評論
打印
Most of the debate over the iPad centered on the issue of whether its closed end-to-end integration was brilliant or doomed.
關于iPad的大部分爭論，都著眼于其封閉的端到端一體化系統是卓越的還是注定失敗的。
Google was starting to play a role similar to the one Microsoft had played in the 1980s,
Google這時開始扮演20世紀80年代微軟的角色，該公司推出了移動系統安卓。
offering a mobile platform, Android, that was open and could be used by all hardware makers.
這是一個開放平臺，所有硬件制造商均可使用。
Fortune staged a debate on this issue in its pages.
《財富》雜志就這一話題進行了討論。
"There's no excuse to be closed," wrote Michael Copeland.
邁克爾·科普蘭寫道：“沒理由封閉。”
But his colleague Jon Fortt rebutted, "Closed systems get a bad rap, but they work beautifully and users benefit.
但是他的同事喬恩·佛特反駁道：“封閉系統的名聲雖差，但是它們很好用，對用戶有好處。
Probably no one in tech has proved this more convincingly than Steve Jobs.
在技術領域中，恐怕沒人能比史蒂夫·喬布斯更能證明這一點。
By bundling hardware, software, and services, and controlling them tightly, Apple is consistently able to get the jump on its rivals and roll out polished products."
蘋果公司能夠通過捆綁硬件、軟件和服務，并進行緊密控制，成功超越競爭對手，推出優美的產品。”
They agreed that the iPad would be the clearest test of this question since the original Macintosh.
二人一致認為，在麥金塔之后，iPad將是開放還是封閉這一問題最清楚的測試。
"Apple has taken its control-freak rep to a whole new level with the A4 chip that powers the thing," wrote Fortt.
“A4芯片把所有功能都集成于一張芯片上，這表明蘋果的控制癖已經到了一個新的高度，”佛特寫道。
"Cupertino now has absolute say over the silicon, device, operating system, App Store, and payment system."
“現在，對整個硅谷、設備、操作系統、應用程序商店和支付系統，蘋果公司都具有絕對發言權。”
