Apple reinventing file access, wireless sharing for iPad - Page 8

Originally Posted by timgriff84

I really don't get how this makes things better or what was so complicated before. You still have folders in all these file systems local to apps right? Once you hide all the system files and just have user files left, whats wrong with these all being in the same place?

The notion that it will be good to have files associated with apps seems really confusing. My iPhone has Camera, Photos, Quick Office, PS Mobile, Mobile Me Gallery, so under this new idea I have to remember which one has a particular photo in it to find it. Rather than just having 1 common file system with a Photo's folder that I know isn't going to get deleted when I remove an app without think about what files are in it.

Does this also mean in an app when you go to open a file your also going to get a list of every single app you have in order to access those file? That could be a long list!

Can safari save photo's from the web, in which case does that always go in a Safari file system but you then wouldn't ever want to open it in Safari?

Whoever came up with this idea, needs to be removed from Apple as soon as possible along with whoever there agreed it would be a good idea. Searching makes things easy, Apps ising meta data to sort files within themselves makes things easy. Multiple file systems just makes something that was never particularly hard awfaul!

Originally Posted by MobileMe

Were you underwhelmed about that event? (Meaning WWDC 2008) The sessions were very informative.

In many ways it was a landmark event.

I'm somewhat flummoxed by your response

Originally Posted by pmz

I'm sorry, how are features that you want as opposed to 90% of the public "restrictions"?


Forget it don't answer. I'm tired of this crap. You're the one thats right, Apple should have crammed the entire history of computing and the next 20 years as well into this device, with LESs bezelzes, and it should be even cheaper!

Originally Posted by nkhm

That version of iWork, completely thought through for the device - that was rushed? iBooks - rushed? (albeit a rip off of delicious) I see nothing that looks rushed.

If you wait until every function, every capability can be acheived, the device is never released. You have to start somewhere.

Originally Posted by Ireland

Ha! That invite image is done like that for marketing purposes. Even if it "vaguely" "metaphorically" makes sense.

Originally Posted by nkhm

There's no way this was rushed by Apple, they've been toying with these concepts for over twenty years. The time spent on iWork alone is proof this. Apple created this hype in their own time, to their own schedule. NO pressure, no rush, this device goes as far as Jobs wanted the first version to go.

Originally Posted by nkhm

I'm not painting you as anything, stop being paranoiid.

my point is that if you don't like the way that apple's software handles files, then use different software, no one is forcing you.

You're wrong about aperture btw, when migrating images from iPhoto, it doesn't have to import them all, it can manage images outside of it's own directory structure. Apart from iTunes, none of the other iWork/iLife apps handle your documents and media in this way, so I think you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.

And a photographic management/editing tool not supporting video is not a 'fatal flaw'. Aperture doesn't handle audio either - is this another flaw?

Originally Posted by OzExige

I'm with you now!

I'm sick of this BULLcrap

Originally Posted by Postulant

Some of you guys are taking this a little too serious - it's just a computer. Tripper and thartist seem like the kind of guys who would try to beat you up if they saw you using an iPad.

Originally Posted by solipsism

I think the only thing we can conclude is that iWork wasn't rushed. I can't say the same for the OS. Maybe they simply don't want to spoil the iPhone OS v4.0 demo and SDK coming in March(?) but I thinknit simply wasn't ready to make It for this event.

But I don't even think that is true with complete certainly. Was McGraw-Hill invited? If so, where is the "killer app" that will make buying electronic textbooks a a must have. Perhaps I'm jumping a few years ahead of what I possible but I was fully expecting a annotation and notes layover for books. You simply can't replace textbooks unless you can hit a higjlighter, underline, strikerhrough, etc. button and drag your finger or capacitance stylus (very natural and better for certain tasks) over a section of text, a well as have the ability to type crib notes and draw diagrams on each page abd have it all instantly searchable. Is that asking fo too much (rethorical)?


PS: I'm just noticing that vBulletin markup works with the iPhone OS' text highlighting feature. Sweet!

Sent from iPhone... There will be errors.

Originally Posted by mark2005

Why does everyone need a computer, where by computer I assume you mean one that runs OS X, Windows, or Linux?

If I use my computer to surf the web, buy and read books, buy and listen to music/movies, send emails and IM, store and view photos, maintain a calendar, run well-crafted apps to buy/sell stuff or play games or write short documents or create presentations or tables or charts, why do I need an OS X, Windows or Linux-based computer? Seriously, why?

Originally Posted by freediverx

You're still missing the point...

It took me days to painstakingly import 10 years' worth of photos into iPhoto. This would have taken minutes if iPhoto could simply browse file folders instead of depending on a proprietary database structure.

Originally Posted by freediverx

Yes, I know that Aperture can manage images outside of its own directory structure. But if you then use Finder or another application to move, rename, or edit any of those files, you risk messing up the Aperture database. This is not an acceptable restriction.

Originally Posted by freediverx

Only after a tidal wave of complaints did Aperture finally gain the ability to import files while leaving them in their existing locations. That was not an original feature. But even then users face two flawed options:

1) Import all future photo sets directly into Aperture for pro-level editing features, but lose the ability to store movie clips together with related images

2) Import future photo sets into iPhoto to keep pictures and movie clips together, but be forced to import them again into Aperture each time for photo editing

How is this helpful or efficient?

Of course Aperture doesn't support audio. People don't come back from vacations with memory cards filled with pictures and audio clips. They come back with pictures and movie clips taken with the same camera. This applies to $99 entry levels cameras just as it does to $2500 DSLRs with HD video capabilities.

Originally Posted by MacTripper

What if somebody decided for you that computers were only good for spreadsheets and made a closed device and didn't allow any innovation?

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

There are allot of Apps that already synch without itunes to servers & desktops. Generally those developers that have clients with data to back up they provide a method. Photos, drawings, sales records, it's already there. In your photo example. Most photo Apps use the Iphone library. So no your photos won't be removed with the App. If the app does not save photos to the default library then yes the photos would be deleted, if the developer did not provide another way of "backing up" or synchronizing the data.

Originally Posted by purpleshorts

I absolutely hate the approach Apple has taken on files.

To tie songs to iTunes, pictures to iPhoto, word processing docs to Pages, etc. seems logical on the surface. That's where they were created? Right?

But that is not the way people work. Let's say you write a script, do some graphics, take some pictures, and record some music all in service of your new movie. How would you like to store it? By creator application? Or by project name?

If you are like me, (or any Apple user back in system 7) you would create a folder called "Spring 2010" and perhaps subfolders for pictures, songs, web pages, text documents, fonts, images, etc. Especially in a work environment, when projects have to be revisited/modified at a later date.

So, while I see the logic in having an endless library of every piece of photoshop art, every bit of footage, every sound effect and song, every text document you've ever written; I also would like to organize, backup, and store data by project. In other words, it's not that I totally disagree with the iTunes/iMovie organizational scheme, but I feel a little hampered by the "protect the dumb user" mindset. Why is "Export" called "Share?"

Big bro may want me to save all my clips in an endless library of video, but I would like to store each project (video, graphics, music, etc.) in its own project folder. To not allow me to store this data together is not "simplifying" at all. There should be, perhaps a "simple finder" for people who want to store things the way Steve would, and then an old-school, folders and files, finder for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by mark2005

Why is the iPhone OS the future of all Apple computers? Didn't you see the slide with three platforms? - iPhone. iPad. Mac.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

So has his namesake.

And therefore the confusion has led to chaos, wars, and death. Perhaps it would have been better if one of the sides used a different name. But undoubtedly it wouldn't have mattered as most of us looks at it as due to ignorance, greed and selfishness. And the degree is dependent on which side you are on.

For many, they don't give a damn. But then that may also be due to ignorance, greed and selfishness.

For others, we grow up and live with it. And are happy to be on the other side of the world. Literally and figuratively.

Originally Posted by Zc456

The iPad. It is what you make it. Like a computer, it has no real purpose until you give it one.

Originally Posted by timgriff84

Can safari save photo's from the web, in which case does that always go in a Safari file system but you then wouldn't ever want to open it in Safari?

Originally Posted by nkhm

Well, preview currently allows markup, highlighting etc of PDFs, so apple already have the technology.

Originally Posted by solipsism

That sounds a lot like life.

Originally Posted by ahmlco

This just sucks. And if you cant tag them or name them, it sucks even further.Its like saying that on the PC, every single Microsoft Word document you ever create, be it personal or for whatever project, is going to be stuffed into one single humongous Microsoft Word folder with every other Microsoft Word file youve ever created. Same for Excel files. And same for you get the idea.

No organization at all. None.

Really, its as bad as the lame bookshelf metaphor in the iBooks app. Steve says that even a 16GB baseline iPad will let you carry thousands of ebooks.
128K.

....And the biggest iPad is 64 gigabytes....

Never use the iPad to make more than three of anything, and youll do just fine

Originally Posted by ascii

Yes but I don't think it's intended as a standalone device. Your Mac or PC is still your hub, with everything organised on there and safely Time Machined, and you just sync to the iPad the files you're working on today, or this week...

Originally Posted by Zc456

The only thing the Apple is trying to do is fix a niche market.

Originally Posted by nkhm

A 1gHZ processor and undisclosed RAM is not going to be powerful enough - I don't think iLife is heading to the pad in it's first iteration.

Originally Posted by sirozha

I wonder if the iPad will have Time Machine support. I can understand syncing with a Mac, but if there is a category of consumers that would consider buying this thing as the only computer (Liberal Arts students, for instance), and getting a couple of accessories, such as the keyboard dock so that they can type their papers on the iPad, I believe having Time Machine support is crucial.

Originally Posted by nkhm

It took me a few minutes, my photo's were arranged in folders, I dragged the folders into the iPhoto library window and each folder became it's own event. Couldn't have been any easier. The files were copied to the iPhoto database, but still remain in their folders, untouched.

Originally Posted by nkhm

How on earth is this a restriction - either have the software manage it's resources, or choose do it manually - you can't have it both ways, how on earth can an application that isn't running know that you've moved files around - this is the very reason for this software operating as it does.

Originally Posted by nkhm

Right, so Apple have listened and changed the software, and still you're complaining? Tidal wave of complaints? Overstating things a little? There aren't that many aperture users, and many of them are happy to let aperture do it's job.

Originally Posted by nkhm

Aperture is not for editing video, therefore aperture doesn't import the video. This isn't a hobbyist tool, it's designed to be a focussed, professional application.

Originally Posted by solipsism

The iPad doesn't fit my needs but it sure looks to be a success to me, at least in comparison to any other tablet device. They needed tablet specific apps, not a shoehorned desktop OS and app. They needed something that is more than a pocketable device with file and printer access, not just a PMP OS put on a larger screen. I can see so many uses for this thing, yet not a single one for me. \

PS: I would like to see Palm come out with a tablet. I think WebOS would be a relative success in this area.

Originally Posted by freediverx

The concept of a simplified, abstract filing system sounds great at first, until you actually try to get some serious work done with one. Forcing all files to be managed in a proprietary database, grouped according to their respective applications and barring the use of nested folder structures doesn't work so well in real life. A few common scenarios come to mind...

File Associations
What happens when you have more than one app capable of viewing and editing the same file type? Obvious example: image files. Imagine your iPad is loaded with iPhoto, Brushes, and a couple of other apps - each capable of viewing and editing image files. Theoretically, each app's files will be stored separately. So that means that when you want to browse for an image, you have to browse across multiple file stores in search of just the right one. Not so simple and elegant anymore.

Projects
These demos always look great with modest file libraries that have been automatically organized for the user. But this is not how real life works. For example, when I'm working on a big Keynote presentation, I need to collect, create, and edit a variety of files from various sources. These will include photos, screenshots, tables, graphs, video clips, etc. At this point, I couldn't care less which application was used to create or edit each file. The only thing I care about is the subject matter. With the large number and variety of files involved, it makes sense to group those files separately in a working project folder, away from unrelated files. But with a "simplified" file system, I'd be forced to continuously hop around various application file stores and wade through thousands of unrelated files in search of what I need. Needless to say, this is completely unworkable.

Data Migration (A horror story)
Let's step away from the iPad for a moment, and examine how well managed file systems work on a real computer. I am reminded of the time when I bought my first Mac, and the first thing I wanted to do was to browse my photo collection with iPhoto. This collection consists of tens of thousands of photos, all nicely organized into file folders according to date and event.

My first shock came when I discovered that iPhoto was incapable of simply browsing my existing image collection. My photos first had to be "imported". My second shock came when I realized that importing all my photos would take many hours. Third shock was the realization that iPhoto didn't do a very good job of recognizing and preserving my simple and straightforward folder system. iPhoto organizes images by "Events", and it treats each imported batch of files as a single event. This means that in order to keep my existing photo collection intact, I had to import them one event at a time. Nice. Additionally, iPhoto only displays events as a collection of thumbnail tiles, without a "list view" option. If you want to view your events as a list - you guessed it - you now have to create an "album" for each event and view & sort the albums separately.

At this point I am so overwhelmed by iPhoto's "simplicity" that I'm tempted to hurl my Macbook Pro towards a fast moving freight train.

Now some of you might think that these hassles are a worthwhile, one-time task justified by the advantages of using iPhoto. I thought so too. And I kinda liked how iPhoto allowed me to import and browse my camera's pictures and video clips together. That is, until the release of Aperture - a better, more powerful image management and editing application.

And then I found myself right back in square one. Aperture, like iPhoto, manages images in a proprietary database structure. This means that in order to reap its benefits I needed to (you guessed it) import my iPhoto library into Aperture. But wait, it gets better. Turns out that Aperture, unlike iPhoto, does NOT support viewing of video clips. So if I migrate my photos to Aperture, I lose the ability to group related pictures and video clips together. Oh joy!

The moral of the story is that so-called simplified file systems are anything but simple. They're inflexible, impractical, and in the long run will cause far more aggravation and wasted time then can be justified by the initial illusion of simplicity.

Originally Posted by Zc456

Give it time. You may find a application that will help you when its out.

Originally Posted by GQB

People, stop thinking desktop and big projects.
That's NOT what this thing is for.
The sooner folks get out of that mindset, the sooner they'll get what's going to make this thing such a paradigm shift.

Originally Posted by freediverx

Now you're just being dense. Because of the number and size of all the files, combined with iPhoto's time consuming import process, it took A LONG TIME to do this. Hours upon hours. It would have taken minutes to simply copy the files to the hard drive. Also, when I first imported these photos, iPhoto did not work as you described. When I dragged all the folders in at once, iPhoto created a single event for all of them and threw away the folder names I had created. Only recently has this behavior been corrected. With previous iPhoto versions, I was forced to import ONE FOLDER AT A TIME! It took freaking DAYS! It took Apple two years to correct this.

Originally Posted by freediverx

And this leaves the Aperture question unanswered. How are you supposed to manage images using both iPhoto and Aperture? Each has a mutually exclusive feature set to the other. Each has its own separate database.

Originally Posted by freediverx

And that is PRECISELY why application/database/library-based file management doesn't work. You are forcing users to use only a single application to interact with a particular file type. Do you know how many situations there are when you need to use different applications to access a set of images?? You don't see a problem with this?

How am I supposed to manage my files - system-wide - when each application insists on barricading its own data files while omitting features offered by other applications?

Solution?

1) Aperture should offer all the functionality of iPhoto (impractical)
2) All applications should stick to standard file management instead of relying on closed data libraries
3) The database file system should be standardized and integrated throughout the entire operating system for use across all applications

Originally Posted by freediverx

It's clear from your comments that you aren't particularly serious about photography or you would understand the challenges I'm describing. The vast majority of serious photographers have abandoned Aperture and moved on to LightRoom.

Originally Posted by freediverx

A $2500, professional DSLR camera shoots images and HD video. Is it crazy to want to come return a trip and view the images and video clips in the same location?

Originally Posted by freediverx

I don't want to edit video clips in Aperture. I just want to keep the photos and video clips which I take at one event together. I want to be able to browse them together. iPhoto lets me do this, while seamlessly synchronizing with iMovie when I want to actually edit the video files. But iPhoto lacks Aperture's advanced image management and editing features. Meanwhile, Aperture offers advanced image management and editing, but it forbids me from storing or browsing my video clips together with my images.

Originally Posted by freediverx

The concept of a simplified, abstract filing system sounds great at first, until you actually try to get some serious work done with one. Forcing all files to be managed in a proprietary database, grouped according to their respective applications and barring the use of nested folder structures doesn't work so well in real life. A few common scenarios come to mind...

File Associations
What happens when you have more than one app capable of viewing and editing the same file type? Obvious example: image files. Imagine your iPad is loaded with iPhoto, Brushes, and a couple of other apps - each capable of viewing and editing image files. Theoretically, each app's files will be stored separately. So that means that when you want to browse for an image, you have to browse across multiple file stores in search of just the right one. Not so simple and elegant anymore.

Projects
These demos always look great with modest file libraries that have been automatically organized for the user. But this is not how real life works. For example, when I'm working on a big Keynote presentation, I need to collect, create, and edit a variety of files from various sources. These will include photos, screenshots, tables, graphs, video clips, etc. At this point, I couldn't care less which application was used to create or edit each file. The only thing I care about is the subject matter. With the large number and variety of files involved, it makes sense to group those files separately in a working project folder, away from unrelated files. But with a "simplified" file system, I'd be forced to continuously hop around various application file stores and wade through thousands of unrelated files in search of what I need. Needless to say, this is completely unworkable.

Data Migration (A horror story)
Let's step away from the iPad for a moment, and examine how well managed file systems work on a real computer. I am reminded of the time when I bought my first Mac, and the first thing I wanted to do was to browse my photo collection with iPhoto. This collection consists of tens of thousands of photos, all nicely organized into file folders according to date and event.

My first shock came when I discovered that iPhoto was incapable of simply browsing my existing image collection. My photos first had to be "imported". My second shock came when I realized that importing all my photos would take many hours. Third shock was the realization that iPhoto didn't do a very good job of recognizing and preserving my simple and straightforward folder system. iPhoto organizes images by "Events", and it treats each imported batch of files as a single event. This means that in order to keep my existing photo collection intact, I had to import them one event at a time. Nice. Additionally, iPhoto only displays events as a collection of thumbnail tiles, without a "list view" option. If you want to view your events as a list - you guessed it - you now have to create an "album" for each event and view & sort the albums separately.

At this point I am so overwhelmed by iPhoto's "simplicity" that I'm tempted to hurl my Macbook Pro towards a fast moving freight train.

Now some of you might think that these hassles are a worthwhile, one-time task justified by the advantages of using iPhoto. I thought so too. And I kinda liked how iPhoto allowed me to import and browse my camera's pictures and video clips together. That is, until the release of Aperture - a better, more powerful image management and editing application.

And then I found myself right back in square one. Aperture, like iPhoto, manages images in a proprietary database structure. This means that in order to reap its benefits I needed to (you guessed it) import my iPhoto library into Aperture. But wait, it gets better. Turns out that Aperture, unlike iPhoto, does NOT support viewing of video clips. So if I migrate my photos to Aperture, I lose the ability to group related pictures and video clips together. Oh joy!

The moral of the story is that so-called simplified file systems are anything but simple. They're inflexible, impractical, and in the long run will cause far more aggravation and wasted time then can be justified by the initial illusion of simplicity.

Originally Posted by phpmaven

I have an idea for you: Don't use iPhoto. Next!

Originally Posted by jonathonc1

I though Steve did an excellent job at making this explicitly clear. 90% of the population use computers specifically for email, internet, music, photos, basic word processing, spreadsheet.... OOOOOOH HOOOOO that is exactly what this device is designed to do very well.

Originally Posted by MacTripper

The iPad is the beginning of a set of cloud based devices, it's just a terminal with most of it's storage and heavy processing sent to Apple servers once the facility in NC is built.

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Actually most of the 90% of the population use computers for work, as witnessed by Windows 90% market share.

Work computers are hooked up to others, to machines and printers, CAD/CAM devices, ATM machines, POS devices and the what not.

It's that Apple has given up on that 90% market, even when it's demanding a more reliable and secure OS than what Microsoft has been offering all these years.

PC's are in such large quantities because most PC's are a open device, not a closed one and locked to a App Store like what Apple is doing with the iPad.

So it's more like 90% of 10% of Apple users use their computers for only the basics you mentioned

I find is totally unrealistic, because people wouldn't buy a MacBook Pro or a iMac if a cheap netbook would do the basics you mentioned.

But the MacBook Pro and the iMac are Apple's best sellers? Why is this? Because people are using them for more than the basics.

Originally Posted by purpleshorts

I absolutely hate the approach Apple has taken on files.

To tie songs to iTunes, pictures to iPhoto, word processing docs to Pages, etc. seems logical on the surface. That's where they were created? Right?

But that is not the way people work. Let's say you write a script, do some graphics, take some pictures, and record some music all in service of your new movie. How would you like to store it? By creator application? Or by project name?

If you are like me, (or any Apple user back in system 7) you would create a folder called "Spring 2010" and perhaps subfolders for pictures, songs, web pages, text documents, fonts, images, etc. Especially in a work environment, when projects have to be revisited/modified at a later date.

So, while I see the logic in having an endless library of every piece of photoshop art, every bit of footage, every sound effect and song, every text document you've ever written; I also would like to organize, backup, and store data by project. In other words, it's not that I totally disagree with the iTunes/iMovie organizational scheme, but I feel a little hampered by the "protect the dumb user" mindset. Why is "Export" called "Share?"

Big bro may want me to save all my clips in an endless library of video, but I would like to store each project (video, graphics, music, etc.) in its own project folder. To not allow me to store this data together is not "simplifying" at all. There should be, perhaps a "simple finder" for people who want to store things the way Steve would, and then an old-school, folders and files, finder for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Outside of savvy computer users, the idea of opening a file by searching through hierarchical paths in the file system is a bit of a mystery.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple has already taken some steps to hide complexity in the file system in Mac OS X; Spotlight search was supposed to make a file's location almost irrelevant