Image credit: Laurent Hrybyk
Recently, I came across an interesting article named , " Why I won't buy an iPad (and think you shouldn't, either)", written by Cory Doctorow. This was a review to one of Apples most famous product- iPad, which at that time had just hit the market and was not that popular. Doctorow whose entire career has revolved around technology, started as a CD-ROM programmer and is now the editor of BoingBoing blog on which this article was posted.
Although the thesis isn't explicitly mentioned in the article, the author implicitly argues that the iPad is just another means for established tech companies to take control of technological creativity and freedom. Throughout the article, Doctorow uses his experience with technology and facts about Apple to show potential iPad buyers, how the company and its products limit the digital rights of the users by controlling the content that can be created and used on the device.
The main purpose of the article is to convince people that the iPad is not worth buying as it has quite a few uses outside the set content, accompanied with technological problems and the chances to quickly become obsolete.
His statement, "of course I believe in a market where competition can take place without bending my knee to a company that has erected a drawbridge between me and my customers!” clearly shows that he is trying to convince his reader that they should have the right to their own media content and sharing.
Doctorow presents himself as a confident, no-nonsense fellow, who puts his arguments in a very stern and straight forward way. Doctorow effectively uses ethos, pathos and logos in his article.
One such example can be seen when he compares Apples iStore to Wal-Mart. This is an appeal to logos where he uses the comparison to make the reader understand how an all-powerful corporation like the iStore will affect them. He tries to inform people on how an iPad will only allow program and app bought through the iStore to be run on it.
By referring to the constructive nature of communist Russia, the author makes use of pathos to evoke the fear of being controlled. This does a good job in stirring up the emotion of rebellion against what is being told.
Doctorow also used ethos by quoting tech expert William Gibon's view of iPad consumers to a mutant creature.
Even though the author argument on how "iPad can limit consumers digital rights" seems sound enough, the article does have a few flaws.
For example, Doctorow could have a bias towards big corporations and digital right management. Being a software creator, free digital media sharing is actually beneficial for him. He shows this bias by putting forth a one sided argument. Just because iPad doesn’t work for the writer doesn’t mean it will not work for everyone else. The iPad could be a great for people not looking to develop and sell their own software as not everyone is capable of it.
The author also fails to mention any of the positive qualities of the iPad. Doctorow could have been a little more open-minded about the benefits of owning an iPad.
In short, I think that Doctorow makes a good argument on why it is a waste to spend a great deal of money on iPad, even though he could have been a bit more fair minded about the benefits of the device.
Overall, he is quite effective as a writer, even if, ultimately, he was not able to convince the world into not buying an iPad.
Comments