The only thing we know about the iPad is what Apple has released for us to know. Anything that is being said without confirmed references is strictly conjecture on our part.
Remember this was only an announcement of a product that is schedule for future release. Apple, and as we all are aware, knows that the minute the keynote started, the photocopiers were being turned on. For Apple to give away the ship for a product that won't be for sale for two months would be suicide.
What many are complaining about sounds like the little boy who has gone into hysterical depression because he thinks that his mother is going to have a baby girl; she is going to be ugly; she is going to destroy his life; she should die on the vine. For those of you who have a baby sister, ask you mom how much of an asshole you where before she came and lit up your life. And just how many of you are only married now because your sister introduced your wife to you. Okay, so your sister destroyed your life.
This isn't to say that Apple is perfect. But neither is anyone else. I thought my wife was perfect before we got married. She didn't think I was, but she didn't tell me until I discovered that I was wrong and she was right. In any event, we persisted. She has changed a lot. I didn't much, but she is still trying.
Right now, there are hundreds of blogs from people that don't or never had an iPhone. Even of those that have, it is obvious from many are not totally familiar of how, what, where and when to use them. Unfortunately many respond by acting or being just plain stupid. They brandish outright lies, innuendos and threats. They treat anybody that defends or attempts to correct their false claims with references as fanboys without offering any evidence to support their rhetoric. Even when it is quite evident that they are proven absolutely wrong, they won't admit it, they just toss it aside and add another equally false assertion.
To those that believe in entitlement, that simply buying a product gives youthe eternal right to do anything you desire, than put diesel fuel in the next hybrid you buy. It should work, right? But then again, you have a right to be just plain stupid. And I have a right, not to associate myself with you.
There is a saying that the Three Friends of Stupidity are ignorance, fear and habit. May I offer another, i.e, trollers. I don't need the bullcrap either.
Yes but I don't think it's intended as a standalone device. Your Mac or PC is still your hub, with everything organised on there and safely Time Machined, and you just sync to the iPad the files you're working on today, or this week...
The iPad is the beginning of a set of cloud based devices, it's just a terminal with most of it's storage and heavy processing sent to Apple servers once the facility in NC is built.
So as time goes on and the iPad matures, it will replace all Apple's computers.
In fact, I see the MacBook Air being the next device to fall to the iPad UI.
The only thing the Apple is trying to do is fix a niche market.
The iPad doesn't fit my needs but it sure looks to be a success to me, at least in comparison to any other tablet device. They needed tablet specific apps, not a shoehorned desktop OS and app. They needed something that is more than a pocketable device with file and printer access, not just a PMP OS put on a larger screen. I can see so many uses for this thing, yet not a single one for me. \
PS: I would like to see Palm come out with a tablet. I think WebOS would be a relative success in this area.
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.
Wait until Apple builds it's "cloud" in North Carolina, then 1Ghz is all you need on the iPad terminal device, the horsepower and storage will be on the cloud.
I realize most of the people here are power users and it is difficult to get your head around the fact that 90% of the population aren't. If you are using photoshop, video editing software or other high end software, this device is not aimed at you. I find it hard to believe that people are upset that this isn't a multitouch high end macbook pro.
I though Steve did an excellent job at making this explicitly clear. 90% of the population use computers specifically for email, internet, music, photos, basic word processing, spreadsheet.... OOOOOOH HOOOOO that is exactly what this device is designed to do very well.
Sure video conferencing would be nice, but lets be realistic, most wireless companies are in the middle of a panic attack about the explosion of smart phones on there networks right now. They are all scrambling to up capacity. No network would want to deal with 4 million new video conferencing devices right now. It will likely happen in the future. Besides that, apple isn't stupid, they are famous for slow incremental upgrades and changes to improve their devices over regular upgrade cycles. It is a basic marketing tool, and they are the masters of it
If you want to make phone calls... does this even remotely look like it is intended for that.
This device will do extremely well for its target market. Me for example. At a $499 price point, they will sell like mad.
I wonder if the iPad will have Time Machine support. I can understand syncing with a Mac, but if there is a category of consumers that would consider buying this thing as the only computer (Liberal Arts students, for instance), and getting a couple of accessories, such as the keyboard dock so that they can type their papers on the iPad, I believe having Time Machine support is crucial.
Apple is building a large facility in North Carolina for a "cloud" based servers and processors.
That is most likely where a device like a iPad (and it's eventual siblings) will keep it's storage and any extra processing power you should need.
Until then, it's still best to wait to see how it all works out, if it does.
I don't like the idea if the network goes down, you can't access your files.
It took me a few minutes, my photo's were arranged in folders, I dragged the folders into the iPhoto library window and each folder became it's own event. Couldn't have been any easier. The files were copied to the iPhoto database, but still remain in their folders, untouched.
Now you're just being dense. Because of the number and size of all the files, combined with iPhoto's time consuming import process, it took A LONG TIME to do this. Hours upon hours. It would have taken minutes to simply copy the files to the hard drive. Also, when I first imported these photos, iPhoto did not work as you described. When I dragged all the folders in at once, iPhoto created a single event for all of them and threw away the folder names I had created. Only recently has this behavior been corrected. With previous iPhoto versions, I was forced to import ONE FOLDER AT A TIME! It took freaking DAYS! It took Apple two years to correct this.
And this leaves the Aperture question unanswered. How are you supposed to manage images using both iPhoto and Aperture? Each has a mutually exclusive feature set to the other. Each has its own separate database.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm
How on earth is this a restriction - either have the software manage it's resources, or choose do it manually - you can't have it both ways, how on earth can an application that isn't running know that you've moved files around - this is the very reason for this software operating as it does.
And that is PRECISELY why application/database/library-based file management doesn't work. You are forcing users to use only a single application to interact with a particular file type. Do you know how many situations there are when you need to use different applications to access a set of images?? You don't see a problem with this?
How am I supposed to manage my files - system-wide - when each application insists on barricading its own data files while omitting features offered by other applications?
Solution?
1) Aperture should offer all the functionality of iPhoto (impractical)
2) All applications should stick to standard file management instead of relying on closed data libraries
3) The database file system should be standardized and integrated throughout the entire operating system for use across all applications
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm
Right, so Apple have listened and changed the software, and still you're complaining? Tidal wave of complaints? Overstating things a little? There aren't that many aperture users, and many of them are happy to let aperture do it's job.
It's clear from your comments that you aren't particularly serious about photography or you would understand the challenges I'm describing. The vast majority of serious photographers have abandoned Aperture and moved on to LightRoom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm
Aperture is not for editing video, therefore aperture doesn't import the video. This isn't a hobbyist tool, it's designed to be a focussed, professional application.
A $2500, professional DSLR camera shoots images and HD video. Is it crazy to want to return from a trip and store the trip's images and video clips in the same location?
I don't want to edit video clips in Aperture. I just want to keep the photos and video clips which I take at one event together. I want to be able to browse them together. iPhoto lets me do this, while seamlessly synchronizing with iMovie when I want to actually edit the video files. But iPhoto lacks Aperture's advanced image management and editing features. Meanwhile, Aperture offers advanced image management and editing, but it forbids me from storing or browsing my video clips together with my images.
The iPad doesn't fit my needs but it sure looks to be a success to me, at least in comparison to any other tablet device. They needed tablet specific apps, not a shoehorned desktop OS and app. They needed something that is more than a pocketable device with file and printer access, not just a PMP OS put on a larger screen. I can see so many uses for this thing, yet not a single one for me. \
PS: I would like to see Palm come out with a tablet. I think WebOS would be a relative success in this area.
Give it time. You may find a application that will help you when its out.
The concept of a simplified, abstract filing system sounds great at first, until you actually try to get some serious work done with one. Forcing all files to be managed in a proprietary database, grouped according to their respective applications and barring the use of nested folder structures doesn't work so well in real life. A few common scenarios come to mind...
File Associations
What happens when you have more than one app capable of viewing and editing the same file type? Obvious example: image files. Imagine your iPad is loaded with iPhoto, Brushes, and a couple of other apps - each capable of viewing and editing image files. Theoretically, each app's files will be stored separately. So that means that when you want to browse for an image, you have to browse across multiple file stores in search of just the right one. Not so simple and elegant anymore.
Projects
These demos always look great with modest file libraries that have been automatically organized for the user. But this is not how real life works. For example, when I'm working on a big Keynote presentation, I need to collect, create, and edit a variety of files from various sources. These will include photos, screenshots, tables, graphs, video clips, etc. At this point, I couldn't care less which application was used to create or edit each file. The only thing I care about is the subject matter. With the large number and variety of files involved, it makes sense to group those files separately in a working project folder, away from unrelated files. But with a "simplified" file system, I'd be forced to continuously hop around various application file stores and wade through thousands of unrelated files in search of what I need. Needless to say, this is completely unworkable.
Data Migration (A horror story)
Let's step away from the iPad for a moment, and examine how well managed file systems work on a real computer. I am reminded of the time when I bought my first Mac, and the first thing I wanted to do was to browse my photo collection with iPhoto. This collection consists of tens of thousands of photos, all nicely organized into file folders according to date and event.
My first shock came when I discovered that iPhoto was incapable of simply browsing my existing image collection. My photos first had to be "imported". My second shock came when I realized that importing all my photos would take many hours. Third shock was the realization that iPhoto didn't do a very good job of recognizing and preserving my simple and straightforward folder system. iPhoto organizes images by "Events", and it treats each imported batch of files as a single event. This means that in order to keep my existing photo collection intact, I had to import them one event at a time. Nice. Additionally, iPhoto only displays events as a collection of thumbnail tiles, without a "list view" option. If you want to view your events as a list - you guessed it - you now have to create an "album" for each event and view & sort the albums separately.
At this point I am so overwhelmed by iPhoto's "simplicity" that I'm tempted to hurl my Macbook Pro towards a fast moving freight train.
Now some of you might think that these hassles are a worthwhile, one-time task justified by the advantages of using iPhoto. I thought so too. And I kinda liked how iPhoto allowed me to import and browse my camera's pictures and video clips together. That is, until the release of Aperture - a better, more powerful image management and editing application.
And then I found myself right back in square one. Aperture, like iPhoto, manages images in a proprietary database structure. This means that in order to reap its benefits I needed to (you guessed it) import my iPhoto library into Aperture. But wait, it gets better. Turns out that Aperture, unlike iPhoto, does NOT support viewing of video clips. So if I migrate my photos to Aperture, I lose the ability to group related pictures and video clips together. Oh joy!
The moral of the story is that so-called simplified file systems are anything but simple. They're inflexible, impractical, and in the long run will cause far more aggravation and wasted time then can be justified by the initial illusion of simplicity.
I agree, I have both Aperture and of course iPhoto and have experienced all the trouble you have.
Apple has this annoying thing where they think they have a better method for you, like you don't have a brain of your own. It's tolerable as long as you can remove or work around their imposed limitations and so called "ease of use".
However with the iPad UI, there is no way around it. On temporary use devices like a iPhone it's ok, but for long lengths of time, like on a computer, it's painfully annoying.
Give it time. You may find a application that will help you when its out.
Perhaps, but since I already use a my smartphone and laptop as my primary computing devices my window for necessity is pretty small. The price is right, but I think I'd have to find reading books on it pretty damn good (compared to print) to make it a must have for my needs.
The sooner folks get out of that mindset, the sooner they'll get what's going to make this thing such a paradigm shift.
That's exactly what I keep saying to myself as I read so many of these comments. The iPad was clearly positioned by Steve Jobs at the launch event as being halfway between an iPhone and a MacBook. Significantly more useful for having fun and getting a bit of work done than the iPhone but more limited than a MacBook at getting work done. So many people are squealing about the limitations it has compared to a full-blown computer. I think once it is actually released and people start to use it regularly, it will become clearer how it will fit into our everyday lives and workflow. I for one am definitely going to get one, but I'm not expecting it to become my primary Mac. I'll use it for entertainment purposes and to get some work done in a pinch. I think that's clearly how the device is being positioned.
Now you're just being dense. Because of the number and size of all the files, combined with iPhoto's time consuming import process, it took A LONG TIME to do this. Hours upon hours. It would have taken minutes to simply copy the files to the hard drive. Also, when I first imported these photos, iPhoto did not work as you described. When I dragged all the folders in at once, iPhoto created a single event for all of them and threw away the folder names I had created. Only recently has this behavior been corrected. With previous iPhoto versions, I was forced to import ONE FOLDER AT A TIME! It took freaking DAYS! It took Apple two years to correct this.
But 'correct' it they did, and you're still complaining? Maybe they saw it as a new feature, rather than a 'correction'. And I did this with iPhoto 06, so you obviously did something wrong.
Why would you drop things into iPhoto if it doesn't do what you need it to do? And when discovering this, why didn't you stop using it - what are you a masochist, or stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
And this leaves the Aperture question unanswered. How are you supposed to manage images using both iPhoto and Aperture? Each has a mutually exclusive feature set to the other. Each has its own separate database.
Yes, because they are two different piece of software designed to do the same thing to different levels, one consumer, one professional - if you have aperture, why do you need iPhoto? - if you do, then good for you, but it's not the 'fault' of the software that is needs access to the files it manages and doesn't keep track of changes made to these by other software while it's not up and running.
You might as well say: "Why can't i edit my itunes library in windows media player at the same time? it's just not fair! The software is flawed!!!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
And that is PRECISELY why application/database/library-based file management doesn't work. You are forcing users to use only a single application to interact with a particular file type. Do you know how many situations there are when you need to use different applications to access a set of images?? You don't see a problem with this?
How am I supposed to manage my files - system-wide - when each application insists on barricading its own data files while omitting features offered by other applications?
Solution?
1) Aperture should offer all the functionality of iPhoto (impractical)
2) All applications should stick to standard file management instead of relying on closed data libraries
3) The database file system should be standardized and integrated throughout the entire operating system for use across all applications
Or 4) find software that works the way you want it to - nobody is forcing you to use iPhoto or Aperture.
Just because something doesn't work the way you want it to, doesn't mean that it "doesn't work" - if you don't like the tool, use another - there are plenty out there. No one is forcing this on you. The standard file system is the same as windows, why not move to linux or find an alternative to the finder? You seem to think it is Apple's job to adjust everything to work to your way of thinking, when you can't see that other people might actually prefer this way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
It's clear from your comments that you aren't particularly serious about photography or you would understand the challenges I'm describing. The vast majority of serious photographers have abandoned Aperture and moved on to LightRoom.
Well I'm a professional photographer by trade, it's how I make my living, how i pay my mortgage. I prefer aperture to lightroom, sorry about that. If I'm working on a project, the raws get processed and live in a directory with the clients other pre-press materials, with an archive copy left in Aperture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
A $2500, professional DSLR camera shoots images and HD video. Is it crazy to want to come return a trip and view the images and video clips in the same location?
No, and I guess that's what iPhoto does for ya. It's not what aperture does, it's not the function that software was designed for - it's not a fault or an omission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
I don't want to edit video clips in Aperture. I just want to keep the photos and video clips which I take at one event together. I want to be able to browse them together. iPhoto lets me do this, while seamlessly synchronizing with iMovie when I want to actually edit the video files. But iPhoto lacks Aperture's advanced image management and editing features. Meanwhile, Aperture offers advanced image management and editing, but it forbids me from storing or browsing my video clips together with my images.
Yes, and photoshop doesn't edit video. And Final Cut Pro is a terrible desktop publishing package. So use different software and stop your complaining.
The concept of a simplified, abstract filing system sounds great at first, until you actually try to get some serious work done with one. Forcing all files to be managed in a proprietary database, grouped according to their respective applications and barring the use of nested folder structures doesn't work so well in real life. A few common scenarios come to mind...
File Associations
What happens when you have more than one app capable of viewing and editing the same file type? Obvious example: image files. Imagine your iPad is loaded with iPhoto, Brushes, and a couple of other apps - each capable of viewing and editing image files. Theoretically, each app's files will be stored separately. So that means that when you want to browse for an image, you have to browse across multiple file stores in search of just the right one. Not so simple and elegant anymore.
Projects
These demos always look great with modest file libraries that have been automatically organized for the user. But this is not how real life works. For example, when I'm working on a big Keynote presentation, I need to collect, create, and edit a variety of files from various sources. These will include photos, screenshots, tables, graphs, video clips, etc. At this point, I couldn't care less which application was used to create or edit each file. The only thing I care about is the subject matter. With the large number and variety of files involved, it makes sense to group those files separately in a working project folder, away from unrelated files. But with a "simplified" file system, I'd be forced to continuously hop around various application file stores and wade through thousands of unrelated files in search of what I need. Needless to say, this is completely unworkable.
Data Migration (A horror story)
Let's step away from the iPad for a moment, and examine how well managed file systems work on a real computer. I am reminded of the time when I bought my first Mac, and the first thing I wanted to do was to browse my photo collection with iPhoto. This collection consists of tens of thousands of photos, all nicely organized into file folders according to date and event.
My first shock came when I discovered that iPhoto was incapable of simply browsing my existing image collection. My photos first had to be "imported". My second shock came when I realized that importing all my photos would take many hours. Third shock was the realization that iPhoto didn't do a very good job of recognizing and preserving my simple and straightforward folder system. iPhoto organizes images by "Events", and it treats each imported batch of files as a single event. This means that in order to keep my existing photo collection intact, I had to import them one event at a time. Nice. Additionally, iPhoto only displays events as a collection of thumbnail tiles, without a "list view" option. If you want to view your events as a list - you guessed it - you now have to create an "album" for each event and view & sort the albums separately.
At this point I am so overwhelmed by iPhoto's "simplicity" that I'm tempted to hurl my Macbook Pro towards a fast moving freight train.
Now some of you might think that these hassles are a worthwhile, one-time task justified by the advantages of using iPhoto. I thought so too. And I kinda liked how iPhoto allowed me to import and browse my camera's pictures and video clips together. That is, until the release of Aperture - a better, more powerful image management and editing application.
And then I found myself right back in square one. Aperture, like iPhoto, manages images in a proprietary database structure. This means that in order to reap its benefits I needed to (you guessed it) import my iPhoto library into Aperture. But wait, it gets better. Turns out that Aperture, unlike iPhoto, does NOT support viewing of video clips. So if I migrate my photos to Aperture, I lose the ability to group related pictures and video clips together. Oh joy!
The moral of the story is that so-called simplified file systems are anything but simple. They're inflexible, impractical, and in the long run will cause far more aggravation and wasted time then can be justified by the initial illusion of simplicity.
I though Steve did an excellent job at making this explicitly clear. 90% of the population use computers specifically for email, internet, music, photos, basic word processing, spreadsheet.... OOOOOOH HOOOOO that is exactly what this device is designed to do very well.
Actually most of the 90% of the population use computers for work, as witnessed by Windows 90% market share.
Work computers are hooked up to others, to machines and printers, CAD/CAM devices, ATM machines, POS devices and the what not.
It's that Apple has given up on that 90% market, even when it's demanding a more reliable and secure OS than what Microsoft has been offering all these years.
PC's are in such large quantities because most PC's are a open device, not a closed one and locked to a App Store like what Apple is doing with the iPad.
So it's more like 90% of 10% of Apple users use their computers for only the basics you mentioned
I find is totally unrealistic, because people wouldn't buy a MacBook Pro or a iMac if a cheap netbook would do the basics you mentioned.
But the MacBook Pro and the iMac are Apple's best sellers? Why is this? Because people are using them for more than the basics.
The iPad is the beginning of a set of cloud based devices, it's just a terminal with most of it's storage and heavy processing sent to Apple servers once the facility in NC is built.
That's an interesting idea, and may very well happen. However I think they will still offer the Mac in it's traditional form for people who prefer their own "cloud." Or maybe the Mac Mini OS X server version will evolve in to a private mobileme server. Apple makes loads of money from selling people their own hub. If people need a powerful computer for serious work, it makes sense to dual-task it as some sort of hub. Those who don't need a powerful computer can use a pure cloud solution.
Actually most of the 90% of the population use computers for work, as witnessed by Windows 90% market share.
Work computers are hooked up to others, to machines and printers, CAD/CAM devices, ATM machines, POS devices and the what not.
It's that Apple has given up on that 90% market, even when it's demanding a more reliable and secure OS than what Microsoft has been offering all these years.
PC's are in such large quantities because most PC's are a open device, not a closed one and locked to a App Store like what Apple is doing with the iPad.
So it's more like 90% of 10% of Apple users use their computers for only the basics you mentioned
I find is totally unrealistic, because people wouldn't buy a MacBook Pro or a iMac if a cheap netbook would do the basics you mentioned.
But the MacBook Pro and the iMac are Apple's best sellers? Why is this? Because people are using them for more than the basics.
90% of people own windows computers, and these are all being used for work. Great piece of logic there!
Apple have given up on that 90% ? What?
Why would someone buy a macbook pro if a £200 netbook did the same thing? I dunno - would some people buy an aston martin when a beat up old pickup will do the same basic job and cost less?
Some people don't use their computers for anything more than web, email and itunes. Fact. It's not all of that 90%, maybe even less than 10%, I'd estimate 10% of computer users are around 1 - 2 billion people for whom the ipad does everything they want? A tiny niche market, barely worth catering for IN ADDITION TO Apples current line up.
"PC's are in such large quantities because most PC's are a open device, not a closed one and locked to a App Store like what Apple is doing with the iPad."
BS. There are more windows computers around because they are cheaper, and big business have traditionally bought them in bulk to equip large offices. The iPhone doesn't appear to be suffering on this same model, does it. Additionally, the mac platform uses a standard system of purchase the software you want, it's not locked down to anything. The iPad and iPhone are not macs.
I absolutely hate the approach Apple has taken on files.
To tie songs to iTunes, pictures to iPhoto, word processing docs to Pages, etc. seems logical on the surface. That's where they were created? Right?
But that is not the way people work. Let's say you write a script, do some graphics, take some pictures, and record some music all in service of your new movie. How would you like to store it? By creator application? Or by project name?
If you are like me, (or any Apple user back in system 7) you would create a folder called "Spring 2010" and perhaps subfolders for pictures, songs, web pages, text documents, fonts, images, etc. Especially in a work environment, when projects have to be revisited/modified at a later date.
So, while I see the logic in having an endless library of every piece of photoshop art, every bit of footage, every sound effect and song, every text document you've ever written; I also would like to organize, backup, and store data by project. In other words, it's not that I totally disagree with the iTunes/iMovie organizational scheme, but I feel a little hampered by the "protect the dumb user" mindset. Why is "Export" called "Share?"
Big bro may want me to save all my clips in an endless library of video, but I would like to store each project (video, graphics, music, etc.) in its own project folder. To not allow me to store this data together is not "simplifying" at all. There should be, perhaps a "simple finder" for people who want to store things the way Steve would, and then an old-school, folders and files, finder for the rest of us.
I agree with much of what is noted above. Not sure why this has thus far been excluded from commenting on, but these proprietary library formats have been a source of significant problems in the past (in my experience). I was using iPhoto one day quite happily, without any noticeable problems. After having updated iPhoto to a '.x.x' release I suddenly noticed 5000+ images lost their thumbnail icon, double click 'error unsupported file'. They were perfectly viewable the day before. No amount of rebuilding the Library resolved the issue, no documentation of the issue. Another incident where iPhoto was updated, it instantly began beachballing after selecting 4 images in the Library, scrolling became impossible and the application hung and crashed like mad. Decided to revert to previous version (after i'd learned to copy and rename before update), oops, sorry, 'iPhoto can't open the Library, because the Library is version is not supported'.
iMovie, working one day on a project, updated iMovie by a '.x.x', release, next day open same project, suddenly the video files couldn't be opened, again apparently 'unsupported format'. No mention in the update notes that the video previously supported (created by QT or FCP) will no longer be supported. Apple silent, knows nothing of the issue, another update, still not able to open project's video. Installed iLife09 on another machine, bang it opens the project and the video files with no problem. So two updates were completely bugged and rendered iMovie unusable, Apple failed to respond to the issue and forced users to wait 6 months for a paid upgrade for a resolution.
These are just some of the potential real world and quite volatile issues created by Apple with their not so reliable or robust Library formats. I prefer the traditional File System, it's easy to manage (for me) and it's reliable and not subject to being plagued by application bugginess. On the other hand for a device like the iPad I can appreciate the need to limit the exposure to the FS, but I don't think the Library format per application is the answer. Perhaps each application can only display folders that contain files it can open. I still think all media folders should be exposed when the iPad is shared over the network with a computer.
Outside of savvy computer users, the idea of opening a file by searching through hierarchical paths in the file system is a bit of a mystery.
Indeed, files inside of folders. How mysterious is this. Sort of like a filing cabinet. I often look inside my filing cabinet and think "Gosh how I wish all of these files were in one giant folder with a search function! Then I wouldn't have to put any effort or thought into where I put things. I could be as lazy and complacent as I want!"
This jumble-o-files system might work for a little while, but many of us, if we have a large number of files, enjoy the fact that we CAN arrange our files. We take pride in the personal responsibility involved with being organized and having a system of organization that is suitable to our lifestyle and/or the precious files of our clients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple has already taken some steps to hide complexity in the file system in Mac OS X; Spotlight search was supposed to make a file's location almost irrelevant
Yes, to heck with putting things where they go! Let us fill our homes and computers full of files. Let us hire "search secretaries" who will wade tediously through our large piles of crap and pick out whatever it is we misplaced due to our lack of effort. Hey, I'm all for a little "search help" on occasion, but forever relying on a system of "recent items" or always grouping our files by creator type? Is this really desirable?
Why is everybody taking the approach used for a suite of integrated software offered by a manufacturer to suggest that is how this manufacturer forces you to organise all your files?
Aside from iLife, nothing else 'forces' you to work in this way. The file system 'forces' you to do nothing, you can put directories where you want, arranged how you want. There is various file management software freely available.
Apple offer a choice. The iLife way is for non-professionals who need spoon feeding and for everything to be nice and simple. No one is forcing you to do anything, to work in any specific way.
Use different software, operate your computer as you want.
The iPad is meant to be a simple device, what is being suggested by Apple re. file management is simple. We haven't seen this work, yet are criticising it.
The pad is not for professional users to create professional work, it is primarily a device for laymen consumers to browse the web, check their email, listen to tunes and play the occasional game.
If professional users want to use it, that's fine - that's great in fact - BUT - Apple is not going to structure this device and the way it works for prosumers, it's a domestic device for the everyman.
If that doesn't suit you, then don't buy the device - it's not for you.
Comments
Remember this was only an announcement of a product that is schedule for future release. Apple, and as we all are aware, knows that the minute the keynote started, the photocopiers were being turned on. For Apple to give away the ship for a product that won't be for sale for two months would be suicide.
What many are complaining about sounds like the little boy who has gone into hysterical depression because he thinks that his mother is going to have a baby girl; she is going to be ugly; she is going to destroy his life; she should die on the vine. For those of you who have a baby sister, ask you mom how much of an asshole you where before she came and lit up your life. And just how many of you are only married now because your sister introduced your wife to you. Okay, so your sister destroyed your life.
This isn't to say that Apple is perfect. But neither is anyone else. I thought my wife was perfect before we got married. She didn't think I was, but she didn't tell me until I discovered that I was wrong and she was right. In any event, we persisted. She has changed a lot. I didn't much, but she is still trying.
Right now, there are hundreds of blogs from people that don't or never had an iPhone. Even of those that have, it is obvious from many are not totally familiar of how, what, where and when to use them. Unfortunately many respond by acting or being just plain stupid. They brandish outright lies, innuendos and threats. They treat anybody that defends or attempts to correct their false claims with references as fanboys without offering any evidence to support their rhetoric. Even when it is quite evident that they are proven absolutely wrong, they won't admit it, they just toss it aside and add another equally false assertion.
To those that believe in entitlement, that simply buying a product gives youthe eternal right to do anything you desire, than put diesel fuel in the next hybrid you buy. It should work, right? But then again, you have a right to be just plain stupid. And I have a right, not to associate myself with you.
There is a saying that the Three Friends of Stupidity are ignorance, fear and habit. May I offer another, i.e, trollers. I don't need the bullcrap either.
Yes but I don't think it's intended as a standalone device. Your Mac or PC is still your hub, with everything organised on there and safely Time Machined, and you just sync to the iPad the files you're working on today, or this week...
The iPad is the beginning of a set of cloud based devices, it's just a terminal with most of it's storage and heavy processing sent to Apple servers once the facility in NC is built.
So as time goes on and the iPad matures, it will replace all Apple's computers.
In fact, I see the MacBook Air being the next device to fall to the iPad UI.
The only thing the Apple is trying to do is fix a niche market.
The iPad doesn't fit my needs but it sure looks to be a success to me, at least in comparison to any other tablet device. They needed tablet specific apps, not a shoehorned desktop OS and app. They needed something that is more than a pocketable device with file and printer access, not just a PMP OS put on a larger screen. I can see so many uses for this thing, yet not a single one for me.
PS: I would like to see Palm come out with a tablet. I think WebOS would be a relative success in this area.
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.
Wait until Apple builds it's "cloud" in North Carolina, then 1Ghz is all you need on the iPad terminal device, the horsepower and storage will be on the cloud.
I though Steve did an excellent job at making this explicitly clear. 90% of the population use computers specifically for email, internet, music, photos, basic word processing, spreadsheet.... OOOOOOH HOOOOO that is exactly what this device is designed to do very well.
Sure video conferencing would be nice, but lets be realistic, most wireless companies are in the middle of a panic attack about the explosion of smart phones on there networks right now. They are all scrambling to up capacity. No network would want to deal with 4 million new video conferencing devices right now. It will likely happen in the future. Besides that, apple isn't stupid, they are famous for slow incremental upgrades and changes to improve their devices over regular upgrade cycles. It is a basic marketing tool, and they are the masters of it
If you want to make phone calls... does this even remotely look like it is intended for that.
This device will do extremely well for its target market. Me for example. At a $499 price point, they will sell like mad.
I wonder if the iPad will have Time Machine support. I can understand syncing with a Mac, but if there is a category of consumers that would consider buying this thing as the only computer (Liberal Arts students, for instance), and getting a couple of accessories, such as the keyboard dock so that they can type their papers on the iPad, I believe having Time Machine support is crucial.
Apple is building a large facility in North Carolina for a "cloud" based servers and processors.
That is most likely where a device like a iPad (and it's eventual siblings) will keep it's storage and any extra processing power you should need.
Until then, it's still best to wait to see how it all works out, if it does.
I don't like the idea if the network goes down, you can't access your files.
It took me a few minutes, my photo's were arranged in folders, I dragged the folders into the iPhoto library window and each folder became it's own event. Couldn't have been any easier. The files were copied to the iPhoto database, but still remain in their folders, untouched.
Now you're just being dense. Because of the number and size of all the files, combined with iPhoto's time consuming import process, it took A LONG TIME to do this. Hours upon hours. It would have taken minutes to simply copy the files to the hard drive. Also, when I first imported these photos, iPhoto did not work as you described. When I dragged all the folders in at once, iPhoto created a single event for all of them and threw away the folder names I had created. Only recently has this behavior been corrected. With previous iPhoto versions, I was forced to import ONE FOLDER AT A TIME! It took freaking DAYS! It took Apple two years to correct this.
And this leaves the Aperture question unanswered. How are you supposed to manage images using both iPhoto and Aperture? Each has a mutually exclusive feature set to the other. Each has its own separate database.
How on earth is this a restriction - either have the software manage it's resources, or choose do it manually - you can't have it both ways, how on earth can an application that isn't running know that you've moved files around - this is the very reason for this software operating as it does.
And that is PRECISELY why application/database/library-based file management doesn't work. You are forcing users to use only a single application to interact with a particular file type. Do you know how many situations there are when you need to use different applications to access a set of images?? You don't see a problem with this?
How am I supposed to manage my files - system-wide - when each application insists on barricading its own data files while omitting features offered by other applications?
Solution?
1) Aperture should offer all the functionality of iPhoto (impractical)
2) All applications should stick to standard file management instead of relying on closed data libraries
3) The database file system should be standardized and integrated throughout the entire operating system for use across all applications
Right, so Apple have listened and changed the software, and still you're complaining? Tidal wave of complaints? Overstating things a little? There aren't that many aperture users, and many of them are happy to let aperture do it's job.
It's clear from your comments that you aren't particularly serious about photography or you would understand the challenges I'm describing. The vast majority of serious photographers have abandoned Aperture and moved on to LightRoom.
Aperture is not for editing video, therefore aperture doesn't import the video. This isn't a hobbyist tool, it's designed to be a focussed, professional application.
A $2500, professional DSLR camera shoots images and HD video. Is it crazy to want to return from a trip and store the trip's images and video clips in the same location?
I don't want to edit video clips in Aperture. I just want to keep the photos and video clips which I take at one event together. I want to be able to browse them together. iPhoto lets me do this, while seamlessly synchronizing with iMovie when I want to actually edit the video files. But iPhoto lacks Aperture's advanced image management and editing features. Meanwhile, Aperture offers advanced image management and editing, but it forbids me from storing or browsing my video clips together with my images.
The iPad doesn't fit my needs but it sure looks to be a success to me, at least in comparison to any other tablet device. They needed tablet specific apps, not a shoehorned desktop OS and app. They needed something that is more than a pocketable device with file and printer access, not just a PMP OS put on a larger screen. I can see so many uses for this thing, yet not a single one for me.
PS: I would like to see Palm come out with a tablet. I think WebOS would be a relative success in this area.
Give it time. You may find a application that will help you when its out.
The concept of a simplified, abstract filing system sounds great at first, until you actually try to get some serious work done with one. Forcing all files to be managed in a proprietary database, grouped according to their respective applications and barring the use of nested folder structures doesn't work so well in real life. A few common scenarios come to mind...
File Associations
What happens when you have more than one app capable of viewing and editing the same file type? Obvious example: image files. Imagine your iPad is loaded with iPhoto, Brushes, and a couple of other apps - each capable of viewing and editing image files. Theoretically, each app's files will be stored separately. So that means that when you want to browse for an image, you have to browse across multiple file stores in search of just the right one. Not so simple and elegant anymore.
Projects
These demos always look great with modest file libraries that have been automatically organized for the user. But this is not how real life works. For example, when I'm working on a big Keynote presentation, I need to collect, create, and edit a variety of files from various sources. These will include photos, screenshots, tables, graphs, video clips, etc. At this point, I couldn't care less which application was used to create or edit each file. The only thing I care about is the subject matter. With the large number and variety of files involved, it makes sense to group those files separately in a working project folder, away from unrelated files. But with a "simplified" file system, I'd be forced to continuously hop around various application file stores and wade through thousands of unrelated files in search of what I need. Needless to say, this is completely unworkable.
Data Migration (A horror story)
Let's step away from the iPad for a moment, and examine how well managed file systems work on a real computer. I am reminded of the time when I bought my first Mac, and the first thing I wanted to do was to browse my photo collection with iPhoto. This collection consists of tens of thousands of photos, all nicely organized into file folders according to date and event.
My first shock came when I discovered that iPhoto was incapable of simply browsing my existing image collection. My photos first had to be "imported". My second shock came when I realized that importing all my photos would take many hours. Third shock was the realization that iPhoto didn't do a very good job of recognizing and preserving my simple and straightforward folder system. iPhoto organizes images by "Events", and it treats each imported batch of files as a single event. This means that in order to keep my existing photo collection intact, I had to import them one event at a time. Nice. Additionally, iPhoto only displays events as a collection of thumbnail tiles, without a "list view" option. If you want to view your events as a list - you guessed it - you now have to create an "album" for each event and view & sort the albums separately.
At this point I am so overwhelmed by iPhoto's "simplicity" that I'm tempted to hurl my Macbook Pro towards a fast moving freight train.
Now some of you might think that these hassles are a worthwhile, one-time task justified by the advantages of using iPhoto. I thought so too. And I kinda liked how iPhoto allowed me to import and browse my camera's pictures and video clips together. That is, until the release of Aperture - a better, more powerful image management and editing application.
And then I found myself right back in square one. Aperture, like iPhoto, manages images in a proprietary database structure. This means that in order to reap its benefits I needed to (you guessed it) import my iPhoto library into Aperture. But wait, it gets better. Turns out that Aperture, unlike iPhoto, does NOT support viewing of video clips. So if I migrate my photos to Aperture, I lose the ability to group related pictures and video clips together. Oh joy!
The moral of the story is that so-called simplified file systems are anything but simple. They're inflexible, impractical, and in the long run will cause far more aggravation and wasted time then can be justified by the initial illusion of simplicity.
I agree, I have both Aperture and of course iPhoto and have experienced all the trouble you have.
Apple has this annoying thing where they think they have a better method for you, like you don't have a brain of your own. It's tolerable as long as you can remove or work around their imposed limitations and so called "ease of use".
However with the iPad UI, there is no way around it. On temporary use devices like a iPhone it's ok, but for long lengths of time, like on a computer, it's painfully annoying.
Give it time. You may find a application that will help you when its out.
Perhaps, but since I already use a my smartphone and laptop as my primary computing devices my window for necessity is pretty small. The price is right, but I think I'd have to find reading books on it pretty damn good (compared to print) to make it a must have for my needs.
People, stop thinking desktop and big projects.
That's NOT what this thing is for.
The sooner folks get out of that mindset, the sooner they'll get what's going to make this thing such a paradigm shift.
That's exactly what I keep saying to myself as I read so many of these comments. The iPad was clearly positioned by Steve Jobs at the launch event as being halfway between an iPhone and a MacBook. Significantly more useful for having fun and getting a bit of work done than the iPhone but more limited than a MacBook at getting work done. So many people are squealing about the limitations it has compared to a full-blown computer. I think once it is actually released and people start to use it regularly, it will become clearer how it will fit into our everyday lives and workflow. I for one am definitely going to get one, but I'm not expecting it to become my primary Mac. I'll use it for entertainment purposes and to get some work done in a pinch. I think that's clearly how the device is being positioned.
Now you're just being dense. Because of the number and size of all the files, combined with iPhoto's time consuming import process, it took A LONG TIME to do this. Hours upon hours. It would have taken minutes to simply copy the files to the hard drive. Also, when I first imported these photos, iPhoto did not work as you described. When I dragged all the folders in at once, iPhoto created a single event for all of them and threw away the folder names I had created. Only recently has this behavior been corrected. With previous iPhoto versions, I was forced to import ONE FOLDER AT A TIME! It took freaking DAYS! It took Apple two years to correct this.
But 'correct' it they did, and you're still complaining? Maybe they saw it as a new feature, rather than a 'correction'. And I did this with iPhoto 06, so you obviously did something wrong.
Why would you drop things into iPhoto if it doesn't do what you need it to do? And when discovering this, why didn't you stop using it - what are you a masochist, or stupid?
And this leaves the Aperture question unanswered. How are you supposed to manage images using both iPhoto and Aperture? Each has a mutually exclusive feature set to the other. Each has its own separate database.
Yes, because they are two different piece of software designed to do the same thing to different levels, one consumer, one professional - if you have aperture, why do you need iPhoto? - if you do, then good for you, but it's not the 'fault' of the software that is needs access to the files it manages and doesn't keep track of changes made to these by other software while it's not up and running.
You might as well say: "Why can't i edit my itunes library in windows media player at the same time? it's just not fair! The software is flawed!!!"
And that is PRECISELY why application/database/library-based file management doesn't work. You are forcing users to use only a single application to interact with a particular file type. Do you know how many situations there are when you need to use different applications to access a set of images?? You don't see a problem with this?
How am I supposed to manage my files - system-wide - when each application insists on barricading its own data files while omitting features offered by other applications?
Solution?
1) Aperture should offer all the functionality of iPhoto (impractical)
2) All applications should stick to standard file management instead of relying on closed data libraries
3) The database file system should be standardized and integrated throughout the entire operating system for use across all applications
Or 4) find software that works the way you want it to - nobody is forcing you to use iPhoto or Aperture.
Just because something doesn't work the way you want it to, doesn't mean that it "doesn't work" - if you don't like the tool, use another - there are plenty out there. No one is forcing this on you. The standard file system is the same as windows, why not move to linux or find an alternative to the finder? You seem to think it is Apple's job to adjust everything to work to your way of thinking, when you can't see that other people might actually prefer this way?
It's clear from your comments that you aren't particularly serious about photography or you would understand the challenges I'm describing. The vast majority of serious photographers have abandoned Aperture and moved on to LightRoom.
Well I'm a professional photographer by trade, it's how I make my living, how i pay my mortgage. I prefer aperture to lightroom, sorry about that. If I'm working on a project, the raws get processed and live in a directory with the clients other pre-press materials, with an archive copy left in Aperture.
A $2500, professional DSLR camera shoots images and HD video. Is it crazy to want to come return a trip and view the images and video clips in the same location?
No, and I guess that's what iPhoto does for ya. It's not what aperture does, it's not the function that software was designed for - it's not a fault or an omission.
I don't want to edit video clips in Aperture. I just want to keep the photos and video clips which I take at one event together. I want to be able to browse them together. iPhoto lets me do this, while seamlessly synchronizing with iMovie when I want to actually edit the video files. But iPhoto lacks Aperture's advanced image management and editing features. Meanwhile, Aperture offers advanced image management and editing, but it forbids me from storing or browsing my video clips together with my images.
Yes, and photoshop doesn't edit video. And Final Cut Pro is a terrible desktop publishing package. So use different software and stop your complaining.
The concept of a simplified, abstract filing system sounds great at first, until you actually try to get some serious work done with one. Forcing all files to be managed in a proprietary database, grouped according to their respective applications and barring the use of nested folder structures doesn't work so well in real life. A few common scenarios come to mind...
File Associations
What happens when you have more than one app capable of viewing and editing the same file type? Obvious example: image files. Imagine your iPad is loaded with iPhoto, Brushes, and a couple of other apps - each capable of viewing and editing image files. Theoretically, each app's files will be stored separately. So that means that when you want to browse for an image, you have to browse across multiple file stores in search of just the right one. Not so simple and elegant anymore.
Projects
These demos always look great with modest file libraries that have been automatically organized for the user. But this is not how real life works. For example, when I'm working on a big Keynote presentation, I need to collect, create, and edit a variety of files from various sources. These will include photos, screenshots, tables, graphs, video clips, etc. At this point, I couldn't care less which application was used to create or edit each file. The only thing I care about is the subject matter. With the large number and variety of files involved, it makes sense to group those files separately in a working project folder, away from unrelated files. But with a "simplified" file system, I'd be forced to continuously hop around various application file stores and wade through thousands of unrelated files in search of what I need. Needless to say, this is completely unworkable.
Data Migration (A horror story)
Let's step away from the iPad for a moment, and examine how well managed file systems work on a real computer. I am reminded of the time when I bought my first Mac, and the first thing I wanted to do was to browse my photo collection with iPhoto. This collection consists of tens of thousands of photos, all nicely organized into file folders according to date and event.
My first shock came when I discovered that iPhoto was incapable of simply browsing my existing image collection. My photos first had to be "imported". My second shock came when I realized that importing all my photos would take many hours. Third shock was the realization that iPhoto didn't do a very good job of recognizing and preserving my simple and straightforward folder system. iPhoto organizes images by "Events", and it treats each imported batch of files as a single event. This means that in order to keep my existing photo collection intact, I had to import them one event at a time. Nice. Additionally, iPhoto only displays events as a collection of thumbnail tiles, without a "list view" option. If you want to view your events as a list - you guessed it - you now have to create an "album" for each event and view & sort the albums separately.
At this point I am so overwhelmed by iPhoto's "simplicity" that I'm tempted to hurl my Macbook Pro towards a fast moving freight train.
Now some of you might think that these hassles are a worthwhile, one-time task justified by the advantages of using iPhoto. I thought so too. And I kinda liked how iPhoto allowed me to import and browse my camera's pictures and video clips together. That is, until the release of Aperture - a better, more powerful image management and editing application.
And then I found myself right back in square one. Aperture, like iPhoto, manages images in a proprietary database structure. This means that in order to reap its benefits I needed to (you guessed it) import my iPhoto library into Aperture. But wait, it gets better. Turns out that Aperture, unlike iPhoto, does NOT support viewing of video clips. So if I migrate my photos to Aperture, I lose the ability to group related pictures and video clips together. Oh joy!
The moral of the story is that so-called simplified file systems are anything but simple. They're inflexible, impractical, and in the long run will cause far more aggravation and wasted time then can be justified by the initial illusion of simplicity.
I have an idea for you: Don't use iPhoto. Next!
I have an idea for you: Don't use iPhoto. Next!
here here!
I though Steve did an excellent job at making this explicitly clear. 90% of the population use computers specifically for email, internet, music, photos, basic word processing, spreadsheet.... OOOOOOH HOOOOO that is exactly what this device is designed to do very well.
Actually most of the 90% of the population use computers for work, as witnessed by Windows 90% market share.
Work computers are hooked up to others, to machines and printers, CAD/CAM devices, ATM machines, POS devices and the what not.
It's that Apple has given up on that 90% market, even when it's demanding a more reliable and secure OS than what Microsoft has been offering all these years.
PC's are in such large quantities because most PC's are a open device, not a closed one and locked to a App Store like what Apple is doing with the iPad.
So it's more like 90% of 10% of Apple users use their computers for only the basics you mentioned
I find is totally unrealistic, because people wouldn't buy a MacBook Pro or a iMac if a cheap netbook would do the basics you mentioned.
But the MacBook Pro and the iMac are Apple's best sellers? Why is this? Because people are using them for more than the basics.
The iPad is the beginning of a set of cloud based devices, it's just a terminal with most of it's storage and heavy processing sent to Apple servers once the facility in NC is built.
That's an interesting idea, and may very well happen. However I think they will still offer the Mac in it's traditional form for people who prefer their own "cloud." Or maybe the Mac Mini OS X server version will evolve in to a private mobileme server. Apple makes loads of money from selling people their own hub. If people need a powerful computer for serious work, it makes sense to dual-task it as some sort of hub. Those who don't need a powerful computer can use a pure cloud solution.
Actually most of the 90% of the population use computers for work, as witnessed by Windows 90% market share.
Work computers are hooked up to others, to machines and printers, CAD/CAM devices, ATM machines, POS devices and the what not.
It's that Apple has given up on that 90% market, even when it's demanding a more reliable and secure OS than what Microsoft has been offering all these years.
PC's are in such large quantities because most PC's are a open device, not a closed one and locked to a App Store like what Apple is doing with the iPad.
So it's more like 90% of 10% of Apple users use their computers for only the basics you mentioned
I find is totally unrealistic, because people wouldn't buy a MacBook Pro or a iMac if a cheap netbook would do the basics you mentioned.
But the MacBook Pro and the iMac are Apple's best sellers? Why is this? Because people are using them for more than the basics.
90% of people own windows computers, and these are all being used for work. Great piece of logic there!
Apple have given up on that 90% ? What?
Why would someone buy a macbook pro if a £200 netbook did the same thing? I dunno - would some people buy an aston martin when a beat up old pickup will do the same basic job and cost less?
Some people don't use their computers for anything more than web, email and itunes. Fact. It's not all of that 90%, maybe even less than 10%, I'd estimate 10% of computer users are around 1 - 2 billion people for whom the ipad does everything they want? A tiny niche market, barely worth catering for IN ADDITION TO Apples current line up.
"PC's are in such large quantities because most PC's are a open device, not a closed one and locked to a App Store like what Apple is doing with the iPad."
BS. There are more windows computers around because they are cheaper, and big business have traditionally bought them in bulk to equip large offices. The iPhone doesn't appear to be suffering on this same model, does it. Additionally, the mac platform uses a standard system of purchase the software you want, it's not locked down to anything. The iPad and iPhone are not macs.
I absolutely hate the approach Apple has taken on files.
To tie songs to iTunes, pictures to iPhoto, word processing docs to Pages, etc. seems logical on the surface. That's where they were created? Right?
But that is not the way people work. Let's say you write a script, do some graphics, take some pictures, and record some music all in service of your new movie. How would you like to store it? By creator application? Or by project name?
If you are like me, (or any Apple user back in system 7) you would create a folder called "Spring 2010" and perhaps subfolders for pictures, songs, web pages, text documents, fonts, images, etc. Especially in a work environment, when projects have to be revisited/modified at a later date.
So, while I see the logic in having an endless library of every piece of photoshop art, every bit of footage, every sound effect and song, every text document you've ever written; I also would like to organize, backup, and store data by project. In other words, it's not that I totally disagree with the iTunes/iMovie organizational scheme, but I feel a little hampered by the "protect the dumb user" mindset. Why is "Export" called "Share?"
Big bro may want me to save all my clips in an endless library of video, but I would like to store each project (video, graphics, music, etc.) in its own project folder. To not allow me to store this data together is not "simplifying" at all. There should be, perhaps a "simple finder" for people who want to store things the way Steve would, and then an old-school, folders and files, finder for the rest of us.
I agree with much of what is noted above. Not sure why this has thus far been excluded from commenting on, but these proprietary library formats have been a source of significant problems in the past (in my experience). I was using iPhoto one day quite happily, without any noticeable problems. After having updated iPhoto to a '.x.x' release I suddenly noticed 5000+ images lost their thumbnail icon, double click 'error unsupported file'. They were perfectly viewable the day before. No amount of rebuilding the Library resolved the issue, no documentation of the issue. Another incident where iPhoto was updated, it instantly began beachballing after selecting 4 images in the Library, scrolling became impossible and the application hung and crashed like mad. Decided to revert to previous version (after i'd learned to copy and rename before update), oops, sorry, 'iPhoto can't open the Library, because the Library is version is not supported'.
iMovie, working one day on a project, updated iMovie by a '.x.x', release, next day open same project, suddenly the video files couldn't be opened, again apparently 'unsupported format'. No mention in the update notes that the video previously supported (created by QT or FCP) will no longer be supported. Apple silent, knows nothing of the issue, another update, still not able to open project's video. Installed iLife09 on another machine, bang it opens the project and the video files with no problem. So two updates were completely bugged and rendered iMovie unusable, Apple failed to respond to the issue and forced users to wait 6 months for a paid upgrade for a resolution.
These are just some of the potential real world and quite volatile issues created by Apple with their not so reliable or robust Library formats. I prefer the traditional File System, it's easy to manage (for me) and it's reliable and not subject to being plagued by application bugginess. On the other hand for a device like the iPad I can appreciate the need to limit the exposure to the FS, but I don't think the Library format per application is the answer. Perhaps each application can only display folders that contain files it can open. I still think all media folders should be exposed when the iPad is shared over the network with a computer.
Outside of savvy computer users, the idea of opening a file by searching through hierarchical paths in the file system is a bit of a mystery.
Indeed, files inside of folders. How mysterious is this. Sort of like a filing cabinet. I often look inside my filing cabinet and think "Gosh how I wish all of these files were in one giant folder with a search function! Then I wouldn't have to put any effort or thought into where I put things. I could be as lazy and complacent as I want!"
This jumble-o-files system might work for a little while, but many of us, if we have a large number of files, enjoy the fact that we CAN arrange our files. We take pride in the personal responsibility involved with being organized and having a system of organization that is suitable to our lifestyle and/or the precious files of our clients.
Apple has already taken some steps to hide complexity in the file system in Mac OS X; Spotlight search was supposed to make a file's location almost irrelevant
Yes, to heck with putting things where they go! Let us fill our homes and computers full of files. Let us hire "search secretaries" who will wade tediously through our large piles of crap and pick out whatever it is we misplaced due to our lack of effort. Hey, I'm all for a little "search help" on occasion, but forever relying on a system of "recent items" or always grouping our files by creator type? Is this really desirable?
Aside from iLife, nothing else 'forces' you to work in this way. The file system 'forces' you to do nothing, you can put directories where you want, arranged how you want. There is various file management software freely available.
Apple offer a choice. The iLife way is for non-professionals who need spoon feeding and for everything to be nice and simple. No one is forcing you to do anything, to work in any specific way.
Use different software, operate your computer as you want.
The iPad is meant to be a simple device, what is being suggested by Apple re. file management is simple. We haven't seen this work, yet are criticising it.
The pad is not for professional users to create professional work, it is primarily a device for laymen consumers to browse the web, check their email, listen to tunes and play the occasional game.
If professional users want to use it, that's fine - that's great in fact - BUT - Apple is not going to structure this device and the way it works for prosumers, it's a domestic device for the everyman.
If that doesn't suit you, then don't buy the device - it's not for you.