I don't understand why people are opposed to what apple is doing.
<snip>
at least 90% of the issues revolve around people not understanding file structures. In fact, for all of you botching this is a bad idea, I bet a good portion of you have duplicate files laying around because if the confusion between downloads for the system, downloads for the user
<snip>
If you don't see how this is a natural evolution of file structure, you prolly don't know what your talking about and this setup is specifically for people like you.
I agree a huge number of problems come from the file system. Partly because there are differences that people don't understand - like 2 application folders. Partly because while by default when you drag files in your own structure it moves them but copies when dragged to external disks or servers. We attach files to email (or receive them in emails) and they become extra copies. The file system behind iPhoto and iTunes is entirely unrelated to the other main file system. And iPhoto and iTunes make file management more complex because deleting a photo/song from an 'album' doesn't delete it, you have to go to the library for that. Fun and games.
But having a flat file system is not an answer. Have you tried finding a movie on AppleTV once it has a large number? Even finding a trailer is busy enough. The AppleTV interface was hailed as simple to use but didn't scale well to larger numbers of files.
AppleInsider's Prince McLean does say that each app will be responsible for storing its own data/files. And that the iPad will share its data to the computer, looking like a single folder with a subfolder for each app's data. He may not be right, but that's what he said.
It strikes me that an application-based file system is really pretty well the same as the current filesystems for iTunes and iPhoto.
iTunes and iPhoto both have a single library full of files. They then have a system for managing those files - which involves 'albums' that point to library files, smart "search based" folders, etc. If iMovie needs a photo it co-operates with iPhoto's filing method (same for music from iTunes)
So in some ways this new system for the iPad seems to broaden that idea. Every app is responsible for its set of files, but apps can allow other apps access to their data to some degree.
I'd rather something else. To start with it might be useful to have a filesystem where there really is only one copy of every file unless we explicitly ask for a 2nd copy. Our files are in too many places at the moment, but there are ways of working on that other than making individual apps responsible.
What are you talking about!? I expect to use it to produce/edit/share my iWork-Office documents in a HUGE way. I am hoping that, over time, it will allow for seamless reading from and writing to Office documents (right now, iWork is pretty good, but not perfect, in that regard), and hopefully, as apps get more numerous and varies, enable me to do serious statistical computations, data analysis and such.
If it was simply a 'consuming' device, it would be a failure. After all, we will need no more than a 'smart' TV for that.
Do read - he was talking about the iPhone, not the iPad.
If the iPad didn't have to rely on another computer, if it could stand on it's own, then it would be a "revolutionary" device indeed, rather than just a larger Touch with better software.
Then I guess you're missing the point. A new user doesn't need a computer, all music, content can exist on this device and doesn't need synching to anything. The only thing to sync would be an existing itunes library and existing photo's. It's you who isn't thinking outside the box, not apple.
This is a media consumption device, not a laptop/desktop replacement. It's a low end, commercial, consumer device. Do try and understand that.
What is with people not being able to see that this is a media consumption device for people who aren't technically savvy?!
For every vocal whiner on the internet there are millions like me who are quite happy with mobileme (and .Mac before).
Agreed, my household are all mobileme, and all very, very happy with this consumer level service. It's those who try to run businesses from it, and sync 20/30 meg + files that run into trouble.
People use a domestic/consumer service as a business level technology because they're too cheap to invest in a high end architecture. Their issue, not Apples.
I've been following posts on this and other sites over the weekend.
People complaining about no usb, no SD, no full operating system.
People basically complaining that this isn't the device that they wanted from Apple, and that because it's not what these tech-heads want, it will fail.
I've got news for you.
You might try and push the bounds of this device - and good on your for trying, it will help Apple to determine interest in some form of high-end touch computing device.
This isn't it.
It wasn't intended to be.
It's a toy for mum to read books sat on the sofa, check her email, write a church newsletter and browse the web.
That is all.
So many people missing the point.
Of course there is a lot of potential for a device such as this. But this is not that device, this is an inexpensive, low-end, beautiful, toy. And it will do just fine.
It doesn't NEED to be or do anything else.
If you'd like it to be, then fine - but it isn't - and this doesn't make it a failed product. If you don't see the point, don't buy it - Apple don't care.
...and people wonder why IT guys aren't all that popular.
Looks like addabox has it about right.
I think that comment is unfair, at least about myself and for my example.
I am a counsellor, hypnotherapist, trainer, and tech-support - and I'm quite sensitive to the person I'm working with and what approach is likely to be most effective for learning new behaviours.
In the example of a person using the trash as a filing cabinet, there aren't a lot of ways to explain the usage of trash without them responding "I'm an idiot" (after which I'd tell them they're not, compliment them on not using the Inbox as their receptacle of all emails they've ever got, and show them how to use folders). My joking with this user and using normal desk/trash usage was something she understood well, instantly expanded her thoughts to how she normally does file things herself, and allowed me to use her own regular behaviours to teach how outlook could fit that.
This kind of joke-to-help works or fails based on how it it presented and who it is presented to.
All that said - I think file management has long surpassed the simple metaphors that worked when they appeared on the Mac 25 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
People who are conversant with these particular abstractions, who smirk and giggle and imagine that people who don't care to contort their thinking according to the dictates of computer science are "stupid", need to be slapped, hard, over and over again, until they shut the fuck up.
I couldn't be more sincere about this, the rise the IT personality as some kind of necessary evil is really, really depressing thing. If not for the unyielding complexity of the systems they smugly inhabit, we would have kicked them unconscious long ago, just on general principles.
Which is why it's so very interesting to see people with exactly that personality so strenuously attack the very idea of something like the iPad. My most fervent wish is that Apple's model takes off, and you assholes lose your one and only significant asset. At which point we rediscover the simple fact that obsessive compulsive hyper-left brained geeks are actually incredibly unpleasant and probably best shunned.
I think the iPad is brilliant, re-inventing how we think of computers. It'll change and progress and grow in big ways - for now Apple HAS to force a very strict usage type on it to stop users/reporters/developers from approaching it like a regular computer, so that the new interaction method has a chance to take hold.
And that's exactly in line with what you're saying - existing IT people have a specific mindset, that Apple knows they need to change. So Apple presents something that appears crippled by traditionally tech standards, and yet does so many useful things. They'll probably prevent apps which are poorly ported from OSX even though they'll run fine, if the app looks and feels more like it was made for a mouse and keyboard. Force the new way of interacting. I was surprised Apple announced a keyboard for that reason too, though I can see why.
From this beginning Apple can expand.
However, to this topic about File Access - I don't agree with the per-app filesystem. It works brilliantly for a very small number of files, but doesn't scale and can lead to inter-app access issues. I think Apple could do better.
I think that comment is unfair, at least about myself and for my example.
I am a counsellor, hypnotherapist, trainer, and tech-support - and I'm quite sensitive to the person I'm working with and what approach is likely to be most effective for learning new behaviours.
In the example of a person using the trash as a filing cabinet, there aren't a lot of ways to explain the usage of trash without them responding "I'm an idiot" (after which I'd tell them they're not, compliment them on not using the Inbox as their receptacle of all emails they've ever got, and show them how to use folders). My joking with this user and using normal desk/trash usage was something she understood well, instantly expanded her thoughts to how she normally does file things herself, and allowed me to use her own regular behaviours to teach how outlook could fit that.
This kind of joke-to-help works or fails based on how it it presented and who it is presented to.
All that said - I think file management has long surpassed the simple metaphors that worked when they appeared on the Mac 25 years ago.
I think the iPad is brilliant, re-inventing how we think of computers. It'll change and progress and grow in big ways - for now Apple HAS to force a very strict usage type on it to stop users/reporters/developers from approaching it like a regular computer, so that the new interaction method has a chance to take hold.
And that's exactly in line with what you're saying - existing IT people have a specific mindset, that Apple knows they need to change. So Apple presents something that appears crippled by traditionally tech standards, and yet does so many useful things. They'll probably prevent apps which are poorly ported from OSX even though they'll run fine, if the app looks and feels more like it was made for a mouse and keyboard. Force the new way of interacting. I was surprised Apple announced a keyboard for that reason too, though I can see why.
From this beginning Apple can expand.
However, to this topic about File Access - I don't agree with the per-app filesystem. It works brilliantly for a very small number of files, but doesn't scale and can lead to inter-app access issues. I think Apple could do better.
I suspect that you play the role that I often do: "tech translator." I don't think there are many people who do this well, which is why I do some of it on a consulting basis, in addition to at my regular workplace and among friends.
You start by recognizing the pretty normal ways people relate to technology, assure them that they're inability to do something is not a sign of stupidity, then seek commonsensical ways to convey techniques.
People can't learn well when they're stressed and feel belittled. Snapping out gobbets of tech talk, impatiently pushing them aside, or sighing heavily and beginning to talks as if to a child, which are standard IT techniques, just makes people ever more resistant to ever learning that stuff. Most people might not even be able to tell you the roots of their anxiety and unhappiness around computers, but almost everyone has had the experience of being more or less bullied by "a tech guy." If I wanted to, I could actually make a fair bit of money just by being a guy who knows something about this stuff who isn't a total asshole.
A new user doesn't need a computer, all music, content can exist on this device and doesn't need synching to anything. The only thing to sync would be an existing itunes library and existing photo's.
That's certainly possible, and I hope it'll work that way - we just don't know for sure yet.
It's also possible that importing photos using the SD card adaptor will just put them in an "import roll", much as the iPhone takes pictures into a "camera roll". This import roll then syncs back to the computer which organises everything into events, faces, places.
iirc, Steve said that photos would import correctly from Macs or PCs - but that IF photos were synced from a Mac instead of PC, then you'd have access to events, places, and faces. This implies those are not something done on the iPad itself... but again we don't really know the details.
A colleague has asked me to help her get an iPad to use as her only computer. I think it will be quite possible, and generally it looks like a great match to her needs, but there are many questions that haven't been answered.
if you're reading this forum, you're not normal, and the iPad probably isn't aimed at you. You understand files and folders and good organisation. A lot of people don't, and this for them is a far simpler method of organising (or not) files.
This sounds fine for the iPad, but if it suggests the direction Apple might take with the Mac, it worries me a lot. We can already see this direction in iPhoto, as people have pointed out (I know how to open the package and get at my files, but I remember saying "wtf" when iPhoto started putting its files into a package), and in iMovie, which a couple versions ago started creating a "media library" where all your source files from all projects are stored together in a central location. That makes NO SENSE in my client-based work.
Ah, tagging and meta-data. I had this awesome idea for a filesystem using only tagging. [snip] Of course, it would be nice to unify this GUI with some sort of visual metaphor, say the top of your familiar work desk, with each tagging icon perhaps represented by a similarly concrete spatial metaphor, such as a stylized folder sitting on said desk's top...
This is a media consumption device, not a laptop/desktop replacement. It's a low end, commercial, consumer device. Do try and understand that.
What is with people not being able to see that this is a media consumption device for people who aren't technically savvy?!
I have to take issue with the technically savvy bit. I am very technically savvy and this device sounds ideal for me. The way I see it this is a media consumption device (which can also be used for limited content creation) for absolutely everyone except those that can only work on devices that require the user to be technically savvy. I have other machines but i can see the iPad getting some heavy use around my pad. Perfect for checking out AI!
QT X is a Movie Player ONLY, that's why they have "Quicktime Player" still, to fulfill all those other things.
Steve said as much when he debuted it in Snow Leopard.
QT X is only intended as a lightweight, redesigned player without all the cruft that full-blown Quicktime brings to the table (which 95% of users don't need).
QT X is a Movie Player ONLY, that's why they have "Quicktime Player" still, to fulfill all those other things.
Steve said as much when he debuted it in Snow Leopard.
QT X is only intended as a lightweight, redesigned player without all the cruft that full-blown Quicktime brings to the table (which 95% of users don't need).
That's what's now confusing about QTVR. Panoramas are still .mov files. They don't need any editing, just playing. Yet you have to keep QT 7 to play them.
That's what's now confusing about QTVR. Panoramas are still .mov files. They don't need any editing, just playing. Yet you have to keep QT 7 to play them.
Okay, so what you are now saying is Quicktime isn't broken. File extension confusion is the problem.
QT X, whilst for playing, is only for playing Video and Music. For everything else there is QT 7. Maybe a little more intelligence is needed at the OS level to handle panoramic .MOV files.
The handling of a MOV file is determined by the OS, so it's probably more of a Mac OS X issue, as MOVs aren't exclusively Mac OS X.
I think that comment is unfair, at least about myself and for my example.
I am a counsellor, hypnotherapist, trainer, and tech-support - and I'm quite sensitive to the person I'm working with and what approach is likely to be most effective for learning new behaviours.
In the example of a person using the trash as a filing cabinet, there aren't a lot of ways to explain the usage of trash without them responding "I'm an idiot" (after which I'd tell them they're not, compliment them on not using the Inbox as their receptacle of all emails they've ever got, and show them how to use folders). My joking with this user and using normal desk/trash usage was something she understood well, instantly expanded her thoughts to how she normally does file things herself, and allowed me to use her own regular behaviours to teach how outlook could fit that.
This kind of joke-to-help works or fails based on how it it presented and who it is presented to.
All that said - I think file management has long surpassed the simple metaphors that worked when they appeared on the Mac 25 years ago.
I think the iPad is brilliant, re-inventing how we think of computers. It'll change and progress and grow in big ways - for now Apple HAS to force a very strict usage type on it to stop users/reporters/developers from approaching it like a regular computer, so that the new interaction method has a chance to take hold.
And that's exactly in line with what you're saying - existing IT people have a specific mindset, that Apple knows they need to change. So Apple presents something that appears crippled by traditionally tech standards, and yet does so many useful things. They'll probably prevent apps which are poorly ported from OSX even though they'll run fine, if the app looks and feels more like it was made for a mouse and keyboard. Force the new way of interacting. I was surprised Apple announced a keyboard for that reason too, though I can see why.
From this beginning Apple can expand.
However, to this topic about File Access - I don't agree with the per-app filesystem. It works brilliantly for a very small number of files, but doesn't scale and can lead to inter-app access issues. I think Apple could do better.
You're right that I probably was being a bit harsh, and I don't doubt that you handled the situation very well. My point was intended to be rather more general - the amount of times I've witnessed tech guys being total arseholes to people, belittling them for not understanding this, that or the other, is worrying. I must admit it tends to be better on the Mac side of things - PC guys seem to be the worst.
A couple of years ago I oversaw the transition of a company from PC to Mac and had to work with the new contracted Mac support guys as well as the old PC support guys. I had to physically intervene at one point, when a PC guy was asking this woman the same question over and over again when she clearly didn't understand, and she wound up in tears.
As for Desktop OS X going down the route of no files and folders - I really don't see that happening. You're likely to see applications abstract things from the user, but the OS shouldn't really be doing this too much. The iPhoto way of storing stuff in a package is a good example of this. Most people don't care where their photos are stored. Expecting the average user to keep track of this is unrealistic. If you're tech savvy, you'll be able to understand and use the package bundle fine, so it's not a problem. If it really is a problem, don't use iPhoto.
Maybe a little more intelligence is needed at the OS level to handle panoramic .MOV files.
The handling of a MOV file is determined by the OS, so it's probably more of a Mac OS X issue, as MOVs aren't exclusively Mac OS X.
By no means. QTVR is perfectly playing within QT 7, it is playing in Safari. OS support is in place. It's just QT X, which can't play such files anymore. The functionality has been dropped.
For once, i think this is a fundamental change with a really positive result. Getting rid of folder/file structures is a big move but with so many benefits. It works well for iPhoto and Aperture, and i think it would work well for a whole system
Absolutely agree... and the program will do the tagging for you. Just save, and all the external data, images, what have you... will now have a meta tag with the documents name. Rather simple.
I use a QuickLook plugin called SneekPeak for use with Illustrator and FreeHand files. When QLing the Illustrator files, it shows me which colors, fonts, and images I've used.
Take that one step further, and allow it to be an overlay window, and possible "Collect for output..Export...Sharing..." whatever, and the "Project Folder" necessity goes away.
Because I've been a rather prolific designer for some 30 years, I've always had to manage my hard drives, and try to keep duplicates to a minimum. I've generally used aliases for this in Project folders where I may use the same image from somewhere else on the HD.
Automatic quasi-"aliases" in metadata form would be far more useful.
Also, there were some people here pretending to be "pros" and why a file structure was necessary, and how they lose files because of being misnamed, etc. Do those people know how to use search at all?
And Gazoobee is not the only one that has seen desktops scattered. In fact, for the majority of people that I know, almost everything lives on the desktop: folders, program aliases, downloads... everything. In fact, if it's somewhere else, many people think they have lost it some how, and don't know how to find it.
One last observation. For all of the people here screaming how they want to use their computer or iDevice "their way", and demanding "Folder Freedom" and true OS X on the iPad, why do I think that they don't even have the slightest idea how to use OS X on a Mac right now?
For example, do you know how to use "Smart Folders", Saved searches, etc.?
What if "Smart Folders" became unobtrusive and an underlying feature on the iPad?
Comments
I don't understand why people are opposed to what apple is doing.
<snip>
at least 90% of the issues revolve around people not understanding file structures. In fact, for all of you botching this is a bad idea, I bet a good portion of you have duplicate files laying around because if the confusion between downloads for the system, downloads for the user
<snip>
If you don't see how this is a natural evolution of file structure, you prolly don't know what your talking about and this setup is specifically for people like you.
I agree a huge number of problems come from the file system. Partly because there are differences that people don't understand - like 2 application folders. Partly because while by default when you drag files in your own structure it moves them but copies when dragged to external disks or servers. We attach files to email (or receive them in emails) and they become extra copies. The file system behind iPhoto and iTunes is entirely unrelated to the other main file system. And iPhoto and iTunes make file management more complex because deleting a photo/song from an 'album' doesn't delete it, you have to go to the library for that. Fun and games.
But having a flat file system is not an answer. Have you tried finding a movie on AppleTV once it has a large number? Even finding a trailer is busy enough. The AppleTV interface was hailed as simple to use but didn't scale well to larger numbers of files.
AppleInsider's Prince McLean does say that each app will be responsible for storing its own data/files. And that the iPad will share its data to the computer, looking like a single folder with a subfolder for each app's data. He may not be right, but that's what he said.
It strikes me that an application-based file system is really pretty well the same as the current filesystems for iTunes and iPhoto.
iTunes and iPhoto both have a single library full of files. They then have a system for managing those files - which involves 'albums' that point to library files, smart "search based" folders, etc. If iMovie needs a photo it co-operates with iPhoto's filing method (same for music from iTunes)
So in some ways this new system for the iPad seems to broaden that idea. Every app is responsible for its set of files, but apps can allow other apps access to their data to some degree.
I'd rather something else. To start with it might be useful to have a filesystem where there really is only one copy of every file unless we explicitly ask for a 2nd copy. Our files are in too many places at the moment, but there are ways of working on that other than making individual apps responsible.
What are you talking about!? I expect to use it to produce/edit/share my iWork-Office documents in a HUGE way. I am hoping that, over time, it will allow for seamless reading from and writing to Office documents (right now, iWork is pretty good, but not perfect, in that regard), and hopefully, as apps get more numerous and varies, enable me to do serious statistical computations, data analysis and such.
If it was simply a 'consuming' device, it would be a failure. After all, we will need no more than a 'smart' TV for that.
Do read - he was talking about the iPhone, not the iPad.
If the iPad didn't have to rely on another computer, if it could stand on it's own, then it would be a "revolutionary" device indeed, rather than just a larger Touch with better software.
Then I guess you're missing the point. A new user doesn't need a computer, all music, content can exist on this device and doesn't need synching to anything. The only thing to sync would be an existing itunes library and existing photo's. It's you who isn't thinking outside the box, not apple.
This is a media consumption device, not a laptop/desktop replacement. It's a low end, commercial, consumer device. Do try and understand that.
What is with people not being able to see that this is a media consumption device for people who aren't technically savvy?!
For every vocal whiner on the internet there are millions like me who are quite happy with mobileme (and .Mac before).
Agreed, my household are all mobileme, and all very, very happy with this consumer level service. It's those who try to run businesses from it, and sync 20/30 meg + files that run into trouble.
People use a domestic/consumer service as a business level technology because they're too cheap to invest in a high end architecture. Their issue, not Apples.
People complaining about no usb, no SD, no full operating system.
People basically complaining that this isn't the device that they wanted from Apple, and that because it's not what these tech-heads want, it will fail.
I've got news for you.
You might try and push the bounds of this device - and good on your for trying, it will help Apple to determine interest in some form of high-end touch computing device.
This isn't it.
It wasn't intended to be.
It's a toy for mum to read books sat on the sofa, check her email, write a church newsletter and browse the web.
That is all.
So many people missing the point.
Of course there is a lot of potential for a device such as this. But this is not that device, this is an inexpensive, low-end, beautiful, toy. And it will do just fine.
It doesn't NEED to be or do anything else.
If you'd like it to be, then fine - but it isn't - and this doesn't make it a failed product. If you don't see the point, don't buy it - Apple don't care.
...and people wonder why IT guys aren't all that popular.
Looks like addabox has it about right.
I think that comment is unfair, at least about myself and for my example.
I am a counsellor, hypnotherapist, trainer, and tech-support - and I'm quite sensitive to the person I'm working with and what approach is likely to be most effective for learning new behaviours.
In the example of a person using the trash as a filing cabinet, there aren't a lot of ways to explain the usage of trash without them responding "I'm an idiot" (after which I'd tell them they're not, compliment them on not using the Inbox as their receptacle of all emails they've ever got, and show them how to use folders). My joking with this user and using normal desk/trash usage was something she understood well, instantly expanded her thoughts to how she normally does file things herself, and allowed me to use her own regular behaviours to teach how outlook could fit that.
This kind of joke-to-help works or fails based on how it it presented and who it is presented to.
All that said - I think file management has long surpassed the simple metaphors that worked when they appeared on the Mac 25 years ago.
People who are conversant with these particular abstractions, who smirk and giggle and imagine that people who don't care to contort their thinking according to the dictates of computer science are "stupid", need to be slapped, hard, over and over again, until they shut the fuck up.
I couldn't be more sincere about this, the rise the IT personality as some kind of necessary evil is really, really depressing thing. If not for the unyielding complexity of the systems they smugly inhabit, we would have kicked them unconscious long ago, just on general principles.
Which is why it's so very interesting to see people with exactly that personality so strenuously attack the very idea of something like the iPad. My most fervent wish is that Apple's model takes off, and you assholes lose your one and only significant asset. At which point we rediscover the simple fact that obsessive compulsive hyper-left brained geeks are actually incredibly unpleasant and probably best shunned.
I think the iPad is brilliant, re-inventing how we think of computers. It'll change and progress and grow in big ways - for now Apple HAS to force a very strict usage type on it to stop users/reporters/developers from approaching it like a regular computer, so that the new interaction method has a chance to take hold.
And that's exactly in line with what you're saying - existing IT people have a specific mindset, that Apple knows they need to change. So Apple presents something that appears crippled by traditionally tech standards, and yet does so many useful things. They'll probably prevent apps which are poorly ported from OSX even though they'll run fine, if the app looks and feels more like it was made for a mouse and keyboard. Force the new way of interacting. I was surprised Apple announced a keyboard for that reason too, though I can see why.
From this beginning Apple can expand.
However, to this topic about File Access - I don't agree with the per-app filesystem. It works brilliantly for a very small number of files, but doesn't scale and can lead to inter-app access issues. I think Apple could do better.
Do read - he was talking about the iPhone, not the iPad.
Oops. You're right.
I think that comment is unfair, at least about myself and for my example.
I am a counsellor, hypnotherapist, trainer, and tech-support - and I'm quite sensitive to the person I'm working with and what approach is likely to be most effective for learning new behaviours.
In the example of a person using the trash as a filing cabinet, there aren't a lot of ways to explain the usage of trash without them responding "I'm an idiot" (after which I'd tell them they're not, compliment them on not using the Inbox as their receptacle of all emails they've ever got, and show them how to use folders). My joking with this user and using normal desk/trash usage was something she understood well, instantly expanded her thoughts to how she normally does file things herself, and allowed me to use her own regular behaviours to teach how outlook could fit that.
This kind of joke-to-help works or fails based on how it it presented and who it is presented to.
All that said - I think file management has long surpassed the simple metaphors that worked when they appeared on the Mac 25 years ago.
I think the iPad is brilliant, re-inventing how we think of computers. It'll change and progress and grow in big ways - for now Apple HAS to force a very strict usage type on it to stop users/reporters/developers from approaching it like a regular computer, so that the new interaction method has a chance to take hold.
And that's exactly in line with what you're saying - existing IT people have a specific mindset, that Apple knows they need to change. So Apple presents something that appears crippled by traditionally tech standards, and yet does so many useful things. They'll probably prevent apps which are poorly ported from OSX even though they'll run fine, if the app looks and feels more like it was made for a mouse and keyboard. Force the new way of interacting. I was surprised Apple announced a keyboard for that reason too, though I can see why.
From this beginning Apple can expand.
However, to this topic about File Access - I don't agree with the per-app filesystem. It works brilliantly for a very small number of files, but doesn't scale and can lead to inter-app access issues. I think Apple could do better.
I suspect that you play the role that I often do: "tech translator." I don't think there are many people who do this well, which is why I do some of it on a consulting basis, in addition to at my regular workplace and among friends.
You start by recognizing the pretty normal ways people relate to technology, assure them that they're inability to do something is not a sign of stupidity, then seek commonsensical ways to convey techniques.
People can't learn well when they're stressed and feel belittled. Snapping out gobbets of tech talk, impatiently pushing them aside, or sighing heavily and beginning to talks as if to a child, which are standard IT techniques, just makes people ever more resistant to ever learning that stuff. Most people might not even be able to tell you the roots of their anxiety and unhappiness around computers, but almost everyone has had the experience of being more or less bullied by "a tech guy." If I wanted to, I could actually make a fair bit of money just by being a guy who knows something about this stuff who isn't a total asshole.
A new user doesn't need a computer, all music, content can exist on this device and doesn't need synching to anything. The only thing to sync would be an existing itunes library and existing photo's.
That's certainly possible, and I hope it'll work that way - we just don't know for sure yet.
It's also possible that importing photos using the SD card adaptor will just put them in an "import roll", much as the iPhone takes pictures into a "camera roll". This import roll then syncs back to the computer which organises everything into events, faces, places.
iirc, Steve said that photos would import correctly from Macs or PCs - but that IF photos were synced from a Mac instead of PC, then you'd have access to events, places, and faces. This implies those are not something done on the iPad itself... but again we don't really know the details.
A colleague has asked me to help her get an iPad to use as her only computer. I think it will be quite possible, and generally it looks like a great match to her needs, but there are many questions that haven't been answered.
if you're reading this forum, you're not normal, and the iPad probably isn't aimed at you. You understand files and folders and good organisation. A lot of people don't, and this for them is a far simpler method of organising (or not) files.
This sounds fine for the iPad, but if it suggests the direction Apple might take with the Mac, it worries me a lot. We can already see this direction in iPhoto, as people have pointed out (I know how to open the package and get at my files, but I remember saying "wtf" when iPhoto started putting its files into a package), and in iMovie, which a couple versions ago started creating a "media library" where all your source files from all projects are stored together in a central location. That makes NO SENSE in my client-based work.
Ah, tagging and meta-data. I had this awesome idea for a filesystem using only tagging. [snip] Of course, it would be nice to unify this GUI with some sort of visual metaphor, say the top of your familiar work desk, with each tagging icon perhaps represented by a similarly concrete spatial metaphor, such as a stylized folder sitting on said desk's top...
This is a media consumption device, not a laptop/desktop replacement. It's a low end, commercial, consumer device. Do try and understand that.
What is with people not being able to see that this is a media consumption device for people who aren't technically savvy?!
I have to take issue with the technically savvy bit. I am very technically savvy and this device sounds ideal for me. The way I see it this is a media consumption device (which can also be used for limited content creation) for absolutely everyone except those that can only work on devices that require the user to be technically savvy. I have other machines but i can see the iPad getting some heavy use around my pad. Perfect for checking out AI!
I wish they'd fix Quicktime first.
A bit off-topic, as already suggested, but what is broken about Quicktime?
A bit off-topic, as already suggested, but what is broken about Quicktime?
QT X can't display QTVR panoramas, for one...
QT X can't display QTVR panoramas, for one...
QT X is a Movie Player ONLY, that's why they have "Quicktime Player" still, to fulfill all those other things.
Steve said as much when he debuted it in Snow Leopard.
QT X is only intended as a lightweight, redesigned player without all the cruft that full-blown Quicktime brings to the table (which 95% of users don't need).
QT X is a Movie Player ONLY, that's why they have "Quicktime Player" still, to fulfill all those other things.
Steve said as much when he debuted it in Snow Leopard.
QT X is only intended as a lightweight, redesigned player without all the cruft that full-blown Quicktime brings to the table (which 95% of users don't need).
That's what's now confusing about QTVR. Panoramas are still .mov files. They don't need any editing, just playing. Yet you have to keep QT 7 to play them.
That's what's now confusing about QTVR. Panoramas are still .mov files. They don't need any editing, just playing. Yet you have to keep QT 7 to play them.
Okay, so what you are now saying is Quicktime isn't broken. File extension confusion is the problem.
QT X, whilst for playing, is only for playing Video and Music. For everything else there is QT 7. Maybe a little more intelligence is needed at the OS level to handle panoramic .MOV files.
The handling of a MOV file is determined by the OS, so it's probably more of a Mac OS X issue, as MOVs aren't exclusively Mac OS X.
I think that comment is unfair, at least about myself and for my example.
I am a counsellor, hypnotherapist, trainer, and tech-support - and I'm quite sensitive to the person I'm working with and what approach is likely to be most effective for learning new behaviours.
In the example of a person using the trash as a filing cabinet, there aren't a lot of ways to explain the usage of trash without them responding "I'm an idiot" (after which I'd tell them they're not, compliment them on not using the Inbox as their receptacle of all emails they've ever got, and show them how to use folders). My joking with this user and using normal desk/trash usage was something she understood well, instantly expanded her thoughts to how she normally does file things herself, and allowed me to use her own regular behaviours to teach how outlook could fit that.
This kind of joke-to-help works or fails based on how it it presented and who it is presented to.
All that said - I think file management has long surpassed the simple metaphors that worked when they appeared on the Mac 25 years ago.
I think the iPad is brilliant, re-inventing how we think of computers. It'll change and progress and grow in big ways - for now Apple HAS to force a very strict usage type on it to stop users/reporters/developers from approaching it like a regular computer, so that the new interaction method has a chance to take hold.
And that's exactly in line with what you're saying - existing IT people have a specific mindset, that Apple knows they need to change. So Apple presents something that appears crippled by traditionally tech standards, and yet does so many useful things. They'll probably prevent apps which are poorly ported from OSX even though they'll run fine, if the app looks and feels more like it was made for a mouse and keyboard. Force the new way of interacting. I was surprised Apple announced a keyboard for that reason too, though I can see why.
From this beginning Apple can expand.
However, to this topic about File Access - I don't agree with the per-app filesystem. It works brilliantly for a very small number of files, but doesn't scale and can lead to inter-app access issues. I think Apple could do better.
You're right that I probably was being a bit harsh, and I don't doubt that you handled the situation very well. My point was intended to be rather more general - the amount of times I've witnessed tech guys being total arseholes to people, belittling them for not understanding this, that or the other, is worrying. I must admit it tends to be better on the Mac side of things - PC guys seem to be the worst.
A couple of years ago I oversaw the transition of a company from PC to Mac and had to work with the new contracted Mac support guys as well as the old PC support guys. I had to physically intervene at one point, when a PC guy was asking this woman the same question over and over again when she clearly didn't understand, and she wound up in tears.
As for Desktop OS X going down the route of no files and folders - I really don't see that happening. You're likely to see applications abstract things from the user, but the OS shouldn't really be doing this too much. The iPhoto way of storing stuff in a package is a good example of this. Most people don't care where their photos are stored. Expecting the average user to keep track of this is unrealistic. If you're tech savvy, you'll be able to understand and use the package bundle fine, so it's not a problem. If it really is a problem, don't use iPhoto.
Maybe a little more intelligence is needed at the OS level to handle panoramic .MOV files.
The handling of a MOV file is determined by the OS, so it's probably more of a Mac OS X issue, as MOVs aren't exclusively Mac OS X.
By no means. QTVR is perfectly playing within QT 7, it is playing in Safari.
Exactly!
For once, i think this is a fundamental change with a really positive result. Getting rid of folder/file structures is a big move but with so many benefits. It works well for iPhoto and Aperture, and i think it would work well for a whole system
Absolutely agree... and the program will do the tagging for you. Just save, and all the external data, images, what have you... will now have a meta tag with the documents name. Rather simple.
I use a QuickLook plugin called SneekPeak for use with Illustrator and FreeHand files. When QLing the Illustrator files, it shows me which colors, fonts, and images I've used.
Take that one step further, and allow it to be an overlay window, and possible "Collect for output..Export...Sharing..." whatever, and the "Project Folder" necessity goes away.
Because I've been a rather prolific designer for some 30 years, I've always had to manage my hard drives, and try to keep duplicates to a minimum. I've generally used aliases for this in Project folders where I may use the same image from somewhere else on the HD.
Automatic quasi-"aliases" in metadata form would be far more useful.
Also, there were some people here pretending to be "pros" and why a file structure was necessary, and how they lose files because of being misnamed, etc. Do those people know how to use search at all?
And Gazoobee is not the only one that has seen desktops scattered. In fact, for the majority of people that I know, almost everything lives on the desktop: folders, program aliases, downloads... everything. In fact, if it's somewhere else, many people think they have lost it some how, and don't know how to find it.
One last observation. For all of the people here screaming how they want to use their computer or iDevice "their way", and demanding "Folder Freedom" and true OS X on the iPad, why do I think that they don't even have the slightest idea how to use OS X on a Mac right now?
For example, do you know how to use "Smart Folders", Saved searches, etc.?
What if "Smart Folders" became unobtrusive and an underlying feature on the iPad?