Slim iPad and new hardware show Apple can still innovate

Is it time to reappraise the idea that Apple is incapable of innovation in the post Jobs era?

This is a guest post on Future Proof by Barry Avery of Kingston University, republished from The Conversation

Is it time to reappraise the idea that Apple is incapable of innovation in the post Jobs era? The company has failed to introduce a game changing consumer device since the iPad but its latest range contains some significant breakthroughs.

In a world where bloggers can offer to pay Apple factory line workers hundreds of dollars to leak a photograph of a shell or an internal component, the days of the surprise keynote reveal seem over, but that shouldn’t detract from the fact that the new operating systems, 64 bit chip designs and software updates that have just been announced are significant innovations in hardware and software.

In the latest keynote Apple completes its Christmas lineup. We get a slimmer, thinner iPad, a refreshed iPad mini, upgraded laptops and a new version of its desktop operating system OS X Mavericks. In a major departure for Apple, this will be available for free and immediate download.

iPad goes slimline

Conspiracy theorists are already suggesting that the timing of this keynote was specifically set to derail Microsoft and Nokia, who are also launching tablets. It is indeed the case that the tablet market has heated up significantly over the past year, so the pressure was on to produce something the would stand out.

Last year the iPad put on a little weight to accommodate the battery and technology needed to offer a retina display. This year’s renamed iPad Air has lost weight, narrowed, improved its capacity and speed and now comes with free iWorks and iLife software.

Weighing 1lb, Apple claims it to be the lightest full size tablet available. Just as iPhone 5 users are likely not to upgrade to the newer version immediately, the features on the iPad Air may not be enough to get users with last year’s iPad to switch up, but anyone with a pre-retina device will see significant performance increases. The iPad mini gets a retina display and the same A7 chip as the iPad Air, without losing its precious ten hours battery life.

Most users will be unaware of the technical complexities required in porting an operating system to a new 64bit chip design, but accomplishing this whilst simultaneously designing a new interface in iOS is a remarkable achievement. From a user perspective, the switch to a 64bit processor inside both devices will offer immediate speed advantages and an increase in the sophistication of the apps available.

Attempting all this in a year has meant that parts of the iOS transformation weren’t finished for the iPhone launch - iLife and iWorks have been updated on both the Mac and mobile platforms, abandoning leather stitching and wood panels, unifying the interface and ironing out some of the incompatibilities between versions.

Hardware back in fashion

Completing the announcements are hardware upgrades to the Mac computer line. Many have speculated that Apple would embrace the post-PC era by terminating its computer line, but such analysis fails to take account of Steve Jobs' vision of a “virtuous circle”, where features developed on one platform migrate to another. They also fail to explain how developers would create mobile device applications if not with Mac platform development tools.

iOS and Mac OS X share a significant amount of under-the-bonnet code, so increases in functionality flow both ways. Techniques used to improve battery life in Apple laptops make their way into tablets and phones. This ability to advance hardware and software features in parallel offers Apple a significant advantage, which is why you now see companies like Microsoft manufacturing its own tablets, or purchasing Nokia to make its own phones.

The canister-shaped Mac Pro, to be released on the market in December, signals the return of Apple’s attention to its professional range after several years of neglect. Having failed to offer an upgrade for a long time, the company is gambling that most professional users would prefer easily switchable external storage connected through a super fast thunderbolt connector, rather than having a big case with internal components.

Apple famously decries market research, as it suggests that results can only ever be framed in terms of what people have experienced rather than what they could like. The jury is out on this one, but don’t be surprised to discover similar barrel style computers appearing from hardware manufacturers next year.

Barry Avery does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Apple CEO Tim Cook holds the new iPad Air. Photo: Getty Images
Barry Avery is a Principal Lecturer in Informatics and Operations at Kingston University.
ILONA WELLMANN/MILLENNIUM IMAGES, UK
Show Hide image

How the internet has democratised pornography

With people now free to circumvent the big studios, different bodies, tastes and even pubic hair styles are being represented online.

Our opinions and tastes are influenced by the media we consume: that much is obvious. But although it’s easy to have that conversation if the medium we are discussing is “safe for work”, pornography carries so much stigma that we only engage with it on simple terms. Porn is either “good” or “bad”: a magical tool for ­empowerment or a destructive influence on society. Many “pro-porn” campaigners shy away from nuanced critique, fearing it could lead to censorship. “Anti-porn” campaigners, convinced that porn is harmful by definition, need look no further than the mainstream tube sites – essentially, aggregators of clips from elsewhere – to gather examples that will back them up.

When we talk about the influence of porn, the emphasis is usually on a particular type of video – hardcore sex scenes featuring mostly slim, pubic-hairless women and faceless men: porn made for men about women. This kind of porn is credited with everything from the pornification of pop music to changing what we actually do in bed. Last year the UK government released a policy note that suggested porn was responsible for a rise in the number of young people trying anal sex. Although the original researcher, Cicely Marston, pointed out that there was no clear link between the two, the note prompted a broad debate about the impact of porn. But in doing so, we have already lost – by accepting a definition of “porn” shaped less by our desires than by the dominant players in the industry.

On the day you read this, one single site, PornHub, will get somewhere between four and five million visits from within the UK. Millions more will visit YouPorn, Tube8, Redtube or similar sites. It’s clear that they’re influential. Perhaps less clear is that they are not unbiased aggregators: they don’t just reflect our tastes, they shape what we think and how we live. We can see this even in simple editorial decisions such as categorisation: PornHub offers 14 categories by default, including anal, threesome and milf (“mum I’d like to f***”), and then “For Women” as a separate category. So standard is it for mainstream sites to assume their audience is straight and male that “point of view” porn has become synonymous with “top-down view of a man getting a blow job”. Tropes that have entered everyday life – such as shaved pubic hair – abound here.

Alongside categories and tags, tube sites also decide what you see at the top of their results and on the home page. Hence the videos you see at the top tend towards escalation to get clicks: biggest gang bang ever. Dirtiest slut. Horniest milf. To find porn that doesn’t fit this mould you must go out of your way to search for it. Few people do, of course, so the clickbait gets promoted more frequently, and this in turn shapes what we click on next time. Is it any wonder we’ve ended up with such a narrow definition of porn? In reality, the front page of PornHub reflects our desires about as accurately as the Daily Mail “sidebar of shame” reflects Kim Kardashian.

Perhaps what we need is more competition? All the sites I have mentioned are owned by the same company – MindGeek. Besides porn tube sites, MindGeek has a stake in other adult websites and production companies: Brazzers, Digital Playground, Twistys, PornMD and many more. Even tube sites not owned by MindGeek, such as Xhamster, usually follow the same model: lots of free content, plus algorithms that chase page views aggressively, so tending towards hardcore clickbait.

Because porn is increasingly defined by these sites, steps taken to tackle its spread often end up doing the opposite of what was intended. For instance, the British government’s Digital Economy Bill aims to reduce the influence of porn on young people by forcing porn sites to age-verify users, but will in fact hand more power to large companies. The big players have the resources to implement age verification easily, and even to use legislation as a way to expand further into the market. MindGeek is already developing age-verification software that can be licensed to other websites; so it’s likely that, when the bill’s rules come in, small porn producers will either go out of business or be compelled to license software from the big players.

There are glimmers of hope for the ethical porn consumer. Tube sites may dominate search results, but the internet has also helped revolutionise porn production. Aspiring producers and performers no longer need a contract with a studio – all that’s required is a camera and a platform to distribute their work. That platform might be their own website, a dedicated cam site, or even something as simple as Snapchat.

This democratisation of porn has had positive effects. There’s more diversity of body shape, sexual taste and even pubic hair style on a cam site than on the home page of PornHub. Pleasure takes a more central role, too: one of the most popular “games” on the webcam site Chaturbate is for performers to hook up sex toys to the website, with users paying to try to give them an orgasm. Crucially, without a studio, performers can set their own boundaries.

Kelly Pierce, a performer who now works mostly on cam, told me that one of the main benefits of working independently is a sense of security. “As long as you put time in you know you are going to make money doing it,” she said. “You don’t spend your time searching for shoots, but actually working towards monetary gain.” She also has more freedom in her work: “You have nobody to answer to but yourself, and obviously your fans. Sometimes politics comes into play when you work for others than yourself.”

Cam sites are also big business, and the next logical step in the trickle-down of power is for performers to have their own distribution platforms. Unfortunately, no matter how well-meaning your indie porn project, the “Adult” label makes it most likely you’ll fail. Mainstream payment providers won’t work with adult businesses, and specialist providers take a huge cut of revenue. Major ad networks avoid porn, so the only advertising option is to sign up to an “adult” network, which is probably owned by a large porn company and will fill your site with bouncing-boob gifs and hot milfs “in your area”: exactly the kind of thing you’re trying to fight against. Those who are trying to take on the might of Big Porn need not just to change what we watch, but challenge what we think porn is, too.

The internet has given the porn industry a huge boost – cheaper production and distribution, the potential for more variety, and an influence that it would be ridiculous to ignore. But in our failure properly to analyse the industry, we are accepting a definition of porn that has been handed to us by the dominant players in the market.

Girl on the Net writes one of the UK’s most popular sex blogs: girlonthenet.com

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times