![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some thoughts about the iPad
I worry a bit about the digital future as envisioned by Apple -
My problem with the iPad
Well, it’s here at last – the tablet we Mac fans have dreamed about for so long; the object we fondly hoped might be a replacement for the Newton. And –
It’s not. The iPhone (which I love) comes close, but you can’t write on it, really. Too small. As for the iPad –
Well, I’m a woman, and all those jokes other women are making do strike me as funny! The name’s unfortunate. But I have a couple of other problems with the thing itself. Oh, I know I am going to want one. It’s beautiful, just from the pictures I’ve seen, both in journals and newspapers and online. I’m sure it’ll be fun to touch and to play with, and, when I’m in an Apple store, I’m definitely going to want to try it out. And I’ll probably like it. But there is a major difference between the iPad and every other Apple product (from the old Apple II GS we had here in the library, to the original iMac, to the iPhone, to the iLife suite) that I’ve fallen in love with. It’s a very basic difference; in fact, you could almost call it fundamental. Here it is:
All those other products were designed to help people do something. The first killer app, way back in the 80s or even before, was Microsoft Word. Yes, this was on my brother and sister-in-law’s original Mac, and it was a great, great program. It was still absolutely stable, and usable, into the 21st century. And there were word processing and card and banner designing programs for the Apple II, which took advantage of its color screen and the workhorse of a dot-matrix printer that came with it. The kids loved those programs – and so did I. Very soon all computers of all types ran them, or programs like them, and the desktop computer became a near-necessity in homes, schools, and libraries, not just in businesses.
Then came the much-maligned Newton, with its calendar and handwriting recognition. I still use my eMate (which I picked up on ebay) every month for taking notes in meetings. It’s an excellent portable word processer and a terrific adjunct to my desktop. Of course, the palm pilot quickly overtook and surpassed the Newton in popularity, and the palm OS is still in use today, on smartphones – but I’ll get to them later.
For me, email was the killer app of the nineties, and the reason I bought a computer. The iMac was marketed as the machine that would let you use the internet and email in a few simple steps. I have to admit, my original iMac wasn’t all that simple, but it worked for me. I love email! and I love the worldwide web. It’s great to be able to communicate with friends and family and to browse for information from sites all over the world. Participating in online communities is fun, too, and a big draw for people of all ages.
After this, we had the iLife suite, and programs like it. People weren’t just processing words at home any more. They were taking and sending digital pictures, editing movies, writing songs – you name it. But the point is, regardless of platform, from the first push to get people to buy computers, to now, the focus was on two things: creating one’s own content, and communication. In other words, people were urged to use computers (and smartphones – sorry, I didn’t actually get there!) to express themselves and reach out to others. It was a form of empowerment. And now?
The iPad is being talked about as the Kindle-killer. And publishers are thrilled, according to an article in this week’s Time. Publishers, not end users! The New York Times website will no longer be free, but will charge for subscriptions, and the same will probably be true of other papers. Fair enough, one might say. After all, you have to buy the actual newspaper, so why not be required to buy the online version?
And that is fair enough. But here’s the problem: Many newspapers are struggling to keep their heads above water, and they blame the net. If they are able to charge for online editions, they may be able to continue publishing. Keeping papers afloat can only be a good thing, right? But-
A paper newspaper costs a dollar or so – perhaps less. I don’t know what the Times intends to charge for an online subscription, nor do I know whether potential readers will be allowed to buy single copies, as they can buy single copies today. But they will need a machine, costing at minimum (a smartphone or netbook) a couple hundred dollars, in order to read this digitized newspaper. They’ll also need an online connection, and they will have to pay for that somehow. What happens to the goal of universal access to information and universal literacy if all newspapers are available only in a digital format?
Well, there are still libraries, right? As a librarian, I certainly hope so! But now I come to another, still more disturbing article my director shared with me. We librarians are working to make content of all kinds available in all sorts of formats. Today, at my library, we already provide printed books and newspapers, audiobooks (tape and CD), videos and DVDs, and a website with links databases of various kinds, including online magazines and newspapers and downloadable audiobooks. So what’s the problem?
You’ll remember, I was inspired to write this post by my thoughts on the iPad. It’s being marketed as a Kindle-killer, and that means its major use will be as a digital book reader. That’s a fine thing, for those who can afford it. Who wouldn’t enjoy having one hundred books (or more) readily available on a lovely-looking, backlit pad the size of a magazine? And what if you had all your magazine subscriptions on it, too? and links and annotations, and illustrations in vivid color? Wouldn’t that be great?
Yes, it certainly would! I’d be able to get rid of all my back issues that are cluttering up my living room, for one thing.) But I can afford an iPad, and a subscription that gives me internet access. I can afford magazine subscriptions, whether for hard copies or online. Even so, I make pretty heavy use of the library where I work. I’d spend hundreds of dollars if I had to pay for every book I read, and I don’t really have hundreds of dollars to throw away.
But it’s not all about me, or people like me. It’s about universal access, and universal literacy, two goals that I support as a librarian. The iPad might well make a library’s job more difficult, if not impossible. As it is, the article my boss gave me pointed out that digitized music is notoriously hard to lend. iTunes, much as I love it, is part of the problem. It isn’t designed for lending; if you buy a song or album on iTunes, it’s for use by one consumer only. Yes, you can share your content between your own computers. But that’s all you can do (and it took Apple awhile to get around to that.) For us, the problem right now is my particular love, classical music. ITunes does have some fine albums available that are no longer available anywhere else. An individual can download these and keep them, and – again, once you get over the cost of a PC and an internet subscription – the cost of the album is minimal. But a library is not legally allowed to download such an album, burn it to disc, and make it available to its patrons. That the library would have paid for the album doesn’t matter. We can’t lend out to our patrons anything we download from iTunes.
Now, back to the iPad. Can you see my problem? It’s easy to imagine that publishers might choose to publish some books in digital format only. Chances are good that, like music, such books would have DRM – digital rights management –attached. How are we going to cope with this in libraries? How will we lend such books to our patrons? It’s a question, and not an unimportant one.
So, I’ve got two problems with the iPad. Unlike other products Apple has made – from the original Apple computers to the iPhone – the focus of the iPad is on consumption of content, not on creativity or communication. Also, it may have a huge impact on how books are sold and distributed. I’m sure Apple wouldn’t care if the iPad killed libraries, as well as killing Kindles. But I care. I care a lot. And I hope that Apple will give some thought to enabling borrowing of digital books. Time will tell.
(But, honestly, I cannot see this object taking off the way the iMac, the iLife suite and the iPhone did. In my humble opinion, creativity, communication and empowerment will always be more attractive than consumption.)
Mary J
My problem with the iPad
Well, it’s here at last – the tablet we Mac fans have dreamed about for so long; the object we fondly hoped might be a replacement for the Newton. And –
It’s not. The iPhone (which I love) comes close, but you can’t write on it, really. Too small. As for the iPad –
Well, I’m a woman, and all those jokes other women are making do strike me as funny! The name’s unfortunate. But I have a couple of other problems with the thing itself. Oh, I know I am going to want one. It’s beautiful, just from the pictures I’ve seen, both in journals and newspapers and online. I’m sure it’ll be fun to touch and to play with, and, when I’m in an Apple store, I’m definitely going to want to try it out. And I’ll probably like it. But there is a major difference between the iPad and every other Apple product (from the old Apple II GS we had here in the library, to the original iMac, to the iPhone, to the iLife suite) that I’ve fallen in love with. It’s a very basic difference; in fact, you could almost call it fundamental. Here it is:
All those other products were designed to help people do something. The first killer app, way back in the 80s or even before, was Microsoft Word. Yes, this was on my brother and sister-in-law’s original Mac, and it was a great, great program. It was still absolutely stable, and usable, into the 21st century. And there were word processing and card and banner designing programs for the Apple II, which took advantage of its color screen and the workhorse of a dot-matrix printer that came with it. The kids loved those programs – and so did I. Very soon all computers of all types ran them, or programs like them, and the desktop computer became a near-necessity in homes, schools, and libraries, not just in businesses.
Then came the much-maligned Newton, with its calendar and handwriting recognition. I still use my eMate (which I picked up on ebay) every month for taking notes in meetings. It’s an excellent portable word processer and a terrific adjunct to my desktop. Of course, the palm pilot quickly overtook and surpassed the Newton in popularity, and the palm OS is still in use today, on smartphones – but I’ll get to them later.
For me, email was the killer app of the nineties, and the reason I bought a computer. The iMac was marketed as the machine that would let you use the internet and email in a few simple steps. I have to admit, my original iMac wasn’t all that simple, but it worked for me. I love email! and I love the worldwide web. It’s great to be able to communicate with friends and family and to browse for information from sites all over the world. Participating in online communities is fun, too, and a big draw for people of all ages.
After this, we had the iLife suite, and programs like it. People weren’t just processing words at home any more. They were taking and sending digital pictures, editing movies, writing songs – you name it. But the point is, regardless of platform, from the first push to get people to buy computers, to now, the focus was on two things: creating one’s own content, and communication. In other words, people were urged to use computers (and smartphones – sorry, I didn’t actually get there!) to express themselves and reach out to others. It was a form of empowerment. And now?
The iPad is being talked about as the Kindle-killer. And publishers are thrilled, according to an article in this week’s Time. Publishers, not end users! The New York Times website will no longer be free, but will charge for subscriptions, and the same will probably be true of other papers. Fair enough, one might say. After all, you have to buy the actual newspaper, so why not be required to buy the online version?
And that is fair enough. But here’s the problem: Many newspapers are struggling to keep their heads above water, and they blame the net. If they are able to charge for online editions, they may be able to continue publishing. Keeping papers afloat can only be a good thing, right? But-
A paper newspaper costs a dollar or so – perhaps less. I don’t know what the Times intends to charge for an online subscription, nor do I know whether potential readers will be allowed to buy single copies, as they can buy single copies today. But they will need a machine, costing at minimum (a smartphone or netbook) a couple hundred dollars, in order to read this digitized newspaper. They’ll also need an online connection, and they will have to pay for that somehow. What happens to the goal of universal access to information and universal literacy if all newspapers are available only in a digital format?
Well, there are still libraries, right? As a librarian, I certainly hope so! But now I come to another, still more disturbing article my director shared with me. We librarians are working to make content of all kinds available in all sorts of formats. Today, at my library, we already provide printed books and newspapers, audiobooks (tape and CD), videos and DVDs, and a website with links databases of various kinds, including online magazines and newspapers and downloadable audiobooks. So what’s the problem?
You’ll remember, I was inspired to write this post by my thoughts on the iPad. It’s being marketed as a Kindle-killer, and that means its major use will be as a digital book reader. That’s a fine thing, for those who can afford it. Who wouldn’t enjoy having one hundred books (or more) readily available on a lovely-looking, backlit pad the size of a magazine? And what if you had all your magazine subscriptions on it, too? and links and annotations, and illustrations in vivid color? Wouldn’t that be great?
Yes, it certainly would! I’d be able to get rid of all my back issues that are cluttering up my living room, for one thing.) But I can afford an iPad, and a subscription that gives me internet access. I can afford magazine subscriptions, whether for hard copies or online. Even so, I make pretty heavy use of the library where I work. I’d spend hundreds of dollars if I had to pay for every book I read, and I don’t really have hundreds of dollars to throw away.
But it’s not all about me, or people like me. It’s about universal access, and universal literacy, two goals that I support as a librarian. The iPad might well make a library’s job more difficult, if not impossible. As it is, the article my boss gave me pointed out that digitized music is notoriously hard to lend. iTunes, much as I love it, is part of the problem. It isn’t designed for lending; if you buy a song or album on iTunes, it’s for use by one consumer only. Yes, you can share your content between your own computers. But that’s all you can do (and it took Apple awhile to get around to that.) For us, the problem right now is my particular love, classical music. ITunes does have some fine albums available that are no longer available anywhere else. An individual can download these and keep them, and – again, once you get over the cost of a PC and an internet subscription – the cost of the album is minimal. But a library is not legally allowed to download such an album, burn it to disc, and make it available to its patrons. That the library would have paid for the album doesn’t matter. We can’t lend out to our patrons anything we download from iTunes.
Now, back to the iPad. Can you see my problem? It’s easy to imagine that publishers might choose to publish some books in digital format only. Chances are good that, like music, such books would have DRM – digital rights management –attached. How are we going to cope with this in libraries? How will we lend such books to our patrons? It’s a question, and not an unimportant one.
So, I’ve got two problems with the iPad. Unlike other products Apple has made – from the original Apple computers to the iPhone – the focus of the iPad is on consumption of content, not on creativity or communication. Also, it may have a huge impact on how books are sold and distributed. I’m sure Apple wouldn’t care if the iPad killed libraries, as well as killing Kindles. But I care. I care a lot. And I hope that Apple will give some thought to enabling borrowing of digital books. Time will tell.
(But, honestly, I cannot see this object taking off the way the iMac, the iLife suite and the iPhone did. In my humble opinion, creativity, communication and empowerment will always be more attractive than consumption.)
Mary J