depth first search

The entire prefix-i naming scheme is silly in a way that all really excellent marketing is silly. The iPad device itself is not silly, and in many ways proves that freedom zero does not matter, nor do any of the inter-operable hardware or software ecosystems that drove Wintel.

What matters is design, capability, and price. The iPad is designed and priced to dominate. Apple is pushing out a premium product into a market dominated by un-premium products. Users will be driven by the need not just to purchase, but re-purchase leases on all kinds of intellectual content just to run an iPad instead of a Kindle or netbook.  Apple is hoping to expand on their virtuous cycle of content distribution and content creation. The upfront cost of the iPad may be lower than most estimates, but the tail cost is the kind of thing that can bankrupt a poor graduate student like me.

Freedom is always subordinate to incentive. Apple has captured mindshare and profits by offering a closed, curated technological experience. This will be great for content providers (DRM has a compelling foothold in closed ecosystems) with the exception of certain longstanding dynamics that have more to do with the idea of the Internet itself than any particular mechanism for fairly pricing intellectual property.

•