“Constitutions which aim at the common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve despotic rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons.”
– Aristotle -
I think we can still find a lot of wisdom in Aristotle’s words, even regarding our beloved technology world. Obviously Aristotle didn’t write anything about tech, but he did for politics and ethics.
I believe that Apple is doing nothing more than applying Aristotle’s concepts to his devices, both the iPhone and the iPad. I read a lot of negative comments about the recently announced iPad and its – again – closed system, but all these people don’t get the main point: a closed system is actually more open and reliable than an already-open one.
Let’s say Apple is the ruler and the iPhone / iPad is the country: with a closed OS (monarchy) Apple doesn’t want anyone else to get in their way of ruling. But clearly, Apple (the ruler) has the interest of his country at heart: it’s a strict type of government, yet focused on what’s best for the country (the device)
Other scenario: the country (iPad) is a democratic one. This means that the citizens (the users) are more directly involved in governing (OS), they can make requests and see them applied. Clearly, they only care about their own interest, they don’t want the best for the country: they just want the best for them.
Apple doesn’t want anyone to get in their way. They provide a closed OS, with strict rules and limitations but pay attention: having rules to follow is always better than having no rules. If you still think that “OS Democracy” is a good thing, please remember that many times in the past democracy deviated into anarchy. No authority means no control, and no control means terrible user experience. On the other hand, you could say that monarchy can deviate in tyranny. That’s true folks, but that’s where trust comes in: do you trust the ruler? Then you have nothing to fear. Can I trust some dude who wants flash on his iPad? Definitely not.
“We want flash” is the new “We want lower taxes”.
#1
That's what Justin said 6 months ago:
I agree, partly. Although I can’t reveal what it is because of the NDA, there is one aspect of the new iPad SDK that I’m very unhappy with, but the rest is absolutely amazing. I agree on Flash though; the more Apple forces the no-Flash issue, the better it is for the web in general. As a matter of fact, I’d like to see Flash as an optional install on Mac OS X itself.
[Reply]
#2
That's what kickbutt said 6 months ago:
Love this post. A good way of thinking; direct and precise.
But it’s not a problem for citizen to ask/beg/appeal/plead/demand to government, isn’t it?
It must be a two-ways conversation. No citizen, no government. No government, no citizen.
[Reply]
Federico Viticci Reply:
February 5th, 2010
@kickbutt, Sure, sorry if that’s not clear. It’s ok for asking, that’s not for directly implementing. I’m reading of a lot of people saying "I want to put whatever crap I want on my iPad". No, you can’t. And as Apple has stated that they won’t open their OS, you can just stop asking.
[Reply]
#3
That's what Justin said 6 months ago:
One piece of technology can’t be all things to all people — even in a world with agreed-upon "standards". I think that if hardware manufacturers focused less on making sure everyone has the same experience as they’ve always had on every other device and more on making sure that at least someone has a *great experience* with their device right now, we’d all be better off.
This is where new, better standards come from.
So, in the Aristotelean sense, perhaps the "Constitution of the Marketplace" is the key — not how Apple runs its individual fiefdom. For now, there is enough competition in the marketplace to ensure that people who want a Flash-ready device can have one. If Apple loses enough market-share over their decision to exclude Flash, I suspect they would reconsider. Adobe lead the way with Flash for a while and now, to me, it’s clear that other standards are emerging to take it’s place. If Adobe sees enough walking away from the Flash platform, I’m sure they’ll build a new platform where everyone is now standing!
In the midst of all this are the content creators — people like you and I with websites. The real question in my mind is "How will we use all of this technology to express ourselves?"
To me, it’s almost like writing itself: The limitations of form ultimately give something a distinctive shape. With poems, if you’re not a fan of haiku, there may be some sonnets that you’ll enjoy instead. Don’t like James Joyce? Perhaps Italo Calvino will inspire you! The original 8-bit gaming systems are still being recreated on modern hardware. Some people really like those blocky graphics and bloopy sounds… Some people are still keeping the Amiga OS alive… Some people are recreating the software used in the Apollo spacecraft….
Why? Because the limitations of their platforms created something distinctive — and distinctions are at the heart of aesthetics. If we as content creators push for what we need to express ourselves by developing distinctive creations for a specific platform or device (perhaps the most important part of the "two-way conversation" analogy above), other hardware and platforms will emerge to improve the status quo.
In music engineering, there is a tradition of taking a mix out from the expensive, carefully-calibrated studio setup and into to someone’s car for a quick listen before declaring the mix complete. (Web designers do this, too…. it’s called IE6!) They want to make sure that thing "translate" in both environments. Then again, musicians are also known for using cheap microphones and instruments to make some compelling sounds… the price or "functionality" not nearly as important as to what creative effect its used for.
Both are valid approaches (and are often used in tandem!), but maybe we app designers and web publishers are better off focusing on the latter. Let’s spend less time griping about what a particular device doesn’t have and instead find compelling ways to present content on whatever platform appeals to our aesthetic!
[Reply]
Federico Viticci Reply:
February 6th, 2010
@Justin, Couldn’t agree more with you. Thanks for the great comment Justin.
[Reply]
#4
That's what Kevin said 6 months ago:
I agree. Design by committee is never a good idea.
[Reply]