The debut of Apple’s iPad, along with Thursday’s disclosure of new rules preventing developers from writing in more languages Apple doesn’t like, has rekindled what had seemed a settled debate about the comparative virtues of open and closed technology platforms.
The New York Times weighed in with a column Sunday saying the boom in iPhone apps proved that an environment closely policed by one benevolent master could provide healthy progress, reversing prior assumptions. Earlier, Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain and Cory Doctorow, among others, had complained that the iPad was far too restrictive and would hinder innovation in software.
But few on either side have pointed to the impact of cybercrime on the success of Apple’s strategy. Guardian technology editor Charles Arthur is an exception: He recently argued that the disastrous state of security on Windows machines provides a compelling reason for the iPad’s existence.
I have to agree (and not because Mr Arthur said kind things about my book). I haven’t seen a recent survey of Apple buyers asking their motivations and I suspect that only a minority would cite personal cybersecurity as issue No. 1.
But if pressed, I bet a large number would list it as No. 2 or 3 and that still more have it as a reason somewhere in their subconscious. The Safari browser and other things Apple are certainly hackable, and Mac users shouldn’t be smug. But the plain fact is that as things stand, they face significantly less risk of having malicious software planted on their computers than do Windows users, while the password-stealing programs themselves are rapidly growing more dangerous.
A closed environment isn’t the biggest reason for the relative safety of Apple overall. Mobile devices in general haven’t been targeted as heavily as PCs yet and Macs’ safety is enhanced by lesser market penetration and their Unix-heritage code.
But the iPad is changing the discussion because Apple is moving the controlled model of the phone world in general closer to the traditionally looser world of mainstream computing. (Updated: This is exactly what Mr Zittrain warned would happen, largely for security reasons, in his book “The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It”.)
The iPad will be safer than a PC and probably a Mac as well. It also won’t be able to do as much, so the new path forward smacks of unfortunate compromise. The evolution of software will simply not be as innovative.
Not all other platforms should mimic Apple. But that company’s success should serve as a final warning to Microsoft, PC makers and the security software companies, which are doing a terrible collective job of protecting consumers, that they need to make dramatic changes in their ecosystem.
Until and unless that shift occurs, a safe internet experience that includes electronic commerce will increasingly resemble the health care system of old: it will be available mostly alongside a corporate paycheck.
The next-best choice for users–or really, the least worse–is opting for a closed system like Apple’s.
