This past weekend, the iPad was released by Apple and greeted with multiple articles from almost every news site. It is being hailed by some as a new age for computing and a device that bridges different media outlets in a convenient fact form. Others are slamming it for lacking certain features such as multitasking or USB ports.
Only a small fraction have pointed to a broad problem with the iPad, which has nothing to do with missing features. The iPad leaves its users at the absolute mercy of Apple. You cannot bring an iPad to a knowledgeable friend for repairs or enhancements. You cannot bring it to a local computer store for fixes or upgrades. You cannot even replace the battery without Apple employees being involved.
You can customize the iPad's software by installing "apps" from the "apps store" - but Apple is the gatekeeper, and decides which apps will or will not be allowed. The positive effect is that Apple can ensure your device is never compromised by distrusted software, and that all the software has the same look and feel. The negative effect, however, is that Apple censors applications, locks out competition and forbids any applications that could allow one to circumvent their restrictions. Apple enforces their vision of computing on iPad users, just as they do with iPhone and iPod touch users.
There are many who want this "walled garden" approach but still do not want to deal with inconsistent software or the myriad problems that can result from unknown and distrusted applications. However, the level of enforcement - the active approach Apple takes to preventing tinkering of any kind - goes far beyond what would be necessary to keep everything consistent for those who want consistency. Ubuntu, for example, has had the correct model for over a decade now: repositories of software where programs are tested by experts and enabled by default. But these are possible to bypass, change, or disable by those who wish to do so. There is no reason that Apple could not have followed the same model with their "apps store."
There is another possibility in all this, which explains why Apple is so forcefully attacking the rights of iPad users. Many book publishers have sought to prevent readers from sharing books with each other, viewing book sharing clubs and used book stores as thorns. Along with the recording industry and movie studios, book publishers have sent lobbyists to various world governments to push for ever stronger anti-sharing laws and to push for longer copyrights. For instance, in the United States, copyrights are extended by 20 years roughly every 20 years - thus sidestepping the constitutional mandate that copyrights be for a limited term. They have also pressured schools to teach students that sharing is immoral. Apple, wishing to do business with these companies, created a computer that can only run approved software - thus, software that could facilitate sharing is out of the picture, and the publishers can force people to pay for books they could otherwise have received from friends. Along the way, Apple can turn an even higher profit from the sale of a single computer than they could before: they take their cut from "apps store" sales.
Although we now live in a computerized society, printed media remains one of the most influential forms of communication. The spread of ideas is facilitated by the spread of books, magazines and newspapers. When books are controlled the way they are with the iPad, along with the Kindle and Nook, the spread of ideas is similarly controlled. The ironic removal of copies of 1984 from Kindle devices served as a warning, but few seemed to have heeded it. Now the iPad is out, and it expands what forms of media can be controlled, censored and restricted. There are several used book stores in the downtown mall; I will be visiting them as long as they are there, and I will not be bringing an iPad or anything like it with me.
Benjamin Kreuter is a graduate student in computer science.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 9 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
