Originally Posted by addabox
It's interesting to me when people talk about Honeycomb this way-- as if the underlying system metaphors were something to desire as "more productive" or "more netbook like" in their own right, without ever talking about (or indeed, seeming to be very interested in) what applications, and how implemented, they might actually be interested in using.
As it stands, the iPad allows me to run really, really nice word processing, presentation creation, music creation, movie creation, photo editing, technical diagraming, database, etc., etc. applications. Most of these, particularly the Apple first party apps and apps by Apple exclusive outfits like the Omni Group have no peer on the Android platform.Yet I'm to believe that an Android tablet running Honeycomb is a more productive solution because I can customize the home screen or see upcoming appointments in a widget. If what I need is to be able to see upcoming appointments in a widget (or weather updates or recent texts) wouldn't I just use my phone for that?
Everything I hear about why an Android tablet might be a better choice than an iPad appears to be roughly "like an Android phone but more so." I don't see why I need to spend $800 for a device with almost no actual productivity software outside of Google's web stuff. There are easier ways to check your Gmail or be reminded of an appointment.
Originally Posted by addabox
Not only do these apps showcase what can be done with touch, they begin to bring to fruition Apple's vision of a device that disappears into the app.
The iPad is, for all intents and purposes, a screen. The changes to the iPad 2 increase the sense of almost no hardware behind that front surface. Each application is then free to create whatever environment is required to transform the iPad into a device entirely for that task.
With GarageBand, Apple has transformed the iPad into a number of musical instruments, a mixing and editing console and multitrack audio recorder. When the iPad is running the guitar app, it's a virtual guitar device. Not a computer running a virtual guitar program, but that device, entire.I think this is another point of differentiation between the iPad and the competition. With Honeycomb, Google seems to be interested in making tablets more desktop computer like, with lots of persistent system cruft and and an emphasis on flashy app switching and desktop behaviors.
Apple has a different idea about tablets, that they are properly chimera-- that the combination of being basically all screen and a touch interface allows the iPad to become entirely different things in succession, not one thing running a number of apps within a computer context.
These are two of the most cogent posts I've seen, regarding the superiority of iOS over Android.
You should be writing ad[dabox] copy for Apple.
When you really think about it -- those social, calendar, email, mms, Facebook, etc. Widgets are "nice to have" shortcuts. They are useful, but, more than likely, you will need to invoke the app to take any meaningful action.
I am retired now, but used to travel a lot, meet with different customers in different cities, etc.
Usually, I was mentally aware of my schedule, contacts, the weather, flights, etc. -- it's not like these changed every few minutes and required constant updates (notifications).
Just how many things does one person need to keep track of at any given instant?
Aside: A friend of mine does a weekly LiveCast, sheenamelwani.tv (sing, piano, talk, laugh). Her Dad was a guest on one show and Sheena, was teasing him for not following her on Twitter. His answer: "I am really not that interested in everything you do!"
The fascination with Widgits/Notifications reminds me of a new-hire salesman in the Las Vegas IBM office. Every day he would grab a yellow tablet and start making "call plans"
and "to do" lists
. Unfortunately, he never had enough time left to make the actual calls.
Similarly, I suspect, these Widgets/Notifications make you so productive and informed -- that you can't get any work done!