Hi,
I was wondering if it's known if the iPad will support multiple accounts?
I'd like to buy one for "light computing" at home, but I would like to share the device
with my girlfriend. Accounts will be handy to seperate mail accounts, agenda's, etc.
Thanks
Comments
No encryption, no media content control, no multiple accounts, I believe 3rd party multitasking is being worked on. We'll see when it comes out but if you think of it like an ipod touch, just bigger, you'll see what market it's aiming at (yeah it's quite a small market).
People don't share ipod touches, you get one each so it's really a device for your own personal content. The fact it's a slave device requires that because when you sync, it would have to let you choose which account to sync to and the audience it's aiming at apparently get confused easily by options so they'd probably have multiple accounts on one device and wonder why they can't find any music they've synced.
IMO the iPad is one of those close and yet so far products where you constantly think 'if only it could just... then I'd have a use for it' but it doesn't and Apple doesn't mind because they don't sell products at a loss so it will make a profit regardless.
I doubt it. I suspect there will be many limitations with the device and as soon as you come across a deal-breaker, you're not supposed to complain but simply say 'it's not for me' and move along.
...
IMO the iPad is one of those close and yet so far products where you constantly think 'if only it could just... then I'd have a use for it' but it doesn't and Apple doesn't mind because they don't sell products at a loss so it will make a profit regardless.
Can I borrow your time machine so I can travel to the future and get my own iPad so I could be equally certain in my opinion that it sucks?
How about not complaining so vociferously before you even see the damn thing?
iTunes 9 added Home Sharing allowing sharing the same content across 5 devices. Obviously Apple is thinking more about how to use their devices across the whole family and given that the iPad isn't just a bit iPod touch (see, I can assert my opinion as fact too) there's no reason to just assume that it wont do multi-user relatively quickly if it's not available at launch. So I would tend to be more hopeful than a negative nanny.
How families use the iPad depends on many factors and I'm sure Apple is considering this. We have multiple TVs and computers in the house but it's not a 1-1 ratio so I would expect that the iPad will make some accommodation for multiple users and their email/facebook/etc accounts.
How about not complaining so vociferously before you even see the damn thing?
We have seen it though. Sure there will be some improvements but the iphone launched with the same features noted at the preview event.
the iPad isn't just a bit iPod touch (see, I can assert my opinion as fact too)
Doesn't matter if you don't back it up though. My reasoning is it's the same OS with some additional APIs, same limitations, same sync setup, same ports, same design, same UI, same apps, bigger screen. Now you tell me why that makes it more than a big ipod.
Can you run the lite version of iwork on an ipod? No. Why? Because of the small screen. If you had a way to hook it up to a bigger screen, could you run it? Yes. Therefore iPad is an ipod with a big screen.
Say for instance Apple made a 10" capacitive IPS screen dock for the current ipod. Name just one thing the iPad does that a docked ipod couldn't do. If you name a single thing, I'll stop calling it a big ipod.
there's no reason to just assume that it wont do multi-user relatively quickly if it's not available at launch.
Other than the fact that no one has mentioned it or hinted at multi-user support and it hasn't been found in the SDK (unlike say the phone features). The questions posed now are about purchasing decisions not potential. The iPad has the potential to do a lot of things in future but if it doesn't happen and there's no suggestion it will happen what does it matter?
There's also the issue of how it would work during sync. If there are multiple targets on the slave device and multiple sources on the master device, it would have to let you choose during sync which profile to sync with. Then how does it deal with backups? It's a layer of complexity I doubt Apple want to impose on the target audience. Now if it was a master device...
I would expect that the iPad will make some accommodation for multiple users and their email/facebook/etc accounts.
Hey, you used my time machine without my permission. You must have gone a few years ahead of me. I only went to the launch event.
Doesn't matter if you don't back it up though. My reasoning is it's the same OS with some additional APIs, same limitations, same sync setup, same ports, same design, same UI, same apps, bigger screen. Now you tell me why that makes it more than a big ipod.
Because the user interaction and kind of apps are different.
Can you run the lite version of iwork on an ipod? No. Why? Because of the small screen. If you had a way to hook it up to a bigger screen, could you run it? Yes. Therefore iPad is an ipod with a big screen.
Also because the interface doesn't have the resolution required to support richer UIs. This is how an iPod touch with just a bigger screen would operate:
http://www.appletell.com/apple/comme...creen-monitor/
That's very different from the way the iPad operates with iWork.
Say for instance Apple made a 10" capacitive IPS screen dock for the current ipod. Name just one thing the iPad does that a docked ipod couldn't do. If you name a single thing, I'll stop calling it a big ipod.
iWork. That was easy. A docked iPod can't support a 1024x768 display and allow for richer user interactions.
First, the 3.1.x OS is different without the SDK hooks to let you do so.
Second, adding a 10" capacitive dock is a significant NEW capability anyway. This is like saying "Well, I have a bathtub in my house so really a house with a pool is no different...they just have a bigger bathtub".
A bigger house is just a house that's bigger.
A house with a pool isn't just a house with a bigger bathtub.
Other than the fact that no one has mentioned it or hinted at multi-user support and it hasn't been found in the SDK (unlike say the phone features). The questions posed now are about purchasing decisions not potential. The iPad has the potential to do a lot of things in future but if it doesn't happen and there's no suggestion it will happen what does it matter?
Usable multi-user support can be done at the app layer with very minor enhancements. All they need to do is add the ability to keep multiple keychains protected via password and allow apps to access that shared data. You don't need to implement the full set of multi-user features (protection, roles, etc) to allow multiple people to access different gmail/facebook/etc apps.
That there are no hints in the current 3.2 SDK isn't that much of an indicator given it can be something developed completely independently and dropped into 4.0.
There's also the issue of how it would work during sync. If there are multiple targets on the slave device and multiple sources on the master device, it would have to let you choose during sync which profile to sync with. Then how does it deal with backups? It's a layer of complexity I doubt Apple want to impose on the target audience. Now if it was a master device...
No it doesn't. It can just save and sync all user credentials which are password protected to each individual user. When you use the facebook or mail app it can prompt you for the keychain user and password if you haven't already logged into keychain before via another app. When you lock the device it can forget the credentials until you log into keychain again.
I think that and at least limited multi-tasking will appear in the iPhone 4 update. I do wonder if phone OS will fork into iPhone OS and iPad OS. With different SDKs.
I also think that will see a new UI. The small icons on the larger desktop look totally out of place. I've seen someone at Ars suggest that apps be called up like dashboard widgets. I think that's a great idea. Hit an Apps button on the dock and all apps appear on the desktop. Then pick the app you need.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these improvements take longer than some of us would like like, much like the copy/paste feature. But Apple will do it and get it right.
Anyway, once the iPad finally shows up it's going to be fun to put it through its paces to see if it's what I want. I already have my pennies saved for the 64GB model.
As for mail on the thing if you must share just set up multiple acounts in mail. For a wife this should not be an issue. Or use a web mail client.
Considering the portable nature of the device, sharing is going to be a problem anyways.
Dave
Hi,
I was wondering if it's known if the iPad will support multiple accounts?
I'd like to buy one for "light computing" at home, but I would like to share the device
with my girlfriend. Accounts will be handy to seperate mail accounts, agenda's, etc.
Thanks
You can have two mail accounts, just like an iPhone. And for agendas use Google Cal or something.
Marvin, the big problem with the iPad, besides the horrible name, is that there was no consensus of what people wanted it to be. For me, who basically wanted an iPod Touch on steroids, it's a home run. Obviously for you, who seemed to want a do-everything device, it's a strikeout.
Anyway, once the iPad finally shows up it's going to be fun to put it through its paces to see if it's what I want. I already have my pennies saved for the 64GB model.
So if it didn't meet or exceed every wild and totally invented expectation that everyone has ever had -- that's a problem? It isn't Apple's problem that so many people fantasize so freely. Trying to fulfill those fantasies as a way of designing a product -- now that would be a problem.
"There is one guaranteed formula for failure, and that is to try to please everyone." -- Will Rogers
Also because the interface doesn't have the resolution required to support richer UIs. This is how an iPod touch with just a bigger screen would operate:
http://www.appletell.com/apple/comme...creen-monitor/
That's very different from the way the iPad operates with iWork.
iWork. That was easy. A docked iPod can't support a 1024x768 display and allow for richer user interactions.
ipods have supported video output at a higher resolution than the internal screen for a while via TV output. There were additions to the OS for external screen support but it could easily have been added to the ipod - it's just a software update. Software updates don't count as a differentiating factor when both devices have the same architecture.
It's like saying that a Windows PC that supports a glasses-free 3D display with newer GPU drivers is so much more than a Mac system. It's not, you just add a new screen and software support. Nobody would say that it's no longer a Mac and is something else entirely. A new screen doesn't change anything about the hardware platform - that's defined by the OS and architecture.
iPad will also identify itself as a desktop OS but it runs mobile apps. You can see how ridiculous the iphone apps look running on the device in the little boxed window. Pixel-doubled games fine but everything else looks wrong. You just don't have that problem with a desktop UI framework because it's designed to be scalable to work on a huge variety of screen sizes.
The least they could do is have mobile apps running side by side in a grid or something.
A house with a pool isn't just a house with a bigger bathtub.
It's semantics though. You're saying iPad is more than a big ipod because it's more functional than the current sized ipod due to the size. What I'm saying is that this doesn't change the fact it's a big ipod. With the same software, possibly updated specs and a screen dock the ipod could do the same things.
Usable multi-user support can be done at the app layer with very minor enhancements. All they need to do is add the ability to keep multiple keychains protected via password and allow apps to access that shared data. You don't need to implement the full set of multi-user features (protection, roles, etc) to allow multiple people to access different gmail/facebook/etc apps.
That can already be done by an app-developer though and most developers won't use it. Take for instance a game that tracks levels like Bloons. There's no reason to have multi-user support but if you share an iPad, someone else is going to be unlocking all the levels first and screwing with the high scores. Proper multi-user support is needed for it to be useful, everything else as I say can be done by individual devs.
For me, who basically wanted an iPod Touch on steroids, it's a home run. Obviously for you, who seemed to want a do-everything device, it's a strikeout.
I think I would have been content with a master device running iphone OS and way more enhancements than what it got. I really just wanted to be able to sort out all my media in comfort. If I can do it via VNC it might be ok but it's not ideal flipping through MBs of images over a network connection - if they can get some sort of 802.11n computer-to-computer setup going it might work but it's not much good when I take it away somewhere. Plus, there's not much data security on the device - same with the iphone.
Heavy productivity really wasn't a requirement because most people only use computers for media and I'm well aware of how some people have an inherent disconnect with computers as they are and the iphone UI fixes that. But if they have to use a computer anyway, what's the point? Instead of enabling an iPad owner like an elderly relative or computer illiterate to be an independent computer user, they are still relegated to dependency.
It isn't Apple's problem that so many people fantasize so freely. Trying to fulfill those fantasies as a way of designing a product -- now that would be a problem.
It's not about fulfilling wishes but pushing technology forward. The human race as a whole has pretty consistent views about where we want to be eventually. We want renewable energy, we want convenience in shopping and food consumption, we want good healthcare, efficient transportation, more immersive entertainment etc. It's all consistent. We've seen how great touch interaction with machines can be and people have been waiting for this since Minority Report or before. Apple finally deliver something with the iphone but the next step was to allow us to use this interface for 90%+ what we use a computer for. Instead, we get a device that requires the use of legacy computing hardware to control its contents.
It can be viewed as a first step in the right direction but it can be viewed as a first step in the wrong direction too - instead of going forward, they just went sideways and made largely the same product but for a different (smaller) audience.
It's not about fulfilling wishes but pushing technology forward. The human race as a whole has pretty consistent views about where we want to be eventually. We want renewable energy, we want convenience in shopping and food consumption, we want good healthcare, efficient transportation, more immersive entertainment etc. It's all consistent. We've seen how great touch interaction with machines can be and people have been waiting for this since Minority Report or before. Apple finally deliver something with the iphone but the next step was to allow us to use this interface for 90%+ what we use a computer for. Instead, we get a device that requires the use of legacy computing hardware to control its contents.
It can be viewed as a first step in the right direction but it can be viewed as a first step in the wrong direction too - instead of going forward, they just went sideways and made largely the same product but for a different (smaller) audience.
I can't decide if this answer is excessively existential or just completely geeky.
From what I read of your answer, "pushing technology forward" is little more than a stand-in for fulfilling geek fantasies. What does this phrase mean, when it's defined strictly in technological terms? Nothing, really -- except to geeks. The distinction which gets lost is utility, what the thing actually does for people who have non-geek needs. That's the only meaningful definition of pushing technology forward I know about, at least if we're to think of technology as a form of progress. it's not about movies, that's for sure.
Does the iPad do that? I really have no idea, yet -- but I'm willing to give it some room to grow, to find out whether it fills the role Apple sees it filling. Maybe we'll find out when people can actually buy one.
From what I read of your answer, "pushing technology forward" is little more than a stand-in for fulfilling geek fantasies. What does this phrase mean, when it's defined strictly in technological terms? Nothing, really -- except to geeks. The distinction which gets lost is utility, what the thing actually does for people who have non-geek needs. That's the only meaningful definition of pushing technology forward I know about, at least if we're to think of technology as a form of progress. it's not about movies, that's for sure.
Does the iPad do that? I really have no idea, yet -- but I'm willing to give it some room to grow, to find out whether it fills the role Apple sees it filling. Maybe we'll find out when people can actually buy one.
+ one
The distinction which gets lost is utility, what the thing actually does for people who have non-geek needs.
Content control is a utility that is missing. The point about the movie reference has nothing to do with it looking cool or being some geek fantasy, it's clear that the machines shown offer a more intuitive interaction as does the iphone but it's also the only interaction required.
Nowhere in say Star Trek do you see them using the awesome UIs and slate devices and then 10 minutes later walking over to a bog-standard PC with a keyboard and mouse to sync the data to it.
Does the iPad do that? I really have no idea, yet -- but I'm willing to give it some room to grow
Right but at this time, it can't be described as either a game changer or a failure. What I can say with absolute certainty is that no slave device will ever change the way we use computers in any significant way while it remains as a slave device.
Also, the feature set of the iPad has been described so we can comment on what's been revealed and while the features have every possibility of changing, all we can go on is what we know. If someone asks 'will I be able to run multiple apps on the iPad?', you could answer 'the iPad could run multiple 3rd party apps simultaneously in a future revision of the iphone OS',but a more accurate answer is still 'what we've seen of the iPad is that it has no multitasking'.
It's not about fulfilling wishes but pushing technology forward. The human race as a whole has pretty consistent views about where we want to be eventually.
That is totally irrational and certainly doesn't reflect the reality of current times. We are often at odds with each other sometimes violently so. In case you haven't noticed we are currently fighting multiple wars against people hell bent on making sure our views on how to live do not continue. Only the ignorant would call these conflicts with people observing consistent views and sharing common goals.
That is large scale world wide. Consider the local situation where we have terribly misguided people trying to steer the communities as a whole to their will. Be it some church preaching against the US wars or the idiot pursuing fake science to try to bend views about global warming. Or take the people who complain about cell towers one minute and then their cell phone connections the next. Humanity is all about conflict, opposing views and the struggle to maintain order amongst those conflicts and competing ideas.
We want renewable energy,
The first reality is there is no such thing as renewable energy. Once you understand that you then will realize that energy is about trade offs and moving technology forward.
we want convenience in shopping and food consumption,
Something that has been demonstrated to not be exactly healthy.
we want good healthcare, efficient transportation, more immersive entertainment etc.
Well that depends. For example immersive entertainment might be find for some but I often prefer immersion in nature.
It's all consistent. We've seen how great touch interaction with machines can be and people have been waiting for this since Minority Report or before.
We have seen nothing but really well done cell phones and a look alike tablet. It might not be as great as an experience with larger devices. Frankly this sounds more like fantasy than anything based on concrete usage.
Apple finally deliver something with the iphone but the next step was to allow us to use this interface for 90%+ what we use a computer for. Instead, we get a device that requires the use of legacy computing hardware to control its contents.
I'd be the first to say that Apple could have done better here. On the other hand I don't think we have seen the whole works software wise yet. But yeah the hardware leaves a lot to be desired.
It can be viewed as a first step in the right direction but it can be viewed as a first step in the wrong direction too - instead of going forward, they just went sideways and made largely the same product but for a different (smaller) audience.
Well that is possible. It is to hard to comment in depth until one gets an iPad in his hands. When we al have access to them it will be worth discussing then. Right now though you have to look at iPad as a different approach to computing. One that sees the iPad as a terminal to the web for the most part. Yah in some ways that is sad, but I still think it will sell well even if it got a bunch of things wrong.
Dave
The Star Trek reference just confirms my original diagnosis. Protest all you like, but if you insist on using science fiction as your touchstone for what a real product should do in the real world, then you're going to get the same reaction from me every time.
I'm not trying to support the other guy here as he certainly was geeky, but you seem to swing in the other direction. There is certainly a lot of bad science fiction out there but on the other hand there is much that has predicted where we are currently in our development as humans.
Take Star Trek for example. There was a reference once made to transparent Aluminum. something that at first sounds silly but then a month ago I was reading an article in NASA tech reports about the military using such materials in the next generation of bullet proof windows for planes and helicopters. If you ignore the issue of range modern cell phones have a eerie resemblance to Star Trek communicators. In fact the average cell phone has gone far beyond the concept.
Calling the iPad a "slave device" is colorful, but not accurate, even knowing what we do about it today.
I have a problem with that too. But the description is not entirely in-accurate. I don't consider my iPhone to be a slave device in the way I use it, but it obviously is. The problem of course is that it needs regular connections to a mac for updates and backups. Maybe slave isn't the right word, it is a system dependent device.
This point has been debated ad infinitum here already so I don't want to restart it, but I think it's just too obviously inaccurate and exaggerated to warrant further debate.
Maybe. It is funny how deeply he fell off the edge at the end of his original post.
Dave
If the iPhone is a slave device, then so is everything that needs to connect to something else to get something done. Like, what we're doing right now. In such a connected world, it's a completely artificial distinction.
I enjoy SiFi just about as much as the next person, but please let's not get too carried away with the ability of SiFI writers to predict the future. Often as not when they "get it right" they are merely reading what the scientists of the day are discussing, then treating it in fiction it as though it had already come true. Even so, for every hit is probably a thousand misses and nobody gets the really big things. Find someone who predicted the internet in 1950 and I'll be impressed.
1975 is the best I could do:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/034...SIN=0345467175
SF doesn't predict the future anyway but projects the concerns of today into a futuristic setting. The future is too complex to predict in any meaningful way.
ipods have supported video output at a higher resolution than the internal screen for a while via TV output.
Not from the perspective of UI design.
There were additions to the OS for external screen support but it could easily have been added to the ipod - it's just a software update. Software updates don't count as a differentiating factor when both devices have the same architecture.
It's like saying that a Windows PC that supports a glasses-free 3D display with newer GPU drivers is so much more than a Mac system. It's not, you just add a new screen and software support. Nobody would say that it's no longer a Mac and is something else entirely. A new screen doesn't change anything about the hardware platform - that's defined by the OS and architecture.
Except that software IS a differentiator. The current iPod touch software does not support the user interaction that the iPad allows. The hardware platform is more or less identical between a PC and a Mac. The primary differentiator is what the software can and cannot do.
iPad will also identify itself as a desktop OS but it runs mobile apps. You can see how ridiculous the iphone apps look running on the device in the little boxed window. Pixel-doubled games fine but everything else looks wrong. You just don't have that problem with a desktop UI framework because it's designed to be scalable to work on a huge variety of screen sizes.
Applications designed for the iPad will not be in a little boxed window. That's the difference between the iPad and the iPod touch.
In any case, apps meant to work on both iPod and iPad WILL be scalable to work at the different resolutions but the iPad will allow richer interaction because it does have more real-estate to work with. Work flow will be improved on the iPad.
It's semantics though. You're saying iPad is more than a big ipod because it's more functional than the current sized ipod due to the size. What I'm saying is that this doesn't change the fact it's a big ipod. With the same software, possibly updated specs and a screen dock the ipod could do the same things.
With the same software the PC is the same as the Mac and can do the same things. And yet they are significantly different are they not?
That can already be done by an app-developer though and most developers won't use it. Take for instance a game that tracks levels like Bloons. There's no reason to have multi-user support but if you share an iPad, someone else is going to be unlocking all the levels first and screwing with the high scores. Proper multi-user support is needed for it to be useful, everything else as I say can be done by individual devs.
The primary need is credentials for social apps. Other apps can leverage a common central user profile if they like. The shouldn't be difficult to use from a dev standpoint and a heck of a lot easier than rolling your own. There also no reason that apps can't stash their own info into the user profile since that's what the social apps are doing with user credentials. There may be size limitations but bit masks for levels and achievements is tiny.
Heavy productivity really wasn't a requirement because most people only use computers for media and I'm well aware of how some people have an inherent disconnect with computers as they are and the iphone UI fixes that. But if they have to use a computer anyway, what's the point? Instead of enabling an iPad owner like an elderly relative or computer illiterate to be an independent computer user, they are still relegated to dependency.
I've gone weeks without syncing my iPhone. Yes, they'll still need a mac or pc for backing up and some tasks like updating the iPad OS but day to day they lose that dependency.