On my way back from Memphis this evening, I read a fiery response by Greg Knauss (one of my favorite writers) to Cory Doctorow's rant about why he won't buy an iPad. Now, Doctorow's rant is just begging for pissed off responses, especially because he ends his title by saying he doesn't "think you should, either". An obnoxious tone, to be sure. He also handily dates himself by making a metaphor to Hypercard

So it's completely understandable why Greg Knauss and Jon Gruber and Joel Johnson are all calling his post out as condescending, reactionary, and basically just snotty.

The problem with it all is that I think the larger point is being missed - we have allowed Apple to frame the debate as usability versus openness. That gains in one come at a setback in the other. How did such a lie ever take root?

Jon Gruber's response's closing line:

Something important and valuable is indeed being lost as Apple shifts to this model of computing. But it's a trade-off, because something new that is important and valuable has been gained.

And Greg Knauss':

Yes, yes, this simplicity will come at a cost, of course, just like every other aspect of modern life. But for the benefits of cutting-edge technology in its full flower -- to even begin to reap what the future has to offer -- it's more than a fair trade. It always has been.

If we didn't believe this lie, people like Cory Doctorow, Alex Payne and Mark Pilgrim would not have to so passionately argue that openness is more important than usability, and people like Knauss, Gruber, and Johnson would not have to smack them down with the obvious fact that people just want to get stuff done. Instead, we could all simply ask Apple for the things that are missing.

The iPad could have the exact same user experience - and still allow alternate music players, web browsers, and other competition on the Store.

The iPad could have the exact same user experience - and charge less than $100 for its development kit. Or simply only ask for money from developers who will ask users for money.

The iPad could have the exact same user experience - without restricting the user only to what is on the App Store. The iPhone version of our door opener app will soon be unusable for our office because apps made by friends, for friends, can be made in limited number and eventually expire. And now we have to scramble to find an alternative

Why do so many Apple fans put up with this garbage? Because Apple tells them it's necessary if they want things to Just Work. It's not. Apple just wants to control things. Apple thinks this will make things better. It won't.

And Apple has already proved that it won't: when their competition began to show that phones can have a great user experience, while being vastly more open and capable, Apple knocked over the checker board and sued Using software patents of all things, the legal validity of which is so flimsy and bogus and exploitative that they are not allowed in Europe.

As long as Apple is allowed to falsely frame this debate as a choice between our security or our ideals then we all lose. Doctorow watches his world collapse and all the fellow techies he thought were his friends lovingly embrace an authoritarian regime. Greg Knauss lashes out at crusty old hackers getting in between him and the shiny, worry-free future Apple has promised us. And all of us get screwed over because we didn't challenge Apple to do better.

I'm not frustrated with Apple. They are doing what they do best, and their creation of the digital music market shows they can be a force for good, if they have competition Debates like this one make me seriously worry about whether competition to the iPad would even be taken seriously.

If openness is seen as the opposite of beauty, then no matter how easy or intuitive your user experience becomes, once people hear you're "open" or "customizable" (or God help you, "open source"), you've already lost - people already know you're unusable.