On the dumbing down of Apple products
A friend recently purchased a Apple laptop, and (being a tech enthusiast) I had the opportunity to take a quick look at it. Much to my amazement, Apple seems to be trying to 'consumerize' complicated technologies by dumbing down its components in its most recent operating systems. When I accessed the System Profiler, which typically provides a long list of all the core components and internal specs, rather than getting a detailed list, all I saw was the most bare-bones presentation which provided almost no information at all pertaining to its actual components.
I could not believe it.
I knew that Steve Jobs departure would ultimately lead to some changes in operating sytem that would be 'unruly', but I could not believe that they would reach this extent.
Why, you might ask, is this such a bad thing? Let me count the ways…
Computers are complicated technologies by nature, complicated both by the number of components as well as by their interactions. The effort to 'consumerize' its machines--basically trying to turn a computer into a simple toaster which only requires an 'on-off' lever--leads to an absence of transparency and the inability for the consumer to actually be able to understand (and resolve) whatever issues might be going on in their machines. One can immediately detect the corporation's effort to increase the consumer's direct dependency on the company: instead of being able to repair their own products, consumers will be encouraged to take the machines to the Apple stores for repairs.
This 'dumbing down' of Apple products can also be observed in other areas and/or producers as well, specifically Intego which produces 'Net Barrier' and other assorted security programs specifically made for the Apple platform. Just a few years ago, the Intego programs had a nice degree of sophistication; it would immediately detect the IP addresses that were trying to wrongfully infiltrate themselves into the computer. Identifying these allowed the computer user to directly remove the potential threats by putting them in a banned list. I recently installed the latest version of their products, and was aghast at how dumbed down their products had become--as if to say 'trust us, we will protect you'. No IP listing of connections, no IP banned list, and so forth. Again, one can detect the dumbing down of computer products in the Mac ecosphere, in the worst of ways.
While it is true that Steve Jobs's philosophy was that of simplification, it never reached the point of actually undermining the user experience. The different operating systems during his tenure operated as faithful skins to the more complex unix internals on which they were embedded. Emerging OSXs seem to try to eliminate any direct link to the Unix core; and this might help explain why no 'Security Configuration Guides' have been provided by the company since Snow Leopard, or OSX 10.6. This is a huge mistake.
It is perhaps not hard to see some of the factors going into such product decisions. Most individuals have little to none computer expertise, and much of this information is probably wasted on the majority of users. One can imagine a corporate representative legitimately asking, 'why place superfluous functions that only 1% of the entire user base will be able to read'. The superficial answer to this question leads to the presence only of artificial 'digital buttons', whereby complex processes are run in the background, while giving the false sense of 'control' and 'understanding' by the common user.
The scenario actually reminds me of medieval arguments pertaining to the nature of God: can man understand the true nature of God? The answer basically boiled down to the notion that God only allows man to know what he is ready and capable of knowing. This same approach seems to be taken by the computer manufacturers as well, but I doubt their interests hinged on theological issues and debates.
Perhaps the most potent argument as to why this is such an egregious error simply lies in the fact that it contradicts the broader US policy of trying to promote a 'science-technology economy'. While Mom and Pop might not be able to understand all those complex IP numbers and their true nature, their young children in the process of interacting without he computer will be exposed to a complex world that is immediately within their reach. This experience will help form the notion that the world is much more complex than they imagined, and hence be stimulated into exploring this complexity. In other words, rather than leading to the creation of 'stupid americans', it will stimulate the entry of new laborers into the knowledge workforce.
Never have corporate philosophies and broader governmental social policies come into such direct and immediate conflict.