I give them credit for what they're designing. They make the decisions. I don't agree that all their decisions are for the best though. Sometimes their vision is what's best for Apple, not us. Like not giving us Blu-Ray, even as an option.
The point is that with some things, they can make an exception, or even change their minds, when it suits them for their own purposes. Another example is not giving FM tuners on iPods. I know that very few people really care about that, but when they found a way where they could make money off adding it, they did. So their vision isn't always guided by what's best for us as consumers of their products, but what's best for Apple, the company. Now, as a stockholder, I appreciate that, but not always as a customer.
I find this argument to be highly abstract. For the most part I think people understand what they are buying and make choices accordingly, based on personal preferences. All products involve compromises and tradeoffs. If you like what a product does, you buy it. If you don't like the compromises and tradeoffs, you don't. I don't assume that Apple or anyone else has failed because their products don't precisely express my preferences.
Apple is just like any other corporation. What suits them is making money. First, last, always. We make our purchase choices based on our preferences, not on some abstract notion of what some company thinks is best.
I agree with both of you. Yes, Apple is about making money. But they have also touted their platform for pros, many of whom bought in. Tech changed and BluRay came out. Lots of pros have Macs; choosing then to buy elsewhere to support BR is expensive. Apple even now touts FCS as the " the first choice of professional editors" ... unless they need to produce BR.
Sure, FCS now has limited BR support, but how hard would it be to increase support within apps and then allow 3rd party drives to be added for less cost to customers than buying a new system? (not to mention abandoning the Mac platform)
Steve also wrote somebody saying the YouTube handles HD; can a company sell its products over YouTube? What about the creative nature of a textbook with accompanying disks as a package?
iTunes and Mail work fine in the background on iPhone OS 3.2. It's at least theoretically possible that Apple could have printing work in the background.
It's simply THIRD PARTY apps that don't background.
I don't know that! But, think about it. 4.0 has a BG process especially designed for finishing a process (uploading, etc.) in the BG after you switch to another app.
Why should Apple spend precious resources developing a solution for the iPad (OS 3.2) when the same function is already implemented in 4.0 (and available to iPad in the fall).
It's just an efficient, cost-effective, logical way to address the requirement!
If we need a dongle, it's safer to have one with a cord. A solid one like these is easy to damage a port with, as the leverage from it can pop the post socket right off the board, if pressed down by mistake. but a cord doesn't have that problem. The connector hardly extends from the socket, and if it's pulled out, it's less likely to damage anything. Even if it's dangling straight down, the cord is so close to the socket that leverage is slight.
What you say has logical merit:
But my experience with destroying the micro USB port on 3 Mophie JuicePack Airs tells a different story...
Printing with the Mac or PC is the way printing apps for the iPad/phone work now, so that would be nothing new. I hope it's direct. I can print images or text, or combinations. These programs are pretty sophisticated. Check out PrintBureau.
But I mostly just want to print with a print button. I see no problem with including the USB port. It's up to Apple to decide how much support they will give it. There's no reason why they couldn't give full USB support, if they wanted to. They just don't want to, so far.
As for drivers, they could allow the downloading of any drivers the customer wanted. They have them all, and the ability to allow that. This is nothing too difficult from a technical standpoint. It's just a matter of will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I don't get this. The 30-pin connector already does USB signaling so why does it have to be replaced by Micro-USB or Mini-USB (the only two that would fit) just so some people can have printing while completely hurting the entire iDevice line of accessories and Apple's ability to push the use of the connector by limiting it to just USB signaling?
I don't get this either. Some of those print drivers are huge. I can't imagine anyone DLing hundreds of MBs for a print driver to use once when it's faster to send to a PC to print.
Apple clearly has positioned these devices to be portable, auxiliary computing devices, so unless there is a method that doesn't require a lengthy and archaic driver DL for each new printer I don't see this happening without the use of a 3rd-party app.
I tend to agree with Sol on this, though, personally, I'd like the added capability MG describes.
I think I understand Apple's reasoning, though!
Consider these points:
--The drivers that Apple has don't exist for the ARM platform-- they would need to be converted and maintained separately.
-- As part of the forecast/pricing for every device they make, Apple includes the cost of support. Adding, somewhat-specialized features or function comes with a resource and support burden. To cover this Apple would need to raise the price or remove other function.
-- Finally, what sets many Apple devices, apart, from the competition is: that they choose not to do some things, badly; and choose to do a few things really well!
Will you, Sol or I ever get an Apple device that meets all our requirements? I suspect the answer is no! The real question becomes: can they get close enough to satisfy most people while meeting Apple's objectives...
Again, it's always the "poor writing" that's responsible for your "misunderstanding". Do you ever accept responsibility for anything you read and fail to understand, ever, hmm, ever? If it only happened once it "could" be the writer's fault but when it continues to happen with various writers, you have to look elsewhere.
Please show me where I asked you to look to another company, other than the one you "say" you owned. I'm betting you'll come up with a "lame" excuse to explain why you can't/won't.
And as for "seeing how upset I am" .... your mind reading "abilities" have again failed you. If I ever do get upset it sure as heck won't be over the postings of a "Global Moderator".
I'm not going to bother responding to you here, so if you want to keep blathering on, feel free to do so.
I find this argument to be highly abstract. For the most part I think people understand what they are buying and make choices accordingly, based on personal preferences. All products involve compromises and tradeoffs. If you like what a product does, you buy it. If you don't like the compromises and tradeoffs, you don't. I don't assume that Apple or anyone else has failed because their products don't precisely express my preferences.
Apple is just like any other corporation. What suits them is making money. First, last, always. We make our purchase choices based on our preferences, not on some abstract notion of what some company thinks is best.
It's not always a matter of buying or not buying. We're not talking about major tradeoffs, but ones that are annoying. Annoying I can live with, though not quite as happily as I would otherwise.
I tend to agree with Sol on this, though, personally, I'd like the added capability MG describes.
I think I understand Apple's reasoning, though!
Consider these points:
--The drivers that Apple has don't exist for the ARM platform-- they would need to be converted and maintained separately.
-- As part of the forecast/pricing for every device they make, Apple includes the cost of support. Adding, somewhat-specialized features or function comes with a resource and support burden. To cover this Apple would need to raise the price or remove other function.
-- Finally, what sets many Apple devices, apart, from the competition is: that they choose not to do some things, badly; and choose to do a few things really well!
Will you, Sol or I ever get an Apple device that meets all our requirements? I suspect the answer is no! The real question becomes: can they get close enough to satisfy most people while meeting Apple's objectives...
The answer is a resounding YES!
.
Again, Jobs recently promised printing support for the iPad. We'll just have to see what that means. There are plenty of apps out that support it now, through your computer/network, so if Apple's going that route, except for saving us a few bucks, it's not really anything so great. It might make it easier if there's a print box in apps though. But if they support direct printing, which many people do want, from what I read in web site articles and forums, then the printer driver thing will be handled by them after all. Having a USB port just makes things simpler from a connection viewpoint.
It's not always a matter of buying or not buying. We're not talking about major tradeoffs, but ones that are annoying. Annoying I can live with, though not quite as happily as I would otherwise.
I can hardly think of a major product I've owned that hasn't featured some tradeoffs, including ones I had a hard time understanding or found to be annoying. It's just a fact of life. If a product has too many tradeoffs, we should not buy it. That's the bargain we make with manufacturers. I don't think it's a matter of the manufacturers thinking they know best for us. They make their decisions based on cost of production, technical issues, design issues, and marketing. The rationales may not always be clear to us, but I think it's fair to say that they exist nonetheless.
In the case of a omitting a USB port, I can make a pretty good guess for Apple's rationale. You or I might not necessarily like it, but the alternative explanation doesn't have to be a cynical one.
I can hardly think of a major product I've owned that hasn't featured some tradeoffs, including ones I had a hard time understanding or found to be annoying. It's just a fact of life. If a product has too many tradeoffs, we should not buy it. That's the bargain we make with manufacturers. I don't think it's a matter of the manufacturers thinking they know best for us. They make their decisions based on cost of production, technical issues, design issues, and marketing. The rationales may not always be clear to us, but I think it's fair to say that they exist nonetheless.
In the case of a omitting a USB port, I can make a pretty good guess for Apple's rationale. You or I might not necessarily like it, but the alternative explanation doesn't have to be a cynical one.
I don't think it's a cynical one. It's one that's good for whatever they're trying to push as a usage pattern, as well as their own technologies. They're giving up a lot of potential users though with some of these restrictions. With the iPhone, and even the Touch, I'm willing to accept much more in the line of restrictions, because the small size of the devices themselves restricts what can be reasonably be done. But some of the software restrictions are too limiting in a device like this. The photo industry has been very excited about the iPad, but some of that is dying. This is one reason:
This is sad, because there are several hundred thousand users of their product. John Nack from Adobe is now moving into a mobile products area in the company, and has recently asked if people want a Psd viewer for the iPad. When looked at last, there were several hundred posts saying that they would want a simpler version of Lightroom, or at worst, Elements instead. But that may be impossible. Apple could be losing millions of sales over this in the coming years. It's not a small number. Most users would be using this in complement to their MBPs and Macs, not instead. This is why some of this is frustrating. I refuse to support every single decision that Apple makes, when some of them are just obstinate about doing things their way.
At the All Things Digital conference, Jobs said that iPads and other tablets were going to eventually replace the pc based computing environment for most people, but in order to do so, they must replace the functionality as well.
I don't think it's a cynical one. It's one that's good for whatever they're trying to push as a usage pattern, as well as their own technologies. They're giving up a lot of potential users though with some of these restrictions. With the iPhone, and even the Touch, I'm willing to accept much more in the line of restrictions, because the small size of the devices themselves restricts what can be reasonably be done. But some of the software restrictions are too limiting in a device like this. The photo industry has been very excited about the iPad, but some of that is dying. This is one reason:
This is sad, because there are several hundred thousand users of their product. John Nack from Adobe is now moving into a mobile products area in the company, and has recently asked if people want a Psd viewer for the iPad. When looked at last, there were several hundred posts saying that they would want a simpler version of Lightroom, or at worst, Elements instead. But that may be impossible. Apple could be losing millions of sales over this in the coming years. It's not a small number. Most users would be using this in complement to their MBPs and Macs, not instead. This is why some of this is frustrating. I refuse to support every single decision that Apple makes, when some of them are just obstinate about doing things their way.
At the All Things Digital conference, Jobs said that iPads and other tablets were going to eventually replace the pc based computing environment for most people, but in order to do so, they must replace the functionality as well.
I think this is actually a perfect example of what I have been saying. You assume that Apple is "just obstinate" about how this works, or doesn't. That is cynical explanation IMO since it attributes it to insincere motivations. I think they have other reasons which although they may be less than fully apparent from the outside, exist just the same. Additionally, I don't see obstinacy as a business plan, and I believe Apple is actually pretty good at business plans. Perhaps we differ on that point.
And FWIW, others are meeting much the same need within the restrictions. So while perhaps this company can't squeeze their pro photo editing app into the iPad, at least not in the way they's like, others have. So naturally they complain about it. Perhaps future iterations of the iPad will have a hardware profile that will make their app possible on the iPad. Maybe not. Perhaps the iPad's software model will never allow them to port this particular app. Perhaps others will do what they cannot.
So the iPad is not an open-ended wish fulfillment machine. I'm not shocked. It was designed to do the things it can do very well, instead of everything anyone could imagine, poorly. It seems to me this was Apple's decision from the start, the way they decided the iPad had the best chance to establish a beachhead in a market where others have failed.
This doesn't translate into Apple being obstinate. It translates into them knowing what that intended to do, and doing it.
I think this is actually a perfect example of what I have been saying. You assume that Apple is "just obstinate" about how this works, or doesn't. That is cynical explanation IMO since it attributes it to insincere motivations. I think they have other reasons which although they may be less than fully apparent from the outside, exist just the same. Additionally, I don't see obstinacy as a business plan, and I believe Apple is actually pretty good at business plans. Perhaps we differ on that point.
And FWIW, others are meeting much the same need within the restrictions. So while perhaps this company can't squeeze their pro photo editing app into the iPad, at least not in the way they's like, others have. So naturally they complain about it. Perhaps future iterations of the iPad will have a hardware profile that will make their app possible on the iPad. Maybe not. Perhaps the iPad's software model will never allow them to port this particular app. Perhaps others will do what they cannot.
So the iPad is not an open-ended wish fulfillment machine. I'm not shocked. It was designed to do the things it can do very well, instead of everything anyone could imagine, poorly. It seems to me this was Apple's decision from the start, the way they decided the iPad had the best chance to establish a beachhead in a market where others have failed.
This doesn't translate into Apple being obstinate. It translates into them knowing what that intended to do, and doing it.
Being obstinate isn't being insincere. They let us know what they're doing, and often, why. Yes, they're a bit reticent at times, and that's because they don't want to reveal their reasons. It's the way of business.
This company is a major developer in the photo business. There is no one else doing what they were trying to do. There is no other product doing what theirs does that's on the iPad. There is nothing close to it on the iPad. I have ALL the photo apps that are on the iPad, and they are all, without exception, junk. Children's toys.
Read post #115 and you'll see who is acting like an ass.... and an arrogant one at that.
Read post #121 and it starts to look like a trend has started here. Melgross gets all uppity with someone for no reason and when he is found to be wrong he transfers all blame to anybody but himself. When he no longer can shift blame .... you come riding in on a white horse to try to save him by using tag team methods. That's fine ... but my advice to both of you is simply this: If you can't take it .... don't dish it out.
Read post #115 and you'll see who is acting like an ass.... and an arrogant one at that.
Read post #121 and it starts to look like a trend has started here. Melgross gets all uppity with someone for no reason and when he is found to be wrong he transfers all blame to anybody but himself. When he no longer can shift blame .... you come riding in on a white horse to try to save him by using tag team methods. That's fine ... but my advice to both of you is simply this: If you can't take it .... don't dish it out.
I chose not to follow that sub-thread, but I did see one person end it and another try to draw that back in by putting them on the defensive. You get to a point where you realize either party will not see the other's PoV, if one ends it then the other should too. Feel free to get the last word in, but if your last post looks like a blatant attempt at baiting then I can't help but that party an ass.
I chose not to follow that sub-thread, but I did see one person end it and another try to draw that back in by putting them on the defensive. You get to a point where you realize either party will not see the other's PoV, if one ends it then the other should too. Feel free to get the last word in, but if your last post looks like a blatant attempt at baiting then I can't help but that party an ass.
In other words, you don't care to look at all of the facts, you'll make up your mind based on one post and then take the time to call someone an ass. That's kind of like reading the headline of an article, but not the article itself, which, quite likely, explains fully the intent of the story. Brilliant! That method of posting would explain why so many things get misunderstood on these boards .... no matter how many posts one has.
Comments
I give them credit for what they're designing. They make the decisions. I don't agree that all their decisions are for the best though. Sometimes their vision is what's best for Apple, not us. Like not giving us Blu-Ray, even as an option.
The point is that with some things, they can make an exception, or even change their minds, when it suits them for their own purposes. Another example is not giving FM tuners on iPods. I know that very few people really care about that, but when they found a way where they could make money off adding it, they did. So their vision isn't always guided by what's best for us as consumers of their products, but what's best for Apple, the company. Now, as a stockholder, I appreciate that, but not always as a customer.
I find this argument to be highly abstract. For the most part I think people understand what they are buying and make choices accordingly, based on personal preferences. All products involve compromises and tradeoffs. If you like what a product does, you buy it. If you don't like the compromises and tradeoffs, you don't. I don't assume that Apple or anyone else has failed because their products don't precisely express my preferences.
Apple is just like any other corporation. What suits them is making money. First, last, always. We make our purchase choices based on our preferences, not on some abstract notion of what some company thinks is best.
Sure, FCS now has limited BR support, but how hard would it be to increase support within apps and then allow 3rd party drives to be added for less cost to customers than buying a new system? (not to mention abandoning the Mac platform)
Steve also wrote somebody saying the YouTube handles HD; can a company sell its products over YouTube? What about the creative nature of a textbook with accompanying disks as a package?
I take this also from Steve Jobs' comment that he was as proud of what they left out as what they included.
Which is always the hardest to do, and the most commendable ultimately if you have the right judgement.
How do you know that?
iTunes and Mail work fine in the background on iPhone OS 3.2. It's at least theoretically possible that Apple could have printing work in the background.
It's simply THIRD PARTY apps that don't background.
I don't know that! But, think about it. 4.0 has a BG process especially designed for finishing a process (uploading, etc.) in the BG after you switch to another app.
Why should Apple spend precious resources developing a solution for the iPad (OS 3.2) when the same function is already implemented in 4.0 (and available to iPad in the fall).
It's just an efficient, cost-effective, logical way to address the requirement!
.
If we need a dongle, it's safer to have one with a cord. A solid one like these is easy to damage a port with, as the leverage from it can pop the post socket right off the board, if pressed down by mistake. but a cord doesn't have that problem. The connector hardly extends from the socket, and if it's pulled out, it's less likely to damage anything. Even if it's dangling straight down, the cord is so close to the socket that leverage is slight.
What you say has logical merit:
But my experience with destroying the micro USB port on 3 Mophie JuicePack Airs tells a different story...
Maybe, just different strokes...
.
Printing with the Mac or PC is the way printing apps for the iPad/phone work now, so that would be nothing new. I hope it's direct. I can print images or text, or combinations. These programs are pretty sophisticated. Check out PrintBureau.
But I mostly just want to print with a print button. I see no problem with including the USB port. It's up to Apple to decide how much support they will give it. There's no reason why they couldn't give full USB support, if they wanted to. They just don't want to, so far.
As for drivers, they could allow the downloading of any drivers the customer wanted. They have them all, and the ability to allow that. This is nothing too difficult from a technical standpoint. It's just a matter of will.
I don't get this. The 30-pin connector already does USB signaling so why does it have to be replaced by Micro-USB or Mini-USB (the only two that would fit) just so some people can have printing while completely hurting the entire iDevice line of accessories and Apple's ability to push the use of the connector by limiting it to just USB signaling?
I don't get this either. Some of those print drivers are huge. I can't imagine anyone DLing hundreds of MBs for a print driver to use once when it's faster to send to a PC to print.
Apple clearly has positioned these devices to be portable, auxiliary computing devices, so unless there is a method that doesn't require a lengthy and archaic driver DL for each new printer I don't see this happening without the use of a 3rd-party app.
I tend to agree with Sol on this, though, personally, I'd like the added capability MG describes.
I think I understand Apple's reasoning, though!
Consider these points:
--The drivers that Apple has don't exist for the ARM platform-- they would need to be converted and maintained separately.
-- As part of the forecast/pricing for every device they make, Apple includes the cost of support. Adding, somewhat-specialized features or function comes with a resource and support burden. To cover this Apple would need to raise the price or remove other function.
-- Finally, what sets many Apple devices, apart, from the competition is: that they choose not to do some things, badly; and choose to do a few things really well!
Will you, Sol or I ever get an Apple device that meets all our requirements? I suspect the answer is no! The real question becomes: can they get close enough to satisfy most people while meeting Apple's objectives...
The answer is a resounding YES!
.
Again, it's always the "poor writing" that's responsible for your "misunderstanding". Do you ever accept responsibility for anything you read and fail to understand, ever, hmm, ever? If it only happened once it "could" be the writer's fault but when it continues to happen with various writers, you have to look elsewhere.
Please show me where I asked you to look to another company, other than the one you "say" you owned. I'm betting you'll come up with a "lame" excuse to explain why you can't/won't.
And as for "seeing how upset I am" .... your mind reading "abilities" have again failed you. If I ever do get upset it sure as heck won't be over the postings of a "Global Moderator".
I'm not going to bother responding to you here, so if you want to keep blathering on, feel free to do so.
I find this argument to be highly abstract. For the most part I think people understand what they are buying and make choices accordingly, based on personal preferences. All products involve compromises and tradeoffs. If you like what a product does, you buy it. If you don't like the compromises and tradeoffs, you don't. I don't assume that Apple or anyone else has failed because their products don't precisely express my preferences.
Apple is just like any other corporation. What suits them is making money. First, last, always. We make our purchase choices based on our preferences, not on some abstract notion of what some company thinks is best.
It's not always a matter of buying or not buying. We're not talking about major tradeoffs, but ones that are annoying. Annoying I can live with, though not quite as happily as I would otherwise.
What you say has logical merit:
But my experience with destroying the micro USB port on 3 Mophie JuicePack Airs tells a different story...
Maybe, just different strokes...
.
I'm not saying it's impossible. If you try hard enough, you can break anything. But it's less likely.
I tend to agree with Sol on this, though, personally, I'd like the added capability MG describes.
I think I understand Apple's reasoning, though!
Consider these points:
--The drivers that Apple has don't exist for the ARM platform-- they would need to be converted and maintained separately.
-- As part of the forecast/pricing for every device they make, Apple includes the cost of support. Adding, somewhat-specialized features or function comes with a resource and support burden. To cover this Apple would need to raise the price or remove other function.
-- Finally, what sets many Apple devices, apart, from the competition is: that they choose not to do some things, badly; and choose to do a few things really well!
Will you, Sol or I ever get an Apple device that meets all our requirements? I suspect the answer is no! The real question becomes: can they get close enough to satisfy most people while meeting Apple's objectives...
The answer is a resounding YES!
.
Again, Jobs recently promised printing support for the iPad. We'll just have to see what that means. There are plenty of apps out that support it now, through your computer/network, so if Apple's going that route, except for saving us a few bucks, it's not really anything so great. It might make it easier if there's a print box in apps though. But if they support direct printing, which many people do want, from what I read in web site articles and forums, then the printer driver thing will be handled by them after all. Having a USB port just makes things simpler from a connection viewpoint.
It's not always a matter of buying or not buying. We're not talking about major tradeoffs, but ones that are annoying. Annoying I can live with, though not quite as happily as I would otherwise.
I can hardly think of a major product I've owned that hasn't featured some tradeoffs, including ones I had a hard time understanding or found to be annoying. It's just a fact of life. If a product has too many tradeoffs, we should not buy it. That's the bargain we make with manufacturers. I don't think it's a matter of the manufacturers thinking they know best for us. They make their decisions based on cost of production, technical issues, design issues, and marketing. The rationales may not always be clear to us, but I think it's fair to say that they exist nonetheless.
In the case of a omitting a USB port, I can make a pretty good guess for Apple's rationale. You or I might not necessarily like it, but the alternative explanation doesn't have to be a cynical one.
I can hardly think of a major product I've owned that hasn't featured some tradeoffs, including ones I had a hard time understanding or found to be annoying. It's just a fact of life. If a product has too many tradeoffs, we should not buy it. That's the bargain we make with manufacturers. I don't think it's a matter of the manufacturers thinking they know best for us. They make their decisions based on cost of production, technical issues, design issues, and marketing. The rationales may not always be clear to us, but I think it's fair to say that they exist nonetheless.
In the case of a omitting a USB port, I can make a pretty good guess for Apple's rationale. You or I might not necessarily like it, but the alternative explanation doesn't have to be a cynical one.
I don't think it's a cynical one. It's one that's good for whatever they're trying to push as a usage pattern, as well as their own technologies. They're giving up a lot of potential users though with some of these restrictions. With the iPhone, and even the Touch, I'm willing to accept much more in the line of restrictions, because the small size of the devices themselves restricts what can be reasonably be done. But some of the software restrictions are too limiting in a device like this. The photo industry has been very excited about the iPad, but some of that is dying. This is one reason:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...=7-10052-10708
This is sad, because there are several hundred thousand users of their product. John Nack from Adobe is now moving into a mobile products area in the company, and has recently asked if people want a Psd viewer for the iPad. When looked at last, there were several hundred posts saying that they would want a simpler version of Lightroom, or at worst, Elements instead. But that may be impossible. Apple could be losing millions of sales over this in the coming years. It's not a small number. Most users would be using this in complement to their MBPs and Macs, not instead. This is why some of this is frustrating. I refuse to support every single decision that Apple makes, when some of them are just obstinate about doing things their way.
At the All Things Digital conference, Jobs said that iPads and other tablets were going to eventually replace the pc based computing environment for most people, but in order to do so, they must replace the functionality as well.
I don't think it's a cynical one. It's one that's good for whatever they're trying to push as a usage pattern, as well as their own technologies. They're giving up a lot of potential users though with some of these restrictions. With the iPhone, and even the Touch, I'm willing to accept much more in the line of restrictions, because the small size of the devices themselves restricts what can be reasonably be done. But some of the software restrictions are too limiting in a device like this. The photo industry has been very excited about the iPad, but some of that is dying. This is one reason:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...=7-10052-10708
This is sad, because there are several hundred thousand users of their product. John Nack from Adobe is now moving into a mobile products area in the company, and has recently asked if people want a Psd viewer for the iPad. When looked at last, there were several hundred posts saying that they would want a simpler version of Lightroom, or at worst, Elements instead. But that may be impossible. Apple could be losing millions of sales over this in the coming years. It's not a small number. Most users would be using this in complement to their MBPs and Macs, not instead. This is why some of this is frustrating. I refuse to support every single decision that Apple makes, when some of them are just obstinate about doing things their way.
At the All Things Digital conference, Jobs said that iPads and other tablets were going to eventually replace the pc based computing environment for most people, but in order to do so, they must replace the functionality as well.
I think this is actually a perfect example of what I have been saying. You assume that Apple is "just obstinate" about how this works, or doesn't. That is cynical explanation IMO since it attributes it to insincere motivations. I think they have other reasons which although they may be less than fully apparent from the outside, exist just the same. Additionally, I don't see obstinacy as a business plan, and I believe Apple is actually pretty good at business plans. Perhaps we differ on that point.
And FWIW, others are meeting much the same need within the restrictions. So while perhaps this company can't squeeze their pro photo editing app into the iPad, at least not in the way they's like, others have. So naturally they complain about it. Perhaps future iterations of the iPad will have a hardware profile that will make their app possible on the iPad. Maybe not. Perhaps the iPad's software model will never allow them to port this particular app. Perhaps others will do what they cannot.
So the iPad is not an open-ended wish fulfillment machine. I'm not shocked. It was designed to do the things it can do very well, instead of everything anyone could imagine, poorly. It seems to me this was Apple's decision from the start, the way they decided the iPad had the best chance to establish a beachhead in a market where others have failed.
This doesn't translate into Apple being obstinate. It translates into them knowing what that intended to do, and doing it.
I think this is actually a perfect example of what I have been saying. You assume that Apple is "just obstinate" about how this works, or doesn't. That is cynical explanation IMO since it attributes it to insincere motivations. I think they have other reasons which although they may be less than fully apparent from the outside, exist just the same. Additionally, I don't see obstinacy as a business plan, and I believe Apple is actually pretty good at business plans. Perhaps we differ on that point.
And FWIW, others are meeting much the same need within the restrictions. So while perhaps this company can't squeeze their pro photo editing app into the iPad, at least not in the way they's like, others have. So naturally they complain about it. Perhaps future iterations of the iPad will have a hardware profile that will make their app possible on the iPad. Maybe not. Perhaps the iPad's software model will never allow them to port this particular app. Perhaps others will do what they cannot.
So the iPad is not an open-ended wish fulfillment machine. I'm not shocked. It was designed to do the things it can do very well, instead of everything anyone could imagine, poorly. It seems to me this was Apple's decision from the start, the way they decided the iPad had the best chance to establish a beachhead in a market where others have failed.
This doesn't translate into Apple being obstinate. It translates into them knowing what that intended to do, and doing it.
Being obstinate isn't being insincere. They let us know what they're doing, and often, why. Yes, they're a bit reticent at times, and that's because they don't want to reveal their reasons. It's the way of business.
This company is a major developer in the photo business. There is no one else doing what they were trying to do. There is no other product doing what theirs does that's on the iPad. There is nothing close to it on the iPad. I have ALL the photo apps that are on the iPad, and they are all, without exception, junk. Children's toys.
I'm not going to bother responding to you here, so if you want to keep blathering on, feel free to do so.
Congratulations on knowing how to "quit while you're behind."
Congratulations on knowing how to" quit while you're behind."
Read post #115 and you'll see who is acting like an ass.... and an arrogant one at that.
Read post #121 and it starts to look like a trend has started here. Melgross gets all uppity with someone for no reason and when he is found to be wrong he transfers all blame to anybody but himself. When he no longer can shift blame .... you come riding in on a white horse to try to save him by using tag team methods. That's fine ... but my advice to both of you is simply this: If you can't take it .... don't dish it out.
Read post #115 and you'll see who is acting like an ass.... and an arrogant one at that.
Read post #121 and it starts to look like a trend has started here. Melgross gets all uppity with someone for no reason and when he is found to be wrong he transfers all blame to anybody but himself. When he no longer can shift blame .... you come riding in on a white horse to try to save him by using tag team methods. That's fine ... but my advice to both of you is simply this: If you can't take it .... don't dish it out.
I chose not to follow that sub-thread, but I did see one person end it and another try to draw that back in by putting them on the defensive. You get to a point where you realize either party will not see the other's PoV, if one ends it then the other should too. Feel free to get the last word in, but if your last post looks like a blatant attempt at baiting then I can't help but that party an ass.
I chose not to follow that sub-thread, but I did see one person end it and another try to draw that back in by putting them on the defensive. You get to a point where you realize either party will not see the other's PoV, if one ends it then the other should too. Feel free to get the last word in, but if your last post looks like a blatant attempt at baiting then I can't help but that party an ass.
In other words, you don't care to look at all of the facts, you'll make up your mind based on one post and then take the time to call someone an ass. That's kind of like reading the headline of an article, but not the article itself, which, quite likely, explains fully the intent of the story. Brilliant! That method of posting would explain why so many things get misunderstood on these boards .... no matter how many posts one has.
Congratulations on knowing how to "quit while you're behind."
If you had something worth responding to, I would have.