iPhone has a computer in it, but it is not a general purpose computer. Why is this concept so hard to get? There are tons of things that have CPUs and billions of lines of code to run them, but they are not personal computers.
The argument against an iPhone being a general purpose computer is that it first and foremost needs to be a phone, and do various other critical things. Imagine being stuck out in the middle of nowhere and your phone not working because of an app you installed from a non verified source messing things up.
The iPhone is a personal device but it's not a computer. It merely has a computer inside it. What sets it apart from a real computer is the fact it only does what manufacturer designed it to do. They're the ones programming the computer, not the users. So the iPhone is just a device that does cool things. Like one of those nice electronic watches with a ton of cool functions but you get to download new features from Apple's store.
You can’t run a computer on a iPhone. If you could, it wouldn’t be iPhone shaped. The fact that you think you can comes from the incredible amount of work put into making them fast when being used as iPhones.
If you want completely general purpose computing capabilities then don't buy an Iphone. I don't expect my fridge to allow me to execute arbitrary code on it's ARM cpu.
At the risk of getting into a completely different debate, the iPhone is not a computer. A computer allows the user to write and run any program of their choosing. An iPhone can only run programs approved by Apple, and the user cannot use the iPhone to generate new programs.
So while technically the iPhone is a computer, with a microprocessor that executes instructions, primary and secondary storage, and so on, the device has more in common with the traditional telephone and television, because it can be used for communicating and consuming content, but not general purpose computing.
That's a software limitation, not a hardware limitation. An iPhone is also a general purpose computer that is limited (to a lesser extent ) by the software.
I think what he wants is a handheld general purpose computer. That's not an unreasonable thing to want given what's possible these days. There is a general purpose computer inside the iPhone and it's running a decent UNIX-like OS. But Apple has crippled it. Sure you can use a computer as phone or a camera. You can also use it for other things.
So-called average consumers will never want a handheld general purpose computer, unless advertising tells them to want it. They will only want what advertising tells them to want.
This does not mean that no one should want a handheld general purpose computer. Nor does it mean the average consumer could not benefit from one, if they were shown how to use it. I am perplexed by those who would argue against anyone who asks for a more than what Apple is giving; some people want more than just a phone/camera. Are we all supposed to play dumb like this is not possible or not worthwhile to produce?
Broadly speaking, a general purpose computer is one that can do anything (like an Apple IIe) and the opposite is one that is constrained to do a few specific things (like an ATM). Whether an iphone (or a wintel computer with UEFI, or an Android phone locked by the hardware manufacturer, or etc etc) qualifies is a matter of semantics, and not interesting to argue about; I elided this distinction because (I imagined) the kind of people posting here would be familiar with it and know what I meant.
A more nitpick-proof way to phrase my point would be that an iphone is a general purpose computer controlled by Apple, and it tries very hard to look like a general purpose computer controlled by the person that bought it. The customers want to have their cake and eat it too; they want the power of a general purpose computer, and the security of a locked-down appliance. You can't have both, but Apple's size and popularity is a testament to how close they have managed to get.
Sounds like you don't get it. And I'm not being facetious.
Well, maybe a little.
Just because something can be done doesn't necessarily mean it should be done, does it? This is not a commentary on the iPhone as a computer, but about products in general.
Lots of things have general purpose computer parts, but serve a very specific purpose. What did Steve Jobs pitch the iPhone as again? A phone, an iPod, and an internet communicator? I don't remember "personal computer" being one of those things.
So yes, this is the thing that Apple wants to make. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
reply