You might say it was a literary device. It's a touchy subject, I know, but given the clear desire for this to be an appliance which just, DOES (vacant stare), is that approach consistent with charging end-users for updates to its core. I don't mean to bring up MS, but even MS provide updates, and significant ones, at no extra cost.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you don't think Apple will provide free software updates to the OS? Because of course they will. Are you saying that Apple should never charge for any software dates ever? Because Microsoft of course does do that.
And what does any of that have to do "just does"?
Quote:
I would say that nearly all people keep their documents in a folder called documents. But I think that's a little simplistic. Nearly everyone I know has some kind of organisation system within that documents folder to provide some context. For most, it's a folder structure. Some might code file names in a way. Rarely have I found that people merely dump everything flat into one folder. I would be inclined to agree more with the person to whom you responded to than simply dismiss the idea that the people who create their own content must in some small way be responsible for its categorisation.
Most of the people I know dump most of their stuff flat, with a few cursory efforts to make a folder here and there with the broadest possible categories. They rarely go more than one level deep.
I suspect the future belongs to flat, metadata and search programs like Spotlight, particularly given that those "folders" are strung across multiple volumes on multiple machines. People can still be responsible for categorization, it just involves tagging.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you don't think Apple will provide free software updates to the OS? Because of course they will. Are you saying that Apple should never charge for any software dates ever? Because Microsoft of course does do that.
And what does any of that have to do "just does"?
You might remind ipod touch users how free their software updates were (without the SOX/GAAP BS which has been shown to be just that). FWIW, MS sold XP, then provided three significant service packs over its lifetime for exactly zero dollars.
It has everything to do with "just does". You might say Apple is pitching this as an alternative to cruddy desktop OS cast into a small form factor. That it's computing with an automatic transmission (thanks daringfireball). Many people on Apple fora are saying this. I don't doubt for a second that on the face of it that it's a compelling proposition, but as a box that just does, should it not continue to "just do" for at least as long as the device is expect to perform the function?
Quote:
Most of the people I know dump most of their stuff flat, with a few cursory efforts to make a folder here and there with the broadest possible categories. They rarely go more than one level deep.
I guess the stereotype of Mac users being design conscious, skivvy wearing, democratic, OCD types is only skin deep. Please don't take offence. On lifehacker, they do galleries of mac users' work environments. If what you say is true, everything under the minimalistic, calm facade is an absolute shitstorm.
Quote:
I suspect the future belongs to flat, metadata and search programs like Spotlight, particularly given that those "folders" are strung across multiple volumes on multiple machines. People can still be responsible for categorization, it just involves tagging.
As an honest question, does any of what has been discussed address any attempt to categorise a users data on the iPad?
............... and this just in ........................
"4 hours ago
We can also confirm that iPhone OS 3.2 supports file downloads and local storage in the browser, which means you'll be able to pull files off the web and use them in other apps, and there's at least the beginnings of SMS support buried within the code"
I like where this is going. I bet lots of applications are going to be talking to Safari.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
You might remind ipod touch users how free their software updates were (without the SOX/GAAP BS which has been shown to be just that). FWIW, MS sold XP, then provided three significant service packs over its lifetime for exactly zero dollars.
Lemme point out that Mac OS X sucked as bad as the iPad's pre-release reputation. There first upgrade, codenamed Puma, was free but it was still criticized so they continued with Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard. In between they have released service packs in the form of combo updates such as 10.3.5, for example. Five being the fifth service pack but 10.3 had nine. Now that there happy with there OS, there focusing on other devices more. The way Apple upgrades OS X these days has become a tradition due to its original release, however new versions of hardware have been this way.
Sounds decent enough for the devices uses. It's not meant to be used for complex stuff so that's fair enough. I have to agree with the murmurings that this is the future of OSX as we know it. More accessible to first time computer users, but unfortunately, locked down and tied to the iTunes store. Well, that isn't what bothers me - more the fact it seems like a "slave device" in a similar way to the iPods, Touch and iPhone. If I want to rename a music file on my iPhone... well I can't!
Yeah, quicktime x for mac osx needs badly to be fixed. It's a downright crisis. And it IS related, cuz I suspect the whole elite team within Apple has been gathering the last year around making the iPad. Now that it's done I expect a HUGE snow leopard update in march-april or something.
However, this file thing seems great, BUT - 2 years from now, when you've been using your iPad to write 300 documents in pages, 120 spreadsheets, 80 keynotes etc... you HAVE to be able to categorize or tag the documents by project or something. There's gotta be a way to organize your documents. Perhaps there's a spotlight search in all the apps and searching a keyword will filter out most of the unrelated... but, it'll be a mess. Maybe it's fine.
Another thing is: how do I take a PNG giraffe from the computer and make it available to put into my iWork document? The same way as with sharing documents? Or does this magically happen by syncing media via iPhoto?
iPhoto is bursting at the seams. Without multiple libraries, there?s no good way to keep work photos from personal photos. No good way to archive seconds and rejects. No easy way to separate photos by years or even decades. No obvious way to manage things when the hard disk containing your one and only photo library begins to fill up to the brim.
Paradoxically, by reducing ?complexity?, by leaving behind the ?jumbled? file system, they?ve made things that much harder for us all.
You seem to misunderstand the paradigm. If you use the application to do all of your organizing (creating subcategories etc) there's no need to do any organizing at the system level beyond what the application automatically takes care of. I would recommend backing up the database along with the data itself but time machine takes of of that automatically as well.
If you need to fit a specific saving scheme you can option click on the app when you launch and create or open a new library. Years ago I would have said the same thing but surrendering my some of my needs to organize music and photos to itunes and Iphoto has truly made my life easier.
You might say it was a literary device. It's a touchy subject, I know, but given the clear desire for this to be an appliance which just, DOES (vacant stare),
is that approach consistent with charging end-users for updates to its core. I don't mean to bring up MS, but even MS provide updates, and significant ones, at no extra cost.
It depends on what that item is. It must be done with some things, but not with others. It's also a matter how Apple charges for it.
We've had some big discussions over this. Now that it's pretty much over, unless they have to do it one more time as a carry over, I'd just rather let it drop.
Quote:
I would say that nearly all people keep their documents in a folder called documents. But I think that's a little simplistic. Nearly everyone I know has some kind of organisation system within that documents folder to provide some context. For most, it's a folder structure. Some might code file names in a way. Rarely have I found that people merely dump everything flat into one folder. I would be inclined to agree more with the person to whom you responded to than simply dismiss the idea that the people who create their own content must in some small way be responsible for its categorisation.
I doubt that most people really organize it. I do, and I didn't used to keep any of my documents there. I've always used several HDDs, with the programs in a certain category in a specific drive. So I had publishing, Photo, Video, etc. All docs for those areas got saved to those drives. For me, that worked well, as I backed each drive up separately.
Now, because OS X almost forces it upon you, most of my apps are in the app folder, and most of my docs are in the Doc folder, and I do what you do. But I've got a very complex system.
Most people have the one HDD, few programs, and don't bother to organize at all.
We always have to distinguish between more sophisticated users such as ourselves, and certain co-workers, friends and such, and the greater public out there, who never backs up.
It's that public that doesn't organize, and that's the large majority.
In the beginning, this device will be mostly sold to that large majority. They won't know what's going on inside, and they wouldn't care if they did.
All they want, is to have their stuff when they need it. It doesn't matter where it really is.
You might remind ipod touch users how free their software updates were (without the SOX/GAAP BS which has been shown to be just that). FWIW, MS sold XP, then provided three significant service packs over its lifetime for exactly zero dollars.
That's different. That's software, and this is hardware with software. Updates are ok, and a service pack goes as an update, not an upgrade.
When has MS EVER given out a major upgrade to its OS for free?
Look, even Ballmer said publicly, that Win 7 was "Vista done right". According to that, Win 7 was just another service pack, and should have been free as well. But they're charging full price for everything.
Quote:
I guess the stereotype of Mac users being design conscious, skivvy wearing, democratic, OCD types is only skin deep. Please don't take offence. On lifehacker, they do galleries of mac users' work environments. If what you say is true, everything under the minimalistic, calm facade is an absolute shitstorm.
You know, that's always been more of what others have called Mac users than what Mac users have called themselves. We just think of ourselves as computer users who use what we think as the best computing platform. PC users think of themselves the same way, though Linux users are admittedly more geeky.
Quote:
As an honest question, does any of what has been discussed address any attempt to categorise a users data on the iPad?
Does it matter what we say, really? We're just speculating on how it works as none of us really knows yet, except for the two quotes from the developers guide.
We'll find out, and then we can argue from some area of knowledge.
In the beginning, this device will be mostly sold to that large majority. They won't know what's going on inside, and they wouldn't care if they did.
All they want, is to have their stuff when they need it. It doesn't matter where it really is.
This reminds me of the early days of the car. My father has told me stories about the early cars, people laughing and teasing "BUY A HORSE!" because at the time a horse could still do some things better than a car and you didn't have to be a mechanic to own a horse.
The early cars were meant for "enthusiasts". Most early devices are for "enthusiasts". Time passes, improvements to the car were made and when it got to the point that it didn't matter how it worked, so long as it worked, cars really took off, especially once they were fitted for features with women in mind. Auto transmission, power steering, automatic starters etc.
I suppose some people like to argue about the control they've lost with auto transmissions to this day, but the vast majority of cars are auto transmission and the car never would have been as popular if it weren't for them and similar refinements that make the technology vanish from your perceptions. This is a big achievement and a real shift in the computing paradigm and in the end it's better for the consumer. I don't think we'd all own cars if we had to be mechanics as well.
You might remind ipod touch users how free their software updates were (without the SOX/GAAP BS which has been shown to be just that). FWIW, MS sold XP, then provided three significant service packs over its lifetime for exactly zero dollars.
Uh huh. And Apple has provided countless free updates for OS X. Is there a point to this?
Quote:
It has everything to do with "just does". You might say Apple is pitching this as an alternative to cruddy desktop OS cast into a small form factor. That it's computing with an automatic transmission (thanks daringfireball). Many people on Apple fora are saying this. I don't doubt for a second that on the face of it that it's a compelling proposition, but as a box that just does, should it not continue to "just do" for at least as long as the device is expect to perform the function?
Yeah. If you have to get that convoluted to ding Apple for doing something wrong, it's probably not worth the effort.
Quote:
I guess the stereotype of Mac users being design conscious, skivvy wearing, democratic, OCD types is only skin deep. Please don't take offence. On lifehacker, they do galleries of mac users' work environments. If what you say is true, everything under the minimalistic, calm facade is an absolute shitstorm.
Please don't take offense, but can you send someone over from where you come from that isn't, you know, kind of a twat?
Quote:
As an honest question, does any of what has been discussed address any attempt to categorise a users data on the iPad?
That's what some of us have been trying to do, but are being sort of drowned out by a lot douchbaggery about "Mac people" and "fan boys" and whatnot.
You might reread the thread, because that's what people are talking about.
This works well for a small number of documents, as on the iPhone, but it becomes a problem when working on, say , a project, where it might be desirable to keep all the different document types for the project grouped together. With a conventional file structure it's easy, when the project is done, to archive all the related documents and remove them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stumbleone
This mangles the concept of ?projects.? When I?m doing video work I?ll have files from a variety of applications collocated in a centralized directory: DV/AVCHD/mov video; FCE/FCP sequences; jpg/TIF/PSD images; PDF; AIFF/MP3 audio; etc.
Now I realize that the iPad does not currently support video creation at all. But other kinds of projects can also require files from various apps.
I don?t see how the app=file type library or file system can make this work. So is the iPad truly not to be compatible with or usable for content creation, and is just to be a viewer? Maybe so. Have to think about that.
Yes, because this device isn't designed as a high end work horse, it's designed for light/occasional use. NO serious professional is going to use the iPad in its current form for content creation or serious work, let alone video editing.
It's a great solution for a non-tech user to understand, it's not meant to replace the work flows of high end professionals - that's not where this device is aimed.
This reminds me of the early days of the car. My father has told me stories about the early cars, people laughing and teasing "BUY A HORSE!" because at the time a horse could still do some things better than a car and you didn't have to be a mechanic to own a horse.
The early cars were meant for "enthusiasts". Most early devices are for "enthusiasts". Time passes, improvements to the car were made and when it got to the point that it didn't matter how it worked, so long as it worked, cars really took off, especially once they were fitted for features with women in mind. Auto transmission, power steering, automatic starters etc.
I suppose some people like to argue about the control they've lost with auto transmissions to this day, but the vast majority of cars are auto transmission and the car never would have been as popular if it weren't for them and similar refinements that make the technology vanish from your perceptions. This is a big achievement and a real shift in the computing paradigm and in the end it's better for the consumer. I don't think we'd all own cars if we had to be mechanics as well.
Of course. It's a known paradigm. The more sophisticated things get, the simpler the interface. The device does the work for you. Apple's Mac OS was always like that. It did the down and dirty work for us.
This takes it another step. Newton was doing some of that as well. It was described as the "sea of data". This was the idea, it still is. All of this gets abstracted out.
And of course, if there were a way to stream my DP's feed to the Touch, there's no way I'd use that to look at a scene in that I was directing. Waaaay too small. (And even the iPad might be too small.)
I'm only going to say this because I have no idea who you are and I will never work with you, but honestly if I was your DP and you asked me to send the camera feed to the Ipad, I'd smack you in the face because you obviously have no idea how making Film or TV really works. I can only recommend that you not waste your crews time with inane technical details. Time-wasters like that are the reason I won't work with people like you.
Yes, because this device isn't designed as a high end work horse, it's designed for light/occasional use. NO serious professional is going to use the iPad in its current form for content creation or serious work, let alone video editing.
It's a great solution for a non-tech user to understand, it's not meant to replace the work flows of high end professionals - that's not where this device is aimed.
I think that characterization is too broad. For starters, the iPad doesn't have a "current form" in that we've only been shown a brief demo of the highlights. Even within the last few days information has trickled out that suggests some depths and capacities not mentioned in the keynote, I don't see any reason not to imagine that there will be more surprised in the next few months.
There will also be apps. Are you saying that no one will write any apps that "serious professionals" would deign to use? It kind of depends on what kind of work is being done, surely?
Plain HORRIBLE. Apple, please bring back the great Mac OS X file system! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!
Nothing is broken, this is a new/additional system for a new platform, not a replacement for the desktop/laptop operating system. Why can't people understand that. It's not a computer replacement, it's a portable device for consuming information and occasional/light content creation for consumers.
ps. re. the unrelated quicktime noise - i'm running snow leopard, with quicktime X and have yet to experience a single issue, nor have any of my friends or colleagues. I love these cries of "fix it!" with no explanation of the problem you're having.
Didn't really want to start a new thread about this so I guess here's as good as any: what do folks think about a version of iMovie for the iPad?
I ask because a while back I was commenting that the last revision to iMovie seemed suspiciously touch friendly (even to the point of kind of screwing it up, although they've improved things subsequently).
I suspect that the UI would work, but that the transcoding necessary for cutting popular consumer HD formats would be too much for the hardware. Or maybe not? Any guesses?
Yes, because this device isn't designed as a high end work horse, it's designed for light/occasional use. NO serious professional is going to use the iPad in its current form for content creation or serious work, let alone video editing.
It's a great solution for a non-tech user to understand, it's not meant to replace the work flows of high end professionals - that's not where this device is aimed.
Overall you are correct but, your assumptions are flawed. I have friends that have done instrumentation on the iphone for commercials. So to say that professional content isn't going to be created on the tablet is a little bit off the mark. While true you can't edit, effect, title, transcode blah blah blah there will be some things that this device can do for a Pro such as synths, instruments and virtual consoles and mixers. There's already a killer app for the protools on the iphone that is going to be "titts" on the Ipad. Look it up.
I think that characterization is too broad. For starters, the iPad doesn't have a "current form" in that we've only been shown a brief demo of the highlights. Even within the last few days information has trickled out that suggests some depths and capacities not mentioned in the keynote, I don't see any reason not to imagine that there will be more surprised in the next few months.
There will also be apps. Are you saying that no one will write any apps that "serious professionals" would deign to use? It kind of depends on what kind of work is being done, surely?
Well, that's the characterisation that the owner of this company used to describe his own product.
Of course it will have professional uses, but given the screen real estate it will never be used for high end video or graphics design work - an A4/US Letter spread plus interface? A HD content window for video plus interface? A 1 Ghz Processor and no 'real' multitasking make this clear.
This thing is intended to go into every home, be on every couch, in every man bag. It's a kindle meets the iPod touch, it's a new category of device. Apple already make phones, laptops, desktops, this is intended to replace NONE of those, Apple will not damage sales of their own higher end devices.
So yes, there will be apps for this thing which assist professionals day to day, but it will NEVER be a high end content creation tool in the form in which it is currently being sold. And don't say there is no 'current form' - go look at apple.com/ipad - it's very clearly expressed right there.
What is with people wanting this to be something it is not designed to be?
There's no phone functionality. Fail. Well, it's not a phone...
There's no camera. Fail. Well, it's not a camera...
There's no USB/SD Card on board. Fail. There are accessories to do that, making clear that this isn't primary function territory.
It's wi-fi, it's 3g, it reads books, plays music and browses the web. Home users can use iWork to write newsletters and doing domestic level accounting. That is a great set of functions.
The ONLY criticism to be levelled is the lack of flash, and it's for Adobe to sort that mess, not Apple - unless Adobe make flash Opensource and let others fix it for them.
Don't be so sure about that. With the iPad it's obvious that the OS is at the beginning of major power upgrades. We're going to see many OS X developers jump on this. As the computer becomes more powerful over the next few years, it will be able to handle more powerful apps. Apple has shown in a patent a movie editing program as one of the uses it will be put to.
There is a question right now as to whether this is a two or four core cpu. No doubt when they move to 32nm, as this is expected to be run on 45 nm, we'll see less power and more speed.
This is already faster than the first Mac I ever used for Photoshop and movie editing.
I can see this, at 22 nm having dual cpu's each with four cores, and a much better GPU, 64 to 256 GB Flash, and a number of expanded technical specs.
Lightweight pro use will be possible, just as we used the now considered to be very slow G4 laptops to do pro work several years ago.
I fully expect this line to be Apple's new consumer OS, creeping up to the low pro level in just a few years. Maybe faster than we expect.
Apple may win the "desktop" war after all.
Some people are seeing that in this, but most aren't so far.
Well I'm seein' it and with ya on this one!
I have an old Mac 8100/80 still sitting in the corner. Amazing... PS 3.0, FH 7.0... and more than 7-figure income from that baby in my design biz. The whole set-up with 21"-24bit CRT and card cost me just shy of 10k. This iPad "kills" it in speed and specs (as does the iPhone).
Gotta wonder about the whiners and creative-blind, non-thinking posters around here...
Comments
You might say it was a literary device. It's a touchy subject, I know, but given the clear desire for this to be an appliance which just, DOES (vacant stare), is that approach consistent with charging end-users for updates to its core. I don't mean to bring up MS, but even MS provide updates, and significant ones, at no extra cost.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you don't think Apple will provide free software updates to the OS? Because of course they will. Are you saying that Apple should never charge for any software dates ever? Because Microsoft of course does do that.
And what does any of that have to do "just does"?
I would say that nearly all people keep their documents in a folder called documents. But I think that's a little simplistic. Nearly everyone I know has some kind of organisation system within that documents folder to provide some context. For most, it's a folder structure. Some might code file names in a way. Rarely have I found that people merely dump everything flat into one folder. I would be inclined to agree more with the person to whom you responded to than simply dismiss the idea that the people who create their own content must in some small way be responsible for its categorisation.
Most of the people I know dump most of their stuff flat, with a few cursory efforts to make a folder here and there with the broadest possible categories. They rarely go more than one level deep.
I suspect the future belongs to flat, metadata and search programs like Spotlight, particularly given that those "folders" are strung across multiple volumes on multiple machines. People can still be responsible for categorization, it just involves tagging.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you don't think Apple will provide free software updates to the OS? Because of course they will. Are you saying that Apple should never charge for any software dates ever? Because Microsoft of course does do that.
And what does any of that have to do "just does"?
You might remind ipod touch users how free their software updates were (without the SOX/GAAP BS which has been shown to be just that). FWIW, MS sold XP, then provided three significant service packs over its lifetime for exactly zero dollars.
It has everything to do with "just does". You might say Apple is pitching this as an alternative to cruddy desktop OS cast into a small form factor. That it's computing with an automatic transmission (thanks daringfireball). Many people on Apple fora are saying this. I don't doubt for a second that on the face of it that it's a compelling proposition, but as a box that just does, should it not continue to "just do" for at least as long as the device is expect to perform the function?
Most of the people I know dump most of their stuff flat, with a few cursory efforts to make a folder here and there with the broadest possible categories. They rarely go more than one level deep.
I guess the stereotype of Mac users being design conscious, skivvy wearing, democratic, OCD types is only skin deep. Please don't take offence. On lifehacker, they do galleries of mac users' work environments. If what you say is true, everything under the minimalistic, calm facade is an absolute shitstorm.
I suspect the future belongs to flat, metadata and search programs like Spotlight, particularly given that those "folders" are strung across multiple volumes on multiple machines. People can still be responsible for categorization, it just involves tagging.
As an honest question, does any of what has been discussed address any attempt to categorise a users data on the iPad?
............... and this just in ........................
"4 hours ago
We can also confirm that iPhone OS 3.2 supports file downloads and local storage in the browser, which means you'll be able to pull files off the web and use them in other apps, and there's at least the beginnings of SMS support buried within the code"
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/c...ling-file-dow/
I like where this is going. I bet lots of applications are going to be talking to Safari.
You might remind ipod touch users how free their software updates were (without the SOX/GAAP BS which has been shown to be just that). FWIW, MS sold XP, then provided three significant service packs over its lifetime for exactly zero dollars.
Lemme point out that Mac OS X sucked as bad as the iPad's pre-release reputation. There first upgrade, codenamed Puma, was free but it was still criticized so they continued with Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard. In between they have released service packs in the form of combo updates such as 10.3.5, for example. Five being the fifth service pack but 10.3 had nine. Now that there happy with there OS, there focusing on other devices more. The way Apple upgrades OS X these days has become a tradition due to its original release, however new versions of hardware have been this way.
Simple as that.
I wish they'd fix Quicktime first.
Yeah, quicktime x for mac osx needs badly to be fixed. It's a downright crisis. And it IS related, cuz I suspect the whole elite team within Apple has been gathering the last year around making the iPad. Now that it's done I expect a HUGE snow leopard update in march-april or something.
However, this file thing seems great, BUT - 2 years from now, when you've been using your iPad to write 300 documents in pages, 120 spreadsheets, 80 keynotes etc... you HAVE to be able to categorize or tag the documents by project or something. There's gotta be a way to organize your documents. Perhaps there's a spotlight search in all the apps and searching a keyword will filter out most of the unrelated... but, it'll be a mess. Maybe it's fine.
Another thing is: how do I take a PNG giraffe from the computer and make it available to put into my iWork document? The same way as with sharing documents? Or does this magically happen by syncing media via iPhoto?
iPhoto is bursting at the seams. Without multiple libraries, there?s no good way to keep work photos from personal photos. No good way to archive seconds and rejects. No easy way to separate photos by years or even decades. No obvious way to manage things when the hard disk containing your one and only photo library begins to fill up to the brim.
Paradoxically, by reducing ?complexity?, by leaving behind the ?jumbled? file system, they?ve made things that much harder for us all.
You seem to misunderstand the paradigm. If you use the application to do all of your organizing (creating subcategories etc) there's no need to do any organizing at the system level beyond what the application automatically takes care of. I would recommend backing up the database along with the data itself but time machine takes of of that automatically as well.
If you need to fit a specific saving scheme you can option click on the app when you launch and create or open a new library. Years ago I would have said the same thing but surrendering my some of my needs to organize music and photos to itunes and Iphoto has truly made my life easier.
You might say it was a literary device. It's a touchy subject, I know, but given the clear desire for this to be an appliance which just, DOES (vacant stare),
is that approach consistent with charging end-users for updates to its core. I don't mean to bring up MS, but even MS provide updates, and significant ones, at no extra cost.
It depends on what that item is. It must be done with some things, but not with others. It's also a matter how Apple charges for it.
We've had some big discussions over this. Now that it's pretty much over, unless they have to do it one more time as a carry over, I'd just rather let it drop.
I would say that nearly all people keep their documents in a folder called documents. But I think that's a little simplistic. Nearly everyone I know has some kind of organisation system within that documents folder to provide some context. For most, it's a folder structure. Some might code file names in a way. Rarely have I found that people merely dump everything flat into one folder. I would be inclined to agree more with the person to whom you responded to than simply dismiss the idea that the people who create their own content must in some small way be responsible for its categorisation.
I doubt that most people really organize it. I do, and I didn't used to keep any of my documents there. I've always used several HDDs, with the programs in a certain category in a specific drive. So I had publishing, Photo, Video, etc. All docs for those areas got saved to those drives. For me, that worked well, as I backed each drive up separately.
Now, because OS X almost forces it upon you, most of my apps are in the app folder, and most of my docs are in the Doc folder, and I do what you do. But I've got a very complex system.
Most people have the one HDD, few programs, and don't bother to organize at all.
We always have to distinguish between more sophisticated users such as ourselves, and certain co-workers, friends and such, and the greater public out there, who never backs up.
It's that public that doesn't organize, and that's the large majority.
In the beginning, this device will be mostly sold to that large majority. They won't know what's going on inside, and they wouldn't care if they did.
All they want, is to have their stuff when they need it. It doesn't matter where it really is.
You might remind ipod touch users how free their software updates were (without the SOX/GAAP BS which has been shown to be just that). FWIW, MS sold XP, then provided three significant service packs over its lifetime for exactly zero dollars.
That's different. That's software, and this is hardware with software. Updates are ok, and a service pack goes as an update, not an upgrade.
When has MS EVER given out a major upgrade to its OS for free?
Look, even Ballmer said publicly, that Win 7 was "Vista done right". According to that, Win 7 was just another service pack, and should have been free as well. But they're charging full price for everything.
I guess the stereotype of Mac users being design conscious, skivvy wearing, democratic, OCD types is only skin deep. Please don't take offence. On lifehacker, they do galleries of mac users' work environments. If what you say is true, everything under the minimalistic, calm facade is an absolute shitstorm.
You know, that's always been more of what others have called Mac users than what Mac users have called themselves. We just think of ourselves as computer users who use what we think as the best computing platform. PC users think of themselves the same way, though Linux users are admittedly more geeky.
As an honest question, does any of what has been discussed address any attempt to categorise a users data on the iPad?
Does it matter what we say, really? We're just speculating on how it works as none of us really knows yet, except for the two quotes from the developers guide.
We'll find out, and then we can argue from some area of knowledge.
In the beginning, this device will be mostly sold to that large majority. They won't know what's going on inside, and they wouldn't care if they did.
All they want, is to have their stuff when they need it. It doesn't matter where it really is.
This reminds me of the early days of the car. My father has told me stories about the early cars, people laughing and teasing "BUY A HORSE!" because at the time a horse could still do some things better than a car and you didn't have to be a mechanic to own a horse.
The early cars were meant for "enthusiasts". Most early devices are for "enthusiasts". Time passes, improvements to the car were made and when it got to the point that it didn't matter how it worked, so long as it worked, cars really took off, especially once they were fitted for features with women in mind. Auto transmission, power steering, automatic starters etc.
I suppose some people like to argue about the control they've lost with auto transmissions to this day, but the vast majority of cars are auto transmission and the car never would have been as popular if it weren't for them and similar refinements that make the technology vanish from your perceptions. This is a big achievement and a real shift in the computing paradigm and in the end it's better for the consumer. I don't think we'd all own cars if we had to be mechanics as well.
You might remind ipod touch users how free their software updates were (without the SOX/GAAP BS which has been shown to be just that). FWIW, MS sold XP, then provided three significant service packs over its lifetime for exactly zero dollars.
Uh huh. And Apple has provided countless free updates for OS X. Is there a point to this?
It has everything to do with "just does". You might say Apple is pitching this as an alternative to cruddy desktop OS cast into a small form factor. That it's computing with an automatic transmission (thanks daringfireball). Many people on Apple fora are saying this. I don't doubt for a second that on the face of it that it's a compelling proposition, but as a box that just does, should it not continue to "just do" for at least as long as the device is expect to perform the function?
Yeah. If you have to get that convoluted to ding Apple for doing something wrong, it's probably not worth the effort.
I guess the stereotype of Mac users being design conscious, skivvy wearing, democratic, OCD types is only skin deep. Please don't take offence. On lifehacker, they do galleries of mac users' work environments. If what you say is true, everything under the minimalistic, calm facade is an absolute shitstorm.
Please don't take offense, but can you send someone over from where you come from that isn't, you know, kind of a twat?
As an honest question, does any of what has been discussed address any attempt to categorise a users data on the iPad?
That's what some of us have been trying to do, but are being sort of drowned out by a lot douchbaggery about "Mac people" and "fan boys" and whatnot.
You might reread the thread, because that's what people are talking about.
This works well for a small number of documents, as on the iPhone, but it becomes a problem when working on, say , a project, where it might be desirable to keep all the different document types for the project grouped together. With a conventional file structure it's easy, when the project is done, to archive all the related documents and remove them.
This mangles the concept of ?projects.? When I?m doing video work I?ll have files from a variety of applications collocated in a centralized directory: DV/AVCHD/mov video; FCE/FCP sequences; jpg/TIF/PSD images; PDF; AIFF/MP3 audio; etc.
Now I realize that the iPad does not currently support video creation at all. But other kinds of projects can also require files from various apps.
I don?t see how the app=file type library or file system can make this work. So is the iPad truly not to be compatible with or usable for content creation, and is just to be a viewer? Maybe so. Have to think about that.
Yes, because this device isn't designed as a high end work horse, it's designed for light/occasional use. NO serious professional is going to use the iPad in its current form for content creation or serious work, let alone video editing.
It's a great solution for a non-tech user to understand, it's not meant to replace the work flows of high end professionals - that's not where this device is aimed.
This reminds me of the early days of the car. My father has told me stories about the early cars, people laughing and teasing "BUY A HORSE!" because at the time a horse could still do some things better than a car and you didn't have to be a mechanic to own a horse.
The early cars were meant for "enthusiasts". Most early devices are for "enthusiasts". Time passes, improvements to the car were made and when it got to the point that it didn't matter how it worked, so long as it worked, cars really took off, especially once they were fitted for features with women in mind. Auto transmission, power steering, automatic starters etc.
I suppose some people like to argue about the control they've lost with auto transmissions to this day, but the vast majority of cars are auto transmission and the car never would have been as popular if it weren't for them and similar refinements that make the technology vanish from your perceptions. This is a big achievement and a real shift in the computing paradigm and in the end it's better for the consumer. I don't think we'd all own cars if we had to be mechanics as well.
Of course. It's a known paradigm. The more sophisticated things get, the simpler the interface. The device does the work for you. Apple's Mac OS was always like that. It did the down and dirty work for us.
This takes it another step. Newton was doing some of that as well. It was described as the "sea of data". This was the idea, it still is. All of this gets abstracted out.
And of course, if there were a way to stream my DP's feed to the Touch, there's no way I'd use that to look at a scene in that I was directing. Waaaay too small. (And even the iPad might be too small.)
I'm only going to say this because I have no idea who you are and I will never work with you, but honestly if I was your DP and you asked me to send the camera feed to the Ipad, I'd smack you in the face because you obviously have no idea how making Film or TV really works. I can only recommend that you not waste your crews time with inane technical details. Time-wasters like that are the reason I won't work with people like you.
Yes, because this device isn't designed as a high end work horse, it's designed for light/occasional use. NO serious professional is going to use the iPad in its current form for content creation or serious work, let alone video editing.
It's a great solution for a non-tech user to understand, it's not meant to replace the work flows of high end professionals - that's not where this device is aimed.
I think that characterization is too broad. For starters, the iPad doesn't have a "current form" in that we've only been shown a brief demo of the highlights. Even within the last few days information has trickled out that suggests some depths and capacities not mentioned in the keynote, I don't see any reason not to imagine that there will be more surprised in the next few months.
There will also be apps. Are you saying that no one will write any apps that "serious professionals" would deign to use? It kind of depends on what kind of work is being done, surely?
Plain HORRIBLE. Apple, please bring back the great Mac OS X file system! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!
Nothing is broken, this is a new/additional system for a new platform, not a replacement for the desktop/laptop operating system. Why can't people understand that. It's not a computer replacement, it's a portable device for consuming information and occasional/light content creation for consumers.
ps. re. the unrelated quicktime noise - i'm running snow leopard, with quicktime X and have yet to experience a single issue, nor have any of my friends or colleagues. I love these cries of "fix it!" with no explanation of the problem you're having.
I ask because a while back I was commenting that the last revision to iMovie seemed suspiciously touch friendly (even to the point of kind of screwing it up, although they've improved things subsequently).
I suspect that the UI would work, but that the transcoding necessary for cutting popular consumer HD formats would be too much for the hardware. Or maybe not? Any guesses?
Yes, because this device isn't designed as a high end work horse, it's designed for light/occasional use. NO serious professional is going to use the iPad in its current form for content creation or serious work, let alone video editing.
It's a great solution for a non-tech user to understand, it's not meant to replace the work flows of high end professionals - that's not where this device is aimed.
Overall you are correct but, your assumptions are flawed. I have friends that have done instrumentation on the iphone for commercials. So to say that professional content isn't going to be created on the tablet is a little bit off the mark. While true you can't edit, effect, title, transcode blah blah blah there will be some things that this device can do for a Pro such as synths, instruments and virtual consoles and mixers. There's already a killer app for the protools on the iphone that is going to be "titts" on the Ipad. Look it up.
I think that characterization is too broad. For starters, the iPad doesn't have a "current form" in that we've only been shown a brief demo of the highlights. Even within the last few days information has trickled out that suggests some depths and capacities not mentioned in the keynote, I don't see any reason not to imagine that there will be more surprised in the next few months.
There will also be apps. Are you saying that no one will write any apps that "serious professionals" would deign to use? It kind of depends on what kind of work is being done, surely?
Well, that's the characterisation that the owner of this company used to describe his own product.
Of course it will have professional uses, but given the screen real estate it will never be used for high end video or graphics design work - an A4/US Letter spread plus interface? A HD content window for video plus interface? A 1 Ghz Processor and no 'real' multitasking make this clear.
This thing is intended to go into every home, be on every couch, in every man bag. It's a kindle meets the iPod touch, it's a new category of device. Apple already make phones, laptops, desktops, this is intended to replace NONE of those, Apple will not damage sales of their own higher end devices.
So yes, there will be apps for this thing which assist professionals day to day, but it will NEVER be a high end content creation tool in the form in which it is currently being sold. And don't say there is no 'current form' - go look at apple.com/ipad - it's very clearly expressed right there.
What is with people wanting this to be something it is not designed to be?
There's no phone functionality. Fail. Well, it's not a phone...
There's no camera. Fail. Well, it's not a camera...
There's no USB/SD Card on board. Fail. There are accessories to do that, making clear that this isn't primary function territory.
It's wi-fi, it's 3g, it reads books, plays music and browses the web. Home users can use iWork to write newsletters and doing domestic level accounting. That is a great set of functions.
The ONLY criticism to be levelled is the lack of flash, and it's for Adobe to sort that mess, not Apple - unless Adobe make flash Opensource and let others fix it for them.
Don't be so sure about that. With the iPad it's obvious that the OS is at the beginning of major power upgrades. We're going to see many OS X developers jump on this. As the computer becomes more powerful over the next few years, it will be able to handle more powerful apps. Apple has shown in a patent a movie editing program as one of the uses it will be put to.
There is a question right now as to whether this is a two or four core cpu. No doubt when they move to 32nm, as this is expected to be run on 45 nm, we'll see less power and more speed.
This is already faster than the first Mac I ever used for Photoshop and movie editing.
I can see this, at 22 nm having dual cpu's each with four cores, and a much better GPU, 64 to 256 GB Flash, and a number of expanded technical specs.
Lightweight pro use will be possible, just as we used the now considered to be very slow G4 laptops to do pro work several years ago.
I fully expect this line to be Apple's new consumer OS, creeping up to the low pro level in just a few years. Maybe faster than we expect.
Apple may win the "desktop" war after all.
Some people are seeing that in this, but most aren't so far.
Well I'm seein' it and with ya on this one!
I have an old Mac 8100/80 still sitting in the corner. Amazing... PS 3.0, FH 7.0... and more than 7-figure income from that baby in my design biz. The whole set-up with 21"-24bit CRT and card cost me just shy of 10k. This iPad "kills" it in speed and specs (as does the iPhone).
Gotta wonder about the whiners and creative-blind, non-thinking posters around here...