International Law

I tweeted earlier that after having slept with her (Ms. iPad), I woke up with morning-after regrets. She?s sweet and pretty but shallow and vapid.

Cute line, appropriate for retweets. But as my hangover settles in, I realize that there?s something much more basic and profound that worries me about the iPad ? and not just the iPad but the architecture upon which it is built. I see danger in moving from the web to apps.

The iPad is retrograde. It tries to turn us back into an audience again. That is why media companies and advertisers are embracing it so fervently, because they think it returns us all to their good old days when we just consumed, we didn?t create, when they controlled our media experience and business models and we came to them. The most absurd, extreme illustration is Time Magazine?s app, which is essentially a PDF of the magazine (with the odd video snippet). It?s worse than the web: we can?t comment; we can?t remix; we can?t click out; we can?t link in, and they think this is worth $4.99 a week. But the pictures are pretty.

That?s what we keep hearing about the iPad as the justification for all its purposeful limitations: it?s meant for consumption, we?re told, not creation. We also hear, as in David Pogue?s review, that this is our grandma?s computer. That cant is inherently snobbish and insulting. It assumes grandma has nothing to say. But after 15 years of the web, we know she does. I?ve long said that the remote control, cable box, and VCR gave us control of the consumption of media; the internet gave us control of its creation. Pew says that a third of us create web content. But all of us comment on content, whether through email or across a Denny?s table. At one level or another, we all spread, react, remix, or create. Just not on the iPad.

The iPad?s architecture supports these limitations in a few ways

via www.buzzmachine.com

A fascinating take on the iPad by Jeff Jarvis.