Latest Thoughts on iPad

Business, Technology
By / / 7 Comments / 5 minutes of reading
Share

Early last year, I posted Thoughts on iPad from a Slightly Disappointed Fanboi. I later posted a followup, Followup on Thoughts on iPad from a Slightly Disappointed Fanboi. In these posts I explained how initially I was hoping to replace my (then large and heavy MacBook Pro 15″) laptop with the iPad, and how I tried to do so, and eventually gave up, and then eventually my use of the iPad declined.

Since getting an 11″ MacBook Air several months ago, I take it everywhere–it is almost as portable as the iPad, and so much more useful for me. Since I have an iPhone and they now allow tethering, I can connect the Air to the Internet via the iPhone at any time. Now days go by without me using the iPad. Basically I use it only for reading books now. I have even considered switching to a Kindle for book reading, since it is lighter, smaller, and has better battery life. But I still prefer the iPad for books, over the Kindle, since the iPad (a) has touch; (b) smooth scrolling etc.; (c) color; (d) greater flexibility for book reading (I can read nook, PDF, iBook, etc. formats on it); and (e) it has email and browsing and apps and games and music and movies that can be used too, on occasion.

But the iPhone has amazing resolution now, with retina display, and the same processor and iOS as the iPad, so it can do almost everything the iPad can do; the main limitation is the smaller screen makes movies and book reading a bit worse than on the iPad–but not much. So the iPhone is basically a mini-iPad, and having it plus the Air is really all I need, especially at it permits the Air to tether. (Actually, a larger iphone would be ideal and an almost perfect iPad replacement, for me.) So, sometimes I do not even take the iPad along with me on vacation and trips, since I have my Air and my iPhone, and it’s a pain to carry a third device (plus, when wife or kid are traveling with me, they usually have their iPad so I can borrow theirs for movies or NetFlix or books–or just use my iPhone or Air). However, when I can, I do like it on long plane trips for movies and books, though, again, I can use the iPhone or Air for movies, and the iPhone for books, in a pinch, though the battery life of the iPad on plane trips is a plus (except that nowadays more and more planes are adding power for a laptop); sometimes I take a Hypermac external battery for the Air for long plane trips, meaning I have so many gadgets in my travel backpack, that the iPad is just extra.

So, for me, the bottom line is: the advent of the MacBook Air 11″ has given me the full computing power I need, in a near-iPad size. I would love to be able to replace the Air with an iPad since it is more portable and has better battery, does not crash or slow down, and is better for movies and books (and is cheaper), but my own usage just does not permit it. I doubt it ever will because of the limitations of the iPad form factor. Even as the software and apps improve over time and product generations, it will just be too limiting for the kind of uses I make (lots of document editing, cutting and pasting, multitasking, and heavy use of keyboard). If I had a lighter use case, I think I could use the iPad as my main portable machine–people that do not do a lot of text input or editing can make the switch, I think.

For example, as I noted in my last post, I have some friends for whom the iPad has almost replaced their laptops/notebooks. One of them uses it almost exclusively in his business. He has it linked in with his company’s computer systems, and he can check status reports, emails, etc., all with his iPad. It’s great for him. For a specialized use like this that does not require a lot of document editing, I can see this replacing a laptop. Another is a lawyer who takes it on business trips and vacations instead of a laptop–he uses it to surf, watch media, check emails, and display/read documents. He never likes to do a lot of heavy document editing on the road, so it does no bug him not to have a laptop. For people who are light computer users–say, my parents–I could see the iPad being their only or main computer, too.

I think the iPad is gorgeous and well-designed, especially iPad 2. I suspect it will be the best pad-type device for some time. But for heavy text-inputers/editors like me, it’s becoming less necessary. I doubt I’ll upgrade to the iPad 2 or even iPad 3, as the first model is fine for me for the book reading and occasional video use I make of it. If anything, I could see switching to a dedicated book reader instead of iPad, if it was as good as the iPad on flexibility of book format and movies. But I don’t see anything like that coming for a while.

Latest Thoughts on iPad Read Post »

Jennifer Burns on Ayn Rand and the Classical Liberal Tradition

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, Business, Pop Culture, Statism, The Right
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

With the recent release of the first part of the film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged (see Matthew Alexander’s review on Prometheus Unbound), the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) — via LearnLiberty.org — brings us this interview with Professor Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, on how Ayn Rand fits into the classical liberal tradition.

In this video, Prof. Burns explains three classical liberal themes in Ayn Rand’s masterpiece Atlas Shrugged: individualism, suspicion of centralized power, and free markets. These themes come to life through the novel’s plot and characters and give the reader an opportunity to imagine a world where entrepreneurship has been stifled by regulations and where liberty has been traded for security. Burns ends by reviving Rand’s critical question: do you want to live in this kind of world?

…

Jennifer Burns on Ayn Rand and the Classical Liberal TraditionRead More »

Jennifer Burns on Ayn Rand and the Classical Liberal Tradition Read Post »

IP As Intellectual Laziness, Skewed Business Models

Business, Corporatism, IP Law, Protectionism, Technology
By / / 4 minutes of reading
Share

We have heard it said that IP causes people to “rest on their laurels.” What this means is that intellectual property causes entrepreneurial laziness in at least two ways. The first, and the one that is often mentioned in IP abolitionist circles is that there is less pressure for the original innovator to continue to innovate–IP legislation artificially generates profits above market rates, and there are fewer competitors willing to enter the market. The second way in which intellectual property fosters entrepreneurial laziness has to do with the business model that is required to produce such a good or service.

IP legislation also has a potentially devastating effect. Because in some heavily controlled areas–specifically medicine–it takes endless years of R&D and trials before a drug or medical device is approved, resources are therefore shifted to satisfy the demands of the state rather than the demands of the market. It has become almost unimaginable to even consider that a company (or even a small independent group of scientists and inventors) could develop, test and market drugs quickly; the norm is that things must take a decade.

There are two main consequences of IP-caused distortion of what could otherwise have been a traditional entrepreneurial plan. The first is that fewer and fewer companies can adopt the “fail fast” approach that is often seen in high tech startups. Instead of devoting time and money to building prototypes and openly testing on the market, even if only on a limited, private/restricted basis, the feasibility of a product, they must invest resources away from “fail fast” and into “succeed huge.” IP destroys, at least in some industries, the ability to have agile business models that attempt to quickly test what works and what doesn’t work. Instead, we see companies spending billions of dollars and taking a decade passing government tests. Big Pharma, thus, requires Big R&D and Big Litigation, which are required because of (prior) government interventions. As can be expected, the ones hurt the most are consumers, who often have to pay huge sums of money to get their hands on a few pills.

The second consequence, which is possibly as important as the first, is that IP has a chilling effect on the possibility of adopting incremental models. There are fewer incentives to make a product better, faster, cheaper, when such a product is given a monopoly. You don’t have to improve on it (the “rest on your laurels” I mentioned above) but neither can others. Imagine a car company that decided to stop innovating their own product one day, never to receive any modification in the future. How long would it take before it goes broke? Also imagine if nobody else could improve on the idea behind such a product. The market for new cars would cease to exist. Incremental models also benefit from not having to reinvent the wheel; personnel, knowledge, production lines, distribution, etc. are already in place for specific products. It takes a small amount of resources, especially if coupled with a “fail fast” business model, to improve on something that exists, rather than having to come up with something entirely new that needs IP protection.

In a society without IP legislation, inventors would either have to become entrepreneurial themselves (as a small individual operation), partner with an already established company to bring the product to market, or form a new company around the invention, perhaps by raising venture capital or other methods. Though the same happens today, there is a big key difference–monopoly protection rights, especially patents and copyright–distort the capital and production structure of goods and services that make it to market under intellectual property protection. Resources are diverted towards litigation and “Big R&D”–both of which are the inevitable result of corporatism and other state interventions. Normally, submarginal products on the market do not tend to last long. Moreover, submarginal business models, because of their prohibitive cost, do not tend to last long in the free market. Thanks to IP, however, they do–profits are received when losses should have been incurred. Economic inefficiency, and the perpetuation of wealth-destroying business models, are the norm, at least when IP is present.

IP As Intellectual Laziness, Skewed Business Models Read Post »

The State v. Honesty

Business, Nanny Statism, Private Crime, Private Security & Law
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

Gizmodo reports on a story from New Zealand about a supermarket which accidentally opened with no employees inside the store. People shopped and checked out using the self-checkout lanes. Half of the people actually paid, but note the explanation as to why the other half did not (emphasis mine):

In fact, after reviewing the tape, a religious studies professor said it seemed like everyone was going to pay until they got stuck at the self checkout machine waiting for an employee to approve an alcohol purchase. Once they couldn’t find an employee, they left with their groceries in tow.

Here we have a case of the government actually incentivizing theft and costing the store money through its moral policing. Without state laws against underage drinking, it is unlikely that stores would require employee approvals for any purchase.

The State v. Honesty Read Post »

Continued confusion over the “rights” of corporations

Business, Legal System, Libertarian Theory, The Basics, The Left
By / / 5 Comments / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Voters in Madison, Wisconsin recently approved a measure asserting that corporations do not have constitutional rights.

The measure correctly asserts that only individuals have rights.  But then it proceeds to state that corporations do not.  This is collectivism at its finest.  A corporation doesn’t act.  People act.  Although the “corporation” doesn’t have rights as an entity, each and every owner of the corporation does.  The owners exercise those rights by having agents (the management) act on their behalf.  When we speak of a corporation acting, this is merely an abstraction from the individuals involved.  As Stephan Kinsella has explained, corporations are nothing more than a series of contracts enabling a large number of people to work together toward common goals.

This resolution, though purporting to support individual rights, is in reality opposed to such rights because it claims that these rights somehow disappear when the individuals who have them choose to use them in a coordinated manner.

…

Continued confusion over the “rights” of corporationsRead More »

Continued confusion over the “rights” of corporations Read Post »

Scroll to Top