Most of the debate over the iPad centered on the issue of whether its closed end-to-end integration was brilliant or doomed.
关于iPad的大部分争论，都着眼于其封闭的端到端一体化系统是卓越的还是注定失败的。
Google was starting to play a role similar to the one Microsoft had played in the 1980s,
Google这时开始扮演20世纪80年代微软的角色，该公司推出了移动系统安卓。
offering a mobile platform, Android, that was open and could be used by all hardware makers.
这是一个开放平台，所有硬件制造商均可使用。
Fortune staged a debate on this issue in its pages.
《财富》杂志就这一话题进行了讨论。
"There's no excuse to be closed," wrote Michael Copeland.
迈克尔·科普兰写道：“没理由封闭。”

But his colleague Jon Fortt rebutted, "Closed systems get a bad rap, but they work beautifully and users benefit.
但是他的同事乔恩·佛特反驳道：“封闭系统的名声虽差，但是它们很好用，对用户有好处。
Probably no one in tech has proved this more convincingly than Steve Jobs.
在技术领域中，恐怕没人能比史蒂夫·乔布斯更能证明这一点。
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."
苹果公司能够通过捆绑硬件、软件和服务，并进行紧密控制，成功超越竞争对手，推出优美的产品。”
They agreed that the iPad would be the clearest test of this question since the original Macintosh.
二人一致认为，在麦金塔之后，iPad将是开放还是封闭这一问题最清楚的测试。
"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张芯片上，这表明苹果的控制癖已经到了一个新的高度，”佛特写道。
"Cupertino now has absolute say over the silicon, device, operating system, App Store, and payment system."
“现在，对整个硅谷、设备、操作系统、应用程序商店和支付系统，苹果公司都具有绝对发言权。”