His claim is that the negatives outweigh the positives and that its a good thing that Steve Jobs no longer actively influences computing. I can't disagree with this sentiment more. Making technology that people can actually use is far better than making unusable technology that is open.

But it's a false dichotomy. There's nothing inherent about usability that requires jailed computing.

I submit two examples:

1. The Apple Mac was unquestioningly a pioneer in computer usability. Yet it didn't need a kernel that refused to run apps that weren't "approved" with a cryptographic signature from some central authority. (Yes the original Mac case was closed but there was a high voltage monitor in there and it had no upgrade plan anyway. Most later models were expandable.)

2. I have Google Nexus S running Android that's every bit as usable, even for nontechnical folks, as an iPhone. It's not carrier locked and the OS is predominantly open-source, much of it even GPL. It doesn't need rooting or jailbreaking because there's no jail to break. And guess what: there are way more people "actually using" Android phones than the jailed ones from Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_current.p...

Jobs was good at many things: leading Apple, leading product development, advancing quality and usability, making products people want to buy, making great profit margins. He was an incredible guy.

But just because the same person and company also embraced jailed computing doesn't mean that it's somehow a necessary condition for usability, any more than the dictator is a necessary condition for the trains to run on time.

In fact, I think the evidence points to the contrary and it would be a shame for this confusion to send computing on a step backwards in one direction or another.

> There's nothing inherent about usability that requires jailed computing.

Not a requirement, but there is a correlation. Programming for an unjailed ecosystem takes more effort to support the vastly wider environments on the devices. Classic example (in an industry largely orthogonal to Apple, to factor Apple out of the discussion): game programming for a PC versus a console. The PC game company has to support a million different combinations of video and sound and input hardware and operating system, which takes mountains of effort (or cost) that the console company can put into the actual game experience instead (or save the costs.)

This happens at smaller scales too. An iPhone developer has to support exactly one form factor, exactly one screen size, exactly one input method. An Android developer needs to contend with a wide range of screen sizes and resolutions and keyboards and touch responsitivity. Sure, it's possible for the Android developer to accommodate all those devices. But we live in the reality of the capitalist market, where the resources to make that investment of time and effort may not be available.

Taking choice away from the user, imposing a jailed environment, can indeed lead to a better experience overall, in that the content producers can focus more tightly.

Yes, this was always the argument given in support of the monopoly Microsoft Windows used to have on commodity computer operating systems. Some proposed that having only one platform choice was more economically efficient for the industry as a whole. I don't think Apple was really on board with this idea back then.

I do not think that requiring all computers have only one display resolution for the convenience of software developers ends up being a winning strategy in the long run. It may be a winning strategy for Apple's business of course, at least until Apple decides to do an iPad or a "retina display" or for whatever other reason decides that a different form factor is in their own interest.

I didn't say it was a necessary condition for usability. I said that Jobs positives greatly outweighed his negatives and that it is ridiculous to claim that it's a good thing that he's no longer influencing technology.