Apple reinventing file access, wireless sharing for iPad - Page 13

Originally Posted by MDJCM

Exactly!


For once, i think this is a fundamental change with a really positive result. Getting rid of folder/file structures is a big move but with so many benefits. It works well for iPhoto and Aperture, and i think it would work well for a whole system

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. Add in the concept of local and cloud file servers and things really get confusing.

Originally Posted by brucep

bingo

the ipad will morph into the apple tv minus HD soon enough

THE IPAD WIIL REPLACE ATV

am i off topic ??

Originally Posted by pmz

Is it minus HD? From what I saw it can it can not only play HD but output HD iTunes content as well. It's not 1080p obviously, but 720 is at least a step.

I think we'll see a change to the dock connector before we see 1080p from any Apple portable.

Originally Posted by pmz

From what I saw it can it can not only play HD but output HD iTunes content as well. It's not 1080p obviously, but 720 is at least a step.

Originally Posted by arlomedia

This sounds fine for the iPad, but if it suggests the direction Apple might take with the Mac, it worries me a lot. We can already see this direction in iPhoto, as people have pointed out (I know how to open the package and get at my files, but I remember saying "wtf" when iPhoto started putting its files into a package), and in iMovie, which a couple versions ago started creating a "media library" where all your source files from all projects are stored together in a central location. That makes NO SENSE in my client-based work.

Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01

That's what's now confusing about QTVR. Panoramas are still .mov files. They don't need any editing, just playing. Yet you have to keep QT 7 to play them.

Originally Posted by melgross

I assume that Apple wanted to get the program out quickly. You've also noticed that there is no way to change the playback speed, color, brightness etc, or do anything with audio other than change the volume. I can't imagine that will last. It's very possible that Apple will add QTVR playability as well, unless they're losing interest in the format.

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't see where you get the Google/Apple thing. At one time, before Google started copying Apple's product line, it looked as though they might merge. Their products were complimentary. But then Google began to compete with Apple, and now, all bets are off as to what will happen between them.

I could write a REALLY long post on this, but I'm sure you don't want me to. So I'll just write a slightly long one.

My take on where Apple is going now, because of Steve's long term vision, is to extend the iPhone OS. Heh, we had a thread (maybe it was early in this one) in which someone complained about Apple's use of "i" before so many products.

Well, I hate to see this OS referred to as the iPhone OS because the Touch, and especially the iPad are most certainly not phones, though they can make Skype and Vonage VOIP calls.

So, let's call it the iOS for now. It could be a worse name.

Apple is taking the iOS upscale with the iPad. I think it will continue to go further.

You see, he's being cagy here, and is leading developers down a path they don't even know they're taking!

So, the iPhone comes out without programming possible. Use the cloud is the first mantra, with a promise to make everyone happy with development later.

Then comes the SDK, and the app store. So everyone and their sister begins to write programs for these little devices. They become wildly popular, and so do the programs.

So, most every company starts writing programs for them. And I mean everyone. Media companies, industrial companies, software companies, governments, etc. So we've got a whole load of developers here.

But this is for a phone, right? So, well, it's ok then to get programmers to write for it with the different cpu, and different gpu with the limitations all small devices have.

But they're growing software development teams to write for it.

So, almost three years later, Apple announces the iPad. With the same basic OS, but with additional features, a more powerful hardware with a real computer sized screen.

Well now, there are over 140,000 apps that can run on this. but they run better when modded for it. So they start working on it.

But wait, it also can run iWork in modified form, and it's finally got a "real" keyboard, and a good, big virtual one. This is a new opportunity! So, we start to see more software companies hiring more programmers to write more sophisticated software.

Now, normally, companies don't want to change processors they're writing for, because they have to change their codebase over, and gain expertise with it all at once.

But hey, we're writing for phones, of COURSE we've got to work with a different hardware base, and a slightly different OS, which just HAPPENs to be based on full fledged UNIX so it's got far more power than any other phone OS.

Hmm! So now there are at least a couple hundred thousand programmers with experience on this platform.

And the platform expands over the years. Slowly but surely.

Next up, a model with 15" screen at maybe 1600 x 1200, and more powerful processors.

Then before you know it, these companies have almost as many programmers working on the iOS on ARM as they do working on OS X and x86.

But, guess what? The iOS machines are vastly outselling the machines using OS X and x86. Whoops!

As Apple reduces the OS X x86 machines in their line, most work is being done on iOS and ARM.

Guess what Apple is doing to these companies?

And the iOS is now the 2nd most used OS, and rising fast.

Well, where might we be in 2020?

What was that about the OS wars being won?

Originally Posted by MuncyWeb

There is a clear difference between paragraphs and sentences. Perhaps we should learn those differences so that our posts don't take three hours to scroll through.

Originally Posted by thartist

Actually I remember a different world where the pc offered the first math co-processor allowing artists such as myself to create 3d worlds and environments, in a world which was dominated by power hungry Silicon Graphics and the like. This was before Windows 2k. More like DOS. I run two environments in my studio for the record. My Macbook Pro handles Newtek's Lightwave brilliantly. But Painter, not so much, so that is Windows 7 all the way. And my Fedora environment is great for...well...stuff.

A computer is a tool. Nobody sells you a wrench and tells you that you can only hammer with it because it consists of a solid metal alloy.

Originally Posted by melgross

I remember the claim, but it's been years since they found out, and still nothing.

Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01

Well. Not sure how vinea feels about it, but IMO, this Prince's piece (if backed up by serious facts) is by far the most informative and explanatory one, having been published since we'd heard first time about iPad.

Originally Posted by melgross

If you provide the link "proving" that 90% are used for work.

No, I can't easily find a definitive link. But there has been so much written about this over the years, that you should have known.

Originally Posted by vinea

It is impossible to lose or destroy what was never there. There has never been a complete set of blueprints to build the F1 as the sub-component blueprints remained with the sub-contractors and much of it was in the minds of the builders.

It's kinda like wondering why you don't get the blueprint for every component in a house you build or that every trade skill process was captured in the documentation for building a house. In the F1's case you'd have to retrain folks how to weld pieces in the same way that the original F1 plans required rather than the laser welding used today to meet spec.

Plus you need all the blueprints to build the tooling to build all the one off components in the F1.

SO what NASA has is an assload of documentation for the F1 and a lot of technical notes from Rocketdyne on the design and the kept it all in the F-1 Production Knowledge Retention Program. Plus there are 15 engines left around on static display or storage for reference.

If NASA wanted new F1s they could hire United Technologies (who bought Rocketdyne) to build them a F1-A which is a much better engine (8M pounds of thrust vs the 6.7M pounds of the original Apollo F1s). Rocketdyne's design changes were tested on two engines in demonstration test firings.

But they're too expensive. It would cost over $450M to restart production and run $20M apiece if you made a very large run. The RS-68s from the Delta program ($20M each but without the half billion to restart production) and the J2 engines used on Saturn were just much more reasonable to reuse vs the F1s for Ares.

Shame Obama cut Ares.

Originally Posted by vinea

Well, if you accept that apple's US consumer market share was 21% in April 2008 while their total US market share 6.6% around that same time frame you get an idea of the relative sizes of consumer vs business markets. If i did my math right (an iffy proposition at midnight) the consumer market is around 30% of the total market.

http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....ow-21-percent/

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/16/...-up-from-2007/

Originally Posted by vinea

Heh...it didn't strike me as a prince piece. It's not glowing enough...but yes it was good although he managed to confuse some folks here. Not entirely sure how...although the dev SDK details in the thread seemed clearer to me than the prose but I'm a dev so that's atypical.

Originally Posted by illimiter

The file size of your library isn't really an issue. The issue is: how many books do you have? That's really not a big issue, however. They could sort your library by category, author, publication date, title, etc. to make things more manageable.

Originally Posted by Broncsx3

Yea, this does not work for me. I don't see how it would work for anyone that has a large office with several people working together.

I'm an attorney. I have thousands of documents that me and several other attorneys, law clerks and secretaries access.

I want to take ALL my files with me to court or home, so I always have them. So I would like to "dump" them into the iPad periodically.

Yea right! You have to go through each app and manually place the files into the app. Word Documents into Pages, Excel Documents into Numbers, etc.

Nevermind that this is a pain in the ass, but how do I update this? Manually do it every day? Once a week? Start all over again?

Because that's what "it displays the documents it knows about" means. It means you have to "assign" or place documents into the right app manually.

And I don't know how this tagging works so I can see all the documents from one client (or project) at one time, but that sounds like a pain in the ass to do going forward, nevermind going backwards to get everything working.

This isn't a step forward, it's completely ignoring how businesses operate. I can only speak from the legal perspective, but fail Apple. So fail.

Originally Posted by Toyin

And where does Apple claim this machine is for business???

Originally Posted by Broncsx3

Yea, this does not work for me. I don't see how it would work for anyone that has a large office with several people working together.

I'm an attorney. I have thousands of documents that me and several other attorneys, law clerks and secretaries access.

I want to take ALL my files with me to court or home, so I always have them. So I would like to "dump" them into the iPad periodically.

Yea right! You have to go through each app and manually place the files into the app. Word Documents into Pages, Excel Documents into Numbers, etc.

Nevermind that this is a pain in the ass, but how do I update this? Manually do it every day? Once a week? Start all over again?

Because that's what "it displays the documents it knows about" means. It means you have to "assign" or place documents into the right app manually.

And I don't know how this tagging works so I can see all the documents from one client (or project) at one time, but that sounds like a pain in the ass to do going forward, nevermind going backwards to get everything working.

This isn't a step forward, it's completely ignoring how businesses operate. I can only speak from the legal perspective, but fail Apple. So fail.

Originally Posted by Broncsx3

I don't know where they have made this claim or if they have made this claim and frankly I could give a damn.

The only thing I care about is if I can use it for business or not... and right now I'm leaning heavily on "not"

Originally Posted by melgross

Business also means more than carrying many documents around. That's an awful limited understanding of business needs.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...mac_2010-04-06

Originally Posted by Toyin

Thanks for letting us know what 'business' needs are

If all you need to do is view documents and synchronize minor changes, this may work completely for 'business' needs. The limited understanding here would be believing one size fits all.

The iPad is a consumer device and as far as I'm concerned. IMO it is an experimental consumer device to see if Apple can push/change the computer model as we know it. For anyone to expect this to be all and the end all of computing in its 1st release state is expecting WAAAY too much.

All that said, I have the iPad and love it.

Originally Posted by melgross

I'm responding to your claim of knowing what business needs are.

You might have bothered to read the article I linked to. I think they have a pretty good idea of what business needs are. That's especially true as they interviewed people in business and the professions. You can only speak for yourself.

Originally Posted by Toyin

You're right and I humbly concede. I'm just tired of everyone believing that from day one the iPad will magically meet everyone's needs. I suggest people do their research, check the app store and see what the iPhone OS can do before claiming it's a failure.

PS: I did try your link earlier, and got a Flash place holder so incorrectly assumed it was a video article. I didn't read the actual article until now. After reading it, it makes sense.