Then there's the device itself: clearly there's a lot of thoughtfulness and smarts that went into the design. But there's also a palpable contempt for the owner. I believe -- really believe -- in the stirring words of the Maker Manifesto: if you can't open it, you don't own it. Screws not glue. The original Apple ][+ came with schematics for the circuit boards, and birthed a generation of hardware and software hackers who upended the world for the better. If you wanted your kid to grow up to be a confident, entrepreneurial, and firmly in the camp that believes that you should forever be rearranging the world to make it better, you bought her an Apple ][+. But with the iPad, it seems like Apple's model customer is that same stupid stereotype of a technophobic, timid, scatterbrained mother as appears in a billion renditions of "that's too complicated for my mom...
Cory Doctorow makes a persuasive argument why the iPad is cognitively impenetrable.
{"cognitively impenetrable" is a phrase John Seely-Brown uses to describe gadgets that cannot be opened, broken, or thinkered with}
Is the i-generation a race that consumes more than it produces?
Interesting read even if you just got an iPad or if you dont agree with what is described.
Cory's post has started an internet debate - hurray! Gruber's post is perhaps the most eloquent response to Cory's post. He makes great points - I agree. One thing you have to give Apple is their innovation in platforms - the iTunes app store is perhaps the BEST innovation in recent time. And as time passes, one that will be a precedent for many such models. But personally I think that should be discussed separately from their cognitively impenetrable products.
Maybe I am wrong? Am I?
Posted by: Anijo Mathew | April 02, 2010 at 04:08 PM
Anijo, did you catch Gruber's response?
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/kids_are_all_right
Posted by: John | April 02, 2010 at 03:32 PM