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?
A 1gHZ processor and undisclosed RAM is not going to be powerful enough - I don't think iLife is heading to the pad in it's first iteration.
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?
I've already said that it will happen. Sure as rain. When, I don't know. It's not likely the first thing on Apple's schedule, like C/paste. But it will be there.
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.
But "high end" video and graphics design work is actually very vague. For instance, a number of New Yorker covers (surely a fairly high end product) were created on the iPhone with the paint program. It's not difficult to imagine real work of this sort being routinely done on the iPad.
No, I wouldn't expect HD features to get edited on it, but that's not the beginning and end of "real" content production. Real content producers use the best tools for the job, be it a cut and paste collage job, spray paint, Super 8, state of the art workstation, nicely tricked out laptop, etc. Most of the artists I know (and I am one) are always very interested in new tools and media; we use limitations and quirks to our advantage to try new things.
The iPad may be used on a lot of couches, but it's just too interesting a from factor, and the interface is just too immediate, to not also end up in the hands of lots of "real" creative people.
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?
The consumer HD cameras that would work best would capture straight to h264, edit and export all in h264 so there wouldn't really be any transcoding. Further I ran the first version of FCP on a 333MHZ g3 quite well with DV and HDV happens to have about the same data rate and it's much lower on cheaper cameras, so things should "really fly" on the bad boy Ipad. Tape would be considered a thing of the past for sure. Otherwise a touch Imovie? I can see it. You're right about the appearance of the last update looking kind of "touchy" lol
I'd hope we could attach a drive for this sort of data though. I'm sure that's not long away.
I'd also like to see an Iphoto importer so when we shoot, we can download to a tablet instead of a laptop as they can be cumbersome on set to say the least. Again an external HD would probably work best though.
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.
I guess it bears repeating, but this is a first generation product. No doubt but that Apple has more in mind.
It looks to me to be very subtle. First small screen devices with this OS. Then a medium size screened device with more power.
Then what? Perhaps an iMac-like product.
He has the right idea, and fortunately (heh!) he agrees with me:
But "high end" video and graphics design work is actually very vague. For instance, a number of New Yorker covers (surely a fairly high end product) were created on the iPhone with the paint program. It's not difficult to imagine real work of this sort being routinely done on the iPad.
No, I wouldn't expect HD features to get edited on it, but that's not the beginning and end of "real" content production. Real content producers use the best tools for the job, be it a cut and paste collage job, spray paint, Super 8, state of the art workstation, nicely tricked out laptop, etc. Most of the artists I know (and I am one) are always very interested in new tools and media; we use limitations and quirks to our advantage to try new things.
The iPad may be used on a lot of couches, but it's just too interesting a from factor, and the interface is just too immediate, to not also end up in the hands of lots of "real" creative people.
You're missing my point. Let me try again.
My point is that Apple do not intend for this to replace high-end workstations and existing professional tools. It is a new platform, a device with many uses, but most of them aimed at occasional, lightweight work and the consumer layman.
Yes, touch interface computers are the future, but this is not meant to be that fullt functioning touch screen computer, it's meant to be an easy to use, inexpensive device for content consumption, something to bridge the gap between smart phone and laptop.
That apps will be developed for niche markets is inevitable, but that is not the primary function of this device, so when people complain about the lack of ports, multitasking, processing power and file management, they are criticising the device for not doing things that it's not meant to do!
My netbook doesn't encode HD video as well as my mac pro - that doesn't make the netbook a 'failure', or 'faulty', it simply means that I'm asking too much of a device never intended to do that "high end" (by which i mean processor intensive, interface intensive work that requires a multi button mouse) work.
The consumer HD cameras that would work best would capture straight to h264, edit and export all in h264 so there wouldn't really be any transcoding. Further I ran the first version of FCP on a 333MHZ g3 quite well with DV and HDV happens to have about the same data rate and it's much lower on cheaper cameras, so things should "really fly" on the bad boy Ipad. Tape would be considered a thing of the past for sure. Otherwise a touch Imovie? I can see it. You're right about the appearance of the last update looking kind of "touchy" lol
I'd hope we could attach a drive for this sort of data though. I'm sure that's not long away.
I'd also like to see an Iphoto importer so when we shoot, we can download to a tablet instead of a laptop as they can be cumbersome on set to say the least. Again an external HD would probably work best though.
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of the struggles to deal with AVCHD stuff, H.264 would be much easier on the processor. I'm almost sure that the last iMovie had at least some thought to a touch version-- I can imagine doing that frame scrub thing with my finger, dragging on and off the "timeline" (or whatever they call that clip area now), tapping to split a clip, pinch zooming to change the scale, touching and holding at an edit point to bring up a pop over list of transition effects. Hmmm... I really like the sound of it. Way back when I start in film editing 16mm, with that kind of visceral relationship to the stuff of it, chopping and splicing. A touch based NLE might bring back some of that feel.
Apple's new iPad jettisons the conventional shared file system and introduces a new, streamlined convention for working with document files that ordinary users should find much more understandable.
Wow. Rather than have things in hierarchical folders, the new system is to basically have a "data drive" (the phone as it appears when shared), with subfolders for each app - and every pages document is in the pages folder, every numbers document is in the numbers folder, etc etc. With the difference that if you delete Pages the documents folder deletes itself too.
I really don't see this as a huge step forward.
I do agree the file system needs a rethink. iTunes virtually has it's own filing system, as does iPhoto. Email and attachments have their own mailbox structure with separate attachments.
No need to have 2 separate systems on the Mac, and I'm just unconvinced this is much of an improvement.
edit rewrite last line:
No need to have 2 separate systems on the Mac itself. And this new system on the iPad - I'm quite unconvinced this is much of an "improvement" by essentially removing folders and leaving just a bunch of "Pages" files, a bunch of "Numbers" files, etc.
The iPad may be used on a lot of couches, but it's just too interesting a from factor, and the interface is just too immediate, to not also end up in the hands of lots of "real" creative people.
I absolutely agree with you, but that those professional/creative people are currently criticising the device across multiple forums and in the press for not doing what they want it to do is the issue.
"There's not USB port", "there's no firewire", "there's no SD card slot", "it doesn't multitask", "it's not powerful enough to edit HD video", "I can't project manage with multiple file types wth this thing simultaneously?", "there's no phone function", "there's no front facing camera" etc. etc.
Every device has to begin somewhere. As version 1, this is sweet, and I can't wait to own one.
I'd also like to see an Iphoto importer so when we shoot, we can download to a tablet instead of a laptop as they can be cumbersome on set to say the least. Again an external HD would probably work best though.
That's exactly what I'm going to use this for on the road. There's a camera connection kit, so I think this is a given (I doubt you'll be able to view Raw, as with the iPod camera connection kit but jpeg should display just fine.)
My point is that Apple do not intend for this to replace high-end workstations and existing professional tools. It is a new platform, a device with many uses, but most of them aimed at occasional, lightweight work and the consumer layman.
Yes, touch interface computers are the future, but this is not meant to be that fullt functioning touch screen computer, it's meant to be an easy to use, inexpensive device for content consumption, something to bridge the gap between smart phone and laptop.
That apps will be developed for niche markets is inevitable, but that is not the primary function of this device, so when people complain about the lack of ports, multitasking, processing power and file management, they are criticising the device for not doing things that it's not meant to do!
My netbook doesn't encode HD video as well as my mac pro - that doesn't make the netbook a 'failure', or 'faulty', it simply means that I'm asking too much of a device never intended to do that "high end" (by which i mean processor intensive, interface intensive work that requires a multi button mouse) work.
You're still being vague. While I agree that most will use it for what Apple says, but the neat trick Apple pulled off here is that there's nothing inherently part of the hardware that would prevent some "pro" work from being done on the device. Like I said. I have pro friends who use Iphones and IPT's for commercial music. I'll never edit a feature on an Ipad but I might edit my vacation video on one and while I don't expect to do any real photoshop work on an ipad I would like to download photos to an it instead of a clunky laptop the next shoot we work on.
My point is that Apple do not intend for this to replace high-end workstations and existing professional tools. It is a new platform, a device with many uses, but most of them aimed at occasional, lightweight work and the consumer layman.
Yes, touch interface computers are the future, but this is not meant to be that fullt functioning touch screen computer, it's meant to be an easy to use, inexpensive device for content consumption, something to bridge the gap between smart phone and laptop.
That apps will be developed for niche markets is inevitable, but that is not the primary function of this device, so when people complain about the lack of ports, multitasking, processing power and file management, they are criticising the device for not doing things that it's not meant to do!
My netbook doesn't encode HD video as well as my mac pro - that doesn't make the netbook a 'failure', or 'faulty', it simply means that I'm asking too much of a device never intended to do that "high end" (by which i mean processor intensive, interface intensive work that requires a multi button mouse) work.
Right, and I agree with all that as far as it goes, but what I'm saying is that when you're talking about creative people (real, employed, professional creative people), they have a tendency to find surprising uses from even low end tech, particularly if that tech has some enticingly new capacities. You may recall photographer's ongoing infatuation with cheap plastic film cameras and the like, because of the interesting artifacts.
So Apple's intentions notwithstanding, I fully expect the iPad to start showing up in the damnedest places, and developers to squeeze surprising amounts of performance out of its lowly silicon, yielding inexplicably "professional" results.
That's exactly what I'm going to use this for on the road. There's a camera connection kit, so I think this is a given (I doubt you'll be able to view Raw, as with the iPod camera connection kit but jpeg should display just fine.)
Word!!!!!!
and I think addabox is talking about geeks up at 5am eastern and you're talking about normals.
Wow. Rather than have things in hierarchical folders, the new system is to basically have a "data drive" (the phone as it appears when shared), with subfolders for each app - and every pages document is in the pages folder, every numbers document is in the numbers folder, etc etc. With the difference that if you delete Pages the documents folder deletes itself too.
I really don't see this as a huge step forward.
I do agree the file system needs a rethink. iTunes virtually has it's own filing system, as does iPhoto. Email and attachments have their own mailbox structure with separate attachments.
No need to have 2 separate systems on the Mac, and I'm just unconvinced this is much of an improvement.
Yes, there is a need for two ways of working with two completely different devices/platforms. The system suggested for the iPad makes perfect sense. If the two systems interact flawlessly, then there's zero issue.
btw - who has stated that deleting pages will delete the pages documents folder? That seems a but of a leap. If I remove an application on the mac, my documents stay exactly where they are. I think you're making a bit of a strange assumption there.
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...
I bought IIC's for my company, a commercial photo lab in the '80s.
Talk about cost and power.
I don't remember now if it was from Supermac, Radius, or other. But in the mid to late '80s, MacWorld, I think it was, though could have been MacUser, had a review of a new and exciting product.
It was the first 24 bit 1024 x 768 17" color monitor and card available for a non workstation.
They loved it, and gave it a very good review. It was the first affordable 24 bit color solution that the individual artist could afford, they said joyfully.
Price, a mere $25,000, computer not included! Latest figure for inflation adjusted for 2008 (2009 numbers not official yet) is $44,936.70. Add several percent for 2009.
That was back when people actually expected to pay for their needed equipment, even if they had to take a loan out.
Now, the iPad can do this at the same rez, with a smaller screen. And it's got 3D acceleration, which the old one didn't.
Apple has some ideas here, which most people don't yet get.
Not correct at all read above. We already have editing apps on the iphone/ IPT
Yeah, spec inflation causes amnesia. It really wasn't that long ago that perfectly respectable laptops were running 1 GHz processors with 80 GB drives and 512 gigs of ram, and I seem to recall that people were doing "real work" (or at least they thought they were-- perhaps they were mistaken on account of being primitive and old timey).
Comments
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?
A 1gHZ processor and undisclosed RAM is not going to be powerful enough - I don't think iLife is heading to the pad in it's first iteration.
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?
I've already said that it will happen. Sure as rain. When, I don't know. It's not likely the first thing on Apple's schedule, like C/paste. But it will be there.
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.
But "high end" video and graphics design work is actually very vague. For instance, a number of New Yorker covers (surely a fairly high end product) were created on the iPhone with the paint program. It's not difficult to imagine real work of this sort being routinely done on the iPad.
No, I wouldn't expect HD features to get edited on it, but that's not the beginning and end of "real" content production. Real content producers use the best tools for the job, be it a cut and paste collage job, spray paint, Super 8, state of the art workstation, nicely tricked out laptop, etc. Most of the artists I know (and I am one) are always very interested in new tools and media; we use limitations and quirks to our advantage to try new things.
The iPad may be used on a lot of couches, but it's just too interesting a from factor, and the interface is just too immediate, to not also end up in the hands of lots of "real" creative people.
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?
The consumer HD cameras that would work best would capture straight to h264, edit and export all in h264 so there wouldn't really be any transcoding. Further I ran the first version of FCP on a 333MHZ g3 quite well with DV and HDV happens to have about the same data rate and it's much lower on cheaper cameras, so things should "really fly" on the bad boy Ipad. Tape would be considered a thing of the past for sure. Otherwise a touch Imovie? I can see it. You're right about the appearance of the last update looking kind of "touchy" lol
I'd hope we could attach a drive for this sort of data though. I'm sure that's not long away.
I'd also like to see an Iphoto importer so when we shoot, we can download to a tablet instead of a laptop as they can be cumbersome on set to say the least. Again an external HD would probably work best though.
A 1gHZ processor and undisclosed RAM is not going to be powerful enough - I don't think iLife is heading to the pad in it's first iteration.
Not correct at all read above. We already have editing apps on the iphone/ IPT
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.
I guess it bears repeating, but this is a first generation product. No doubt but that Apple has more in mind.
It looks to me to be very subtle. First small screen devices with this OS. Then a medium size screened device with more power.
Then what? Perhaps an iMac-like product.
He has the right idea, and fortunately (heh!) he agrees with me:
http://joehewitt.com/post/ipad/
But "high end" video and graphics design work is actually very vague. For instance, a number of New Yorker covers (surely a fairly high end product) were created on the iPhone with the paint program. It's not difficult to imagine real work of this sort being routinely done on the iPad.
No, I wouldn't expect HD features to get edited on it, but that's not the beginning and end of "real" content production. Real content producers use the best tools for the job, be it a cut and paste collage job, spray paint, Super 8, state of the art workstation, nicely tricked out laptop, etc. Most of the artists I know (and I am one) are always very interested in new tools and media; we use limitations and quirks to our advantage to try new things.
The iPad may be used on a lot of couches, but it's just too interesting a from factor, and the interface is just too immediate, to not also end up in the hands of lots of "real" creative people.
You're missing my point. Let me try again.
My point is that Apple do not intend for this to replace high-end workstations and existing professional tools. It is a new platform, a device with many uses, but most of them aimed at occasional, lightweight work and the consumer layman.
Yes, touch interface computers are the future, but this is not meant to be that fullt functioning touch screen computer, it's meant to be an easy to use, inexpensive device for content consumption, something to bridge the gap between smart phone and laptop.
That apps will be developed for niche markets is inevitable, but that is not the primary function of this device, so when people complain about the lack of ports, multitasking, processing power and file management, they are criticising the device for not doing things that it's not meant to do!
My netbook doesn't encode HD video as well as my mac pro - that doesn't make the netbook a 'failure', or 'faulty', it simply means that I'm asking too much of a device never intended to do that "high end" (by which i mean processor intensive, interface intensive work that requires a multi button mouse) work.
The consumer HD cameras that would work best would capture straight to h264, edit and export all in h264 so there wouldn't really be any transcoding. Further I ran the first version of FCP on a 333MHZ g3 quite well with DV and HDV happens to have about the same data rate and it's much lower on cheaper cameras, so things should "really fly" on the bad boy Ipad. Tape would be considered a thing of the past for sure. Otherwise a touch Imovie? I can see it. You're right about the appearance of the last update looking kind of "touchy" lol
I'd hope we could attach a drive for this sort of data though. I'm sure that's not long away.
I'd also like to see an Iphoto importer so when we shoot, we can download to a tablet instead of a laptop as they can be cumbersome on set to say the least. Again an external HD would probably work best though.
Yeah, I guess I was thinking of the struggles to deal with AVCHD stuff, H.264 would be much easier on the processor. I'm almost sure that the last iMovie had at least some thought to a touch version-- I can imagine doing that frame scrub thing with my finger, dragging on and off the "timeline" (or whatever they call that clip area now), tapping to split a clip, pinch zooming to change the scale, touching and holding at an edit point to bring up a pop over list of transition effects. Hmmm... I really like the sound of it. Way back when I start in film editing 16mm, with that kind of visceral relationship to the stuff of it, chopping and splicing. A touch based NLE might bring back some of that feel.
Apple's new iPad jettisons the conventional shared file system and introduces a new, streamlined convention for working with document files that ordinary users should find much more understandable.
Wow. Rather than have things in hierarchical folders, the new system is to basically have a "data drive" (the phone as it appears when shared), with subfolders for each app - and every pages document is in the pages folder, every numbers document is in the numbers folder, etc etc. With the difference that if you delete Pages the documents folder deletes itself too.
I really don't see this as a huge step forward.
I do agree the file system needs a rethink. iTunes virtually has it's own filing system, as does iPhoto. Email and attachments have their own mailbox structure with separate attachments.
No need to have 2 separate systems on the Mac, and I'm just unconvinced this is much of an improvement.
edit rewrite last line:
No need to have 2 separate systems on the Mac itself. And this new system on the iPad - I'm quite unconvinced this is much of an "improvement" by essentially removing folders and leaving just a bunch of "Pages" files, a bunch of "Numbers" files, etc.
The iPad may be used on a lot of couches, but it's just too interesting a from factor, and the interface is just too immediate, to not also end up in the hands of lots of "real" creative people.
I absolutely agree with you, but that those professional/creative people are currently criticising the device across multiple forums and in the press for not doing what they want it to do is the issue.
"There's not USB port", "there's no firewire", "there's no SD card slot", "it doesn't multitask", "it's not powerful enough to edit HD video", "I can't project manage with multiple file types wth this thing simultaneously?", "there's no phone function", "there's no front facing camera" etc. etc.
Every device has to begin somewhere. As version 1, this is sweet, and I can't wait to own one.
I'd also like to see an Iphoto importer so when we shoot, we can download to a tablet instead of a laptop as they can be cumbersome on set to say the least. Again an external HD would probably work best though.
That's exactly what I'm going to use this for on the road. There's a camera connection kit, so I think this is a given (I doubt you'll be able to view Raw, as with the iPod camera connection kit but jpeg should display just fine.)
You're missing my point. Let me try again.
My point is that Apple do not intend for this to replace high-end workstations and existing professional tools. It is a new platform, a device with many uses, but most of them aimed at occasional, lightweight work and the consumer layman.
Yes, touch interface computers are the future, but this is not meant to be that fullt functioning touch screen computer, it's meant to be an easy to use, inexpensive device for content consumption, something to bridge the gap between smart phone and laptop.
That apps will be developed for niche markets is inevitable, but that is not the primary function of this device, so when people complain about the lack of ports, multitasking, processing power and file management, they are criticising the device for not doing things that it's not meant to do!
My netbook doesn't encode HD video as well as my mac pro - that doesn't make the netbook a 'failure', or 'faulty', it simply means that I'm asking too much of a device never intended to do that "high end" (by which i mean processor intensive, interface intensive work that requires a multi button mouse) work.
You're still being vague. While I agree that most will use it for what Apple says, but the neat trick Apple pulled off here is that there's nothing inherently part of the hardware that would prevent some "pro" work from being done on the device. Like I said. I have pro friends who use Iphones and IPT's for commercial music. I'll never edit a feature on an Ipad but I might edit my vacation video on one and while I don't expect to do any real photoshop work on an ipad I would like to download photos to an it instead of a clunky laptop the next shoot we work on.
You're missing my point. Let me try again.
My point is that Apple do not intend for this to replace high-end workstations and existing professional tools. It is a new platform, a device with many uses, but most of them aimed at occasional, lightweight work and the consumer layman.
Yes, touch interface computers are the future, but this is not meant to be that fullt functioning touch screen computer, it's meant to be an easy to use, inexpensive device for content consumption, something to bridge the gap between smart phone and laptop.
That apps will be developed for niche markets is inevitable, but that is not the primary function of this device, so when people complain about the lack of ports, multitasking, processing power and file management, they are criticising the device for not doing things that it's not meant to do!
My netbook doesn't encode HD video as well as my mac pro - that doesn't make the netbook a 'failure', or 'faulty', it simply means that I'm asking too much of a device never intended to do that "high end" (by which i mean processor intensive, interface intensive work that requires a multi button mouse) work.
Right, and I agree with all that as far as it goes, but what I'm saying is that when you're talking about creative people (real, employed, professional creative people), they have a tendency to find surprising uses from even low end tech, particularly if that tech has some enticingly new capacities. You may recall photographer's ongoing infatuation with cheap plastic film cameras and the like, because of the interesting artifacts.
So Apple's intentions notwithstanding, I fully expect the iPad to start showing up in the damnedest places, and developers to squeeze surprising amounts of performance out of its lowly silicon, yielding inexplicably "professional" results.
That's exactly what I'm going to use this for on the road. There's a camera connection kit, so I think this is a given (I doubt you'll be able to view Raw, as with the iPod camera connection kit but jpeg should display just fine.)
Word!!!!!!
and I think addabox is talking about geeks up at 5am eastern and you're talking about normals.
Wow. Rather than have things in hierarchical folders, the new system is to basically have a "data drive" (the phone as it appears when shared), with subfolders for each app - and every pages document is in the pages folder, every numbers document is in the numbers folder, etc etc. With the difference that if you delete Pages the documents folder deletes itself too.
I really don't see this as a huge step forward.
I do agree the file system needs a rethink. iTunes virtually has it's own filing system, as does iPhoto. Email and attachments have their own mailbox structure with separate attachments.
No need to have 2 separate systems on the Mac, and I'm just unconvinced this is much of an improvement.
Yes, there is a need for two ways of working with two completely different devices/platforms. The system suggested for the iPad makes perfect sense. If the two systems interact flawlessly, then there's zero issue.
btw - who has stated that deleting pages will delete the pages documents folder? That seems a but of a leap. If I remove an application on the mac, my documents stay exactly where they are. I think you're making a bit of a strange assumption there.
Word!!!!!!
and I think addabox is talking about geeks up at 5am eastern and you're talking about normals.
it's 10:03am here in the UK.
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...
I bought IIC's for my company, a commercial photo lab in the '80s.
Talk about cost and power.
I don't remember now if it was from Supermac, Radius, or other. But in the mid to late '80s, MacWorld, I think it was, though could have been MacUser, had a review of a new and exciting product.
It was the first 24 bit 1024 x 768 17" color monitor and card available for a non workstation.
They loved it, and gave it a very good review. It was the first affordable 24 bit color solution that the individual artist could afford, they said joyfully.
Price, a mere $25,000, computer not included! Latest figure for inflation adjusted for 2008 (2009 numbers not official yet) is $44,936.70. Add several percent for 2009.
That was back when people actually expected to pay for their needed equipment, even if they had to take a loan out.
Now, the iPad can do this at the same rez, with a smaller screen. And it's got 3D acceleration, which the old one didn't.
Apple has some ideas here, which most people don't yet get.
it's 10:03am here in the UK.
Well then I should be speaking for myself!!
Not correct at all read above. We already have editing apps on the iphone/ IPT
Yeah, spec inflation causes amnesia. It really wasn't that long ago that perfectly respectable laptops were running 1 GHz processors with 80 GB drives and 512 gigs of ram, and I seem to recall that people were doing "real work" (or at least they thought they were-- perhaps they were mistaken on account of being primitive and old timey).