The Transformation of the Product

Full caveat: even though this is about Apple products, I use *several* Apple items everyday.  I love their products but dislike their approach to emerging technologies, seen best in the incarnation of the iPad- read below for more.  Caveat over.

For those not in the know, I am somewhat of a technology nerd.  Not a full blown nerd- I can't code, for one, and while I feel somewhat on top of tech trends, there are certainly elements which throw me for a loop.  Case in point- I really enjoy listening to Dan Benjamin's '5x5' livecasts and podcasts on various aspects of tech industry and development, but there are many times when Dan or the guest on the show begin to dive into the world of techno-jargon and I become lost.  Luckily, I have rewind capability and the mighty Google to assist in these needful moments of techno-ignorance.  I find it's a lot like owning a modern day car- you know (the basics) of how the car works, but the engine underneath is far from accessible to most amateur mechanics.

But if you show me a Ford and a Subaru, I'm not likely to mistake either for being anything else but a car.  Different models of cars to be sure, but cars nonetheless.  

Now take a look at the magical iPad.

Photo by Yutaka Tsutano

It looks nothing like computers of old.  It uses an intuitive operating system that brings the level of device interaction to largely the flick of a wrist or point of a finger.  Like many Apple products, it just simply works (most of the time).  No confusion, no hesitancy- just a great computer that uses elegant design to draw the user into a new level of personal technology experience.

But wait- it's not a computer, it's a tablet.  And there is a big distinction between the two.  For one thing, computers are modifiable, while the iPad tablet is not.  I can't add more flash memory, or upgrade the RAM on the iPad (without some high degree of difficultly), like I could on a computer or laptop.  In fact, as the iFixit team discovered on their breakdown of the recently released iPad 2, Apple has made the tablet increasingly difficult to even crack open.  Due to the heavy amount of adhesive used in securing the glass plate, the iFixit team had to use a heat gun in order to open the iPad- even then they noted that the thin glass and large amount of adhesive used made it very difficult to remove the glass without cracking.  Just like the recent Apple decision to replace iPhone phillips screws with proprietary pentolobular screws, the design and construction of the iPad 2 is meant to deter user modifications.

These construction decisions do not deter, however, from the very usability of the iPad or iPhone- indeed, they are phenomenal examples of design at all levels.  What concerns me is that, increasingly, Apple is recasting these new devices as something other than a personal computer.  Take a look at the Apple.com section on the iPad.  Not once is the word 'computer' used, outside of the one-time requirement that a user must sync the iPad with a Mac or PC computer.  Even the powerhouse of the device, the A5 processor, isn't called a processor- it's called a 'chip'.  

Now some of you have already shaken your heads in slight disgust, thinking, "So what?  They used different vocabulary- why all the fuss?"  I point it out because it appears, to me, that Apple is actively trying to set perceptions of their devices into a new category of personal computing technology, while at the same time essentially stripping out all assumptions and linkages that come with the association of a 'personal computer'.

Software?  No, the iPad has apps.  The difference?  Software is something from the realm of personal computing, code that was written for a purpose and then released for the free market to decide if it was valuable or not.  If people liked the software, they could buy or download it and use it on their computer.  The modern rise of the internet made sharing software very, very easy (see SourceForge) and while not all the software was good, gems that stood out garnered attention and, generally, out-shone the competition.

Apps are something Apple controls entirely via their approval process.  You might have an idea for an app, say one that measures cellphone radiation, but if the powers that be at Apple don't like it that app will never enter the iPhone/iPad App store.  The market cannot decide if your app is valuable or not, because the market is circumvented by the gatekeepers at Apple.  They do this in order to bring a high level of user experience to their products and, like I said above, their devices perform, in general, very well.  But the shift from the idea of personal computing software to iPad apps, and the exclusionary practices the shift entails, are troubling.  Because once you convince people a product is something different, you can begin to dictate the relationship a person should have with their device.

Further evidence this is occurring?  Apple Design Awards 2011 will only consider those examples of software that are already in the App Store.  (Thanks, Daring Fireball for pointing this out)

The consequences of such a shift can be seen by returning to the Deleuze selection I quoted in a previous post, "Postscript on Societies of Control":

The conquests of the market are made by... transformation of the product more than by specialization of production.  Corruption thereby gains a new power.

Now some will say that the iPad represents a new specialization of personal computing production- but that is not the way Apple is choosing to present their new product.  The iPad is not the specialized personal computer, it is the transformation into what computing should be- at least, according to Apple.  By claiming such, Apple gains control over both user and device at a level not seen before in their already storied technological history.