The iPad: tool of revolution or contrivance of capitalism?
It’s already a revolution and it’s only just begun.
We’ve all heard the grandiose claims: iPad sales hit 2 million in less than two months; the iPad can be used as a language interface for dolphins; the iPad will save newspapers, magazines, books, the print industry in general; the iPad is a revolution in reading.
Writer and previous Meanland panelist Sherman Young is quite the fan of the iPad. In his recent post, Twenty-eight days with an iPad, he claims: ‘In short, the iPad has replaced paper for me.’ Yet also goes onto say that he hasn’t actually read much on the device. Mostly, he’s used it to take notes in meetings and watch television.
While it is phenomenal that the iPad has dominated the market of late – selling 2 million devices is quite a feat – Apple and the various publishing industries have invested so much money, time and publicity into the possibilities of the iPad, there is no room for failure.
As Derek Thompson recently wrote in the Atlantic:
Please don't get me wrong: the iPad is exciting. It could potentially revolutionize popular computing and entertainment. But would it really revolutionize publishers' bottom lines?
Thompson then quotes one Rory Maher of TBI Research:
Even if iPad sales soar past expectations and reach, say, 16 million units over the next two years total magazine subscription revenue would equal about $2.8 billion per year under the above case scenario [50% of iPad owners subscribe to two magazines on average]. That's less than 30% of annual circulation revenue for the entire magazine industry and only about 10% of overall industry revenue (circulation + advertising).
Well, I should come clean: I held an iPad last week, and I wasn’t inspired.
The iPad is user dependent, a trend common to technology we’ve come to appreciate and rely on in society. As such, the device may be a good advance on television, because the user isn’t subject to the whims and restrictions of television executives or scheduling. But it is not an advance on a computer, or an easel or a typewriter, or any other instrument or machine an individual uses to create with.
The iPad is a successor of the tradition of consumptive devices. It is a one-way medium in a time when most other technology is exploring the two-way medium, and consequently, seems neither future-oriented nor progressive.
Unlike television and radio, which can be and often are community collective experiences, the iPad furthers an individual’s isolated experience of culture and content, and offers no avenue for a user’s input. It is a device designed for an individual to consume, solely. Thus, I suggest, the iPad is the height of capitalism: a glorification of a sense of consumption.
The irony of ‘200 000 apps and counting’ is that creators and designers can’t even build apps on the iPad; you need a computer for that. The iPad is propelling readers into a future of constant consumption, and Apple is charging a hefty fee for the privilege.
Future Meanland panelist Cory Doctorow touches on this and multiple other concerns in his essay, ‘Why I won’t buy an iPad (and think you shouldn’t, either)’:
Relying on incumbents to produce your revolutions is not a good strategy. They're apt to take all the stuff that makes their products great and try to use technology to charge you extra for it, or prohibit it altogether.
As a lifelong comic lover, he uses the Marvel app as an example:
So what does Marvel do to "enhance" its comics? They take away the right to give, sell or loan your comics. What an improvement. Way to take the joyous, marvellous sharing and bonding experience of comic reading and turn it into a passive, lonely undertaking that isolates, rather than unites.
Don’t be conned by the iPad’s sweet whisperings in your ear, I say. Stop. Think. Is it really worth it?
Over the past year I’ve digitised my entire music collection. It’s taken some time, but I’ve successfully converted all my CDs to mp3s. (Vinyl is another story.) While Apple’s iPod did see a musical reinvigoration – where would the world be without iTunes? – it has resulted in an Apple monopoly in the world of the mp3 and a preponderance of the ‘i’ prefix. That said, mp3 files can be played on any device that recognises this standard audio file, meaning I’m not locked into any one platform and my music can be played on iPhones, iPods, generic mp3 players and computers.
The iPad, however, is utterly reliant on apps. So my iPad delivers the content for my McSweeney’s app, but what am I really guaranteed of having in three years? As a journal junkie, I’m uneasy that any publications I buy on the iPad are for Apple use only and that my collection could disappear at some stage down the track. Generally, journals and books publishing in the ePUB format are not tied to a single device or product.
What happens when the iPad batteries run out or the device breaks? Well, some people could read the same publications on their iPhone, but a number would have to wait until they can afford to replace the iPad. Basically, when you buy an app (which is the way a magazine or newspaper is delivered on the iPad) you’re locked into a product, and in need of another Apple device to run it.
So in 3 years, I’ll have all this electronic data, but if I decide to sever my relationship with Apple, for whatever reason, I’ve lost the data. And, in this way, Apple has a monopoly on my custom.
This is one of the interesting features of Digital Rights Management: it ties the user/reader to a device. And Doctorow agrees:
And let's look at the iStore. For a company whose CEO professes a hatred of DRM, Apple sure has made DRM its alpha and omega. Having gotten into business with the two industries that most believe that you shouldn't be able to modify your hardware, load your own software on it, write software for it, override instructions given to it by the mothership (the entertainment industry and the phone companies), Apple has defined its business around these principles. It uses DRM to control what can run on your devices, which means that Apple's customers can't take their "iContent" with them to competing devices, and Apple developers can't sell on their own terms.
I’m leaning toward not heeding the call of the iPad. But what do think? Specifically, what do you think of proprietary DRM when it actually interferes with the delivery of publications?
I agree that you're forced into apples ecosystem. I'm a long time Apple advocate, and had an iPad sent from the US to Australia on launch day. After 6 weeks with it, it was sold on eBay. Great toy, but it's simply too locked into handing Apple all of my money for content. Books from the iBook store were buggy, safari web browser handled many sites poorly (even non flash sites). I couldn't even sell the iPad on eBay through the iPad, I needed a computer, as I cant upload photos from iPad to my account... Many things to love about iPad, but its not ready to replace my MacBook Pro, iMac or PC, not yet, not for at least 5 years. Another thing I don't like about Tablets, is the need to touch the screen. A mouse pointer is small, and you don't inhibit your view with a mouse pointer, whereas my big fingers block the view of my screen, often having to lean to the side so see if I've hotlinked properly... Fingers are primitive, so using fingers to navigate natively on screen is a little 'monkey like'.
Nic
03 June at 10:28AM
Apple are aspiring to become a monopoly, but not even advocates of laissez faire economics (capitalist fundamentalists) think monopolies are a good idea. Things like copyright, patents and other legislation for intellectual property were invented to encourage invention by ensuring that inventors could profit from their investment of time and effort by being the only ones allowed to sell their intellectual property for a limited amount of time. That seems fair enough, but at the end of the day monopoly always turns out bad, artificially inflating prices, reducing product quality, and restricting freedom of choice.
In terms of digital media, software etc, the ease of copying and distribution means that the cost of entering the market to buy and sell someone else's intellectual property is next to nothing, so legislation to protect intellectual property is essential. However, vendors and companies must also realise that this is *information* technology and *information* doesn't exist unless it is transferred. Ultimately a monopolistic stance injures vendors as users become frustrated that they cannot use/create/share information. Open and common standards that do not restrict sharing are always essential to success in information technology and products - would the internet really be so universal, and would any company have made nearly so much money if it weren't for HTML, POP, SMTP, MP3, JPEG, MPG etc? Why would I buy a digital book that I can only read on one vendor's product when I could buy one that I can read on any device produced by any vendor?
On the one hand it is only to be expected that at the arrival of new technology there will be monopolies, and that over time the monopoly will be dispelled as competitors find work arounds and alternatives; and that there will be some confusion and a mixture of attempts at open standards and vendor exclusive protocols, formats and schemes, that will consolidate in due course. Perhaps we shouldn't worry, it's only the natural course of events and we only need to wait for competition to kick in. On the other hand, perhaps Apple is taking over from Microsoft as the new Evil Empire. In that case anti-monopoly legislation could be used to separate content from delivery.
And yes, it is both inhumane and ridiculous to think that music and stories are not something that people can, do and should create and share. The difficulty is in working our way to an economic and industrial system for media and information that allows for and encourages that, rather than one in which profits can only be maximised by isolating and constraining us. The internet is successful because anyone can contribute to it, anything can be shared and which is profitable for many because of this. This open sharing and creativity is not only possible but also necessary for success. It's beneficial to producers and consumers, companies and individuals, and can increase the prosperity, liberty and agency of individuals at the same time as increasing the profits of companies.
William Pascoe
03 June at 10:56AM
I think you've raised some really interesting questions Jacinda. I've always been an apple user but instinctively feel uneasy about the ipad, mostly because of my overwhelming sense that apple=monopoly, in the cultural sphere anyway. Apple's becoming the CocaCola of the eworld.
So I'm interested to read your thoughts on the ipad being a one-way medium and to hear that someone like Doctorow is not a fan. He makes a fantastic observation: 'Relying on incumbents to produce your revolutions is not a good strategy'. Just that for the moment apple has so much cool and cred that we don't think of it as an 'incumbent' or as tending to monopoly capitalism.
And I like your phrase 'consumptive devices' - I think of wasting diseases.
Jane GW
03 June at 01:25PM
Yeah I think it's important to be wary of the pop and fizz factor of new and emerging ICT. Agree re figuring out whether it's really worth it.
My day job researches and develops strategies for using technology to support health and wellbeing communication with refugee and migrant communities in Australia. The touch screen and visual interface of the iPad is very interesting in relation to improved communication on health. But the hefty price tag and content limitations are a major concern.
Also, I tend to think we use and apply these devices in technologically deterministic ways which is problematic.
I've written about similar issues in relation to the iPhone for Eureka Street which may be of interest: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=8380
Ben O'Mara
05 June at 06:19AM
Don't you think characterizing the iPad as a "device designed for an individual to consume, solely" is an overstatement?
While I agree that consumption is the iPad's primary function, it is not the device's "sole" purpose. Artist David Hockney is among those who use an iPad to create.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601120&sid=aTsCxV8aS84U
08 June at 09:32PM
The iPad is a "consumption only" device in the same way a baby is simply a "screaming poo factory".
You say Apple's DRM will lock you in to using Apple devices, but neglect to mention that buying paper copies of books locks you in to having a house with a spare room. Your house burns down, what happens to your paper copies?
There are many ways to produce digital media which are not encumbered by DRM. Publish your own ePub books (they're basically ZIP files, full of XML and XHTML). Create your own music - Apple has the lion's share of the online music market, that doesn't mean you can't load your own songs onto your MP3 player.
Look for ways that these new technologies can improve your life as a creative person, rather than looking at all the ways they might hamper you. Certainly, be aware of the risks of doing business with record labels, but don't let greedy corporations stop you creating music.
Certainly, be aware that the iPad is about interacting with data through apps created on desktop computers, but don't let the necessity of apps lure you into thinking the iPad is not a creative medium.
You can edit HTML, CSS and JavaScript files on the iPad in order to produce portable web-apps which will run on any device with a modern browser. Certainly, web apps aren't native apps so they can't use every feature of the device, but there is so much you *can* do with web apps.
I've had my iPad for a week, and in that time I've been more inspired to write my thoughts down and distribute them as ePub - it's a very convenient format that makes it easy to read articles offline. I haven't written a iOS app yet, but I use the iPad to help develop the web-based applications that are part of my desk job.
Most music on the iTunes Music Store is DRM free these days. The iBookstore hosts just about every Project Gutenburg book available. So much for defining their business around DRM.
The availability of DRM is a neccessary enticement to get traditional publishers to enter the electronic market. That's just a fact of life. Not all authors are comfortable trusting the reading public to pay for good writing, so they insist on having some kind of technological measures in place to police the pay-to-read model that has existed since books were first produced.
Even Ars Technica posts regular complaints about people who block the ads that are shown on their site. They won't go to the subscriber/pay-wall model since they fear a loss of readership, instead they stick to the intrusive advertising model.
Is Apple forcing Ars Technica to make money from their online presence?
Is Apple forcing publishers to use DRM in the iBookstore?
If you were to look into the issue at all, you'd find that DRM is imposed by the content creators and publishers, not the distributors. Cory is free to distribute his books through the iBookstore, without DRM and without a price.
@Ben: hefty price tag and content limitations? There are no limits to what you can put on the device in terms of web apps, just as there are no limits to what you can put on the device as native apps through a corporate-style distribution. The price seems reasonable to me for the type of technology you're getting - $AU1050 for the top-of-the-line iPad compares quite favorably with a Blackberry.
@everyone: stop focussing on how easy it is to get someone else's work onto your iPad to "consume" it (do you really "consume" a work? what happened to other verbs such as "reading" or "admiring"? what do you call art galleries, if not "art consumption venues"?). Seriously, WTF people?
How many people wrote Pride and Prejudice? How many people have "consumed" it? We didn't call it "consuming" a book last year - it was "reading". Why is it suddenly evil that a new bookstore opens up? The iPad isn't locking you into Apple's "ecosystem" - you can read ePub books on any platform, as long as the books aren't DRM encumbered. Amazon has worse DRM, since their publication format is only readable on the Kindle. I don't see people complaining about the Kindle being a contrivance of capitalism.
Has anything really changed now that the iPad is here, beyond more people reading good books?
Alex
10 June at 11:40AM
I suggest adding a facebook like button for the blog!
Anita
30 November at 01:54AM