[LINK] Steve Jobs: Great unwashed don't need PCs

[Richard Chirgwin]

Ivan Trundle wrote:
> On 03/06/2010, at 12:29 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>
>   
>> "So that I can use it the way I want it" - breaks if you can't run the 
>> software you want and/or need.
>>     
>
> My car (and all other technology) has a number of limitations, but I live with them. All such things are compromises. Indeed, progress in car technology and safety, durability and other improvements could frustrate me if it bothered me at all. But it doesn't. I have adapted to the tool, which most people do unless they are insatiable. Same applies to the fast-moving world of computers and technology.
>
>   
>> But more importantly, the control I have in mind is over the content you 
>> can view, or easily view. This is, IMO, quite vulnerable (c.f. 
>> censorship debates).
>>     
>
> I'm much more concerned about the Australian government's ability to restrict what I view. They have far greater power than Apple.
>
> Other than Flash content on two device platforms, Apple has no ability to restrict what content I choose to view. This is a technical limitation, not an ethical view (Steve Jobs has said as much in the D8 interview) - though there are people who will suggest that Jobs has a pathological hatred of Adobe.
>   
Ivan,

I'm not disagreeing just to be contrarian.

The mix of application into content in the iPad does create a feasible 
scenario in the longer term that content becomes more, rather than less 
controlled. We assume that the Internet will still be "out there", and 
it will - but what if the content gravity becomes so great that 
something like the iPad becomes the default, and the Internet the 
"ghetto for people who can't / won't go onto the iPad"?

(Keep in mind that the "family friendly" view of content is not some 
recent change of heart for Apple. Back 17 years or so - I can't remember 
the name the service was going to carry - one  of the things Apple 
wanted to pitch about its walled garden network was that it would be a 
"nice" place for users and their children. I'll have to dig out the 
T-shirt from the history drawer...)

So yes, you can open Safari and look at the "rest" of the unrestricted 
Internet, but even so, the "will to power" (more Nietzche again, I 
apologise) is dangerous. I at least think a small amount of vigilance is 
worth the effort.
> Apple makes choices about what software (not content) is available in the way that Nintendo does (for example). On the other hand, television companies make choices about what content I get to view, radio stations do the same with what they offer, newspapers too.
>   
But isn't that what people say is good about the Internet? - That we 
can, if we wish, bypass the gatekeepers?

Without wanting to sound like Senator Steve, what makes Apple a more fit 
and accountable gatekeeper than a government?

RC
> If I have a desire to do something that is not afforded by the technology or channel that I choose to use, it is my prerogative to find an alternative that does. If there is no alternative, I would lobby to effect change.
>
> In the same way, if the Australian government restricts what I do in a way that proves to be too restrictive, I would seek to live elsewhere, and if that option were not available, I would lobby to make changes.
>
> iT
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>