I love how people who have no knowledge of Apple's iPad prototyping process, and most likely no experience with, or understanding of, UI design, speak with such great authority on what they did, could have done, should have done and why they did it. Yeah, just leave a couple of buttons out, that'll do it.
More likely, and based on Jobs' own comments, they tested a whole range of sizes and UIs and found that at 7" you can't get a workable UI that sufficiently improves over a small phone UI to make it worthwhile. At 10", you have enough screen real estate to start to do interesting things that can be manipulated easily with a finger, but can be much richer than a phone UI. There's a threshold effect that requires a certain minimum size to properly accommodate usage. They probably did, during the many years the iPad was in development, make a 7" iPad prototype with a prototype UI, but it wasn't the device they wanted to make, so they didn't make it.
Well then, you are in luck! I do in fact work on systems design and work very closely with our usuability experts (granted, not on mobile device software). I have no doubt that Apple tested a whole range of prototype sizes, and for their goals, 10" probably was the best size.
But the point of my overall post was that it's my opinion that one of Apple's goals was to court the print publishers and that that goal was a primary driver for a larger screen (and all that's conjecture on my part, as I stated). 10" is a great size for that purpose. But absent that business goal, I believe Apple's engineers could have also come up with brilliant software on a smaller device. To suggest otherwise, I believe, is an insult to Apple's engineers.
I'm also not saying Apple should get rid of the 10" iPad. But as they say " 'One size fits all' doesn't."
the Galaxy tab is simply a BETA product. it is promising but has a lot of serious problems. consumers should wait for mature Android tablets next year.
that is the plain story these reviewers should be reporting. but no, that is not the spin they want. the spin they want is "competition" and "i'm not an Apple fanboy." so they list the Galaxy's many problems but still deem it "worthy." just expensive.
it isn't worthy. actually, it's half-baked. they do their readers a serious disservice by not telling it like it is, just to cover their ass and hype the "fight!" meme.
... But the point of my overall post was that it's my opinion that one of Apple's goals was to court the print publishers and that that goal was a primary driver for a larger screen (and all that's conjecture on my part, as I stated). 10" is a great size for that purpose. But absent that business goal, I believe Apple's engineers could have also come up with brilliant software on a smaller device. To suggest otherwise, I believe, is an insult to Apple's engineers. ...
I don't think they sit around saying, "I wonder what sizes of tablet we can produce a useable UI for." I think they had a vision (SJ's vision, perhaps) of what it is they wanted a tablet to be (which I don't think was driven solely, or even primarily to control the publishing industry, I think the vision was likely much much broader), what they thought it should be. One thing I think they didn't think it should be is a giant iPod Touch. A 7" screen just isn't, I don't think, big enough to make something that's essentially different from a giant iPod Touch (which is why, at 7", the Samsung Tab is just a giant Android phone, without the phone). I think they discovered that 10" was the optimal size for implementing the vision they had of what it should be, and SJ's public comments related to screen size, I think, bear this out.
I don't think they sit around saying, "I wonder what sizes of tablet we can produce a useable UI for." I think they had a vision (SJ's vision, perhaps) of what it is they wanted a tablet to be (which I don't think was driven solely, or even primarily to control the publishing industry, I think the vision was likely much much broader), what they thought it should be. One thing I think they didn't think it should be is a giant iPod Touch. A 7" screen just isn't, I don't think, big enough to make something that's essentially different from a giant iPod Touch (which is why, at 7", the Samsung Tab is just a giant Android phone, without the phone). I think they discovered that 10" was the optimal size for implementing the vision they had of what it should be, and SJ's public comments related to screen size, I think, bear this out.
there is so much BS dissembling on the size issue. for portable devices, there are three basic size options: pocket size, purse size, and tote bag/case size. for a 7" tab, forget pockets (seriously, who is really going to jam one in). some purses will fit. but most will be carried in some version of a tote thing. or naked in your hand. for 10" tablets, the only real difference is purses don't work, hardly a major target market differentiator. bottom line: if you really need a carry-it-all-the-time-portable, you really need smartphone size. which is why the iPod touch - which really IS a tablet of course - sells so well. Apple figured that out 3 years ago. but, needing to transition the iPod into a new future iOS form factor, hyped it as a new kind of iPod instead of a new kind of mini-tablet. that was smart marketing and has totally succeeded - the touch now is about 75% of all iPod sales.
Glad you asked. For one, Java runs a Trash Collector that is deeply engrained into the Java code and therefore cannot be deactivated. So it has priority over all instances and therefore will stop any and all actions including the touch framework to resolve pointers and unused variables in memory. Apple has a much better solution than that. Trash collection is a good thing for desktop apps but not mobile apps, it takes way too many resources.
Moreover, Java is not even close to being as stable as Objective-C. I've developed for both platforms.
Ahh... That's very interesting -- the garbage collection priority. Got any links on that?
Also, Java is byteCode interpreted at runtime, No? So that's additional overhead.
A bit of both, plus it's a bear to type on - not just because of the virtual keyboard, but because its curved back makes it wobbly on a table, so the only halfway comfortable way to use it is in my lap.
Apple's iPad case is great to support the iPad at the proper angle for typing and is non-slip!
OK, based upon your answer, it seems like it's mostly about having a real keyboard. So that leaves me with the question: why are you specifying "Chrome" over "Android" or "Windows" or whatever other OS's will certainly be available on devices that would fit your requirements.
I'm struggling to see what benefits "Chrome" is going to bring to the landscape. Can anyone enlighten me why the consumer needs yet another OS, and why manufacturers should promote it? Looking at tjw's response here, I presume it has something to do with Chrome being more conducive to a "superfast" device. Because it is lightweight (from code footprint standpoint)? Because it can leverage the cloud better than Android or iOS? Note that Apple has done a great job of building an ecosystem upon which applications can run across numerous devices (iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad). This is great for the user and the developer. By promoting Chrome along with Android, isn't Google failing to leverage a similar advantage?
Also, even if the dev tools and compiler reside in the cloud, the super small screen sizes of netbooks would drive me mad if I were doing actual development on them. Is this not something that would bother you, tjw?
Thompson
Sure chrome os will be super fast, that is the main attraction. I also use a lot of google apps. I get my news from google reader, chrome is my browser of choice, my calendar is google calendar and I have a lot of files on google docs. So it is the perfect choice. Everything else is not needed in my situation, so windows and osx are overkill for my mobile computer and android, as a lot of the android tabs prove, is still a phone OS.
Apple's eco system is primarily driven by proprietary formats to lock you into the eco system. It is fantastic for people that are technophobes but gets a little restrictive to the rest of us.
I use linux mainly on a super fast custom pc which also runs windows 7. I also have a macbook pro old version but I just got bored of the inflexibility of it. The whole apple eco-system really does not appeal to me.
I have an iPad (two actually) and a laptop. Nine times out of ten, when I am surfing the web, I actually prefer the iPad, because it's where I want to be and touch navigation is preferable to using a mouse (in my opinion). I suspect that would become ten out of ten if my laptop were a netbook with a cramped vertical viewing space.
Also, my iPad is wicked fast at web browsing. I guess that I don't understand what is "much faster" about web browsing on any kind of laptop.
Thompson
If you know how to use a keyboard properly and you do a lot of google searches or commenting on articles then a keyboard is always faster than the iPad offering.
I don't think they sit around saying, "I wonder what sizes of tablet we can produce a useable UI for." I think they had a vision (SJ's vision, perhaps) of what it is they wanted a tablet to be (which I don't think was driven solely, or even primarily to control the publishing industry, I think the vision was likely much much broader), what they thought it should be. One thing I think they didn't think it should be is a giant iPod Touch. A 7" screen just isn't, I don't think, big enough to make something that's essentially different from a giant iPod Touch (which is why, at 7", the Samsung Tab is just a giant Android phone, without the phone). I think they discovered that 10" was the optimal size for implementing the vision they had of what it should be, and SJ's public comments related to screen size, I think, bear this out.
All fair enough.
I'd point out: buttonless shuffle, removing FW, the Cube, AppleTV, fat nano. I love Apple, but I don't drink the kool-aid. Nobody is right 100% of the time.
I'd point out: buttonless shuffle, removing FW, the Cube, AppleTV, fat nano. I love Apple, but I don't drink the kool-aid. Nobody is right 100% of the time.
Yes, but, of course, iPad is not on that list, so your list really has nothing to do with this issue.
Apple's eco system is primarily driven by proprietary formats to lock you into the eco system. It is fantastic for people that are technophobes but gets a little restrictive to the rest of us.
That characterization is a myth as far as I'm concerned. I am not a technophobe (far from it) and yet I prefer Apple's ecosystem. I realize that it represents potential for restrictiveness, but if & when such restrictions actually manifest, I can usually overcome them. I would have no qualms with "jail breaking" my Apple gear if I face the need. (I have actually done so on an older model of iPhone that is no longer used as a phone.) And I don't resent the fact that Apple made it such that I would have to. The way I see it, Apple has pleased both crowds: for those who don't want to "manage" their operating systems, the iOS gives them that off-the-shelf. For those who want more freedom and/or power, all they need do is take a simple action that is nothing but an example of their intent, i.e. take on that responsibility and ownership of the consequences.
Comments
I love how people who have no knowledge of Apple's iPad prototyping process, and most likely no experience with, or understanding of, UI design, speak with such great authority on what they did, could have done, should have done and why they did it. Yeah, just leave a couple of buttons out, that'll do it.
More likely, and based on Jobs' own comments, they tested a whole range of sizes and UIs and found that at 7" you can't get a workable UI that sufficiently improves over a small phone UI to make it worthwhile. At 10", you have enough screen real estate to start to do interesting things that can be manipulated easily with a finger, but can be much richer than a phone UI. There's a threshold effect that requires a certain minimum size to properly accommodate usage. They probably did, during the many years the iPad was in development, make a 7" iPad prototype with a prototype UI, but it wasn't the device they wanted to make, so they didn't make it.
Well then, you are in luck! I do in fact work on systems design and work very closely with our usuability experts (granted, not on mobile device software). I have no doubt that Apple tested a whole range of prototype sizes, and for their goals, 10" probably was the best size.
But the point of my overall post was that it's my opinion that one of Apple's goals was to court the print publishers and that that goal was a primary driver for a larger screen (and all that's conjecture on my part, as I stated). 10" is a great size for that purpose. But absent that business goal, I believe Apple's engineers could have also come up with brilliant software on a smaller device. To suggest otherwise, I believe, is an insult to Apple's engineers.
I'm also not saying Apple should get rid of the 10" iPad. But as they say " 'One size fits all' doesn't."
that is the plain story these reviewers should be reporting. but no, that is not the spin they want. the spin they want is "competition" and "i'm not an Apple fanboy." so they list the Galaxy's many problems but still deem it "worthy." just expensive.
it isn't worthy. actually, it's half-baked. they do their readers a serious disservice by not telling it like it is, just to cover their ass and hype the "fight!" meme.
... But the point of my overall post was that it's my opinion that one of Apple's goals was to court the print publishers and that that goal was a primary driver for a larger screen (and all that's conjecture on my part, as I stated). 10" is a great size for that purpose. But absent that business goal, I believe Apple's engineers could have also come up with brilliant software on a smaller device. To suggest otherwise, I believe, is an insult to Apple's engineers. ...
I don't think they sit around saying, "I wonder what sizes of tablet we can produce a useable UI for." I think they had a vision (SJ's vision, perhaps) of what it is they wanted a tablet to be (which I don't think was driven solely, or even primarily to control the publishing industry, I think the vision was likely much much broader), what they thought it should be. One thing I think they didn't think it should be is a giant iPod Touch. A 7" screen just isn't, I don't think, big enough to make something that's essentially different from a giant iPod Touch (which is why, at 7", the Samsung Tab is just a giant Android phone, without the phone). I think they discovered that 10" was the optimal size for implementing the vision they had of what it should be, and SJ's public comments related to screen size, I think, bear this out.
I don't think they sit around saying, "I wonder what sizes of tablet we can produce a useable UI for." I think they had a vision (SJ's vision, perhaps) of what it is they wanted a tablet to be (which I don't think was driven solely, or even primarily to control the publishing industry, I think the vision was likely much much broader), what they thought it should be. One thing I think they didn't think it should be is a giant iPod Touch. A 7" screen just isn't, I don't think, big enough to make something that's essentially different from a giant iPod Touch (which is why, at 7", the Samsung Tab is just a giant Android phone, without the phone). I think they discovered that 10" was the optimal size for implementing the vision they had of what it should be, and SJ's public comments related to screen size, I think, bear this out.
there is so much BS dissembling on the size issue. for portable devices, there are three basic size options: pocket size, purse size, and tote bag/case size. for a 7" tab, forget pockets (seriously, who is really going to jam one in). some purses will fit. but most will be carried in some version of a tote thing. or naked in your hand. for 10" tablets, the only real difference is purses don't work, hardly a major target market differentiator. bottom line: if you really need a carry-it-all-the-time-portable, you really need smartphone size. which is why the iPod touch - which really IS a tablet of course - sells so well. Apple figured that out 3 years ago. but, needing to transition the iPod into a new future iOS form factor, hyped it as a new kind of iPod instead of a new kind of mini-tablet. that was smart marketing and has totally succeeded - the touch now is about 75% of all iPod sales.
Being Flash enabled resulting as a 'weakness' is truly ironic.
Yeah! You have access to the whole web -- if you live that long and/or don't mind rebooting several times.
Instant ON, followed shortly by Instant OFF!
Now, that's what I call productivity!
.
Glad you asked. For one, Java runs a Trash Collector that is deeply engrained into the Java code and therefore cannot be deactivated. So it has priority over all instances and therefore will stop any and all actions including the touch framework to resolve pointers and unused variables in memory. Apple has a much better solution than that. Trash collection is a good thing for desktop apps but not mobile apps, it takes way too many resources.
Moreover, Java is not even close to being as stable as Objective-C. I've developed for both platforms.
Ahh... That's very interesting -- the garbage collection priority. Got any links on that?
Also, Java is byteCode interpreted at runtime, No? So that's additional overhead.
.
A bit of both, plus it's a bear to type on - not just because of the virtual keyboard, but because its curved back makes it wobbly on a table, so the only halfway comfortable way to use it is in my lap.
Apple's iPad case is great to support the iPad at the proper angle for typing and is non-slip!
http://www.apple.com/ipad/accessories/
.
This one is a little more positive about the software. But overall so far, the reviewers seem to like the smaller size option.
OK, based upon your answer, it seems like it's mostly about having a real keyboard. So that leaves me with the question: why are you specifying "Chrome" over "Android" or "Windows" or whatever other OS's will certainly be available on devices that would fit your requirements.
I'm struggling to see what benefits "Chrome" is going to bring to the landscape. Can anyone enlighten me why the consumer needs yet another OS, and why manufacturers should promote it? Looking at tjw's response here, I presume it has something to do with Chrome being more conducive to a "superfast" device. Because it is lightweight (from code footprint standpoint)? Because it can leverage the cloud better than Android or iOS? Note that Apple has done a great job of building an ecosystem upon which applications can run across numerous devices (iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad). This is great for the user and the developer. By promoting Chrome along with Android, isn't Google failing to leverage a similar advantage?
Also, even if the dev tools and compiler reside in the cloud, the super small screen sizes of netbooks would drive me mad if I were doing actual development on them. Is this not something that would bother you, tjw?
Thompson
Sure chrome os will be super fast, that is the main attraction. I also use a lot of google apps. I get my news from google reader, chrome is my browser of choice, my calendar is google calendar and I have a lot of files on google docs. So it is the perfect choice. Everything else is not needed in my situation, so windows and osx are overkill for my mobile computer and android, as a lot of the android tabs prove, is still a phone OS.
Apple's eco system is primarily driven by proprietary formats to lock you into the eco system. It is fantastic for people that are technophobes but gets a little restrictive to the rest of us.
I use linux mainly on a super fast custom pc which also runs windows 7. I also have a macbook pro old version but I just got bored of the inflexibility of it. The whole apple eco-system really does not appeal to me.
I have an iPad (two actually) and a laptop. Nine times out of ten, when I am surfing the web, I actually prefer the iPad, because it's where I want to be and touch navigation is preferable to using a mouse (in my opinion). I suspect that would become ten out of ten if my laptop were a netbook with a cramped vertical viewing space.
Also, my iPad is wicked fast at web browsing. I guess that I don't understand what is "much faster" about web browsing on any kind of laptop.
Thompson
If you know how to use a keyboard properly and you do a lot of google searches or commenting on articles then a keyboard is always faster than the iPad offering.
I don't think they sit around saying, "I wonder what sizes of tablet we can produce a useable UI for." I think they had a vision (SJ's vision, perhaps) of what it is they wanted a tablet to be (which I don't think was driven solely, or even primarily to control the publishing industry, I think the vision was likely much much broader), what they thought it should be. One thing I think they didn't think it should be is a giant iPod Touch. A 7" screen just isn't, I don't think, big enough to make something that's essentially different from a giant iPod Touch (which is why, at 7", the Samsung Tab is just a giant Android phone, without the phone). I think they discovered that 10" was the optimal size for implementing the vision they had of what it should be, and SJ's public comments related to screen size, I think, bear this out.
All fair enough.
I'd point out: buttonless shuffle, removing FW, the Cube, AppleTV, fat nano. I love Apple, but I don't drink the kool-aid. Nobody is right 100% of the time.
What does this do that iPad doesn't? Flash doesn't work properly. What's the draw.? What's the killer app? What's the killer feature?
Well for a lot of people the killer feature is simply that it doesn't have an Apple logo.
Any device that puts a permanent back-button anywhere other than the left side of a panel is a dumb device.
Unless it is built for left-handed Hebrews.
Maybe, what's needed is a boustrophedonic back button?
.
All fair enough.
I'd point out: buttonless shuffle, removing FW, the Cube, AppleTV, fat nano. I love Apple, but I don't drink the kool-aid. Nobody is right 100% of the time.
Yes, but, of course, iPad is not on that list, so your list really has nothing to do with this issue.
Well for a lot of people the killer feature is simply that it doesn't have an Apple logo.
True. I think Android (& Google products and services in general) appeals to the same sort of personality as Microsoft did in the '90s.
Apple's iPad case is great to support the iPad at the proper angle for typing and is non-slip!
http://www.apple.com/ipad/accessories/
He's so arrogant -- he claims that his is a fiveskin!
Does that FIVEskin fit the 11" iPad as well?
Apple's eco system is primarily driven by proprietary formats to lock you into the eco system. It is fantastic for people that are technophobes but gets a little restrictive to the rest of us.
That characterization is a myth as far as I'm concerned. I am not a technophobe (far from it) and yet I prefer Apple's ecosystem. I realize that it represents potential for restrictiveness, but if & when such restrictions actually manifest, I can usually overcome them. I would have no qualms with "jail breaking" my Apple gear if I face the need. (I have actually done so on an older model of iPhone that is no longer used as a phone.) And I don't resent the fact that Apple made it such that I would have to. The way I see it, Apple has pleased both crowds: for those who don't want to "manage" their operating systems, the iOS gives them that off-the-shelf. For those who want more freedom and/or power, all they need do is take a simple action that is nothing but an example of their intent, i.e. take on that responsibility and ownership of the consequences.
Thompson
Does that FIVEskin fit the 11" iPad as well?
Hey, Tod!
Not speaking from personal experience -- but I think it will!
Best
Richard
.