BTW, where's Ireland? He keeps insisting that a tablet will run something he's been calling "Mac OS X Touch" or something. Where does that fit in? I've never been exactly clear what he imagines that to be, but I get the impression he's agitating for more Mac OS and less iPhone.
That's the impression I've been getting from him too.
Apple doesn't need an "iPhone OS" to have a device that has the same multitouch functionality as the iPhone. It's an "iPhone OS" because it's a phone not because it's touch. The touch tech can be ported to OS X and already is as we all know.
Could it be the other way around? The full touch capabilities although present in the iPhone first were meant for all desktop systems. iPhone is a handy testing ground for "iSlate" and all other machines.
Apple doesn't need an "iPhone OS" to have a device that has the same multitouch functionality as the iPhone. It's an "iPhone OS" because it's a phone not because it's touch. The touch tech can be ported to OS X and already is as we all know.
In fact I think it's the other way around. The full touch capabilities although present in the iPhone first were meant for all desktop systems. iPhone is a handy testing ground for "iSlate" and all other machines.
Hmmm, in terms of the naming conventions discussed earlier in the thread, the iPhone OS already is OS X. What you want is touch gestures baked into the "Mac OS."
I don't think that's going to happen, because as far as Apple is concerned, the "Mac" is by definition a fairly traditional desktop/laptop machine. Touch devices are the next thing, and the OS naming will follow suit-- all of it part of OS X, of course.
Apple doesn't need an "iPhone OS" to have a device that has the same multitouch functionality as the iPhone. It's an "iPhone OS" because it's a phone not because it's touch. The touch tech can be ported to OS X and already is as we all know.
Could it be the other way around? The full touch capabilities although present in the iPhone first were meant for all desktop systems. iPhone is a handy testing ground for "iSlate" and all other machines.
iPhone OS running on the iPod touch which is kind of punches a hole in that (phone) argument. It is named iPhone OS because the iPhone is the most prominent device currently using the OS.
While touch technology is coming into OSX, it is still primarily designed around a cursor. It seems much more natural for a tablet to use iPhone OS is its jumping off point. Furthermore, a tablet makes the perfect testbed for eventually bringing a lot more touch technology into OSX (or more likely OSXI) has it as a screen much more similar in size to existing macs.
I was suspicious of the lack of Iphone OS updates, it was odd. Now it is coming all together.
I really don't believe that rumour. Do we really expect iPhone OS 3.2 to be the tablet OS?
At most I'd expect iPhone OS 4.0. The other option is that Snow Leopard, iPhone OS 4.0, and iSlate OS 1.0 will share the same underlying foundations (and iSlate will look MUCH more like the iPhone OS than MacOSX).
Yes, but how about the easy UI AND the choice to run what apps you want? from wherever you want?
We can have cake and eat it too,
I used to think the original Mac should have been Apple IIe (2e) compatible. But there is value in forcing a new interface paradigm. Remember how many people stuck with DOS on Windows too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
One has to ask themselves, why hasn't any of the many great iPhone apps made it to OS X?
<snip>
It's because Apple is going to a closed UI for the masses, and OS X as we know it will be "for Pro's only" and eventually discontinued from lack of software availability in favor of the new closed iSlate/iPhone UI.
I'd like to see iPhone apps easily ported to the Mac.
But IF you are right and Apple truly wants to push a closed app store system, then that would almost guarantee that they'd make the iPhone apps run on OSX. Right? Yet you're saying that's why they don't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
No not now, first the iSlate takes over the MacBooks then the MBP's eventually, it could take years.
Do you really think the iSlate will be so successful that MacBooks and MBPs will really be unnecessary?
It would be disappointing to have a 10 inch screen which can't run at least Mail, iCal, Safari and a few more basic apps. And then I mean the Mac OS full featured versions. If I can run all apps such as iWork and iLife and maybe even Word, Excel and so on that would be a bonus.
Personally, I expect that the 10inch slate will run Mail, iCal, Safari, iWork, iLife....
It'll be versions specifically redesigned to work smoothly and effectively on a touch screen without keyboard.
If the current apps were just allowed on as is, we would miss our keyboard and mouse. That's no good for Apple.
Let's not fool ourselves here, folks. This "tablet" device is simply going to be a new "OOOO, AAAHH!" way for Apple to sell EVEN MORE apps and an extended array of iTunes content. The device has been designed to be nothing more than a conduit for more easy content revenue. Remember...this is all about delivering that "cheap for Apple" to produce content and producing the devices that will draw the customer in.
Let me sum it all up, the way I see it.
1) No recent updates to iPhone OS? Why? Too many references to the tablet that Apple didn't want leaked. Apple quietly holds off until the imminent "whole number" revision.
2) The tablet's OS is going to be a custom version of the iPhone OS - the OS will recognize which device it's being run on and either enable or disable features accordingly. The iPhone OS as it stands would not support all of the new gestures and capabilities of the new tablet - therefore a rewrite to support the tablet...viola...iPhone OS 4.0!
3) If you remember right, Apple just recently bought property and built a huge data center in North Carolina. Have you wondered what that is for? I guarantee it'll be tied to the content that will be offered up for this tablet as well as how it's delivered.
4) Revenue from iTunes and the App Store is just too damn easy for Apple. Let somebody else create the content, maintain control over that content, host the content on your own servers to help you maintain that control, create a new, super-hyped device to deliver the content to, take a 30% cut of everything...and then sit back and watch the money ROLL IN!!!
5) Apple knows that so far NetFlix is the dominant force in streaming video content into the home living room right now. Don't you think they want a piece of that? But we're talking Apple and Steve Jobs here. Apple doesn't want a piece of it...they want to DOMINATE in that market much like they eventually did with the music industry with the introduction of the iPod and iTunes. If anybody knows how to take complete, dominant control of an entire market in a short time frame - it's Steve Jobs. Apple will also be using their top position in digital content delivery to take advantage of the so-far mostly untapped market of interactive newspaper, magazine and "print media" subscriptions.
Huge East Coast data center + iTunes Store + App Store + LaLa acquisition + tablet = EXPANDED BUSINESS MODEL!
Older existing iPhones + brand new iPhone 4G + iPod touch + new iSlate device = LOTS OF WAYS TO CONSUME ALL OF THIS DIGITAL MEDIA!
Apple won't give the iSlate (or whatever it's going to be called) device a full blown version of OS X. No, Apple's too smart and business savvy for that. That's what they have the portable notebook products for! They're not going to eat into their own sales...they're going to CREATE new sales by expanding their portable product line with something they have more control over.
Is the picture starting to get a little clearer now?
Yes, but how about the easy UI AND the choice to run what apps you want? from wherever you want?
No body has explained to me what is wrong with the current selection of apps in app store. A hundred thousand apps is a lot to choose from.
Quote:
We can have cake and eat it too, it's just Apple isn't going to allow it, unless you jailbreak your iSlate and shut yourself out of any future updates/App Store.
Well you point out one problem with Jailbreaking. The fact is you can't have your cake and eat it too. Currently the security model doesn't allow for that. Mind you I'm not saying app store is perfect but the security model offered does encourage developers. One thing Apple could consider is a Python or Ruby interpeter. The idea being to allow for the install of slow apps to provide an alternative to the free apps on app store.
Quote:
One has to ask themselves, why hasn't any of the many great iPhone apps made it to OS X?
There are many answers to that question but I have a few for you. One is that app store is ideal for the small time developer. The effort required to market and distribute Mac OS/X apps is massive in comparison.
Likewise there are fewer losses associated with theft on the iPhone. The sad fact is many developers would loose a considerable amount of income to piracy of software on the Mac.
A third thing to consider is the vast difference in available hardware. Manybapps get tied to iPhone by virtue of the hardware they use.
That is three off the top of my head.
Quote:
Why hasn't Apple made a DA that runs the same Apps as the iPhone so you can use the same programs on your Mac and your iPhone?
Apple has made duo compilers before, for PPC and Intel, one click compiles for either, so it's no sweat for them and the App developers.
Technically you are probably right. However from the marketing and customer support stand point it would help if the two platforms where clearly distinguished.
Quote:
It's because Apple is going to a closed UI for the masses, and OS X as we know it will be "for Pro's only" and eventually discontinued from lack of software availability in favor of the new closed iSlate/iPhone UI.
It's the future and it's closed.
That is highly reactionary. First you don't have to buy Apple hardware. Second you don't know yet how closed the tablets archetecture is. Third computer users have vastly differet needs than tablet/iPhone users. Lastly I'd really like to see an app store for Mac OS/X. It would open the platform to small time developers, in a way that they could actually make money.
Well, having been viewing OS as the set of programs serving some use case and being generally accustomed to cross-platform development, I admittedly failed to realize the pretty much religious excitement towards ARM. Port is being under way since the iPod of forgotten generation.
No body has explained to me what is wrong with the current selection of apps in app store. A hundred thousand apps is a lot to choose from.
Have you ever used a fart app on the desktop? Or maybe a sound effects board? The apps are poor quality. They have maybe 10 PSP-quality games out of over 40,000 games.
Asking that question is like asking why people still go to the Cinema or watch TV when Youtube has hundreds of millions of videos. Not all content is created equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
One is that app store is ideal for the small time developer. The effort required to market and distribute Mac OS/X apps is massive in comparison.
Likewise there are fewer losses associated with theft on the iPhone. The sad fact is many developers would loose a considerable amount of income to piracy of software on the Mac.
The app store was actually noted as having a 75-90% piracy rate:
The competition to drive app prices to rock bottom means little profit per app and unless a small-time developer puts out some money on advertising, the app gets lost in a sea of 120,000+ apps that are impossible to navigate using Apple's tools.
Apple needs to have a premium app store section so we can at least see what apps the big developers are making. Apple simply charges $1,000 to host in that section and the problem is solved. If an app generates enough revenue from the junk pile, the developer can pay the $1,000 and move up to the premium section.
Super dubious numbers there, though, piling speculation on estimates on assumptions.
Quote:
The competition to drive app prices to rock bottom means little profit per app and unless a small-time developer puts out some money on advertising, the app gets lost in a sea of 120,000+ apps that are impossible to navigate using Apple's tools.
How is that different (or worse) than no App Store, and developers trying to generate interest on the internet at large? At least the App Store puts everything at one URL, from there you can do what everyone has always done when seeking new software-- pay attention to what's getting talked about, check out the offerings of developers you know and trust, take the advice of friends, look at reviews, etc.
I really don't get this "Because the App Store is big its impossible to find anything" idea. The internet is much bigger, but somehow we make do hunting down stuff.
Quote:
Apple needs to have a premium app store section so we can at least see what apps the big developers are making. Apple simply charges $1,000 to host in that section and the problem is solved. If an app generates enough revenue from the junk pile, the developer can pay the $1,000 and move up to the premium section.
Again, the "big developers" are likely to have channels outside the App Store to advertise their wares-- just like every other software developer not on the App Store does.
Super dubious numbers there, though, piling speculation on estimates on assumptions.
I think it's more that it paints the wrong picture. They are trying to say that it's a pirate's paradise instead of saying that the only people willing to use the apps are the ones who steal them because the apps aren't good enough that people want to buy them. Some people like to try before buying too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I really don't get this "Because the App Store is big its impossible to find anything" idea. The internet is much bigger, but somehow we make do hunting down stuff.
I counted under 5000 Mac apps on Apple's own site (for a 10 year old platform) and they are much easier to navigate. 127,000 widget-like apps for a 3 year old platform just isn't workable.
I've given up on the App Store because I'm not really looking for a particular app. I want to see what apps are on there and getting good reviews but you can't search the highest rated apps. Apple continually recommends apps that are rated 2/5. Why would an app be listed as popular if it's rated 2/5? Surely it means that loads of people are downloading it and think it's junk so they shouldn't recommend it.
I can't find new apps because the old ones persist in the top ratings simply because that's the only list most people can reach.
The App Store won't be a strength for the slate unless Apple make it work better.
I think it's more that it paints the wrong picture. They are trying to say that it's a pirate's paradise instead of saying that the only people willing to use the apps are the ones who steal them because the apps aren't good enough that people want to buy them. Some people like to try before buying too.
Heh. No offense, but that seems like an unwarranted conclusion perched atop the pile of dubious premises.
Quote:
I counted under 5000 Mac apps on Apple's own site (for a 10 year old platform) and they are much easier to navigate. 127,000 widget-like apps for a 3 year old platform just isn't workable.
But no one, that I know of, would limit themselves to searching Apple's site to identify software that they might be interested in running on their Mac.
Quote:
I've given up on the App Store because I'm not really looking for a particular app. I want to see what apps are on there and getting good reviews but you can't search the highest rated apps. Apple continually recommends apps that are rated 2/5. Why would an app be listed as popular if it's rated 2/5? Surely it means that loads of people are downloading it and think it's junk so they shouldn't recommend it.
I can't find new apps because the old ones persist in the top ratings simply because that's the only list most people can reach.
The App Store won't be a strength for the slate unless Apple make it work better.
I guess we just have different shopping habits, then. I don't go onto Amazon with no particular product in mind and get frustrated because I can't figure out what's good, or because there are too many items. I generally have some idea of what I'm looking for, and use external sources to narrow it down. Then I can do a pretty specific search.
Inform us as to what changed to make typing on a 10? piece of glass with either your hands held out in front or bending over to look at half a display that isn?t covered by a virtual keyboard more viable than a physical keyboard in a natural palm resting position with the larger than 10? display set naturally in front of our eyes?
It's funny that you ask that. After all this speculation, and people buying into it before they even know what it is, I've been pondering this very question. The only way I can get my brain to stop going around in circles is to tell myself that Apple has figured out how to make the tablet form factor work differently.
Some of my brain's proposed solutions:
Interactive 3D holograms hovering above the surface of the tablet, and you just leave it laying horizontally on a table.
Eye position sensors and blink to click...
Shake it and hope it does what you want (like a Magic 8 ball.)
Seriously though, I think they have figured it out with touch gestures and the iPhone OS. I also have a feeling that there will be position sensors and gesture abilities on the back of the device as well as the front. I still don't see how this will be more efficient than using a laptop for office-type tasks, so I disagree with MacTripper about the MB replacement projections.
The only way I can get my brain to stop going around in circles is to tell myself that Apple has figured out how to make the tablet form factor work differently.
It's likely that most tablet designers have, until now, taken the idea of a regular laptop and looked at how to squeeze those functions into the tablet form factor. This has resulted in a general mismatch of appropriate form for the desired task, and often directly the wrong software for the tablet.
Apple could, through stepping back significantly, ask the question "what would work well on a tablet?". They're good at that question.
Perhaps they have 3 lists:
"1. perfect use of a tablet!",
"2. yeah, that's doable", and
"3. NO, this needs a laptop!".
Previous tablets have worked for all 3 classifications. Apple MIGHT just do #1 brilliantly, and prevent #2 or #3.... a very focussed tablet. They may focus on #1 but allow #2... and they'll still get criticism for not doing #3.
My guess - if you need to use the onscreen keyboard more than 20% of your usage time, then it's not a product Apple wants to release.
Quote:
Seriously though, I think they have figured it out with touch gestures and the iPhone OS. <snip> I still don't see how this will be more efficient than using a laptop for office-type tasks....
If they ask the right question (and throw out things liberally) they can come up with quite a good, unique answer.
And I think you're right that for the "office type" tasks as we understand them, this WILL NOT be more efficient. Unless there are entirely different ways of doing office tasks that we haven't thought of. (Quick, we need a productivity expert who retired before computers set our expectations!)
Comments
BTW, where's Ireland? He keeps insisting that a tablet will run something he's been calling "Mac OS X Touch" or something. Where does that fit in? I've never been exactly clear what he imagines that to be, but I get the impression he's agitating for more Mac OS and less iPhone.
That's the impression I've been getting from him too.
Out of control? That doesn't sound good.
Some how I envision Regis Philbin gesticulating wildly over his iSlate. Eeewwww.
Interesting rumor...
Apple seems to bet on the iPhone / App Store momentum.
More thoughts on my blog.
State your thoughts here.
Dual A9 processor + video conferencing + multi-tasking + solid input system + new tablet OS = Instant purchase
plus:
blu-ray
firewire
matte screen
Could it be the other way around? The full touch capabilities although present in the iPhone first were meant for all desktop systems. iPhone is a handy testing ground for "iSlate" and all other machines.
Apple doesn't need an "iPhone OS" to have a device that has the same multitouch functionality as the iPhone. It's an "iPhone OS" because it's a phone not because it's touch. The touch tech can be ported to OS X and already is as we all know.
In fact I think it's the other way around. The full touch capabilities although present in the iPhone first were meant for all desktop systems. iPhone is a handy testing ground for "iSlate" and all other machines.
Hmmm, in terms of the naming conventions discussed earlier in the thread, the iPhone OS already is OS X. What you want is touch gestures baked into the "Mac OS."
I don't think that's going to happen, because as far as Apple is concerned, the "Mac" is by definition a fairly traditional desktop/laptop machine. Touch devices are the next thing, and the OS naming will follow suit-- all of it part of OS X, of course.
Out of control? That doesn't sound good.
That tablet sounds "BAD"!!
Apple doesn't need an "iPhone OS" to have a device that has the same multitouch functionality as the iPhone. It's an "iPhone OS" because it's a phone not because it's touch. The touch tech can be ported to OS X and already is as we all know.
Could it be the other way around? The full touch capabilities although present in the iPhone first were meant for all desktop systems. iPhone is a handy testing ground for "iSlate" and all other machines.
iPhone OS running on the iPod touch which is kind of punches a hole in that (phone) argument. It is named iPhone OS because the iPhone is the most prominent device currently using the OS.
While touch technology is coming into OSX, it is still primarily designed around a cursor. It seems much more natural for a tablet to use iPhone OS is its jumping off point. Furthermore, a tablet makes the perfect testbed for eventually bringing a lot more touch technology into OSX (or more likely OSXI) has it as a screen much more similar in size to existing macs.
I was suspicious of the lack of Iphone OS updates, it was odd. Now it is coming all together.
I really don't believe that rumour. Do we really expect iPhone OS 3.2 to be the tablet OS?
At most I'd expect iPhone OS 4.0. The other option is that Snow Leopard, iPhone OS 4.0, and iSlate OS 1.0 will share the same underlying foundations (and iSlate will look MUCH more like the iPhone OS than MacOSX).
Yes, but how about the easy UI AND the choice to run what apps you want? from wherever you want?
We can have cake and eat it too,
I used to think the original Mac should have been Apple IIe (2e) compatible. But there is value in forcing a new interface paradigm. Remember how many people stuck with DOS on Windows too.
One has to ask themselves, why hasn't any of the many great iPhone apps made it to OS X?
<snip>
It's because Apple is going to a closed UI for the masses, and OS X as we know it will be "for Pro's only" and eventually discontinued from lack of software availability in favor of the new closed iSlate/iPhone UI.
I'd like to see iPhone apps easily ported to the Mac.
But IF you are right and Apple truly wants to push a closed app store system, then that would almost guarantee that they'd make the iPhone apps run on OSX. Right? Yet you're saying that's why they don't do that.
No not now, first the iSlate takes over the MacBooks then the MBP's eventually, it could take years.
Do you really think the iSlate will be so successful that MacBooks and MBPs will really be unnecessary?
It would be disappointing to have a 10 inch screen which can't run at least Mail, iCal, Safari and a few more basic apps. And then I mean the Mac OS full featured versions. If I can run all apps such as iWork and iLife and maybe even Word, Excel and so on that would be a bonus.
Personally, I expect that the 10inch slate will run Mail, iCal, Safari, iWork, iLife....
It'll be versions specifically redesigned to work smoothly and effectively on a touch screen without keyboard.
If the current apps were just allowed on as is, we would miss our keyboard and mouse. That's no good for Apple.
Let me sum it all up, the way I see it.
1) No recent updates to iPhone OS? Why? Too many references to the tablet that Apple didn't want leaked. Apple quietly holds off until the imminent "whole number" revision.
2) The tablet's OS is going to be a custom version of the iPhone OS - the OS will recognize which device it's being run on and either enable or disable features accordingly. The iPhone OS as it stands would not support all of the new gestures and capabilities of the new tablet - therefore a rewrite to support the tablet...viola...iPhone OS 4.0!
3) If you remember right, Apple just recently bought property and built a huge data center in North Carolina. Have you wondered what that is for? I guarantee it'll be tied to the content that will be offered up for this tablet as well as how it's delivered.
4) Revenue from iTunes and the App Store is just too damn easy for Apple. Let somebody else create the content, maintain control over that content, host the content on your own servers to help you maintain that control, create a new, super-hyped device to deliver the content to, take a 30% cut of everything...and then sit back and watch the money ROLL IN!!!
5) Apple knows that so far NetFlix is the dominant force in streaming video content into the home living room right now. Don't you think they want a piece of that? But we're talking Apple and Steve Jobs here. Apple doesn't want a piece of it...they want to DOMINATE in that market much like they eventually did with the music industry with the introduction of the iPod and iTunes. If anybody knows how to take complete, dominant control of an entire market in a short time frame - it's Steve Jobs. Apple will also be using their top position in digital content delivery to take advantage of the so-far mostly untapped market of interactive newspaper, magazine and "print media" subscriptions.
Huge East Coast data center + iTunes Store + App Store + LaLa acquisition + tablet = EXPANDED BUSINESS MODEL!
Older existing iPhones + brand new iPhone 4G + iPod touch + new iSlate device = LOTS OF WAYS TO CONSUME ALL OF THIS DIGITAL MEDIA!
Apple won't give the iSlate (or whatever it's going to be called) device a full blown version of OS X. No, Apple's too smart and business savvy for that. That's what they have the portable notebook products for! They're not going to eat into their own sales...they're going to CREATE new sales by expanding their portable product line with something they have more control over.
Is the picture starting to get a little clearer now?
Yes, but how about the easy UI AND the choice to run what apps you want? from wherever you want?
No body has explained to me what is wrong with the current selection of apps in app store. A hundred thousand apps is a lot to choose from.
We can have cake and eat it too, it's just Apple isn't going to allow it, unless you jailbreak your iSlate and shut yourself out of any future updates/App Store.
Well you point out one problem with Jailbreaking. The fact is you can't have your cake and eat it too. Currently the security model doesn't allow for that. Mind you I'm not saying app store is perfect but the security model offered does encourage developers. One thing Apple could consider is a Python or Ruby interpeter. The idea being to allow for the install of slow apps to provide an alternative to the free apps on app store.
One has to ask themselves, why hasn't any of the many great iPhone apps made it to OS X?
There are many answers to that question but I have a few for you. One is that app store is ideal for the small time developer. The effort required to market and distribute Mac OS/X apps is massive in comparison.
Likewise there are fewer losses associated with theft on the iPhone. The sad fact is many developers would loose a considerable amount of income to piracy of software on the Mac.
A third thing to consider is the vast difference in available hardware. Manybapps get tied to iPhone by virtue of the hardware they use.
That is three off the top of my head.
Why hasn't Apple made a DA that runs the same Apps as the iPhone so you can use the same programs on your Mac and your iPhone?
Apple has made duo compilers before, for PPC and Intel, one click compiles for either, so it's no sweat for them and the App developers.
Technically you are probably right. However from the marketing and customer support stand point it would help if the two platforms where clearly distinguished.
It's because Apple is going to a closed UI for the masses, and OS X as we know it will be "for Pro's only" and eventually discontinued from lack of software availability in favor of the new closed iSlate/iPhone UI.
It's the future and it's closed.
That is highly reactionary. First you don't have to buy Apple hardware. Second you don't know yet how closed the tablets archetecture is. Third computer users have vastly differet needs than tablet/iPhone users. Lastly I'd really like to see an app store for Mac OS/X. It would open the platform to small time developers, in a way that they could actually make money.
Dave
iPhone OS
Mac OS
No body has explained to me what is wrong with the current selection of apps in app store. A hundred thousand apps is a lot to choose from.
Have you ever used a fart app on the desktop? Or maybe a sound effects board? The apps are poor quality. They have maybe 10 PSP-quality games out of over 40,000 games.
Asking that question is like asking why people still go to the Cinema or watch TV when Youtube has hundreds of millions of videos. Not all content is created equal.
One is that app store is ideal for the small time developer. The effort required to market and distribute Mac OS/X apps is massive in comparison.
Likewise there are fewer losses associated with theft on the iPhone. The sad fact is many developers would loose a considerable amount of income to piracy of software on the Mac.
The app store was actually noted as having a 75-90% piracy rate:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...e-opening.html
The competition to drive app prices to rock bottom means little profit per app and unless a small-time developer puts out some money on advertising, the app gets lost in a sea of 120,000+ apps that are impossible to navigate using Apple's tools.
Apple needs to have a premium app store section so we can at least see what apps the big developers are making. Apple simply charges $1,000 to host in that section and the problem is solved. If an app generates enough revenue from the junk pile, the developer can pay the $1,000 and move up to the premium section.
The app store was actually noted as having a 75-90% piracy rate:
[url
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/6988942/Apples-App-Store-has-lost-450-million-since-opening.html[/url]
Super dubious numbers there, though, piling speculation on estimates on assumptions.
The competition to drive app prices to rock bottom means little profit per app and unless a small-time developer puts out some money on advertising, the app gets lost in a sea of 120,000+ apps that are impossible to navigate using Apple's tools.
How is that different (or worse) than no App Store, and developers trying to generate interest on the internet at large? At least the App Store puts everything at one URL, from there you can do what everyone has always done when seeking new software-- pay attention to what's getting talked about, check out the offerings of developers you know and trust, take the advice of friends, look at reviews, etc.
I really don't get this "Because the App Store is big its impossible to find anything" idea. The internet is much bigger, but somehow we make do hunting down stuff.
Apple needs to have a premium app store section so we can at least see what apps the big developers are making. Apple simply charges $1,000 to host in that section and the problem is solved. If an app generates enough revenue from the junk pile, the developer can pay the $1,000 and move up to the premium section.
Again, the "big developers" are likely to have channels outside the App Store to advertise their wares-- just like every other software developer not on the App Store does.
Super dubious numbers there, though, piling speculation on estimates on assumptions.
I think it's more that it paints the wrong picture. They are trying to say that it's a pirate's paradise instead of saying that the only people willing to use the apps are the ones who steal them because the apps aren't good enough that people want to buy them. Some people like to try before buying too.
I really don't get this "Because the App Store is big its impossible to find anything" idea. The internet is much bigger, but somehow we make do hunting down stuff.
I counted under 5000 Mac apps on Apple's own site (for a 10 year old platform) and they are much easier to navigate. 127,000 widget-like apps for a 3 year old platform just isn't workable.
I've given up on the App Store because I'm not really looking for a particular app. I want to see what apps are on there and getting good reviews but you can't search the highest rated apps. Apple continually recommends apps that are rated 2/5. Why would an app be listed as popular if it's rated 2/5? Surely it means that loads of people are downloading it and think it's junk so they shouldn't recommend it.
I can't find new apps because the old ones persist in the top ratings simply because that's the only list most people can reach.
The App Store won't be a strength for the slate unless Apple make it work better.
I think it's more that it paints the wrong picture. They are trying to say that it's a pirate's paradise instead of saying that the only people willing to use the apps are the ones who steal them because the apps aren't good enough that people want to buy them. Some people like to try before buying too.
Heh. No offense, but that seems like an unwarranted conclusion perched atop the pile of dubious premises.
I counted under 5000 Mac apps on Apple's own site (for a 10 year old platform) and they are much easier to navigate. 127,000 widget-like apps for a 3 year old platform just isn't workable.
But no one, that I know of, would limit themselves to searching Apple's site to identify software that they might be interested in running on their Mac.
I've given up on the App Store because I'm not really looking for a particular app. I want to see what apps are on there and getting good reviews but you can't search the highest rated apps. Apple continually recommends apps that are rated 2/5. Why would an app be listed as popular if it's rated 2/5? Surely it means that loads of people are downloading it and think it's junk so they shouldn't recommend it.
I can't find new apps because the old ones persist in the top ratings simply because that's the only list most people can reach.
The App Store won't be a strength for the slate unless Apple make it work better.
I guess we just have different shopping habits, then. I don't go onto Amazon with no particular product in mind and get frustrated because I can't figure out what's good, or because there are too many items. I generally have some idea of what I'm looking for, and use external sources to narrow it down. Then I can do a pretty specific search.
Inform us as to what changed to make typing on a 10? piece of glass with either your hands held out in front or bending over to look at half a display that isn?t covered by a virtual keyboard more viable than a physical keyboard in a natural palm resting position with the larger than 10? display set naturally in front of our eyes?
It's funny that you ask that. After all this speculation, and people buying into it before they even know what it is, I've been pondering this very question. The only way I can get my brain to stop going around in circles is to tell myself that Apple has figured out how to make the tablet form factor work differently.
Some of my brain's proposed solutions:
- Interactive 3D holograms hovering above the surface of the tablet, and you just leave it laying horizontally on a table.
- Eye position sensors and blink to click...
- Shake it and hope it does what you want (like a Magic 8 ball.)
Seriously though, I think they have figured it out with touch gestures and the iPhone OS. I also have a feeling that there will be position sensors and gesture abilities on the back of the device as well as the front. I still don't see how this will be more efficient than using a laptop for office-type tasks, so I disagree with MacTripper about the MB replacement projections.The only way I can get my brain to stop going around in circles is to tell myself that Apple has figured out how to make the tablet form factor work differently.
It's likely that most tablet designers have, until now, taken the idea of a regular laptop and looked at how to squeeze those functions into the tablet form factor. This has resulted in a general mismatch of appropriate form for the desired task, and often directly the wrong software for the tablet.
Apple could, through stepping back significantly, ask the question "what would work well on a tablet?". They're good at that question.
Perhaps they have 3 lists:
"1. perfect use of a tablet!",
"2. yeah, that's doable", and
"3. NO, this needs a laptop!".
Previous tablets have worked for all 3 classifications. Apple MIGHT just do #1 brilliantly, and prevent #2 or #3.... a very focussed tablet. They may focus on #1 but allow #2... and they'll still get criticism for not doing #3.
My guess - if you need to use the onscreen keyboard more than 20% of your usage time, then it's not a product Apple wants to release.
Seriously though, I think they have figured it out with touch gestures and the iPhone OS. <snip> I still don't see how this will be more efficient than using a laptop for office-type tasks....
If they ask the right question (and throw out things liberally) they can come up with quite a good, unique answer.
And I think you're right that for the "office type" tasks as we understand them, this WILL NOT be more efficient. Unless there are entirely different ways of doing office tasks that we haven't thought of. (Quick, we need a productivity expert who retired before computers set our expectations!)