I guess that would be more doable with current technology than a full computer. Though Photoshop doesn't run on Linux, and you'd probably want more programs besides Photoshop. I hardly ever use Photoshop at all these days, myself.
Multiboot/GRUB to start the app you want.
Yes, Photoshop doesn't work on Linux, that's why I said you also needed Adobe to contribute.
Name one Apple product ever since the Apple ][gs that doesn't have some severe limitations.
iMac, Macbook Pro, Mac Pro, iPods, Magic Mouse. And if you want to talk Software: Logic, Final Cut Pro, iWork, Quicktime 7. That'll do for now I guess.
Mac OSX is extremely limited compared to Linux or Windows, and not just because software doesn't exist for it. It simply isn't customizable in any major fashion. I can give lots of examples, but here's just one. You can't show hidden files in the finder on a folder-by-folder basis. That's pretty fucking annoying. Also hardware-wise, are we talking about the Macbook Pros that don't have removable batteries? Are we talking about the iMacs that you can't open and modify at all? Are we talking about the Mac Pro that opens, but only exposes the parts Apple wants you to touch like RAM, drives and cards?
iPods
Which only really work with iTunes, and can't play ogg, or other file formats, without hacking them.
Magic Mouse.
Which won't work on Windows without a hack. Dare you to try Linux.
And if you want to talk Software: Logic, Final Cut Pro, iWork, Quicktime 7. That'll do for nowIguess.
Final Cut Pro not severely limited? Give me a break. You need to also buy QuickTime Pro to get all the features out of it. That's a pretty severe limitation. Like OSX, these programs are all expensive, only run on Mac, and are very uncustomizable. They're about as limited and closed as software can be. They're much more limited than Windows, MS Office, or even Adobe products.
Yes, there are some flaws. But my aluminum unibody Macbook is the nicest laptop I've ever owned. By far. The physical construction makes up for the annoyances.
The trade-off for living with "Brother Apple" is that stuff just works. That's worth something. For a guy like you, that's not important. But a lot of people don't have much tech knowledge, and appreciate hardware and software that works near flawlessly. Of course that comes at a price.
The funny thing is that with PCs, most of the problems are causes by all the third-party programs that come pre-loaded on store bought PC. Format them and install just the OS and most PCs work fantastic.
Yes, there are some flaws. But my aluminum unibody Macbook is the nicest laptop I've ever owned. By far. The physical construction makes up for the annoyances.
Apple's hardware design is the main reason I own several of their products despite otherwise taking serious issue with them. The Mac Mini is silent and beautiful, and just now are competitors scratching at it. On the PC side of laptops, short of the similarly expensive specialty ultraportables, Apple has hands down the best non-netbook design.
I've always thought that Apple laptops were extremely overpriced. I realized, though, that to get a Windows laptop with the same build quality, you would pay just as much. And that assumes such a laptop exists. And you can always use a Macbook as a Windows machine. If build quality is important, the Macbooks are not as overpriced as one might think.
I've always thought that Apple laptops were extremely overpriced. I realized, though, that to get a Windows laptop with the same build quality, you would pay just as much. And that assumes such a laptop exists. And you can always use a Macbook as a Windows machine. If build quality is important, the Macbooks are not as overpriced as one might think.
Exactly. Too many people see $900 Dells and Lenovos and assume by those prices that Macbooks are thus heavily overpriced. It's like comparing an MR-2 to a Neon, and assuming that the MR-2 is a ludicrous waste of money (without realizing that, say the RX-7 exists in the same space as the MR2 at a similar price). They don't see the specialty laptops in the stores, and basically compare Apples to oranges.
... My whole response was just an excuse to say "Apples to oranges."
It's like comparing an MR-2 to a Neon, and assuming that the MR-2 is a ludicrous waste of money (without realizing that, say the RX-7 exists in the same space as the MR2 at a similar price).
The except the RX-7 will break all the time and the MR-2, being a toyota without a silly wankel engine, will go on forever. :P
To further extend your analogy though, most people just need something that drives around. ~_^
I've always thought that Apple laptops were extremely overpriced. I realized, though, that to get a Windows laptop with the same build quality, you would pay just as much. And that assumes such a laptop exists. And you can always use a Macbook as a Windows machine. If build quality is important, the Macbooks are not as overpriced as one might think.
This is why I bought a Macbook! I didn't intend to, but for all the features I wanted, the Macbook was actually the best price. Also, I wanted a 13 inch screen, but with all the features, and it seems that windows only laptop makers think "Well, if he wants firewire, Luke obviously wants a 17 inch screen!" Er... no.
Scott, I could put you up on your whole response but who has the time, we have fundamentally different view points.
However to this:
Final Cut Pro not severely limited? Give me a break. You need to also buy QuickTime Pro to get all the features out of it. That's a pretty sever limitation
I say balls. You clearly don't know what you're talking about here. Firstly, please tell me some things that FCP won't do without Quicktime Pro installed. Bueller? Buller?
Now also note that Quicktime Pro comes free when you purchase Final Cut. So err, yeah.
Firstly, please tell me some things that FCP won't do without Quicktime Pro installed. Bueller? Buller?
If you don't have QT Pro you can't encode video in certain codes, or higher resolutions. IIRC, regardless of FCP, the free QuickTime refuses to play certain videos in full screen, or certain qualities of videos, and you have to buy Pro to do so. MPlayer/VLC will play any video at any resolution, for free.
I was unaware that FCP comes with QTP until just now. I'm surprised they do that, because they're so money-grubbing, but they better damn well give it to you for the price.
Also, even with QTP, can FCP encode, decode, and transcode every audio and video codec imaginable including flash video, Ogg Theora, etc.?
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.
Ahem,this. 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.
There is absolutely no law of the universe that says that in order to have a simple user interface and experience, a system must be closed and locked down. The original Apple computers were just that. Behold Wozniak's masterpiece, the Apple ][gs.
It has an easily removable lid and seven identical expansion slots. Labels for every chip and slot are clearly silk screened on the board. There is minimal internal wiring interfering with the user. It's just perfect. People still use these things today. They even have web browsers, IM clients, and Wolfenstein 3D running on there.
The 2gs was released in 86, two years after the first Macintosh. Remember, the first Macintosh? It was extremely closed. It was so closed that the floppy drive had no physical eject button, and the monitor was built-in. Much like todays iMac. You don't see anyone browsing the web or playing Wolfenstein 3D on those! I think you would need at least a Macintosh Quadra from the early '90s to do that.
The reason that Apple and Jobs get the hate is very simple. Industrial design and interface design talent is extremely rare. Programming talent is also rare, but not nearly as rare as design talent. Apple effectively has a monopoly on computer design. Nice user interfaces are not something that normal people want, it's something we all want. Some people, though, also want computers that can do more than five things.
It is very possible to make a computer that has the great design, but also the openness and features, but only Apple can do it, and they refuse. They used to do it. In 1986 they did the best anyone had ever done. They haven't done it since. It's been all Jobs and no Woz. By the way, Woz is rocking Android last I heard.
What makes it even more infuriating is that it wouldn't even hurt Apple's sales. Make the iPad exactly as it is now, and put it on the market. Keep your app store, keep your iTunes, keep everything. Just also put out the source code and dev kit for free, with no support, and make it possible for people to side-load software. Keep the approval process for apps in the app store, who cares?
The part I really can't understand is that it would be so easy for them to do this, and it would increase their sales tremendously. They're actively deciding to make less money.
Think about it. As it stands, X number of people will buy the iPad, buy iPad iWord, and iBooks, and all sorts of other closed things from Apple. If they allowed this side-loading, those X people would not change their behavior or spending in any way shape or form. Apple would make the exact same money from those people. However, by opening it, they would also get a boost in sales to all the nerds, like me.
It's the same as with Nintendo and gaming. As human beings we have invented the technology to make amazing things. There is a vast potential just sitting around not being fulfilled. The thing is, due to economics and specialized talent, law, and closedness, there are only a few people who have the capability of actually fulfilling that potential. An open system with a beautiful UI, only Apple can save the world, and they don't. A Pokemon MMO integrating the DS and Wii and PC and mobile phones? Only Nintendo can do it, but they won't.
Imagine if a plane were crashing. Superman exists, an he's the only one who can save it. Instead he just lets it crash. That's Steve Jobs in a nutshell.
There is absolutely no law of the universe that says that in order to have a simple user interface and experience, a system must be closed and locked down. ...
There was an intersting TED talk by Philippe Starck on design in technology and he made the very good point that design in a product is there to make the product disappear and focus on what you do with the product. Now, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but what you (or any self respecting geek) wants to do with computers is not what most people want. You are in a small minority that vehemently believes they are right. And in a perfect world, it might even be that you're right, just like communism, you're not a communist are you?
Complex/arbitrary functionality is anathema to Design. Design is not just "shiny bits and nice round corners", it embodies absolute control over functionality in order to make using the device bliss (my favorite onomatopoetic word).
I make this point because, when you say that the problem is that Apple has a monopoly on good design, I think it's more the case that the thing you want (good design with an open and complex system) is a practical impossibility.
PS:
What makes it even more infuriating is that it wouldn't even hurt Apple's sales. Make the iPad exactly as it is now, and put it on the market. Keep your app store, keep your iTunes, keep everything. Just also put out the source code and dev kit for free, with no support, and make it possible for people to side-load software. Keep the approval process for apps in the app store, who cares?
Apple customer support cares when millions of people complain about shitty experiences on the iPad.
Apple customer support cares when millions of people complain about shitty experiences on the iPad.
Then those people just wouldn't use side-loading, because all they would need are the shiny "they just work" apps from the App Store. And releasing the SDK for free wouldn't cause shitty experiences either, as most people wouldn't even use it.
Not releasing the iPad with even a fraction of the features of a full OS was the biggest mistake Apple has made. Also, in reference to your article, I'm definitely not worried that normal people won't depend on my tech wizardry, it's that I'm worried that the norm for tablets will become "bullshit slates that don't do what I want." The iPad is more or less a piece of shit, and there is no evidence to the contrary right now.
Then those people just wouldn't use side-loading, because all they would need are the shiny "they just work" apps from the App Store. And releasing the SDK for free wouldn't cause shitty experiences either, as most people wouldn't even use it.
Yes, of course, because only you and equally intarwebz-savvy 1337 uber-h4X0Rs will know how to download third party apps from websites...
I'm worried that the norm for tablets will become "bullshit slates that don't do what I want." The iPad is more or less a piece of shit, and there is no evidence to the contrary right now.
You have the right to that opinion, and I wouldn't dream of trying to change it. What I was merely pointing out is that you, apparently, and many other geeks live in their own Reality Distortion Fields and proclaim as fact their opinion that Apple is facing certain doom / the devils' and Glenn Beck's lovechild / fucking the consumers by catering to the unwashed masses.
Yes, of course, because onlyyouand equally intarwebz-savvy 1337 uber-h4X0Rs will know how to download third party apps from websites...
I'm not trying to imply that, but I do believe that for the purposes of a tablet with a dedicated app store, only people with a genuine want or need for a third-party app will go searching for one. In the event that things go to hell because a user installs a 3rd-party app without knowing what they're doing, it's not Apple's fault. You don't call Microsoft if your Windows box gets a virus, although I can see why Apple would want to close its ecosystem off from unsavory types--it would prevent the problem in the first place.
What I was merely pointing out is that you, apparently, and many other geeks live in their own Reality Distortion Fields and proclaim as fact their opinion that Apple is facing certain doom
I never said that, I just said that I don't think that the product will succeed, at least not with people like me. It'll sell, but it probably won't be revolutionary. Also, I certainly wouldn't forecast doom for a company that sells the MacBook, the iPod, and the iPhone. That would be stupid.
the devils' and Glenn Beck's lovechild
Didn't say this either. I may dislike Apple and its business practices, but their industrial design is top-notch and I admire them for that.
fucking the consumers by catering to the unwashed masses.
Again, never said this. I may have said that the product is garbage, but I believe wholeheartedly that we should cater to the unwashed masses; however, I believe that there are ways to do it that don't compromise hacker ethic while still being cool and functional. The Chumby and the Sony Dash (a Chumby-powered open Sony product) are really good examples of things that are super-intuitive for a user, while deep and accessible enough for the most hardened geek.
I was thinking of using an iPad to run my various apartment functions next year, but I've since decided that a Slate or Chumby would do a lot better.
Ahem,this. 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.
I gotta admit, that article has a really good point.
Ahem,this. 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.
I gotta admit, that article has a really good point.Several similar blog postings by more or less credible people have made the rounds in the last few days, as have (of course) posting denouncing the idea of "new computing" vs "old computing". That discussion is one I find endlessly more interesting than any specific "bwaa, the iPad doesn't blaa blaa blaa kindle, blaa blaa linux" ranting.
Like Scrym likes to say (and I agree) there is a kind of "technological literacy" that leaves people who don't have it just as helpless as if you couldn't read or write. This however begs the question on how this problem will be solved. Imagine what literacy would mean if Gutenbergs printing press could also have made the printed text magically speak to you. Today, there exists the technology and research into UI design to make the equivalent happen. It will happen. Bitching about people trying to make it happen is really, really lame.
Imagine what literacy would mean if Gutenbergs printing press could also have made the printed text magically speak to you. Today, there exists the technology and research into UI design to make the equivalent happen
Just to be clear, the analogy is to a computer that teaches you how to use it, right?
Imagine what literacy would mean if Gutenbergs printing press could also have made the printed text magically speak to you. Today, there exists the technology and research into UI design to make the equivalent happen
Just to be clear, the analogy is to a computer that teaches you how to use it, right?
The analogy is a computer that you don't need to know how to use and that you cannot use the wrong way.
The analogy is a computer that you don't need to know how to use and that you cannot use the wrong way.
The holy grail of UI design. And no one, not even Apple, has gotten anywhere near this yet. I took a class in UI design and learned that basically for about 3 decades running now, the IT people (like me) have completely and totally failed at it.
Imagine what literacy would mean if Gutenbergs printing press could also have made the printed text magically speak to you. Today, there exists the technology and research into UI design to make the equivalent happen
Just to be clear, the analogy is to a computer that teaches you how to use it, right?
The analogy is a computer that you don't need to know how to use and that you cannot use the wrong way.
Which is why my brother gives his iPod Touch to his 1 and 3 year old daughters, and they work out how to use it in seconds. They play games and look at pictures and stuff like that. An iPad would be perfect for keeping kids out of your hair. Way better than TV!
I completely agree that a computer like the iPad is a great boon for those who are technologically illiterate, and that is a good thing. And depending on the functionality you add, it may not be possible to keep the beautiful UI of the iPad intact. However, if you break it down to specific features and design components, you will begin to see where the frustration and lack of fulfillment of potential arises.
First of all, there are the design decisions which are just outright bad and harmful to the iPad's design, but only exist to make more money for Apple. For example. the only connector is an iPod dock connector. Yes, only having one connector is good for the design. However, a micro USB connector is even smaller and more beautiful. It also does not require you to buy $30 adapter cables from Apple to do things like connect cameras and such. It's just a money grab.
There's also the decision to require people to physically connect the device to another computer with iTunes on it with a physical cable. Wireless would be much more beautiful, but it makes them less money on cable sales. Now, you don't really need to connect it to a computer with iTunes if you buy all your music and movies on the device through the iTunes that's on there. But actually most people, even technologically illiterate ones, have tons of mp3s they get from ripping CDs or bittorrent, or Amazon, or have things they've already bought on iTunes. Not only that, they have way more media than will fit on the iPad, and they will need to manage it on a separate computer.
As WindUpBird already pointed out enabling the ability to side-load apps will not interfere with the design for anyone but developers and uber-geeks who can handle it. The iPad itself will be exactly the same. However, geeks will have to install the developer tools, download an app from the Internet, then use the tools to push the app over the wire to the device. No normal person will ever even know this is an option. Their experience will be identical to their current experience. However, nerds will also be pleased. There will be nothing left for anyone to complain about. The praise will be nearly universal, and sales will be much much higher.
Now let's look in the reverse direction. How come no other computing platforms have the nice typography of Apple's devices? No device has font rendering even close. Just about every computer with a display renders text. Why doesn't anyone else do it nicely? It doesn't add any complexity on the user's level, it just makes things nicer. How come only Apple does it?
Multi-touch is the same way. Lots of people are shipping multi-touch screens, but nobody else has quite the same pinching-zooming and such that Apple has. It's the same story with the Macbook touch pads with the gestures. How come nobody has copied that shit?
We've talked about it a thousand times, but podcast syncing. You can download a podcast in iTunes, start listening, sync to iPod, resume listening where you left off, sync to iTunes, resume listening where you left off, and so on. Nothing else I know of does this. Can the Zune do it now? I know that Android devices have Google Listen, but that doesn't seem to really do podcast subscriptions and syncing from what I can tell. It seems to just allow you to listen to podcasts, so I don't think you can start listening to a new episode if you have no data service. However, once you do start listening, it tries to download the whole thing, so you are probably good if you start listening on the sidewalk and then go in the subway. Not quite good enough.
For good measure, let me throw in some design mistakes that Apple has made. They aren't perfect. For example, the Terminal application on OSX only supports 16 colors. I know it's shocking they even have a Terminal application, but why is it not even half as good as gnome-terminal. Not having a Terminal App would be much more Apple, but they made it, and it sucks compared to the open source alternatives.
Also, just about everywhere in OSX all of the keyboard shortcuts use Command. So in Windows/Linux to make a new tab in Firefox you press Ctrl+T. In OSX it's command+T. Ok, that's fine. Too bad the switch isn't universal. In the aforementioned terminal app, the keyboard shortcuts are all still using Ctrl, just like in *nix.
Here's another one. Open up Firefox, and find a form to fill out. You fill out a field, press tab. That goes to the next field in the form. This has been standard forever. It allows you to fill out a form without the mouse. If there is a checkbox or radio button, you can also modify that by pressing tab, using the arrows, pressing space, etc. You never need the mouse to fill out a form. But in Safari, pressing tab will skip over any radio buttons or checkboxes. You can only modify them with the mouse, and there is no other way.
On OSX at least, Apple likes to really polish the parts they want you to use, and then all the other parts suck ass. For a better design, they would be better off completely removing those parts, but they put them in there. Therefore it is fair to point out that while they are great at design, they are incapable of covering all their bases. The OSX Font selection dialog has all sorts of crazy knobs that I don't even know what some of them do. Uninstalling apps on OSX is basically impossible. Theoretically you can just drag the app to the recycle bin, but that leaves all sorts of other weird files throughout the system that don't get deleted. At least on the iPad deleting an app is easy.
The real frustration is that we currently have the technology to produce things which are vastly superior to the things we actually end up producing. Imagine if we had the technology to make cars that twice as fuel efficient. It wasn't prototype stuff, it was production ready, and simply better in every way. Yet, all auto-manufacturers refused to implement it. That's what's happening with computers. It's technologically possible to create devices with aspects A through Z. Nerds on the Internets everywhere are asking for it, but nobody is making it, even though it is easy and possible for any electronics company to do so at any time. It is especially frustrating with Apple because they get so so many things right, but always just a few very critical things wrong. Most other companies get most of it wrong and only a few right by accident. It's just those few right by accident are the critical ones, so you can never actually choose the Apple.
Well, if you are super rich, and want to do everything the Steve Jobs way, then you can get the Apple. Just empty your whole wallet for movies, music, apps, and books. Also, never have any desire to do anything you can't already do. Then you'll live in perfect bliss with Apple.
All those things you mentioned that are left unfinished in OSX will be left out of the tablet. There won't even be a tab key, so all forms will be filled out by tapping, etc.
I think you are missing out on big element with all your questions like "Why isn't everything awesome and perfect?" Money. It costs money to do all this. Everything takes time and money, and when working on a new product, you have to prioritize. Apple concentrates on UI and design. Linux concentrates on openness and nerds. Microsoft concentrates on not crashing and avoiding security problems.
The tablet you want, with all these features, and not crashing, and with wireless everything, and expandable memory, and everything, will cost a shit ton of cash. Way more than the current iPad. Oh, and it will be a lot bulkier too. It'll be along the lines of a modbook, and run to 4000 dollars. 500 dollars is CHEAP!
The real frustration is that we currently have the technology to produce things which are vastly superior to the things we actually end up producing. Imagine if we had the technology to make cars that twice as fuel efficient. It wasn't prototype stuff, it was production ready, and simply better in every way. Yet, all auto-manufacturers refused to implement it. That's what's happening with computers. It's technologically possible to create devices with aspects A through Z. Nerds on the Internets everywhere are asking for it, but nobody is making it, even though it is easy and possible for any electronics company to do so at any time. It is especially frustrating with Apple because they get so so many things right, but always just a few very critical things wrong. Most other companies get most of it wrong and only a few right by accident. It's just those few right by accident are the critical ones, so you can never actually choose the Apple.
Or maybe making it is more difficult, time-consuming and expensive than you think. Why don't android apps install to the SD drive, it'd be so easy. If it was that easy they would have done, but people much smarter than you still haven't cracked it in a good way. Much the same way with cars, you can make a car twice as efficient, but the design compromises would cripple it for anything but highway cruising. Sometimes things are the way they are for a good reason, not because they want to spite people and make more money.
Comments
Yes, Photoshop doesn't work on Linux, that's why I said you also needed Adobe to contribute.
The trade-off for living with "Brother Apple" is that stuff just works. That's worth something. For a guy like you, that's not important. But a lot of people don't have much tech knowledge, and appreciate hardware and software that works near flawlessly. Of course that comes at a price.
EDIT: gizmodo has summed up nicely the laundry list of faults with the iPad.
... My whole response was just an excuse to say "Apples to oranges."
To further extend your analogy though, most people just need something that drives around. ~_^
However to this: I say balls. You clearly don't know what you're talking about here. Firstly, please tell me some things that FCP won't do without Quicktime Pro installed. Bueller? Buller?
Now also note that Quicktime Pro comes free when you purchase Final Cut. So err, yeah.
I was unaware that FCP comes with QTP until just now. I'm surprised they do that, because they're so money-grubbing, but they better damn well give it to you for the price.
Also, even with QTP, can FCP encode, decode, and transcode every audio and video codec imaginable including flash video, Ogg Theora, etc.?
There is absolutely no law of the universe that says that in order to have a simple user interface and experience, a system must be closed and locked down. The original Apple computers were just that. Behold Wozniak's masterpiece, the Apple ][gs.
It has an easily removable lid and seven identical expansion slots. Labels for every chip and slot are clearly silk screened on the board. There is minimal internal wiring interfering with the user. It's just perfect. People still use these things today. They even have web browsers, IM clients, and Wolfenstein 3D running on there.
The 2gs was released in 86, two years after the first Macintosh. Remember, the first Macintosh? It was extremely closed. It was so closed that the floppy drive had no physical eject button, and the monitor was built-in. Much like todays iMac. You don't see anyone browsing the web or playing Wolfenstein 3D on those! I think you would need at least a Macintosh Quadra from the early '90s to do that.
The reason that Apple and Jobs get the hate is very simple. Industrial design and interface design talent is extremely rare. Programming talent is also rare, but not nearly as rare as design talent. Apple effectively has a monopoly on computer design. Nice user interfaces are not something that normal people want, it's something we all want. Some people, though, also want computers that can do more than five things.
It is very possible to make a computer that has the great design, but also the openness and features, but only Apple can do it, and they refuse. They used to do it. In 1986 they did the best anyone had ever done. They haven't done it since. It's been all Jobs and no Woz. By the way, Woz is rocking Android last I heard.
What makes it even more infuriating is that it wouldn't even hurt Apple's sales. Make the iPad exactly as it is now, and put it on the market. Keep your app store, keep your iTunes, keep everything. Just also put out the source code and dev kit for free, with no support, and make it possible for people to side-load software. Keep the approval process for apps in the app store, who cares?
The part I really can't understand is that it would be so easy for them to do this, and it would increase their sales tremendously. They're actively deciding to make less money.
Think about it. As it stands, X number of people will buy the iPad, buy iPad iWord, and iBooks, and all sorts of other closed things from Apple. If they allowed this side-loading, those X people would not change their behavior or spending in any way shape or form. Apple would make the exact same money from those people. However, by opening it, they would also get a boost in sales to all the nerds, like me.
It's the same as with Nintendo and gaming. As human beings we have invented the technology to make amazing things. There is a vast potential just sitting around not being fulfilled. The thing is, due to economics and specialized talent, law, and closedness, there are only a few people who have the capability of actually fulfilling that potential. An open system with a beautiful UI, only Apple can save the world, and they don't. A Pokemon MMO integrating the DS and Wii and PC and mobile phones? Only Nintendo can do it, but they won't.
Imagine if a plane were crashing. Superman exists, an he's the only one who can save it. Instead he just lets it crash. That's Steve Jobs in a nutshell.
Complex/arbitrary functionality is anathema to Design. Design is not just "shiny bits and nice round corners", it embodies absolute control over functionality in order to make using the device bliss (my favorite onomatopoetic word).
I make this point because, when you say that the problem is that Apple has a monopoly on good design, I think it's more the case that the thing you want (good design with an open and complex system) is a practical impossibility.
PS:Apple customer support cares when millions of people complain about shitty experiences on the iPad.
Not releasing the iPad with even a fraction of the features of a full OS was the biggest mistake Apple has made. Also, in reference to your article, I'm definitely not worried that normal people won't depend on my tech wizardry, it's that I'm worried that the norm for tablets will become "bullshit slates that don't do what I want." The iPad is more or less a piece of shit, and there is no evidence to the contrary right now.
You have the right to that opinion, and I wouldn't dream of trying to change it. What I was merely pointing out is that you, apparently, and many other geeks live in their own Reality Distortion Fields and proclaim as fact their opinion that Apple is facing certain doom / the devils' and Glenn Beck's lovechild / fucking the consumers by catering to the unwashed masses.
I was thinking of using an iPad to run my various apartment functions next year, but I've since decided that a Slate or Chumby would do a lot better.
Like Scrym likes to say (and I agree) there is a kind of "technological literacy" that leaves people who don't have it just as helpless as if you couldn't read or write. This however begs the question on how this problem will be solved. Imagine what literacy would mean if Gutenbergs printing press could also have made the printed text magically speak to you. Today, there exists the technology and research into UI design to make the equivalent happen. It will happen. Bitching about people trying to make it happen is really, really lame.
First of all, there are the design decisions which are just outright bad and harmful to the iPad's design, but only exist to make more money for Apple. For example. the only connector is an iPod dock connector. Yes, only having one connector is good for the design. However, a micro USB connector is even smaller and more beautiful. It also does not require you to buy $30 adapter cables from Apple to do things like connect cameras and such. It's just a money grab.
There's also the decision to require people to physically connect the device to another computer with iTunes on it with a physical cable. Wireless would be much more beautiful, but it makes them less money on cable sales. Now, you don't really need to connect it to a computer with iTunes if you buy all your music and movies on the device through the iTunes that's on there. But actually most people, even technologically illiterate ones, have tons of mp3s they get from ripping CDs or bittorrent, or Amazon, or have things they've already bought on iTunes. Not only that, they have way more media than will fit on the iPad, and they will need to manage it on a separate computer.
As WindUpBird already pointed out enabling the ability to side-load apps will not interfere with the design for anyone but developers and uber-geeks who can handle it. The iPad itself will be exactly the same. However, geeks will have to install the developer tools, download an app from the Internet, then use the tools to push the app over the wire to the device. No normal person will ever even know this is an option. Their experience will be identical to their current experience. However, nerds will also be pleased. There will be nothing left for anyone to complain about. The praise will be nearly universal, and sales will be much much higher.
Now let's look in the reverse direction. How come no other computing platforms have the nice typography of Apple's devices? No device has font rendering even close. Just about every computer with a display renders text. Why doesn't anyone else do it nicely? It doesn't add any complexity on the user's level, it just makes things nicer. How come only Apple does it?
Multi-touch is the same way. Lots of people are shipping multi-touch screens, but nobody else has quite the same pinching-zooming and such that Apple has. It's the same story with the Macbook touch pads with the gestures. How come nobody has copied that shit?
We've talked about it a thousand times, but podcast syncing. You can download a podcast in iTunes, start listening, sync to iPod, resume listening where you left off, sync to iTunes, resume listening where you left off, and so on. Nothing else I know of does this. Can the Zune do it now? I know that Android devices have Google Listen, but that doesn't seem to really do podcast subscriptions and syncing from what I can tell. It seems to just allow you to listen to podcasts, so I don't think you can start listening to a new episode if you have no data service. However, once you do start listening, it tries to download the whole thing, so you are probably good if you start listening on the sidewalk and then go in the subway. Not quite good enough.
For good measure, let me throw in some design mistakes that Apple has made. They aren't perfect. For example, the Terminal application on OSX only supports 16 colors. I know it's shocking they even have a Terminal application, but why is it not even half as good as gnome-terminal. Not having a Terminal App would be much more Apple, but they made it, and it sucks compared to the open source alternatives.
Also, just about everywhere in OSX all of the keyboard shortcuts use Command. So in Windows/Linux to make a new tab in Firefox you press Ctrl+T. In OSX it's command+T. Ok, that's fine. Too bad the switch isn't universal. In the aforementioned terminal app, the keyboard shortcuts are all still using Ctrl, just like in *nix.
Here's another one. Open up Firefox, and find a form to fill out. You fill out a field, press tab. That goes to the next field in the form. This has been standard forever. It allows you to fill out a form without the mouse. If there is a checkbox or radio button, you can also modify that by pressing tab, using the arrows, pressing space, etc. You never need the mouse to fill out a form. But in Safari, pressing tab will skip over any radio buttons or checkboxes. You can only modify them with the mouse, and there is no other way.
On OSX at least, Apple likes to really polish the parts they want you to use, and then all the other parts suck ass. For a better design, they would be better off completely removing those parts, but they put them in there. Therefore it is fair to point out that while they are great at design, they are incapable of covering all their bases. The OSX Font selection dialog has all sorts of crazy knobs that I don't even know what some of them do. Uninstalling apps on OSX is basically impossible. Theoretically you can just drag the app to the recycle bin, but that leaves all sorts of other weird files throughout the system that don't get deleted. At least on the iPad deleting an app is easy.
The real frustration is that we currently have the technology to produce things which are vastly superior to the things we actually end up producing. Imagine if we had the technology to make cars that twice as fuel efficient. It wasn't prototype stuff, it was production ready, and simply better in every way. Yet, all auto-manufacturers refused to implement it. That's what's happening with computers. It's technologically possible to create devices with aspects A through Z. Nerds on the Internets everywhere are asking for it, but nobody is making it, even though it is easy and possible for any electronics company to do so at any time. It is especially frustrating with Apple because they get so so many things right, but always just a few very critical things wrong. Most other companies get most of it wrong and only a few right by accident. It's just those few right by accident are the critical ones, so you can never actually choose the Apple.
Well, if you are super rich, and want to do everything the Steve Jobs way, then you can get the Apple. Just empty your whole wallet for movies, music, apps, and books. Also, never have any desire to do anything you can't already do. Then you'll live in perfect bliss with Apple.
I think you are missing out on big element with all your questions like "Why isn't everything awesome and perfect?" Money. It costs money to do all this. Everything takes time and money, and when working on a new product, you have to prioritize. Apple concentrates on UI and design. Linux concentrates on openness and nerds. Microsoft concentrates on not crashing and avoiding security problems.
The tablet you want, with all these features, and not crashing, and with wireless everything, and expandable memory, and everything, will cost a shit ton of cash. Way more than the current iPad. Oh, and it will be a lot bulkier too. It'll be along the lines of a modbook, and run to 4000 dollars. 500 dollars is CHEAP!