The tablet – or at least the iPad – is beginning to look like a terrific accessory for lovers of MIDI and hardware. With its compact form factor, it coexists nicely with your MIDI gear and lets you focus on sequencing, perhaps moving to the traditional computer to finish up your track, mixing, and the like.

And it’s spawning MIDI sequencer apps that imaginatively explore ideas for how to create sequencing, all with an immediate touchable interface.

The latest entry: Genome MIDI Sequencer claims to be the “first true pattern-based MIDI sequencer for iPad.” The word “true” might be debateable, but it looks thoroughly full-featured, with clock sync, MIDI import / export (ideal for working with your desktop Mac or PC), and other must-have portable sequencing features:

• Hard-line MIDI support: Core MIDI, Camera Connection Kit, Line 6 Mobilizer Mk I and Mk II compatibility
• Wireless MIDI: Network MIDI support (works with Mac and, via other support, Linux and Windows)
• MIDI Clock: Start, stop / send, receive
• Lots o’ messages: Note On, Note Off, Pitch Bend, Aftertouch, Channel Pressure and CC’s
• Pattern-based; pattern changes occur on bar boundaries so song stays in sync Ed., oh, come on, where’s the fun in that?
• 16 simultaneous tracks, unlimited patterns

There’s also an on-screen keyboard interface (in case you don’t have a MIDI keyboard handy), song and live modes, incoming CC and note recording, and undo/redo for “most” actions.

Having the multichannel capability alone is a must for people with big studios.

Developer Dave Wallin says he’s been working on this for some time. An experienced dev with tools like bleep!BOX and bleep!Synth under his belt for iOS (as well as Additive and Zero Vector for desktop), he’s got a good perspective on the bigger picture.

Since Dave is a user as well as a developer (as is often the case with music tech), I asked him to tell us a bit more about the app, his thoughts on development, and how you might use this.

He even has some good thoughts, in case you’re wondering, about how this compares with and fits in with desktop studios.

CDM: This looks to me to be the most full-featured MIDI sequencer we’ve seen yet, more than just a pattern or step sequencer (though I like those sorts of things, too). That said, what other applications do you like in terms of MIDI control?

Dave: There are a couple other apps that look close in terms of functionality like Step Poly Arp, Polychord and Brainwave Sequencer. The first two are more focused on ‘performance’ imo with Brainwave being the closer. I wanted to provide some of the functionality you’d expect from a desktop sequencing app but redesign the core interface around touch and just make it simple and fun to use. My inspirations for how the piano roll works are 50% monome / [Yamaha] Tenori-on (in terms of a familiar grid and easy one-tap note entry) and 50% iPad paint application (in terms of using gestures to navigate). It also takes some inspiration from [Nintendo] Game Boy tracking apps in that I keep the octave / bar navigation locked to a grid. GMS isn’t locked into 16 step patterns and you can adjust the grid and bar length more freely than some other apps.

Ed.: Of course, at iPad app prices, you can easily pick up all the apps above, and they all have some appeal – yes, I know it’s time for another iPad app round-up. A MIDI-specific one could be fun; I’ll work on it! -PK

How are you using this in your studio – what gear are you using?

Right now I am using it with my [Access] Virus b (desktop [synth]) and a drum machine primarily. It’s great with the Virus since it can do up to 16 parts and I can save these setups and easily recall them later without having to worry about program changes or anything like that. The drum machine saves me from having to waste Virus parts on drums. With just those two pieces of gear and not much else I can make some pretty decent sounding songs. My current work flow is to jam around a bit with Genome and the gear and when I come up with something good, record some loops or tracks it and bring it over to the desktop for additional processing and arrangement. My actual studio doesn’t even have a computer in it at the moment – it’s in a totally seperate room.

At what point do you imagine people would use the iPad sequencer versus, say, the sequencer on their desktop machine?

What I have learned from my own experience and from talking to other people is that the iPad is not a total replacement for the desktop or even for a laptop, unless you’re doing some very minimal stuff. The iPad is more of a convenience and leisure device at this point. I have limited time to relax and if I can spend 30 minutes chilling on the couch, making a tune on my iPad, it’s a win for me. It doesn’t have to be a whole song – it could be some musical ideas, sounds or loops that I end up using later on the desktop or in another app.

With Genome, I think the big wins are portability and ease of use. If I want to jam with a friend, I can throw my iPad in a bag and bring it with me. Sometimes I don’t want to have to deal with all the overhead that comes with a desktop sequencing application like hardware setup, configuring plugin directories, or GUI’s that are packed to the brim with controls. GMS is very easy to plug in and get started within a few seconds.

I’m curious about your reaction to the Open Music App Collaboration Manifesto posted recently. [See Synthtopia coverage.] Any of these issues relevant to your work? What would you like to see in terms of inter-app integration?

I actually just posted some thoughts on this to their Google Group this morning. My response is here:

http://groups.google.com/group/open-music-app-collaboration/browse_thread/thread/75cdd385048fa3ce

Communicating with other apps on the same device is something that I think Genome will be very good for (after some minor updates). Right now, not a lot of apps support Network MIDI, let alone regular CoreMIDI. How well this works will depend on a lot of factors and we’ll just have to wait and see how extensively it’s adopted, both by developers and by users. I could imagine an ecosystem where you can string a bunch of apps together and make songs. The first step right now is to come up with a spec for developers to implement and maybe a way to certify that apps have implemented it properly. If done well, I think there could be some good cross-promotion opportunities to entice developers to do it and it could catch on, much like with Audio Copy did.

Had you evaluated Android at all, or other platforms?

Some work is being done to port libNUI [C++ framework] (which I use for all my apps currently) to Android, however it seems the state of MIDI on Android is nowhere near what it is on iOS. If some well known hardware makers make an accessory or if a good SDK becomes available, I would definitely look into it. GMS is being ported to a Mac desktop app and will be available in the Mac App Store at some point. The desktop version will be almost identical, except for some changes made to adapt it to work with a mouse, instead of multitouch. I think a simple, cheap MIDI sequencer will be attractive to some people and the amount of time to port it is minimal for me.

Ed.: Hopefully more to say about the state of Android MIDI soon; while wired accessories may not be as convenient, wireless MIDI, especially via Bluetooth, holds some promise. I can certainly make a good argument *against* a developer immediately rushing to support Android, but it remains something we’re watching. I also hear these computer things can do MIDI. -PK

US$12.99 in the iTunes App Store, for iPad (iOS 4.2+)

http://www.whitenoiseaudio.com/apps/genome-midi-sequencer/

http://www.whitenoiseaudio.com/

For connecting music hardware from the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and today, you can’t beat MIDI and the standard MIDI connector (5-pin DIN). This week, both IK Multimedia and Line 6 announced adapters that support Core MIDI. Previously possible on iPad via the Camera Connection Kit, the new adapters support the 30-pin dock connector for the iPad (no additional adapter needed), iPhone, and iPod touch.

IK’s iRig MIDI has a number of features that set it apart from previously-available iOS adapters:

It’s got MIDI Thru. MIDI Thru means you can route MIDI into your iOS device, so an external keyboard can play an iPhone synth, for instance, and route that same signal “Thru” to another device – say, if you want to also record your playing, or layer another synth with the same notes an octave higher. (I can rant about the disappearance of Thru on other hardware some other time; it’s great to see it here.)

There’s a USB power port. This one’s huge, especially having tested Line6′s adapter. Normally, any hardware you plug into your iOS device takes over the jack you’d use for power – so you have to watch your battery life as you use it. By adding an additional USB jack for power, you can connect both MIDI and power – problem solved. That’s especially essential if you plan on using this a lot, or onstage.

A Gig of Sounds, to Go… IK Multimedia is also bundling a new SampleTank app for iOS so that anyone buying the adapter gets sounds straight out of the box. SampleTank has 1 GB of sounds (500 of them), 20 insert effects, and a master reverb-delay — yes, really on iOS, for free. (8 GB owners may not be thrilled about that, but those of you with more storage might.) You get acoustic, electric, and electronic instruments, and even orchestral and sampled Moog sounds.

Samples of those samples, via SoundCloud:
Two New Products Coming Soon by ikmultimedia

Other specs:
Detachable cables; “pocketable” (also true on the Line 6)

IK claims the hardware is “lightweight” so that you don’t hurt the fragile connector on the iOS gadgets

iRig Recorder for free MIDI recording and playback (there’s a similar feature on the Line 6 offering)

Pricing:
iRig MIDI, US$69.

SampleTank for iOS, price TBD.

iKlipMini is a little adapter for clipping an iPod touch or iPhone to a mic stand. US$39.

www.irigmidi.com
www.sampletank.com/ios
www.ikmultimedia.com/iklipmini

Earlier this week, I took a quick overview of what options you can choose for connecting MIDI to the iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad. Make no mistake: the coming of iOS 4.2 will broaden your options for mobile MIDI on Apple gadgets. But I realized a somewhat glib comment in my story made some folks – Engadget included – get the wrong message. They jumped to the conclusion that the Line 6 MIDI Mobilizer, a portable MIDI adapter for these platforms, is no longer important. On the contrary, better MIDI support in the OS should make anything to do with MIDI more useful.

To better cover where the MIDI Mobilizer sits in this picture, I spoke to Line 6′s Marcus Ryle. iOS 4.2 is still under NDA, which is part of why you aren’t hearing more specifics; I expect we’ll be able to say more once that NDA is lifted. (That’s when you’ll actually be able to get the OS yourself if you’re not a developer, anyway.) But we can indeed talk about the hardware now.

First, here’s what I was trying to say: if you own an iPad, you don’t necessarily need a MIDI Mobilizer after the release of 4.2. If you’re getting a Camera Connection Kit anyway, and you have a spare 1×1 USB class-compliant MIDI interface lying around, your first step is likely to be just plugging those things in and playing. I’ve found 1×1 MIDI USB interfaces tend to sort of collect in gear closets; I have at least two of them, maybe a third if I dig.

But let’s be very clear about why you would want a MIDI Mobilizer:

• It’s your only choice on iPod touch and iPhone. To me, having a pocket device that you can use for MIDI transcriptions and saving banks and pocket-able synths and effects with MIDI control is a huge advantage. Since the handhelds don’t support the Camera Connection Kit (at least not yet), the MIDI Mobilizer is currently your only shipping choice for hard-line MIDI, period.
• It’s really small. See the picture above. You need the breakouts to the MIDI cable, but it’s the most compact solution
• It’s potentially a good buy if you don’t have other gear. Adding a Camera Connection Kit and USB MIDI interface will add up to about the MIDI Mobilizer’s US$70 street price.

It’s also worth noting that the MIDI Mobilizer has hardware time-stamping, for timing resolution independent of the OS or software that’s accurate to one millisecond on both input and output.

Conversely, if you want a MIDI interface you can swap between your computer and your iPad, with the emphasis on the word iPad, or you want to directly connect a USB MIDI controller, the USB Camera Connection Kit may be a better route. For many daily tasks, I find class-compliant MIDI to be perfectly acceptable. (Windows has been known to have some class issues, but … this isn’t a Windows story, so I won’t go there.)

Anyway, let’s get to the really important thing, and that’s which apps work with the MIDI Mobilizer. Currently, there are a dozen supported apps. These include apps that make sense for MIDI input. Here are the currently-supported apps, complete with iTunes App Store links:

MIDI Memo Recorder
MIDI Surface
S1MIDI Trigger:
Little MIDI Machine
MIDI Live
Pianist Pro
bs-16i
NLog MIDI Synth
NLogSynth PRO
Music Studio
NanoStudio
StepPolyArp

Because of the demo videos that have been widely posted, a common reaction I’ve heard goes something like this:

Random person (or potentially, one Mr. Peter Kirn): Why the heck would you get an iPad just to turn it into a big touch keyboard and knobs? Isn’t an actual keyboard and knobs a better solution?

Yes, in fact – that’s a completely rational response. (I’m biased; it’s a thought that has been known to bounce about my very own brain.)

There is absolutely no way, apart from taking up less space, in which a touchscreen picture of a keyboard is as good as, let alone better, than an actual keyboard. It’s useful if, say, your iPhone or iPad fits next to your computer more easily than your computer, for quick synth programming, and it makes sense that people shot videos as proof-of-concept, but that’s about it. There are two ways in which MIDI connections to iPads do make sense in a broader set of real-world situations:

1. MIDI input to an iOS sound source. Knobs and keys and faders turn out to be really awesome inventions. An iOS gadget is actually just a very compact computer. Plugging in a MIDI input is useful for the same reason we’ve been doing it with computers since the Reagan Administration.

2. MIDI output from something that is uniquely multi-touch. Multi-touch control can, likewise, do things knobs and keys and faders can’t. And the iOS gadgets can run everything from arpeggiators and odd sequencers.

Many of the apps now supported by MIDI Mobilizer – and the many others I suspect will soon support iOS’ Core MIDI framework – cover one or both of these two bases. I think there have been a number of demos of #2, so for case 1, here’s one example with Richard Lainhart and Jordan Rudess, playing the NLog Synth. Yes, you could do this with any number of hardware of software synths and no iOS device – but that’s kind of the whole point. It’s just another platform on which we can do this whole MIDI-controlled synth thing. (Insert your own musical genre here, if you prefer to play, say, electropop bluegrass.)

More apps are coming: Marcus naturally can’t comment on the specific apps or iOS 4.2, but he does tell me some 75 developers are now working on MIDI Mobilizer compatibility.

Why the sudden surge? Thank Apple. As I reported in August, a change to Apple’s developer agreement finally made it practical for developers to write apps that support third-party hardware:
MIDI Mobilizer, iOS Hardware MIDI Adapter, Roundup and Open SDK

I’m going to have to stop using the word “open” since it’s dangerously close to meaning nothing, so let’s say what this really means: you can now write apps for someone else’s accessory without them directly publishing your app.

Beyond that, stay tuned for when iOS 4.2 ships – now imminent – for more compatibility.

And for now, these kinds of capabilities remain limited to desktop platforms and iOS, at least until someone works out a way to support MIDI hardware on other platforms. Don’t worry. I’m sure MIDI itself will outlive all of these operating systems – and, presumably, all of us.

Core MIDI + 4.2

By the way, if you are interested in adding Core MIDI support to your iOS 4.2 app, Pete Goodliffe has kindly posted some sample code. I actually think this arguably doesn’t break NDA, because it’s all effectively an implementation of CoreMIDI compatibility from the desktop Mac OS.

Using CoreMIDI in iOS (an example) [Goodliffe blog]
Feel free to come discuss using this code on Noisepages — certainly, any Core MIDI discussion is fair game, and we can all chat publicly about iOS 4.2 after it’s released.

You’ll want this kind of, ahem, disclosure, because Apple’s Core MIDI and Audio frameworks aren’t terribly friendly to newcomers in terms of documentation or samples.

Side note: we’ve likewise been frustrated with Gitorious, so since the Gitorious server itself is free, I may investigate putting it on our relatively reliable CDM servers. Anyone interested in that – a little mini GitHub/Gitorious, full of music and visual code?

For years, in music technology and computing, we’ve relied on an idea so ubiquitous, we take it for granted. That notion is that you can use things together, and they work. At its soul, MIDI gives us the power to assemble different sounds, to record ideas. It means the investment you make in one device, whether a soundmaker or computer, can be expanded. Just brought a new gadget home? Plug it into the old gadget, and use them together.

There’s another notion, even more fundamental, underneath that idea: if you save up your pennies and buy gear, you get to choose what to do with it. This is neither a desire of “advanced” users – on the contrary, casual users of technology are often the first to assume that things will work the way they want.

What if that weren’t true?

I was intrigued, as were many on this site, by the announcement of a MIDI adapter for the iPhone. It’s something I expected from the moment Apple announced support for third-party hardware. It’s a little thing, and definitely a niche product, but that means the ability to turn your shiny, little mobile device into a portable recorder for musical ideas – even with, unmodified, a mid-80s keyboard. Score one for standards.

Line 6 MIDI Mobilizer (hardware) + MIDI Memo Recorder app (software)

But with countless apps for music making on the iPhone already – and many more coming to the iPad – you probably would want to use this MIDI support with more than one app. You might take for granted (there’s that phrase again) the power of connectivity. That’s how computing platforms work.

Not so with the iPhone, and by extension, the iPad.

Hardware must support Apple’s proprietary protocols and APIs, and it requires signing legal documents which, among other things, prevent developers from talking about the contents of the legal agreements and disclosing certain developer features. Partly because of the restrictiveness of these terms, there’s even a murky issue that raises questions about whether more than one application publisher can support a given accessory.

The result is anything but “friendly to beginners,” unless the iPad and iPhone are catering to lawyers.

MIDI, Minus the Compatibility

Line6 have built a really cool little gadget. It plugs into an iPhone, iPod, or soon an iPad, and via their software provides quick recording and playback of MIDI files. And to Line6′s credit, they’ve extended an open invitation to developers to support it. The problem is, supporting any accessory iPhone/iPad hardware is restricted by Apple not technically, but legally.

From Line6′s FAQ:

Can I use MIDI Mobilizer to control synthesizer applications or play other music apps on my iPhone?

This is technically possible, but would require software updates to each application in order to communicate with MIDI Mobilizer. Additionally, the developer of the application would need to become a Line 6 MIDI Mobilizer developer in order to be given the development tools, and allow Line 6 to publish their MIDI Mobilizer-enabled version (currently, all applications for a hardware accessory must come from the same publisher). If there’s an application you’d like to see work with MIDI Mobilizer, please have the developer contact MMdeveloper [at] line6.com for more information.

Line6 can’t talk to me about Apple developer agreements, because they are contractually bound to keep those details to themselves – details below. However, I was able to ask whether the restriction on publishing was one they had imposed.

Their answer: no, they didn’t come up with this restriction. Their understanding of the Apple accessory program is that only one publisher for an app that works with a specific accessory can provide compatibility for the accessory.

While the EFF has released the main developer agreement, I have not seen a public copy of the separate accessory program agreement. But I can confirm at least part of Apple’s requirements for proprietary accessory development below.

Because the accessory document is not available, I’m happy to be corrected. Please, if we’re wrong about this, if there’s a counter-example of an app, let us know, and I’ll investigate. I’d actually like to be wrong, as then we could open the floodgates on more compatible apps.

Assuming this is correct, however, we can assume that multiple applications from multiple developers can’t support a non-Apple accessory, unless they come from the same publisher. And that’s a pretty big issue, if the iPad is – as people claim – the future of computing.

Sure, this is just for hard-line gear you plug in via the connector. And yes, wireless communication still uses open standards for Bluetooth, Wi-Fi (TCP/IP and UDP), and zero-configuration networking or Zeroconf (what Apple calls Bonjour). But those are the exceptions that prove the rule: standards are good. Standards make things work.

And that’s what Apple has done: they haven’t simply simplified a design to make it friendlier to non-techies, or to make the iPad extra slim. You can make non-standard connectors that still work with USB, or use standard, slim-line USB connectors. The Apple Dock Connector is just the physical connection: inside are the actual signals that replace the video, device, and audio connections. What Apple has done is not simply change the technical and industrial design: they’ve added legal restrictions around that design.

Updated – Apple’s language seems to allow any third-party app to support any third-party hardware driver. That would conflict with Line6′s interpretation. (I get the impression that Line6 is interested in making this work with third-party apps, so it is possible that this will get sorted – one advantage of writing online and updating information is that we do get your feedback and, hopefully, we all know more after the article than we did before.) From Apple’s invitation:

Extend the capabilities of your application by monitoring and controlling external devices, or create entirely new integrated solutions that combine your iPhone app with dedicated hardware.

Your application can communicate with your own accessory using a custom protocol, or any accessory that uses a standard protocol provided by the manufacturer.

If you are developing an application that works with an accessory, use the new Accessory APIs in iPhone SDK 3.0 to identify and communicate with external hardware.

If Line6 did misinterpret the language here or not, however, it does illustrate the issue with having to reinvent mechanisms for hardware to talk to other hardware over physical connectors. The proprietary nature of the Dock Connector breaks the kinds of standards and interoperability that USB manufacturers have built over years – aided, ironically, by the efforts of one Apple Computer (back when they still had “Computer” in their name). And the lack of free communication and free development also remains a problem – it stops vendors like Line6 from feeling they can communicate freely, and it stops, say, tinkerers on CDM from building a little kit that would let you connect your own MIDI adapter and the like.

Further update – Bluetooth communication is also bound by Apple’s hardware developer agreements, as confirmed for us by an iPhone/iPad application developer:

Bluetooth on iPhone and iPad counts as an accessory just like USB not like TCP/IP over Wifi. Bluetooth devices must use same ID protocol and licensing as USB and serial accessories. There are a few classes of Bluetooth devices that are generically supported, but everything else is subject to Apple’s control.

There is some support for ad-hoc Bluetooth networking, independent of this issue, as used for games. But that means that even some Bluetooth solutions may be restricted. (That’s a whole independent topic, so I won’t attempt to cover it comprehensively here, other than to say, you may want to fully research these options before committing.)

No, You Can’t

Whatever the specific restriction around accessories, in general, the terms of the Apple developer agreements can be chilling.

Apple’s iPhone Developer Program License Agreement is a non-public document. The moment a developers signs it, they are contractually obligated not to speak “publicly” about the document. (Some iPad apologists might say, ah, but this is true of many game console developer programs, to which I ask, when did I say that was a good idea? And did that really help make Dragon Age more reliable?)

Thanks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Freedom of Information Act, however, the non-Apple lawyers found a loophole: force NASA, a government agency, to release its document. You can read the results (including, in detail, section 10.4 which bans developers from discussion):

UPDATED: All Your Apps Are Belong to Apple: The iPhone Developer Program License Agreement

I can at least refer to this section:

3.3.20 Your Application may interface, communicate, or otherwise interoperate with or
control an iPhone Accessory (as defined above) through Bluetooth or Apple’s 30-pin dock connector only if You have obtained a license for such iPhone Accessory under Apple’s MFi Program.

The MFi Program refers to “Made for iPod.” There is at least one case of Apple suing a vendor who tried to make hardware without that license, so it’s clear Apple is serious about their intellectual property there.

I can’t refer to the specifics of that license, because they’re not published. In fact, you have to apply for the program before you know the details of the program, and once you do know those details and sign the agreement, you’re obligated not to share them.

Because you need an application to support any hardware, and Apple has complete control over what applications are available through the store, and because jailbreaking iPhones, barring an exemption ruling, theoretically violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and because you violate Apple’s developer agreement just by making your app available through jailbreak software sources, Apple is the true, final arbiter on any matter of hardware support, as they are all matters of developing for their device. (Clarification added: the EFF is awaiting a ruling on an exemption request for jailbreaking. In the meantime, that theoretically means the de facto state of jailbreaking is a violation of the DMCA, at least here in the US.)

Here’s Apple, again in the developer agreement, on the matter of hardware support:

You agree to inform Apple in writing through iTunes Connect if Your Application connects to a physical device, including an iPhone Accessory, and, if so, to disclose the means of such connection (whether iAP, the headphone jack, or any other communication protocol or standard) and identify at least one physical device with which Your Application is designed to communicate. If requested by Apple, You agree to provide access to or samples of any such devices at your expense (samples will not be returned).

That may be defensible when it comes to verifying quality or providing an official Apple certification. But it shuts down the possibility of DIY hardware, or, as in this scenario, even cases that would provide greater compatibility, interoperability, and usability. I will retract the assumption, for now, that one piece of hardware can’t be supported by multiple apps. It wouldn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

But the other concerns remain. If Apple is going to add this additional burden, and if the iPad is going to become as successful as a general-purpose computing device as many think it is, it does become an issue to see if the kind of hardware connectivity that’s possible on other devices will be possible here.

Why this isn’t just for “techies”

A common characterization of iPad criticism is that it’s technological “elites” who care more about features than design.

David Pogue writes in The New York Times (a newspaper heavily invested in the success of the iPad, though that is not disclosed):

In any case, there’s a pattern to these assessments. The haters tend to be techies; the fans tend to be regular people.

Pogue provides no evidence for this description, which is odd, as my experience has been that non-techies generally don’t really understand why techies are so excitable either way. (As for whether “they” want an iPad, they seem as polarized as everyone else. Plenty of non-techies love their QWERTY and have other places to spend $500.)

But it’s a brilliant argument. The only people who would likely debate you – technical experts – are magically excluded from the discussion. “Ah,” says the technical expert. “But you’re a technical expert. It’s not for you. So you’ll have to accept my argument about what non-technical experts want at face value.”

Apple promotes this distortion of the reality of their device. When Stephen Fry asked Apple representatives about missing functionality on the iPad, Jonathan Ive responded with this quizzical answer:

I put to designer Ive the matter of all the features that are missing from the iPad. “In many ways, it’s the things that are not there that we are most proud of,” he tells me. “For us, it is all about refining and refining until it seems like there’s nothing between the user and the content they are interacting with.”

The thing is, those things are there – with an addition: restrictions, encoded in legal documents and developer agreements, about how what is there can be used. Apple’s intention may well be “quality.” But that’s the very essence of control: whatever the reason, one party has control, and the other doesn’t. Get it?

The assumption is that these kind of restrictions make devices more usable and more stable to end users. But how does gagging developers from talking about their legal agreement accomplish that goal? How does blocking application and hardware interoperability – the first thing those “casual” end users would take for granted – make the iPad easier to use?

Not Just an Apple Problem: Reinventing and Uninventing the Wheel

Apple I think deserves the brunt of this criticism at the moment, partly because they’ve made their restrictions legally explicit. But don’t think I’m about to let anyone else get off as easily – not with the entire Internet abuzz about how the “future of computing” is coming and it’ll transform everything we know about the universe.

Google’s Android and Chrome operating systems have none of these legal restrictions. (Android’s Market does require that, if you’re sold through the Market, you can’t be sold through another market, but that’s about it – and even that doesn’t stop you from posting an installer file on your site.)

Unfortunately, Android and Chrome also are lacking in actual hardware support. In reinventing the wheel of what operating systems done, Google hasn’t quite gotten to adding all the functionality we expect in operating systems. Sure, an OS built on the browser sounds fantastic – but what if you have a Chrome-based netbook and decide you want to connect a camera with your vacation photos? There’s tremendous confusion in the developer and device vendor communities about what Android and Chrome are for. Is Android a netbook OS, too? Will Google add hardware support? How? It’s even easier to be critical of Google, too: because their operating systems are based on the Linux kernel, support for a vast array of currently-shipping hardware is essentially ready to go, once they can make up their minds to support it. So, bonus points to Google on not being, to use a technical term, “legal bastards,” minus quite a few points for not shipping hardware support.

That also means a missed opportunity for Google, since restrictions like those above could easily drive vendors and developers into their arms. I’m hopeful that their rapidly-evolving platforms will resolve these issues, but I will hold them to the same standard. Ironically, Apple solved some of the technical problems, but imposed new, arbitrary legal obstacles that cripple their own solution.

There’s also the danger that other vendors will copy Apple’s legal restrictions, thinking that these are part of the appeal of the platform – when, for many of us, they’re quite the opposite. That happened most recently when Microsoft announced it was controlling app distribution and disallowing native development on the upcoming Windows Phone platform. Details of that platform are too early to judge, but it’s a discouraging sign.

If I had more time, this would have been shorter

I bring this up for a reason:

The future isn’t inevitable. This is a fixable problem. Apple could – as they did by loosening the NDA on developers – make this better, and they’d deserve credit if they did.

But we have a special obligation as musicians to cry foul. Musicians have taken a leadership role in defining what computing can be, in stretching the boundaries of digital interaction and expression, and in standardizing means of exchanging ideas, connecting equipment, and collaborating. Music was at the center of the creation of copyright law, musical notation was one of the early international standards, and music itself is one of the earliest forms of communication.

The ability to plug things in and connect them is apparently no longer something we can take for granted. But it is something we can protect and improve.

Multi-instrumentalists, Line6 must have you in mind. The equipment maker, known primarily for their guitar products, has plunked a keyboard on their multi-effects box / audio interface hybrid, TonePort. There are plenty of reasons to like the TonePort line: a broad approach to effects that caters to vocalists as well as guitarists, and cheaply-priced but good-sounding effects, in an interface with excellent low-latency performance. (Not to mention retro-looking VU meters, and they’re not just eye candy — they’re assignable.) Not everyone will need a keyboard in the same unit, but if you do, it’s nice to see a real mod wheel, an always-on octave LED (as opposed to most keyboards, which require us to guess which octave we left them in), and handy knobs, transport controls, and foot pedal integration. Deep software integration and a dedicated headphone port could make these a nice addition to a laptop rig.

Line6 TonePort KB37

My own personal preference would be for a standalone unit to go with another keyboard, but I know some friends I’m sure will want one of these. The only major question mark is how good Line6′s keyboard quality is; stay tuned for that and pricing.

Updated: Music thing’s readers have something interesting to note on the keyboard issue: Marcus Ryle, a vet of Oberheim who worked on the classic Xpander and Matrix 12 synths as well as a keyboardist on “We are the World” works on product development. So, did Line6′s keyboard love finally rub off on a product? That sounds good to me. I hope Line6 doesn’t stop there, though. What I love about the KB37 is that, at the very least, it’s a new concept that challenges some assumptions about different markets. A quick stroll through any NAMM show will show you this is a very conservative industry, with pretty rigid ideas of who its customers are, and usually that includes accepted dogma like “guitarists won’t touch a keyboard.” They have a lot of business experience making those markets work, of course, but I’ll bet if you’re reading this, you and the people you know don’t always fit into those categories.

I’d love to see more out-of-the-box thinking about gear that’s fun to play with a computer, blending software and hardware. So, please, Line6 and everyone else, bring it on. (And meanwhile, if I can’t master the guitar, maybe I should take this product as a sign that I should at least practice my singing.)

While I wait for a TonePort for review, what would be important to you for computer-based vocals? Would you (or your local singer) croon into an onstage laptop?