or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Steve Jobs was ‘annoyed and depressed’ over initial reaction to iPad launch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs was ‘annoyed and depressed’ over initial reaction to iPad launch - Page 5

post #161 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post

As for the "big iPod" comment. That is such a stupid criticism. That's like saying a swimming pool is "just a big bathtub".

We already had both bathtubs and swimming pools, what Apple gave us was more like a swim spa.
post #162 of 220

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:29pm
post #163 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

The post I replied to was asking how many websites still use flash, not what other tasks I use my iPad for.

Okay - got that thanks. I did feel that you inference was a more general criticism, however, I am happy to concede.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Those are perhaps the most dangerous words ever posted here. I hope your health insurance is paid up, as I fear you may have an unfortunate accident when the regulars here dig up your home address after writing something so inflammatory.

Clearly you didn't get the memo, so let me save your bacon:

This is the post-PC era. All that stuff you do on your computer? You don't need to do that. That $3000 machine you just bought from Apple? Steve says you might as well throw it into the rubbish bin, it was all a ruse. All you need to do is get an iPad. If you think you need to do something the iPad doesn't support, you're such an isolated edge-case freak that you're probably just mistaken. Give it up. Toss out your Macs. Get an iPad.

You really are just full of it...
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #164 of 220

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:29pm
post #165 of 220

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:29pm
post #166 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

No doubt your interpretation interests you, and will be very welcome here in this tiny corner of the Internet in which any company but Apple is presumed to be incapable of doing anything that isn't somehow stupid.

But just as you read into Rubin's words what you wanted to hear based on your own preconceived notions, Android developers have a very different take on what Rubin was getting at there.

Smart dynamic UIs are a growing necessity in the Android world as that OS is used on an ever wider variety of form factors that cater to every taste.

This may not be obvious to those who only use iOS, since Apple provides only two form factors and if you prefer anything else Apple won't sell it to you.

Android smartphone sizes vary greatly, tablets are available in 7", 10", and others, and a new in-between screen size is in development now as well (5.6" IIRC).

It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.

What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.

But that doesn't sound very stupid of them so I don't expect anyone here to do anything but argue about it. Carry on...

so ... uh ... an ICS app on a 10" screen will be able to have more - not just reformatted - design elements in its single view - buttons, graphics, whatever - than that app when running on a 4" screen? or not?
post #167 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

No doubt your interpretation interests you, and will be very welcome here in this tiny corner of the Internet in which any company but Apple is presumed to be incapable of doing anything that isn't somehow stupid.

But just as you read into Rubin's words what you wanted to hear based on your own preconceived notions, Android developers have a very different take on what Rubin was getting at there.

Smart dynamic UIs are a growing necessity in the Android world as that OS is used on an ever wider variety of form factors that cater to every taste.

This may not be obvious to those who only use iOS, since Apple provides only two form factors and if you prefer anything else Apple won't sell it to you.

Android smartphone sizes vary greatly, tablets are available in 7", 10", and others, and a new in-between screen size is in development now as well (5.6" IIRC).

It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.

What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.

But that doesn't sound very stupid of them so I don't expect anyone here to do anything but argue about it. Carry on...

Surely you understand that Android device manufacturers are desperately trying to differentiate their product from the competition. They don't care less whether they give you a 3" or 5" smartphone screen or a 5" or 7" tablet screen, just so long as they can separate themselves from the pack. I say again, they only care about differentiating their product. Apple does not need to play that game. The iPad was and always will be, at the confluence of technology, cost and utility. Choice in this respect is a stupid, yes - stupid, concept. My guess is that, even if you understand this, you won't admit such and this is why the trolls are such a pain, they throw reason out of the window in order to criticise everything Apple. I encounter this daily, always have with Apple products, always will. Steve Jobs suffered small minds on a scale that would confound even the most able, intelligent observer here.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #168 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's the full solution - apparently you're not able to understand.

You use the iPad for tasks that it is suitable for. Use the computer for tasks that the iPad is not suitable for. What part of that is beyond your comprehension?

You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.
post #169 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I care about his opinion. I value all opinions.

There are lots of opinions, but most of them are worthless.
post #170 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol View Post

You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.

Are you sure? Certainly it can't be both a tablet and a computer, can it?! Are you playing some sort of word game with us? Oh, you sly dog!
post #171 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Those are perhaps the most dangerous words ever posted here. I hope your health insurance is paid up, as I fear you may have an unfortunate accident when the regulars here dig up your home address after writing something so inflammatory.

Clearly you didn't get the memo, so let me save your bacon:

This is the post-PC era. All that stuff you do on your computer? You don't need to do that. That $3000 machine you just bought from Apple? Steve says you might as well throw it into the rubbish bin, it was all a ruse. All you need to do is get an iPad. If you think you need to do something the iPad doesn't support, you're such an isolated edge-case freak that you're probably just mistaken. Give it up. Toss out your Macs. Get an iPad.

Where did anyone (much less Apple) make the claims above?

"Post-PC era does not mean that no one needs computers. In fact, Jobs specifically stated that PCs would be around forever. Remember the car vs truck analogy?

But for many people, an iPad will be able to take over many of the functions that their PC used to do. Essentially, instead of a home with 5 computers, a home might have 1 computer and 4 iPads. Or 2 and 3, perhaps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol View Post

You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.

What I use my Mac for is irrelevant. The point which you're so diligently trying to obfuscate is that for many people an iPad is all they need. For many households, an iPad can replace one or more of their computers. Or, perhaps more commonly, the iPad will be used to supplement the existing computers. They're different things, but that doesn't mean that some tasks can't be done several different ways.

When I need to go to work, I can drive an 18 wheeler, a school bus, a car, an SUV, a bicycle, or a dog sled. Any one of them will get me to work. Does that mean that they're the same thing? Obviously not.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #172 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There are lots of opinions, but most of them are worthless.

You are such a positive guy.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #173 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chokehold View Post

The size difference is what makes them different from a functional standpoint, phone functionality aside of course. Early on, many people just couldn't imagine what they would use a tablet for and the prospect of an Apple device actually failing was obviously exciting to the media. What a great story that would have made and they all would have been in on the beginning. Instead, they only demonstrated the lack of imagination that so seriously hampers our media today.


What if the standard computer screen was 11 inches, like on the MBA.

And then Apple came out with the iMac with a gigantic 27 inch screen.

Would you say that the size difference makes them different from a functional standpoint? What if neither of them could open multiple windows or run the program of your choice in the background? Would they be different from a functional standpoint? Or just different sizes?

If different sized Macs are not different in functionality, why are different sized slab computers different in functionality?

I was disappointed with the decision to use iOS in the iPad.

Me, I'd rather have a bunch of cheap web-browsing tablets laying around the house, ready to be grabbed and taken on the bus, to the throne, to the couch, or whatever, -or- a device which is a real computer, but portable. The big iTouch doesn't really do it for me.

If OSX were modular, so that portions of it could be left out, due to the RAM and CPU constraints, I think that would be superior to using a cellphone OS.
post #174 of 220
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #175 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

What if the standard computer screen was 11 inches, like on the MBA.

And then Apple came out with the iMac with a gigantic 27 inch screen.

Would you say that the size difference makes them different from a functional standpoint? What if neither of them could open multiple windows or run the program of your choice in the background? Would they be different from a functional standpoint? Or just different sizes?

If different sized Macs are not different in functionality, why are different sized slab computers different in functionality?

I was disappointed with the decision to use iOS in the iPad.

Me, I'd rather have a bunch of cheap web-browsing tablets laying around the house, ready to be grabbed and taken on the bus, to the throne, to the couch, or whatever, -or- a device which is a real computer, but portable. The big iTouch doesn't really do it for me.

If OSX were modular, so that portions of it could be left out, due to the RAM and CPU constraints, I think that would be superior to using a cellphone OS.

Obviously, you are not representative of the market as a whole. Apple has clearly demonstrated that they know what they're doing. What's the evidence that your 'thoughts' are any more than the inane ramblings of a troll?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #176 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

You are such a positive guy.

I like to think of it as being realistic.
post #177 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsands1 View Post

You are completely short minded and don't see the real point of the iPad. You want a "real os" on it. Why? So you can put some stupid program on it you downloaded from the internet?

That would be one excellent reason for a "real os".


Quote:

Or run "Real Photoshop"? Or have Flash?!

Two more great reasons.



Quote:

The iPad put those few tasks into the hands of the common man...grandparents, children, aunts and uncles who have no idea how to use a Mac..

I am none of those people, so maybe that is why I would love a tablet computer with a "real os".





Quote:

Thats why I love Apple so much. They make computing fun for the rest of us....not some stupid geeky tech boy who enjoys spending their days twiddling around with an OS to get it to "work for him" or to "customize it". People like you don't value your time on this earth. I'd much rather have a beautiful device that does exactly what I need it to do..so I can get on with living my life and enjoying that time with my friends and family.


You and the "99.9%" are not "the rest of us". You and the 99.9% are "them". Apple is no longer focused on the rest of us. Their focus is on the great mass of unsophisticated, naive consumers, "the common man...grandparents, children, aunts and uncles who have no idea how" to use complex (or even semi-dumbed-down) tech.

I have little use for a dumbed down tablet, unless it is so cheap and rugged and portable as to be semi-disposable.

I'd love to see, for example, a $49.00, 7 inch tablet that runs Chrome OS. Or an $830 tablet that has the functionality of a laptop. I don't see buying an expensive, relatively fragile tablet that does less than a cellphone.
post #178 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I like to think of it as being realistic.

You like to yeah.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #179 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.

What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.

To me, that is normal. Different computers have different sized screens.

What is it about iOS which makes it necessary to always use a limited amount of form factors, and necessary for devs to rewrite software for different form factors?

IOW, what is this "resolution independence" I hear so much about? Isn't that the way normal computers work? Why is it something new or unusual or special in any way?

I think that this might factor into the multitasking discussion. If you can only have one window on the screen at a time, you cannot adjust the window to the optimal size. If only one window, background programs may as well be inoperative, because you cannot use them anyhow.

IMO, the lack of multiple windows on current tablets is a big factor which argues against them being more than glorified toys.
post #180 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

so ... uh ... an ICS app on a 10" screen will be able to have more - not just reformatted - design elements in its single view - buttons, graphics, whatever - than that app when running on a 4" screen? or not?

Is there any need for the UI to be different on a 11 inch screen and a 30 inch screen?

Think resizeable windows, multiple open programs, and then you will start to appreciate a bigger screen. But when the bigger screen acts just the same as a tiny 3.5 inch screen, the capabilities are not fully exploited.

Hence my disappointment with using a cellphone OS. I really expected something with the capabilities of OSX and the simplicity of iOS, but instead, all we got was a bigger screen and an OS designed for a tiny screen.
post #181 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

To me, that is normal. Different computers have different sized screens.

What is it about iOS which makes it necessary to always use a limited amount of form factors, and necessary for devs to rewrite software for different form factors?

IOW, what is this "resolution independence" I hear so much about? Isn't that the way normal computers work? Why is it something new or unusual or special in any way?

I think that this might factor into the multitasking discussion. If you can only have one window on the screen at a time, you cannot adjust the window to the optimal size. If only one window, background programs may as well be inoperative, because you cannot use them anyhow.

IMO, the lack of multiple windows on current tablets is a big factor which argues against them being more than glorified toys.

From my understanding, Android has always had resolution independence for the exact reasons Macrulez pointed out. Android was created to accommodate varying screen sizes from the get go. If you have ever used an iOS phone app on the iPad, you'd know there is a BIG difference. The app is usually a pixelated mess.

As for using a different UI from phone to tablet, I like it because accommodating for more screen real estate makes it much easier (IMHO).
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #182 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

I encounter this daily, always have with Apple products, always will. Steve Jobs suffered small minds on a scale that would confound even the most able, intelligent observer here.

It was a noble endeavor, being an Apple fan.

But now, Apple is like, totally mainstream. It is of interest to Grandma, and is the first choice of the technophobe.

Back when Apple was some kind of strange, niche brand, you'd daily encounter the ignorant masses questioning your "strange" choice, but not anymore. Now you are lauded as an everyman.

Apple makes devices for the small minds now. Grandma, Uncle Pete, even your brain-damaged cousin can pick up an iPad and have fun with it.

Instead of being some kind of geeky tech-head with a Mac, Apple fans can now show off how "Apple products are so easy, even a cave-man can do it."
post #183 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There are lots of opinions, but most of them are worthless.

Are you a fortune cookie writer?
post #184 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Obviously, you are not representative of the market as a whole. Apple has clearly demonstrated that they know what they're doing.

I agree with both statements.

I do not represent the market as a whole - I am one of "The rest of us", somebody who "Think[s] Different" from the masses.

Apple clearly knows what it is doing. It is giving up on making niche products for geeks. Instead, they are making lowest-common-denominator products for the mass market. They learned a lot with the iPod. They basically took over a market and dominated the hell out of it, giving the common kid (or perhaps, an overlap of most of the most common kids) pretty much everything they might want. They didn't include much for the niche guys - they instead concentrated on the great mass of common consumers.

They know exactly what they are doing. And they are having GREAT success in making drop-dead simple devices for the mass market. AFAIK, they are doing better than anybody has ever done in consumer electronics.

But I'm not representative of the market as a whole. The things I like/enjoy rarely become mainstream. I think different, and so I am disappointed that the iPad uses a cellphone OS.

Hell, I didn't buy a CD player until maybe 1990 or so, when I got a great deal from a client who manufactured them, NAD. Back then, they didn't sound as good as vinyl, and they were much more limited in the selection of music compared with vinyl. But that didn't stop the common consumer from choosing CDs overwhelmingly.

Not me. I valued quality sound and musical selection, but I gave in when they became ubiquitous.

When limited-capability tablets become ubiquitous, I'll likely buy one. In the meantime, I'll wish that they could do what laptops can do.

Quote:
What's the evidence that your 'thoughts' are any more than the inane ramblings of a troll?

I have no evidence. You'll need to make up your own mind on that subject.
post #185 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Instead of being some kind of geeky tech-head with a Mac, Apple fans can now show off how "Apple products are so easy, even a cave-man can do it."

If being niche is your thing, why don't you head off to Ubuntu land or some other strange Linux incarnation? Why continue to bore us all with your idea of what Apple should be?

Frankly, it was being niche that got Apple into a world of trouble in the late 90s, and meant that it had to be rescued by NeXT and Jobs.

Been there, done that. Thanks.
post #186 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

But I'm not representative of the market as a whole. The things I like/enjoy rarely become mainstream. I think different, and so I am disappointed that the iPad uses a cellphone OS.

You do realise that the iPad and iPhone are running OS X, right? Perhaps you do, perhaps you don't, however, that probably doesn't matter, you'll just bully readers regardless with b.s.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #187 of 220
For those claiming that iOS is a phone OS and not a real OS...

If you spend a little time, and do some research, you will find:

Quote:
The kernel in iOS is based on a variant of the same basic Mach kernel that is found in Mac OS X. On top of this kernel are the layers of services that are used to implement applications on the platform. Figure 1-1 shows a high-level overview of these layers.

Figure 1-1 iOS technology layers



iOS Technology Layers

iOs Media Layer Details Sorry no picture


and

Quote:
Media Layer

The graphics and multimedia capabilities of Mac OS X set it apart from other operating systems. The core graphics technology enables advanced compositing operations with support for hardware-based rendering on supported graphics hardware. On top of this core technology are an array of other technologies that make it possible to draw 2D, 3D, and video-based content. The system also provides advanced audio systems for the generation, playback, and manipulation of multichannel audio.




Mac OS X Technology Overview


The images don't offer a direct comparison, because they were written by different people at different points in time.

But you will find that:

1) iOS and Mac OS X apps are structured/implemented much in the same way -- with allowances for hardware, the UI Layer and the desired UX

2) any Mac OS X capabilities that make sense on the iDevices have been migrated to iOS.

3) there are many OS X capabilities that have been migrated that are not currently used on iDevices.

4) some Mac OS X capabilities have been reimplemented the "right way" for iOS then migrated back into the Mac OS X mothership

5) some capabilities were implemented first in iOS, then migrated to Mac OS X


What you have is a common structure and common implementation of capabilities on the two OS variants: Mac OS X and iOS.

These two OS variants are continuing to evolve and continuing to become more alike.


Then, there is this:

Quote:
The Low Level Virtual Machine (LLVM) is a compiler infrastructure, written in C++, which is designed for compile-time, link-time, run-time, and "idle-time" optimization of programs written in arbitrary programming languages. Originally implemented for C/C++, the language-agnostic design (and the success) of LLVM has since spawned a wide variety of front ends, including Objective-C, Fortran, Ada, Haskell, Java bytecode, Python, Ruby, ActionScript, GLSL, Clang, and others.

Low Level Virtual Machine


and

Quote:
Apple LLVM Compiler 2.0

Apple LLVM is the next-generation compiler technology powering Xcode 4. Based on the vibrant open source LLVM.org project led by Apple engineers, the Apple LLVM compiler is modern thinking, tuned for iPhone, iPad, and the multi-core Mac.

Apple LLVM Compiler 2.0


With an ever diminishing number of exceptions, iOS apps already run on Mac OS X -- using the iPhone/iPad simulator. Currently, this requires a simple compile targeting: an iDevice or the Simulator.

With the trending towards LLVM, I suspect that in the near future -- it won't require a compile for any specific Apple OS or device.


Back to the current state of the art.

Here's how you migrate Mac OS X desktop apps to iOS iDevice apps;

Quote:
Migrating from Cocoa

If you are a Cocoa developer, many of the frameworks available in iOS should already seem familiar to you. The basic technology stack in iOS is identical in many respects to the one in Mac OS X. Despite the similarities, however, the frameworks in iOS are not exactly the same as their Mac OS X counterparts. This chapter describes the differences you may encounter as you create iOS applications and explains how you can adjust to some of the more significant differences.

Migrating from Cocoa




Bringing it all together -- the final reel!


Many think that the post-pc era involves migrating a lot of activities and capabilities from the desktop to mobile smart phones, tablets... and yet to be announced classes of devices.


Apple is the only company that has an OS that runs on desktop-class machines and mobile smart-phone-class/tablet-class machines.


Google/Rim/HP/Nokia et al have no viable desktop OS or repository of desktop apps to migrate from (or to)

As such, these companies OSes: Android, QNX, WebOS, Nokia/Whatever are islands unto themselves.

Where are the desktop OS APIs and Frameworks and desktop Word-Processing, Spread-Sheet, or whatever apps that can be migrated to an Android, QNX, WebOS tablet or smart phone???

They simply don't exist!

Do you believe that these companies are going to hire hundreds of engineers, spend the thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars to flesh out their limited smart phone OSes to where they are capable of running desktop-class apps on a tablet?

Even if they do that where will they get the desktop apps?


MicroSoft has a desktop OS and a repository of desktop apps. However they do not have an equivalent OS running on mobile smart-phone-class/tablet-class machines.

While Windows phone 7 sounds like Windows 7, the similarity ends there.

MS claims they are going to resolve this, sometime in late 2012 with Windows 8.

But, AFAICT, there will be 2 different flavors of Windows 8 -- one for the desktop and one for mobile smart-phone-class/tablet-class machines.

The desktop Windows 8 will be able to run both desktop-class apps and mobile smart-phone-class/tablet-class apps.

The converse is not true. I doubt that you will see Word, Excel or PowerPoint running on a Windows 8 tablet -- rather you will see a Windows 8 tablet access these apps on a cloud server.


By contrast, some of Apple's desktop apps have been modified slightly and now run entirely on the iPhone and iPad (with some minor differences). These apps include: Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie...
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #188 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

If being niche is your thing, why don't you head off to Ubuntu land or some other strange Linux incarnation? Why continue to bore us all with your idea of what Apple should be?

Niche isn't "my thing". It just sometimes works out that way. I have far-ranging interests, and many times they overlap with the mainstream. Most often, they don't.

I'm not really into playing with new OSs or exploring software for the sheer enjoyment of doing that. I used to be, back in the early 1990's, but not so much these days.


Quote:
Frankly, it was being niche that got Apple into a world of trouble in the late 90s, and meant that it had to be rescued by NeXT and Jobs.

Been there, done that. Thanks.

My point exactly. Apple learned from both that, and their iPod success. Apple is now as lowest-common-denominator as possible, and rapidly becoming more so.

And that, in terms of a tablet computer, does not interest me. In fact, it doesn't interest me in terms of most tech. Even back in the day, I appreciated what Bang & Olufsen was doing, and I even bought one of their products (a turntable with a MSRP of $1,000.00), but the whole dumbed-down ecosystem was not of interest to me.

Yeah - I think different. Not usually the same as the mass market. I usually find something that suits me more closely than the mass market choice.

These days, I'm watching the tablet market with anticipation and curiosity, hoping that somebody releases something that I am tickled by. A ChromeBook-type tablet for cheap would do it. A mainstream OS tablet which is as capable as a regular laptop would do it too - so I am hoping Windows 8 will be good. Even a cheap limited-use, medium sized tablet would be OK - I'm thinking that if it were easy to rip out everything from a Kindle Fire and simply install ICS, I'd likely go for that.

I've never been an early adopter, nor have I ever been a mainstream consumer.
post #189 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

You do realise that the iPad and iPhone are running OS X, right? Perhaps you do, perhaps you don't, however, that probably doesn't matter, you'll just bully readers regardless with b.s.

I realize that they use some of the same code.

And you realize that is irrelevant, given that OSX apps cannot run on an iPad.
post #190 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

That $3000 machine you just bought from Apple? Steve says you might as well throw it into the rubbish bin, it was all a ruse. All you need to do is get an iPad

Steve Jobs would never, ever, ever say that. Rubbish bin? Steve, being the California progressive hippie that he was, would ask you to take that $3000 machine you just bough from Apple and return it to the Apple Store for recycling. Please, if you're going to make shit up about Apple, do it with verisimilitude. Thank you for your attention.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #191 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

IOW, what is this "resolution independence" I hear so much about? Isn't that the way normal computers work? Why is it something new or unusual or special in any way?

What it means is that a unit object is the same physical size on all screens it is shown on, regardless of resolution. At least that's one use for it. That software shows the same objects the same size on iPhone 4 and previous screens of half the resolution is a demonstration of this idea. Without RI, objects would be displayed at half the size. In other uses, you can scale up objects without decreasing the visual quality. Think someone with a visual or motor control impairment, or to use a device from farther away.

Mac OS X has this capability, but it was only a developer curiosity because it isn't officially supported, at least not yet.
post #192 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

I realize that they use some of the same code.

And you realize that is irrelevant, given that OSX apps cannot run on an iPad.

I do not think that you had any idea or you would, or should, have been circumspect.

I run Word on my Mac under OS X. It isn't the Word that is run under Windows but I still call it Word. I run Pages under OS X and iOS. They aren't exactly the same but have the same feel. The same for Keynote and Numbers. They both run iTunes, an App store and cloud services. Safari and Mail too.

Pick holes in the necessary differences if you want, your argument was still b.s.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #193 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

For those claiming that iOS is a phone OS and not a real OS...

By contrast, some of Apple's desktop apps have been modified slightly and now run entirely on the iPhone and iPad (with some minor differences). These apps include: Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie...

Dick - thanks for that, very interesting.

All the best.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #194 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Apple is no longer focused on the rest of us. Their focus is on the great mass of unsophisticated, naive consumers, "the common man...grandparents, children, aunts and uncles who have no idea how" to use complex (or even semi-dumbed-down) tech..

So you mean the 'common', 'dumbed down', doctors and artists? Or musicians, airline pilots and politicians? Perhaps you mean Chief executives or teachers? Small businesses? Sales forces? Older folk? Kids? And everyone else...in between. ie "The rest of us"

Quote:
I have little use for a dumbed down tablet,

Of course you don't. Because you are so fucking special.
post #195 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

So you mean the 'common', 'dumbed down', doctors and artists? Or musicians, airline pilots and politicians? Perhaps you mean Chief executives or teachers? Small businesses? Sales forces? Older folk? Kids? And everyone else...in between. ie "The rest of us"

And even the less fortunate who have difficulty making themselves understood:





What is Proloquo2Go?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #196 of 220
deleted
post #197 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

So you mean the 'common', 'dumbed down', doctors and artists? Or musicians, airline pilots and politicians? Perhaps you mean Chief executives or teachers? Small businesses? Sales forces? Older folk? Kids? And everyone else...in between. ie "The rest of us"



If "The rest of us" has always referred to "All of them", then I suppose the phrase is meaningless. But it never meant that.

And BTW, "dumbed down" did not refer to users. You knew that, however.
post #198 of 220


Some, here, construed this to mean "Never use anything bigger than your brain".


"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #199 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Some, here, construed this to mean "Never use anything bigger than your brain".

Then how do the phandroids get away with using a 4.3" phone?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #200 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdws View Post

"With Apple now being run by Tim Cook and the executive team Jobs assembled and orchestrated, it remains to be see if the media will continue to mock and denigrate its products while enthusiastically recommending alternatives that are almost always inferior, poorly designed and deeply flawed. "

You have GOT to be kidding.

People who have been around for longer than a few years will remember that every Apple launch of ANYTHING is greeted with squealing ecstasy from fanboys, magazine cover stories bordering on outright fellatio, and standing ovations from everyone else.

The idea that Apple is the underdog in the media coverage department is flat-out false.

Even Apple would agree with me -- and I'm a total fan.

What planet are you from? I remember a time when ever article written about Apple hade the word "beleaguered" in the first sentence. I remember their guesstimations on how many iMacs would be sold were just in the 10s of thousands becuse people wanted a floppy drive and colored plastics weren't considered professional. The company was lambasted for sticking with PowerPC and at the same time criticized for not putting the G5 in a powerbook.

Basically when the media says they think an Apple product is the best thing since sliced bread I buy it and love it. When they say it is horrible and full of shortcoming I buy and and I love it. Moral of the story.. they don't know what the F**k they are talking about.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Steve Jobs was ‘annoyed and depressed’ over initial reaction to iPad launch
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Steve Jobs was ‘annoyed and depressed’ over initial reaction to iPad launch