The iPad as a new "walled garden" of content

Some people don't know when to stop digging...or shut up

I'm getting tired of this Apples 'walled garden' tripe.

The App Store, maybe, but you are by no means limited to it. It's in addition to everything else that the internet offers, not an either/or proposition.

Daft!

I find it hard to buy into this analogy at all. The parallels are very strained indeed and whilst Apple controls the content of "their" App Store it is for legitimate reasons, not to limit the user's experience to their own content and products but to preserve a level of quality. I for one am glad there's no influx of terrible ported games. As far as internet content, I'm quite sure I'm not restricted there.

Someone trying to make a bigger name for themselves through controversy in the face of the iPad's current success.

Let's take this out of the realm of the techno geek and into the realm of where real people use real devices.

In the past, I have bought thousands of songs on iTunes. Great service. Great value. They sit on my NAS, my iPod, my iPhone and, now, my iPad.

Because of the "walled garden" assumption, it was widely expected, however, that Apple would never, ever approve an app for Rhapsody. That was competition for iTunes. It streams music, on demand. That was approved last year.

Because of the "walled garden" assumption, it was widely expected that Apple would never, ever approve an app for Rhapsody that permitted songs to be downloaded to an iPhone or an iPad. Apple approved that, too. Now, I can download music from Rhapsody onto my iPhone and iPad, and listen "off line" and on planes, instead of purchasing the songs from iTunes. Yes, I have to pay a monthly fee. But nothing is free.

Thus, in the realm of where real people actually operate, the "walled garden" criticism just does not work, and Apple is not set out to control the universe of content that can be used on its devices. Of course, it must approve the apps, but that actually is a good thing and ensures that they work and do not become portals for mischief. Heck, now we can stream Netflix, instead of streaming or buying movies and TV shows from iTunes.

I had a play with it in a store; it's fun, works well and I like the idea of it but honestly, I'm struggling to see how I would use it. My laptop is fine for around the home and the iPhone covers me for most of my needs out and about. I can also keep it in my back pocket, which I could never to do with an iPad. I can stream music and radio to the iPhone, just like an mp3 player and for that to work, it needs to go in my pocket, which again, the iPad won't. So while I'd like one, I know it would end up in a draw after a couple of weeks.

Battelle has already proved himself a moron claiming the iPad would be a failure. I believe he's still waiting for the iPhone "fad" to pass, too. This dude is a direct descendent of those past fools who claimed that the Earth was flat or those that swore the horse would never be replaced with the automobile.

All this B.S. about nobody likes a "walled garden" is just irritating. There are nearly 100,000,000 iDevice users that are perfectly happy being in a "walled garden". Every platform has its pluses and minuses. Apple's mobile platform gives far more than it takes from iPhone, Touch and iPad users.

I used AOL when it first came out. I knew it had restrictions, but so what. I didn't try to destroy it just because it wasn't exactly my cup of tea, so I gradually pulled away. I think the company tried to control the experience for the user's sake, but it didn't work out. I damn sure didn't get up on some soapbox calling the company some spin-off from Nazi Germany, like some of you d-bags are always bitching about. You don't like it, then don't use it. It's as simple as that.

"I'm so sick of this walled garden shit. Apple, approval or disapproval is based solely on making a device that is stable and fast."

NO! It is so that they can make more money.

I just upgraded my iPhone to an HTC desire - its amazing and completely open. Most of the people I know have also done the same thing - weird that! (sarcasm)

To complete my thought in number 5, If Apple wanted a completely walled garden, it would not encourage the adoption of the more robust HTML 5 in web-apps.

I don't buy it.

1. The guy makes factual errors. Contra Battelle, iPad does allow cut & paste, for example, and other browsers are allowed on iPhone (e.g., Opera) and therefore are likely to be allowed on iPad. Safari is not going to be the only way to the web.

2. More fundamentally, AOL didn't die b/c it was a "walled garden," it failed b/c it was no longer needed.

AOL succeeded for years b/c it was the gateway to the internet. It was the easiest--and for some, the only--way to get online in the early 1990s. This is before hotmail gave everyone free email, before most employers had email, and before every phone company, cable company, and independent ISPs started providing dial-up service.

AOL taught many of us the "vocabulary" of internet use, e.g., how to click on links to get to content, etc. Then AOL offered a web browser to get to the wider internet.

AOL as we knew it died b/c it was no longer needed. People learned how to use the internet and didn't need a "gateway." Telcos and cable cos began providing dial-up service, and eventually the broadband service that blew AOL away. So AOL's customer base dwindled. My dad still has it, b/c he wants to keep the email address he has had since the early 1990s.

3. The question, then, is whether AOL provides enough of an analog to be instructive as we try to understand the impact of the iPad. I think not.

It's possible that iPad is giving us all a "gateway" to a new kind of computing--the mobile, multitouch kind--and that it later it's importance will fade. But this assumes that Apple's offering, like AOL's, will remain static. But Apple has never remained static. It always competes with itself even when other companies do not. (Apple has basically obsoleted its own iPods year after year, most notably with the iPhone/iPod touch combination.) And, as we can see with the increasing complexity of the iPhone OS (which started w/out cut and paste, and now has it; which started without multitasking, but soon will have it), Apple will grow its products with the needs of its audience.

4. Apple wholeheartedly support the open HTML 5 standards. In the short-term, this looks like a "closed" strategy b/c it excludes Flash, which has some developers and the tech press in a tizzy. In the long-term, though, HTML 5 offers media streaming as well as other advanced, "app-like" behaviors. This will enable increasingly sophisticated web-apps that whose behaviors may become indistinguishable from native apps. And it is completely out of Apple's control. Apple cannot be so naive as to believe that this will not present a significant challenge to its App Store. Yet Apple has encouraged web app development from the start. If Apple wanted a completely walled garden, it would

5. Finally, I think people are exaggerating the "walled" nature of the garden. Yes, apps require Apple approval, but something like 95% of all apps are approved, and most of those that are not are rejected b/c of stability or other technical issues. It may be a hassle for developers, but it makes for a better user experience, since the user has a central location to download virtually any conceivable app, with the knowledge that it will be stable and will not present a security threat. The convenience encourages impulse purchases and the security encourages experimentation. This is good.

6. People who still believe that Apple's system is too "closed" for their tastes can feel free to buy competing "open" tablet products featuring Android or Windows. A number of Windows advocates tell me that these have existed for a decade, and that Apple's iPad represents very little innovation. I have never seen anyone use these devices, so I am not one to judge.

Is "eWorld" one word? I've only played with an iPad in an Apple Store (a physical one) for a couple of minutes, and I didn't get the impression that it was like eWorld at all. I think that instead of the "walled *internet* garden" the iPad is more like a "walled *desktop* garden" and may, or may not, be a Good Thingâ„¢ for computing, but is evidently a very good thing for the consumer and/or customer.