I believe you are wrong on this. The iPad will indeed kill the sales of possibly millions of PCs. Most of the people you see in WiFi locations with laptops or netbooks don't really need a PC. Email, web browsing, content viewing are perfect tasks for the iPad. In your mind you can't possibly imagine the iPad replacing a PC and you're right to a point. But the vast majority of users out there don't need the full functionality of a PC. The iPad will do everything they need it to do. In my opinion there will be a large number of people for whom the iPad is their only computing device (assuming the need to sync with a PC goes away eventually). With many families being multi-PC the iPad will replace that second or third, or fourth PC currently in the home.
Point taken. Actually, you could argue "you don't need a PC to access Facebook". That's a scary thought: facebook uber alles.
Good point, ikrupp...safe to say the advent and success of the iPad has had some impact on Apple laptop sales but more of a deleterious impact on NetBook/PC sales.
I believe this is true. Some Apple laptop sales have been supplanted by iPad sales. However, the sales of Apple laptops, like the sale of Apple desktops, has been "juiced" by the success of the "iDevices", aided and abetted by the phenomenally successful Apple retail store presence. As a result, Apple laptops have still managed an increase in overall sales.
But it's also true that the iPad represents something brand new, a new paradigm in computing, if you will. It reminds me very much of the introduction of the original Macintosh back in 1984. The Mac, and to a lesser extent the Lisa, represented a major paradigm shift in computing. So much so, that the Mac was originally branded a "toy" by traditional computer users. But those of us that actually purchased one realized very quickly that this was a major advance in computing. And slowly, as more and more of a user base was built up, it became clear that the graphical user interface was destined to be dominant over the command driven interface.
The old graphical interface was based on a puck-like device called a "mouse", used in conjunction with a keyboaed. The new graphical interface does away with the mouse and the physical keyboard, replacng the mouse with a touchscreen and multitouch, and replacing the physical keyboard with a virtual keyboard.
In fact, I'm typing this post right now on my iPad using the virtual keyboard. I'm a touch typist, and it's taken some getting used to, but I find that I can now type with a fair amount of accuracy and speed in landscape rotation. It also helps if I watch my fingers as I type.
The point is, for the most part, I no longer need to use either my desktop or my portable computer, unless it is for doing more dedicated tasks, like drafting or typing the Great American Novel. And indeed, that is best done on my desktop system, which means my portable is being used for less and less.
BTW, has anyone besides me, when using their old computer, found themselves reaching out to do something by touching the monitor?
Can I puke now? An iPad is anything but a thin client.
Paczkowski throws around terminology as carelessly as most analysts do. Maybe tech journalists should know something about engineering and tech before they are allowed to write about it.
Go back to comedic tech fluff John. It's safer.
-----
Not a Citrix thin client? A fat client? Not a client? What?
If you have some point to make, why not give us an explanation that actually makes it?
I think he was right, my experience with thin clients is nothing like an iPad. Usually they do very little processing at the client end and rely on the server heavily(ie only present an RDP client) .... Which seems to be exactly like the link you posted says as well?
I understand that the iPad can act as an RDP client but it can run it's own spreadsheets, word processors and games so puts it in a realm far removed from a simple thin client.
Can I puke now? An iPad is anything but a thin client.
Paczkowski throws around terminology as carelessly as most analysts do. Maybe tech journalists should know something about engineering and tech before they are allowed to write about it.
Go back to comedic tech fluff John. It's safer.
strictly speaking, you are right. but the iPad and its imitators are in-between concepts. yes they can do "light" computing independently. but they can also serve as a thin client running apps almost totally dependent on cloud/web services - including private networks running custom apps.
it is exactly this flexibility that makes the iPod so potent a new category of device. i think that was the point the writer was trying to make.
btw: this is also the flexibility Chrome OS is missing, which is its big problem.
Can I puke now? An iPad is anything but a thin client.
Maybe he meant thin in the literal sense, as that is the only way it makes sense.
That said, one has every right to redefine a term but until this altered definition is commonplace one should make clear their intention or run the risk of looking like an idiot. I see nothing that indicates that Paczkowski is aware of the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias
Not a Citrix thin client? A fat client? Not a client? What?
If you have some point to make, why not give us an explanation that actually makes it?
His point should be clear enough. Before making smarmy remarks you should look up the common definition of ?thin client?.
Android licensees, including Acer, Motorola and possibly HTC
They don't have to "license" Android, Android is open source, so anyone can start using it in their devices without making a "licensing deal" (or any other deal) with Google. Or am I missing something?
Can I puke now? An iPad is anything but a thin client.
Paczkowski throws around terminology as carelessly as most analysts do. Maybe tech journalists should know something about engineering and tech before they are allowed to write about it.
Go back to comedic tech fluff John. It's safer.
Don't be too quick to discount the iPad being used as a thin client -- based on cost alone.
With a little imagination you can envision a SMB with a WiFi LAN and a back room server -- and several PCs (really operating as thin clients) using specially designed internal web apps or client-server pairs.
FileMaker offers a client-server pair for the iPad -- no reason that concept couldn't be extended to Pages and Numbers, etc.
So here's the general approach:
-- when in the office, you use the iPad to access the Office LAN via WiFi and use the browser and/or client-server pairs to access the data on the office server. If you have the need, you might have a physical kb in your office space. Not exactly a "thin" client -- maybe more like a "slim" or "chubby" client.
-- when you leave the office, you take the iPad with you. Now, you have access to the Office LAN via WiFi Hotspots or 3G -- worst case you work offline with Browser (app) offline storage, client-server pair client-offline storage, or just iPad apps that create and store data. Now, the iPad has become an "Agile" client.
I suspect the next gen iPad could include an ethernet connector to allow faster LAN operation.
You could envision this in, say, the reservation check-in desk and payment stations in a restaurant.
...It kinda' depends on what the meaning of thin is
I betcha Steve's friend Larry Ellison (long a proponent of an under $600 thin client) could come up with lots similar of uses in enterprise.
I believe this is true. Some Apple laptop sales have been supplanted by iPad sales. However, the sales of Apple laptops, like the sale of Apple desktops, has been "juiced" by the success of the "iDevices", aided and abetted by the phenomenally successful Apple retail store presence. As a result, Apple laptops have still managed an increase in overall sales.
But it's also true that the iPad represents something brand new, a new paradigm in computing, if you will. It reminds me very much of the introduction of the original Macintosh back in 1984. The Mac, and to a lesser extent the Lisa, represented a major paradigm shift in computing. So much so, that the Mac was originally branded a "toy" by traditional computer users. But those of us that actually purchased one realized very quickly that this was a major advance in computing. And slowly, as more and more of a user base was built up, it became clear that the graphical user interface was destined to be dominant over the command driven interface.
The old graphical interface was based on a puck-like device called a "mouse", used in conjunction with a keyboaed. The new graphical interface does away with the mouse and the physical keyboard, replacng the mouse with a touchscreen and multitouch, and replacing the physical keyboard with a virtual keyboard.
In fact, I'm typing this post right now on my iPad using the virtual keyboard. I'm a touch typist, and it's taken some getting used to, but I find that I can now type with a fair amount of accuracy and speed in landscape rotation. It also helps if I watch my fingers as I type.
The point is, for the most part, I no longer need to use either my desktop or my portable computer, unless it is for doing more dedicated tasks, like drafting or typing the Great American Novel. And indeed, that is best done on my desktop system, which means my portable is being used for less and less.
BTW, has anyone besides me, when using their old computer, found themselves reaching out to do something by touching the monitor?
It's a really weird feeling....
Very interesting to read, Joe. I agree about the iPad being a serious paradigm shift! I lived your analogy of the first mac computers...I used to produce 11'X17" printed flow charts for my meetings (in black & white, no less) on a Classic (~4" screen) and my executive staff were amazed how "organized" I was! Right then I could never use anything but an Apple!
I remember when I bought the first iPhone and mainly because of email, it was essentially replacing my laptop ~80% of the time.
To your main point, when I get my second gen iPad...I am going to try and recreate all my reports on the iPad (iWork for the iPad) as opposed to my iMac. Yes, they may need to be less elaborate, but I figure, once designed, they will be easier to update, weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.
I'm having a very difficult time right now getting the motivation to sit down in front of my iMac and actually doing some work. I much prefer being "out and about!" Who really wants to sit in front of a computer and work all day?
Anyway, again, enjoyed your take on things! Happy New Year and all the best!
PS. Not had the experience yet of having to "reach out." But have experienced the "ghost" vibration in my front pocket, thinking it was my iPhone getting a call. This is well know to BB users!
I believe you are wrong on this. The iPad will indeed kill the sales of possibly millions of PCs. Most of the people you see in WiFi locations with laptops or netbooks don't really need a PC. Email, web browsing, content viewing are perfect tasks for the iPad. In your mind you can't possibly imagine the iPad replacing a PC and you're right to a point. But the vast majority of users out there don't need the full functionality of a PC. The iPad will do everything they need it to do. In my opinion there will be a large number of people for whom the iPad is their only computing device (assuming the need to sync with a PC goes away eventually). With many families being multi-PC the iPad will replace that second or third, or fourth PC currently in the home.
I honestly think tablets will displace PCs (laptops and desktops) completely and within a short time frame. In retrospect, I think the desktop and laptop form factors are terrible. When I see people using laptops now, it looks awkward. They're hunched over it. If they have the computer on their lap, the screen is pointing at their stomach. Having a keyboard attached to the screen is not very practical. The indirect interaction of a mouse or trackpad feels like a definite step backwards after using an iOS device for a long time. I don't buy arguments from precision either. Nobody needs to be pixel precise unless they're doing pixel art.
I think the 'hardware keyboard' thing is overblown. Typing hasn't been a popular activity for long. Less than a generation ago everything was handwritten. Most people aren't fast typists and have no need to be. Onscreen keyboards are 'good enough.' There's certainly not such a strong need for a hardware keyboard that you'd do something as absurd as attaching one to the screen and switching to indirect control rather than touch because you then have to place the thing on your lap or a desk. If you look at it that way - would I sacrifice the iPad's qualities for these minuscule advantages a laptop/desktop form factor gives me in some situations? - I think it's obvious the tablet form factor will win out and in a big way.
Desktops have already been on the way out. The demand for more processing power and storage has started to plateau. Most tasks done on computers make sense for multitouch interaction: video editing, photo editing, presentations, spreadsheets, equation editing, document layout, drawing, 3d modelling, etc. Even programming could work; multitouch tablets could see visual programming or structure editors making a comeback (the problem always was speed of interaction). Perhaps some of these tasks would benefit from a larger screen. More memory and faster CPUs are a given and the one thing we know will come in the future. But I see no reason they'd somehow benefit from an attached hardware keyboard and an indirect method of interaction.
I think 2011 is going to be the iPad's big year and a lot of people are going to wake up and realise there's really nothing this form factor can't do and, in many cases, do it much better than existing devices. I think people are vastly underestimate the huge psychological difference between the way we interact with our software now - where, if you want to do something, you first have to use the mouse to move the cursor to the button or switch and only then can you press it - and the way you do it on the iPad (just go ahead and press it). And I think they vastly overestimate the need for a hardware keyboard (as they did with the iPhone; unsurprising, really, since all these reviews and opinion pieces are written by people who are paid by the word).
BTW, has anyone besides me, when using their old computer, found themselves reaching out to do something by touching the monitor?
It's a really weird feeling....
I had a similar experience. The first time I tried a friend's Kindle I started touching the screen. I looked at him quizzically after nothing happened. He was shaking his head. "Nah, you have to use the buttons on the side." I didn't even notice them.
As I mentioned earlier, these experiences irrevocably alter the way I look at all computing devices.
I honestly think tablets will displace PCs (laptops and desktops) completely and within a short time frame. In retrospect, I think the desktop and laptop form factors are terrible. When I see people using laptops now, it looks awkward. They're hunched over it. If they have the computer on their lap, the screen is pointing at their stomach. Having a keyboard attached to the screen is not very practical. The indirect interaction of a mouse or trackpad feels like a definite step backwards after using an iOS device for a long time. I don't buy arguments from precision either. Nobody needs to be pixel precise unless they're doing pixel art.
I think the 'hardware keyboard' thing is overblown. Typing hasn't been a popular activity for long. Less than a generation ago everything was handwritten. Most people aren't fast typists and have no need to be. Onscreen keyboards are 'good enough.' There's certainly not such a strong need for a hardware keyboard that you'd do something as absurd as attaching one to the screen and switching to indirect control rather than touch because you then have to place the thing on your lap or a desk. If you look at it that way - would I sacrifice the iPad's qualities for these minuscule advantages a laptop/desktop form factor gives me in some situations? - I think it's obvious the tablet form factor will win out and in a big way.
Desktops have already been on the way out. The demand for more processing power and storage has started to plateau. Most tasks done on computers make sense for multitouch interaction: video editing, photo editing, presentations, spreadsheets, equation editing, document layout, drawing, 3d modelling, etc. Even programming could work; multitouch tablets could see visual programming or structure editors making a comeback (the problem always was speed of interaction). Perhaps some of these tasks would benefit from a larger screen. More memory and faster CPUs are a given and the one thing we know will come in the future. But I see no reason they'd somehow benefit from an attached hardware keyboard and an indirect method of interaction.
I think 2011 is going to be the iPad's big year and a lot of people are going to wake up and realise there's really nothing this form factor can't do and, in many cases, do it much better than existing devices. I think people are vastly underestimate the huge psychological difference between the way we interact with our software now - where, if you want to do something, you first have to use the mouse to move the cursor to the button or switch and only then can you press it - and the way you do it on the iPad (just go ahead and press it). And I think they vastly overestimate the need for a hardware keyboard (as they did with the iPhone; unsurprising, really, since all these reviews and opinion pieces are written by people who are paid by the word).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
One of the best iPad apps, Flipboard creates an interactive modus operandii that cannot be duplicated by a smaller device or a traditional keyboard-and-trackpad driven PC. Yes, there are other news apps for smartphones and perhaps some news aggregators for PCs that might approach the visual UI, however the interaction is totally different.
I put these 2 posts in this position because I believe you are both on to something.
First:
The death knell for the PC, as we know it, was sounded on Jan 27 -- when the iPad was announced.
It will take a few years -- but it will happen.
Second:
Flipboard as you indicated is more than an app -- it is you! It is your stuff -- the way you want to arrange, organize and access it.
But, on My iPad -- it is me! It is my stuff -- the way I want to arrange, organize and access it.
What if you could put your apps in there? Your files? The web pages you are currently accessing?
Who needs iOS -- the UI is so 2007
Seriously what if you could put all your stuff (including the apps you are running) in there -- why would you need any "System" UI for iOS?
Just unfold your infinite-size, infinite-depth Flipbook -- and everything's just as you left it.
This would work today, on today's iPad -- the iPhone or Touch, not so much!.
But, I expect that within the next 3 years we will have some sort of expandable display -- so a device the size of an iPhone could be kept in a pocket -- and when, used the display could be resized as needed.
And what do you see... Your stuff unfolds before your eyes.
Edit: And what about Flipbook as an OS X, Dock, Spotlight and Finder replacement on the Fullscreen Macs.
Chrome OS has local DB storage and can access data on locally attached NAND or disk-based drives.
yes, it has a local workaround. but workarounds are not as good.
real problem tho is, how is chrome any better or more useful than Android tab with a Chrome browser? Chrome was a great idea 3 years ago. but then things changed.
yes, it has a local workaround. but workarounds are not as good.
real problem tho is, how is chrome any better or more useful than Android tab with a Chrome browser? Chrome was a great idea 3 years ago. but then things changed.
Android has support for a mouse pointer and x86? I just can't can't see how anyone can look at an Android phone and think that is a more ideal OS for inexpensive netbooks over a desktop OS.
BTW, it's not a workaround, it's designed with that in mind. It's like saying WebOS isn't a real OS and can't store data locally simply because it, too, uses WebKit for the UI.
Comments
Its dominate position, really? Sigh. At least we didn't get "it's dominate position", I suppose.
It's like the missionary position -- depending on who's on top
I believe you are wrong on this. The iPad will indeed kill the sales of possibly millions of PCs. Most of the people you see in WiFi locations with laptops or netbooks don't really need a PC. Email, web browsing, content viewing are perfect tasks for the iPad. In your mind you can't possibly imagine the iPad replacing a PC and you're right to a point. But the vast majority of users out there don't need the full functionality of a PC. The iPad will do everything they need it to do. In my opinion there will be a large number of people for whom the iPad is their only computing device (assuming the need to sync with a PC goes away eventually). With many families being multi-PC the iPad will replace that second or third, or fourth PC currently in the home.
Point taken. Actually, you could argue "you don't need a PC to access Facebook". That's a scary thought: facebook uber alles.
Good point, ikrupp...safe to say the advent and success of the iPad has had some impact on Apple laptop sales but more of a deleterious impact on NetBook/PC sales.
I believe this is true. Some Apple laptop sales have been supplanted by iPad sales. However, the sales of Apple laptops, like the sale of Apple desktops, has been "juiced" by the success of the "iDevices", aided and abetted by the phenomenally successful Apple retail store presence. As a result, Apple laptops have still managed an increase in overall sales.
But it's also true that the iPad represents something brand new, a new paradigm in computing, if you will. It reminds me very much of the introduction of the original Macintosh back in 1984. The Mac, and to a lesser extent the Lisa, represented a major paradigm shift in computing. So much so, that the Mac was originally branded a "toy" by traditional computer users. But those of us that actually purchased one realized very quickly that this was a major advance in computing. And slowly, as more and more of a user base was built up, it became clear that the graphical user interface was destined to be dominant over the command driven interface.
The old graphical interface was based on a puck-like device called a "mouse", used in conjunction with a keyboaed. The new graphical interface does away with the mouse and the physical keyboard, replacng the mouse with a touchscreen and multitouch, and replacing the physical keyboard with a virtual keyboard.
In fact, I'm typing this post right now on my iPad using the virtual keyboard. I'm a touch typist, and it's taken some getting used to, but I find that I can now type with a fair amount of accuracy and speed in landscape rotation. It also helps if I watch my fingers as I type.
The point is, for the most part, I no longer need to use either my desktop or my portable computer, unless it is for doing more dedicated tasks, like drafting or typing the Great American Novel. And indeed, that is best done on my desktop system, which means my portable is being used for less and less.
BTW, has anyone besides me, when using their old computer, found themselves reaching out to do something by touching the monitor?
It's a really weird feeling....
Can I puke now? An iPad is anything but a thin client.
Paczkowski throws around terminology as carelessly as most analysts do. Maybe tech journalists should know something about engineering and tech before they are allowed to write about it.
Go back to comedic tech fluff John. It's safer.
-----
Not a Citrix thin client? A fat client? Not a client? What?
If you have some point to make, why not give us an explanation that actually makes it?
You probably don't care since your main point seems to be just insulting the author in some way or another but ...
The iPad is a textbook "think client" computer in many ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client
I think he was right, my experience with thin clients is nothing like an iPad. Usually they do very little processing at the client end and rely on the server heavily(ie only present an RDP client) .... Which seems to be exactly like the link you posted says as well?
I understand that the iPad can act as an RDP client but it can run it's own spreadsheets, word processors and games so puts it in a realm far removed from a simple thin client.
Can I puke now? An iPad is anything but a thin client.
Paczkowski throws around terminology as carelessly as most analysts do. Maybe tech journalists should know something about engineering and tech before they are allowed to write about it.
Go back to comedic tech fluff John. It's safer.
strictly speaking, you are right. but the iPad and its imitators are in-between concepts. yes they can do "light" computing independently. but they can also serve as a thin client running apps almost totally dependent on cloud/web services - including private networks running custom apps.
it is exactly this flexibility that makes the iPod so potent a new category of device. i think that was the point the writer was trying to make.
btw: this is also the flexibility Chrome OS is missing, which is its big problem.
Can I puke now? An iPad is anything but a thin client.
Maybe he meant thin in the literal sense, as that is the only way it makes sense.
That said, one has every right to redefine a term but until this altered definition is commonplace one should make clear their intention or run the risk of looking like an idiot. I see nothing that indicates that Paczkowski is aware of the difference.
Not a Citrix thin client? A fat client? Not a client? What?
If you have some point to make, why not give us an explanation that actually makes it?
His point should be clear enough. Before making smarmy remarks you should look up the common definition of ?thin client?.
Android licensees, including Acer, Motorola and possibly HTC
They don't have to "license" Android, Android is open source, so anyone can start using it in their devices without making a "licensing deal" (or any other deal) with Google. Or am I missing something?
btw: this is also the flexibility Chrome OS is missing, which is its big problem.
Chrome OS has local DB storage and can access data on locally attached NAND or disk-based drives.
Can I puke now? An iPad is anything but a thin client.
Paczkowski throws around terminology as carelessly as most analysts do. Maybe tech journalists should know something about engineering and tech before they are allowed to write about it.
Go back to comedic tech fluff John. It's safer.
Don't be too quick to discount the iPad being used as a thin client -- based on cost alone.
With a little imagination you can envision a SMB with a WiFi LAN and a back room server -- and several PCs (really operating as thin clients) using specially designed internal web apps or client-server pairs.
FileMaker offers a client-server pair for the iPad -- no reason that concept couldn't be extended to Pages and Numbers, etc.
So here's the general approach:
-- when in the office, you use the iPad to access the Office LAN via WiFi and use the browser and/or client-server pairs to access the data on the office server. If you have the need, you might have a physical kb in your office space. Not exactly a "thin" client -- maybe more like a "slim" or "chubby" client.
-- when you leave the office, you take the iPad with you. Now, you have access to the Office LAN via WiFi Hotspots or 3G -- worst case you work offline with Browser (app) offline storage, client-server pair client-offline storage, or just iPad apps that create and store data. Now, the iPad has become an "Agile" client.
I suspect the next gen iPad could include an ethernet connector to allow faster LAN operation.
You could envision this in, say, the reservation check-in desk and payment stations in a restaurant.
...It kinda' depends on what the meaning of thin is
I betcha Steve's friend Larry Ellison (long a proponent of an under $600 thin client) could come up with lots similar of uses in enterprise.
.
I believe this is true. Some Apple laptop sales have been supplanted by iPad sales. However, the sales of Apple laptops, like the sale of Apple desktops, has been "juiced" by the success of the "iDevices", aided and abetted by the phenomenally successful Apple retail store presence. As a result, Apple laptops have still managed an increase in overall sales.
But it's also true that the iPad represents something brand new, a new paradigm in computing, if you will. It reminds me very much of the introduction of the original Macintosh back in 1984. The Mac, and to a lesser extent the Lisa, represented a major paradigm shift in computing. So much so, that the Mac was originally branded a "toy" by traditional computer users. But those of us that actually purchased one realized very quickly that this was a major advance in computing. And slowly, as more and more of a user base was built up, it became clear that the graphical user interface was destined to be dominant over the command driven interface.
The old graphical interface was based on a puck-like device called a "mouse", used in conjunction with a keyboaed. The new graphical interface does away with the mouse and the physical keyboard, replacng the mouse with a touchscreen and multitouch, and replacing the physical keyboard with a virtual keyboard.
In fact, I'm typing this post right now on my iPad using the virtual keyboard. I'm a touch typist, and it's taken some getting used to, but I find that I can now type with a fair amount of accuracy and speed in landscape rotation. It also helps if I watch my fingers as I type.
The point is, for the most part, I no longer need to use either my desktop or my portable computer, unless it is for doing more dedicated tasks, like drafting or typing the Great American Novel. And indeed, that is best done on my desktop system, which means my portable is being used for less and less.
BTW, has anyone besides me, when using their old computer, found themselves reaching out to do something by touching the monitor?
It's a really weird feeling....
Very interesting to read, Joe. I agree about the iPad being a serious paradigm shift! I lived your analogy of the first mac computers...I used to produce 11'X17" printed flow charts for my meetings (in black & white, no less) on a Classic (~4" screen) and my executive staff were amazed how "organized" I was! Right then I could never use anything but an Apple!
I remember when I bought the first iPhone and mainly because of email, it was essentially replacing my laptop ~80% of the time.
To your main point, when I get my second gen iPad...I am going to try and recreate all my reports on the iPad (iWork for the iPad) as opposed to my iMac. Yes, they may need to be less elaborate, but I figure, once designed, they will be easier to update, weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.
I'm having a very difficult time right now getting the motivation to sit down in front of my iMac and actually doing some work. I much prefer being "out and about!" Who really wants to sit in front of a computer and work all day?
Anyway, again, enjoyed your take on things! Happy New Year and all the best!
PS. Not had the experience yet of having to "reach out." But have experienced the "ghost" vibration in my front pocket, thinking it was my iPhone getting a call. This is well know to BB users!
BTW, has anyone besides me, when using their old computer, found themselves reaching out to do something by touching the monitor?
It's a really weird feeling....
Yeah... I blush, then look around to see if anyone was watching...
Yeah... I blush, then look around to see if anyone was watching...
Funny....
Best
I believe you are wrong on this. The iPad will indeed kill the sales of possibly millions of PCs. Most of the people you see in WiFi locations with laptops or netbooks don't really need a PC. Email, web browsing, content viewing are perfect tasks for the iPad. In your mind you can't possibly imagine the iPad replacing a PC and you're right to a point. But the vast majority of users out there don't need the full functionality of a PC. The iPad will do everything they need it to do. In my opinion there will be a large number of people for whom the iPad is their only computing device (assuming the need to sync with a PC goes away eventually). With many families being multi-PC the iPad will replace that second or third, or fourth PC currently in the home.
I honestly think tablets will displace PCs (laptops and desktops) completely and within a short time frame. In retrospect, I think the desktop and laptop form factors are terrible. When I see people using laptops now, it looks awkward. They're hunched over it. If they have the computer on their lap, the screen is pointing at their stomach. Having a keyboard attached to the screen is not very practical. The indirect interaction of a mouse or trackpad feels like a definite step backwards after using an iOS device for a long time. I don't buy arguments from precision either. Nobody needs to be pixel precise unless they're doing pixel art.
I think the 'hardware keyboard' thing is overblown. Typing hasn't been a popular activity for long. Less than a generation ago everything was handwritten. Most people aren't fast typists and have no need to be. Onscreen keyboards are 'good enough.' There's certainly not such a strong need for a hardware keyboard that you'd do something as absurd as attaching one to the screen and switching to indirect control rather than touch because you then have to place the thing on your lap or a desk. If you look at it that way - would I sacrifice the iPad's qualities for these minuscule advantages a laptop/desktop form factor gives me in some situations? - I think it's obvious the tablet form factor will win out and in a big way.
Desktops have already been on the way out. The demand for more processing power and storage has started to plateau. Most tasks done on computers make sense for multitouch interaction: video editing, photo editing, presentations, spreadsheets, equation editing, document layout, drawing, 3d modelling, etc. Even programming could work; multitouch tablets could see visual programming or structure editors making a comeback (the problem always was speed of interaction). Perhaps some of these tasks would benefit from a larger screen. More memory and faster CPUs are a given and the one thing we know will come in the future. But I see no reason they'd somehow benefit from an attached hardware keyboard and an indirect method of interaction.
I think 2011 is going to be the iPad's big year and a lot of people are going to wake up and realise there's really nothing this form factor can't do and, in many cases, do it much better than existing devices. I think people are vastly underestimate the huge psychological difference between the way we interact with our software now - where, if you want to do something, you first have to use the mouse to move the cursor to the button or switch and only then can you press it - and the way you do it on the iPad (just go ahead and press it). And I think they vastly overestimate the need for a hardware keyboard (as they did with the iPhone; unsurprising, really, since all these reviews and opinion pieces are written by people who are paid by the word).
BTW, has anyone besides me, when using their old computer, found themselves reaching out to do something by touching the monitor?
It's a really weird feeling....
I had a similar experience. The first time I tried a friend's Kindle I started touching the screen. I looked at him quizzically after nothing happened. He was shaking his head. "Nah, you have to use the buttons on the side." I didn't even notice them.
As I mentioned earlier, these experiences irrevocably alter the way I look at all computing devices.
I honestly think tablets will displace PCs (laptops and desktops) completely and within a short time frame. In retrospect, I think the desktop and laptop form factors are terrible. When I see people using laptops now, it looks awkward. They're hunched over it. If they have the computer on their lap, the screen is pointing at their stomach. Having a keyboard attached to the screen is not very practical. The indirect interaction of a mouse or trackpad feels like a definite step backwards after using an iOS device for a long time. I don't buy arguments from precision either. Nobody needs to be pixel precise unless they're doing pixel art.
I think the 'hardware keyboard' thing is overblown. Typing hasn't been a popular activity for long. Less than a generation ago everything was handwritten. Most people aren't fast typists and have no need to be. Onscreen keyboards are 'good enough.' There's certainly not such a strong need for a hardware keyboard that you'd do something as absurd as attaching one to the screen and switching to indirect control rather than touch because you then have to place the thing on your lap or a desk. If you look at it that way - would I sacrifice the iPad's qualities for these minuscule advantages a laptop/desktop form factor gives me in some situations? - I think it's obvious the tablet form factor will win out and in a big way.
Desktops have already been on the way out. The demand for more processing power and storage has started to plateau. Most tasks done on computers make sense for multitouch interaction: video editing, photo editing, presentations, spreadsheets, equation editing, document layout, drawing, 3d modelling, etc. Even programming could work; multitouch tablets could see visual programming or structure editors making a comeback (the problem always was speed of interaction). Perhaps some of these tasks would benefit from a larger screen. More memory and faster CPUs are a given and the one thing we know will come in the future. But I see no reason they'd somehow benefit from an attached hardware keyboard and an indirect method of interaction.
I think 2011 is going to be the iPad's big year and a lot of people are going to wake up and realise there's really nothing this form factor can't do and, in many cases, do it much better than existing devices. I think people are vastly underestimate the huge psychological difference between the way we interact with our software now - where, if you want to do something, you first have to use the mouse to move the cursor to the button or switch and only then can you press it - and the way you do it on the iPad (just go ahead and press it). And I think they vastly overestimate the need for a hardware keyboard (as they did with the iPhone; unsurprising, really, since all these reviews and opinion pieces are written by people who are paid by the word).
One of the best iPad apps, Flipboard creates an interactive modus operandii that cannot be duplicated by a smaller device or a traditional keyboard-and-trackpad driven PC. Yes, there are other news apps for smartphones and perhaps some news aggregators for PCs that might approach the visual UI, however the interaction is totally different.
I put these 2 posts in this position because I believe you are both on to something.
First:
The death knell for the PC, as we know it, was sounded on Jan 27 -- when the iPad was announced.
It will take a few years -- but it will happen.
Second:
Flipboard as you indicated is more than an app -- it is you! It is your stuff -- the way you want to arrange, organize and access it.
But, on My iPad -- it is me! It is my stuff -- the way I want to arrange, organize and access it.
What if you could put your apps in there? Your files? The web pages you are currently accessing?
Who needs iOS -- the UI is so 2007
Seriously what if you could put all your stuff (including the apps you are running) in there -- why would you need any "System" UI for iOS?
Just unfold your infinite-size, infinite-depth Flipbook -- and everything's just as you left it.
This would work today, on today's iPad -- the iPhone or Touch, not so much!.
But, I expect that within the next 3 years we will have some sort of expandable display -- so a device the size of an iPhone could be kept in a pocket -- and when, used the display could be resized as needed.
And what do you see... Your stuff unfolds before your eyes.
Edit: And what about Flipbook as an OS X, Dock, Spotlight and Finder replacement on the Fullscreen Macs.
Its dominate position, really? Sigh. At least we didn't get "it's dominate position", I suppose.
At least it wasn't the dominatrix position. That would have been hard to explain.
It's like the missionary position -- depending on who's on top
You really are a dirty old man, aren't you?
Chrome OS has local DB storage and can access data on locally attached NAND or disk-based drives.
yes, it has a local workaround. but workarounds are not as good.
real problem tho is, how is chrome any better or more useful than Android tab with a Chrome browser? Chrome was a great idea 3 years ago. but then things changed.
yes, it has a local workaround. but workarounds are not as good.
real problem tho is, how is chrome any better or more useful than Android tab with a Chrome browser? Chrome was a great idea 3 years ago. but then things changed.
Android has support for a mouse pointer and x86? I just can't can't see how anyone can look at an Android phone and think that is a more ideal OS for inexpensive netbooks over a desktop OS.
BTW, it's not a workaround, it's designed with that in mind. It's like saying WebOS isn't a real OS and can't store data locally simply because it, too, uses WebKit for the UI.