumer acceptance of more and more restriction over application choice and the potential leak into the desktop space, however this is neither the time or place.
As someone who moved off the iphone due to it not being “opened” I totally agree with you in this article, but my problem with apple and the iphone os is that to just BE an iphone dev and get the dev kit i need to do two things:
1) buy a mac. I can’t do ANY iphone dev as a windows and linux user
2) pay aple to get the dev kit
I loved the iphone os and the app store, but it goes beyond just protecting the masses. I WANT to tinker, but I can’t join the club because I don’t have a mac and my only reason for getting one would be iphone dev. Its not in my price range when it is added up.
You’re purely thinking from the perspective of a developer. mr. doctorow’s post was much more than that. Fact remains that I can’t write an app and send it to my non-developer friend.
This analogy is pretty flawed. Few individuals in 1950 could design a new system for their car – ie, power steering; and practically manufacture it on a widespread basis.
With the apple hardware vs software; it’s a completely different ball game. If I wanted to design a new way to use my hardware in a software forrm; there are no physical constraints to this.
With no one able to compete cost effectively with automotive manufacturers; is it any wonder we’ve ended up with a bunch of non-open systems in this day and age?
I see a couple fallacies of omission in your logic. You talk about the SDK being only $100 — but omit the fact that you can only develop iPhone/iPod/iPad apps on Apple hardware; in other words, if you don’t own a Mac, you can’t develop for the platform. This adds at least $1k to the costs of development immediately.
In arguing that the App Store is more open than other venues, you specifically say, “have you ever tried dealing with a distributor?” The fact of the matter is that with the iPhone/iPod/iPad, your only way to distribute an application is via the App Store — if you’re rejected, you have no recourse. In an open platform, if you don’t get on the “official” or “blessed” distribution platform, users can still install your application. Your point that the App Store is around to help ensure end-users don’t need to worry about unstable applications is a laugh — there are plenty of apps out there that prove this wrong, on both sides of the fence (apps accepted to the store that are unstable, and apps that are perfectly stable but rejected by Apple). While you can argue that there’s recourse for this in that you can develop web-based applications, this is also fallacious; web-based applications cannot benefit from many of the UI and hardware APIs available to the machine, and restrict you to what the browser can support.
As an example: I’ve wanted to create some applications for interacting with some of my personal hardware and web services. This is very niche — nobody outside of myself or my family will want to use these apps. But because you have to go through the App Store to install new applications, I cannot simply share the application with my family members. This is the antithesis of tinkering, in my opinion.
While I agree that Doctorow’s discussion of being able to tinker with the hardware is basically pointless with today’s advances in hardware, I think the bigger issue is that the platform is not very open to those who want to be able to develop for it and distribute what they create outside the “blessed” distribution channel. I personally am very worried about this kind of lock-in if devices such as Apple’s become too pervasive.
[...] Why iPhone OS is not as closed as you think « The Accidental … [...]
Wow Apple has truly brainwashed you.
I’m sorry but changing a battery on a IPOD is considered ‘thinkering a car’?
Apple *could* make it easy to change the battery just like they could add usb to the ipad.
Apple isn’t a computing revolution, it’s genius marketing execution which you have confused with “progress”.
[...] Visit link: Why iPhone OS is not as closed as you think « The Accidental … [...]
The point that Apple protects users with its iStore policy doesn’t become more true if its repeated once again. Still sounds like the “Apple Stockholm syndrome”. Windows systems aren’t attacked because there’s no central validation agency for software. There is none for macs and there are much fewer attacks because MacOS is built on a better architecture.
Personally I think its fairly easy. Apple did a perfect job in monopolizing its marked, Ipod, Ipod Touch, Iphone, Ipad all have been outstanding products from a consumers point of view and Apple quickly monopolized this market for themselves.
The problem we as IT experts (programmers, whatever) have with this approach is that we are not really consumers, but rather want to use the platform for our own ideas (be it business or fun). Since Apple sort-of has this monopoly on awesome smart-phones, why should they care about us? They still get all the crowd. Until there are not some other big-players that offer the same like Iphone and Ipad do Apple has no incentive at all to change its approach to apps in the AppStore.
Like Matthew Weier O’Phinney, I feel you’ve omitted very critical information in your defense of Apple. I feel you’ve also fallen into the very false security vs. freedom trap that has become so common in both the software and political world.
Apple has decided, in their infinite wisdom, that the only way to make a stable system is to make one where they have absolute say on what users can do with their system. This falls into the trap Ben Franklin warned us about long ago: those who would sacrifice their freedom for a little bit of security will deserve neither and lose both. With Apple’s iPhone and iPad, you give up the freedom of being able to do anything you want with the platform in order to get a secure platform, but you don’t even get that, as Matthew mentioned; in large part because software is complex and even Apple can’t guarantee their own software is bug free, much less the millions of apps out there.
Your car comparison misses the point too, I think. Yes, cars have become much more complex since the 1950s, but if I buy a car today, I can still learn how to fix 60-70% of it (maybe not a Toyota acceleration issue though) and can still customize it completely, often for the cost of a few cheap tools (much less than a week’s worth of food). If I can’t do it myself, I can take the car back to the dealer for maintenance, or spend 50% what the dealer will charge me and go to the nearby Jiffy Lube. With the Apple hardware, you barely have the option to do it yourself, you don’t even have the option to go to someone other than the dealer themselves for repair or customization.
There are systems that bring the security and convenience of an “App store” like Apple’s and yet still allow openness. Google uses such a system for their Android platform, but they don’t force all apps running on their OS to only be installed from their store. This allows the 99% of non-tinkerer users to just buy a phone and download apps from a “secure” store. But, if they ever desire, they can get uncensored apps from wherever they want and the 1% of us tinkerers don’t have to spend $1100 to tinker. Android isn’t more insecure than an iPhone because of this, but it is open in ways that an iPhone will never be unless Apple changes their ways.
Apple needs to die. And soon. Microsoft’s monopoly practices were a joke in comparison. You’re just shooting yourself in the foot trying to support them.
You failed to define openness and you refused to even google what openness means to other people. Your argument is unsupported.
There are very few accepted definitions of openness which fit your criteria here.
The fact that you totally ignored the legal issues and rights issue of the platform suggests you’re being intellectually dishonest because that’s what everyone else is talking about, or you’re totally ignorant of the context that you shouldn’t have made a blog post.
Either way, you should’ve never wasted our time with your blog post. Do some research next time or at least read about philosophy, semantics, rhetoric, fallacies and argument.
You have a serious fault in your reasoning…
Not as closed as you think phah!!!
saying a whole lot of nothing in too many words