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

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

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:29pm

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


You really are just full of it...

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:29pm

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:29pm

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?

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.

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.

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

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!

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.


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.

You are such a positive guy.

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 like to think of it as being realistic.

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



Two more great reasons.




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







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.

You like to yeah.

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.

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.

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).

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."

Are you a fortune cookie writer?

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.


I have no evidence. You'll need to make up your own mind on that subject.

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.

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.

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:


Figure 1-1 iOS technology layers



iOS Technology Layers

iOs Media Layer Details Sorry no picture


and





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:


Low Level Virtual Machine


and


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;


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...

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dick - thanks for that, very interesting.

All the best.

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"


Of course you don't. Because you are so fucking special.

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





What is Proloquo2Go?

deleted

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.

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?

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.