Going back a little bit, it is clear to me now that no computer platform does everything for everyone. I mentioned before I have pretty much one of everything on my desk, and I do use all of them for what they are good at. The iPad is good at being on the couch with me when I’m watching TV, for example. I have laptops I used for that but the iPad just beats them in how transparently it sits there.

So I opine that anybody who requires a single system to do everything they want with ease, elegance, and under all circumstances, is a) cheap and b) never going to be satisfied. And that that has always been true. The closest entity to a universal computer today is the iMac, which will do everything except some games, and does it very elegantly. I choose the iMac for the example because, like the iPad, it occupies only the essential space – that of the screen – and all the works are hidden inside, unlike towers or conventional laptops.

As to the 99% – my observations since the PC arrived is that the 80% solution is what actually gets pervasive and makes a few people insanely rich. And also Ted Sturgeon’s Law – 90% of everything is crap – applies strongly in this field. We just have to live with it.

It’s why they often start out that way until one becomes a standard, usually for reasons utterly unrelated to actual technology (see: Betamax and VHS. I worked on TV production and there is a reason Beta was the preferred format for TV people. But VHS for all kinds of reasons unrelated to the superiority/inferiority of the tech became the one everyone had at home. 8-tracks had a similar issue – they actually reproduce sound better — but cassettes were more convenient).

I’m not endorsing this. I’m just saying that oftentimes the problem you describe is basic to any new media technology. I suspect that sooner rather than later one eBook will pick up enough market share that the other format is crowded out.

@Paladin: i don’t find it horrible that Apple can say what app goes on my iPone (if I owned one) for the same reason I don’t find it horrible that certain programs (usually games, but whatevs) don’t have mac compatibility. Maybe it’s ‘cuz I grew up with computers in the 80s when compatibility issues were actually more problematic — Apple had a bigger market share then and there were four or five companies making PCs and you could easily choose one that would be out of business later. (I had a Commodore. It’s a nice paperweight now). I can’t play SIMs on the mac. Oh well, I’ll live.

So to me, when you say “I want to be treated like a responsible adult” it’s like, “So what?” Now, you are approaching maybe from the perspective of one who likes to play with the functionality of a machine. I don’t. And I suspect most people don’t, which explains why there has been a certain amount of innovation in the app store (as per NYT piece). Those apps just aren’t designed for techies. And for people like me, well, it’s almost a non-issue. I need something that works, first and foremost, and if I had an iPhone I’d sure as hell want a guarantee that whatever I was using wasn’t going to have some weird effect when I am trying to dial the local pizza guy or trying to make an important phone call, which is what stupid lugs like me use a phone for 🙂

One thing that keeps me using the Mac is that it works. And sometimes, having something reliable for 99% of the situations you will ever run into is better than the latest and greatest tech.

I think it’s often hard for people who understand OS technology well to imagine what it is like for the rest of us. I know cars pretty well, for instance, and I sometimes have to take a step back and understand that replacing brake shoes, changing spark plugs or anything like that for my brother in law is a complete mystery. He just needs his car to work, and hasn’t the time or inclination to understand the inner workings. So he’s okay with the fact that Ford or Toyota only allows parts built to certain specs — it’s basically invisible to him, as the restrictions on apps are to me.

Which is a positive thing to say about the iPhone, but also somewhat deflates the significance of the huge number of apps.

I’m not sure how impressed I am about the iPhone store encouraging reams of innovative apps so quickly. It was the first pocket-sized all-touchscreen computer that got a significant market share. It was practically guaranteed that it would produce a torrent of innovative small applications. The app store helped, but only because it makes it easy to do low-hassle impulse buys. Closed gardens often start off nice: IBM and AOL were both big successes once.

But still, that didn’t answer my question about Apple: why informed people with a healthy attitude about freedom manage to love the iPhones and iPads?

Shiny baubles mate. People are rather like crows in that regard.

Even the walking example of practicality in motion that is me is drawn to them. Alas, not enough to throw down hard earned coin of the realm. In my case, the particular bauble being the sex without orgasm iPod Touch that diddles the clit of possibilities held in potential and perhaps, just maybe, by chance the next revision, or the one after that. Then again I’m forced to realize this self serving consumerist is not the suitable tool with which to leverage maximal profitability in the erection of fully integrated ecosystems. I am not within the target demographic that places style and form over substance and function. A demographic that appreciates the insulation and isolation of walled gardens from the complexities of a world beyond and accepts the limits in trade. I am an outsider in search of a personal ideal more enamored with what an iPod Touch could be, than what it actually is. Speaking only for myself, the greater value is in the utility not the shine.