I couldn't let this go. The level of ignorance is just too high. Google's multi-user support is still developing - and is indeed a beta quality experience - but, that is not the case with the Surface RT/2/Pro. All of these run Windows 8 (and yes, Windows RT is Windows - despite what ignorant tech journalists might say) - a system that is inherently multi-user.
Your examples of games/applications being downloaded multiple times is not the case on a surface device. An application is only downloaded once - by the first user that installs it. Any subsequent user that "installs" the app, simply has it added to their profile along with any user specific data - global data and settings are not duplicated.
Also, I noticed a comment earlier about Windows not having something like game center... It's called xbox games. Look it up - it integrates into Microsoft's Xbox live service.
All the games I play like Modern War, Kingdom Age, Clash of Clans, PvZ2, and so many other games and apps aren't even available on Windows so what good is multiple accounts when the games and apps aren't available to any user profile? Xbox live is also a paid service. You can't even watch Netflix or Youtube on an Xbox unless you pay Microsoft their yearly tribute. What a ripoff. I have a huge group of friends with iOS devices that I can challenge to games with Game Center which is free and don't know of any with a Windows phone or tablet with Xbox live account so who exactly could I challenge to a game?
I don't know if they still call it Spotlight but either on an iPhone or iPad under iOS 7, just rest a finger anywhere on the screen and slowly pull down. You'll see a search box come up and there you can type what you're looking for.
For example, typing the word "face" on my iPhone immediately yields the application facebook and facetime, along with songs "The face", "the face of the nation", "god put a smile upon your face" etc. Very elegant way of searching for an application or any other object in general, without flipping through screens.
On the other hand you can categorize your apps into folders. Example my "Social" folder contains facebook, twitter, linkedin, flipboard. My folders are all on my 2nd iPad screen and they are all ordered alphabetically. A bit of work, I agree but once done, very easy to maintain.
Yes I often use spotlight but what happens when you don't know the name of an app? In OS X there are all sorts of ways to sort and shuffle and browse to find what you are looking for. Some of that power would be very welcome in my opinion on iOS to help find things faster.
I also use folders but find them very limiting. I need an easier way to sort and organize and move apps around and rearrange my screens. In OS X for example you can use command+select or shift+select to select multiple items or a group to move around. Perhaps there would be a way with a gesture to do something similar in iOS. I think iOS works great if you only have about 75 or less apps installed but once you get into the hundreds it gets a but unwieldy and I think there is some room for better app management. I think iOS will evolve to add an additional layer to help manage what is essentially an application folder perhaps not as advanced as OS X but more robust than what is currently available.
All the games I play like Modern War, Kingdom Age, Clash of Clans, PvZ2, and so many other games and apps aren't even available on Windows so what good is multiple accounts when the games and apps aren't available to any user profile? Xbox live is also a paid service. You can't even watch Netflix or Youtube on an Xbox unless you pay Microsoft their yearly tribute. What a ripoff. I have a huge group of friends with iOS devices that I can challenge to games with Game Center which is free and don't know of any with a Windows phone or tablet with Xbox live account so who exactly could I challenge to a game?
All of that is well and good for you... I'm happy that you enjoy your ios devices and integrated services. But, this comment does not in anyway change the fact that your were making ignorant statements about multi-user support on surface devices. I corrected you - your response is simply not relevant to the fact that
1) Surface is multi-user support is not beta quality
Unless it has improved since this review it appears that is just a game launch pad and does not easily allow you to challenge friends like Apple's game center.
That also does not address the main issue I brought up about games that do not rely on game center or the Google equivalent like Modern War. That game stores a huge amount of data on your iPad so if you had 2 or 3 copies of that app how does an Android tablet handle that?.
The app is only downloaded once even if it's used by two or more different "profiles" on that tablet. Obviously each would have their own user file for their own data tho so yeah available space could be an issue especially if there's no allowance for an SD card. Of course there's Android Cloud Save for games that can help mitigate storage
All of that is well and good for you... I'm happy that you enjoy your ios devices and integrated services. But, this comment does not in anyway change the fact that your were making ignorant statements about multi-user support on surface devices. I corrected you - your response is simply not relevant to the fact that
1) Surface is multi-user support is not beta quality
2) does have an equivalent to game center.
Have a nice day.
My original post was a rebuttal to a guy discussing Android. You jumped into that conversation. I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about the various flavors of Windows phones and tablets. I have no idea what are the differences between a Surface, a Surface Pro, Windows RT, or Windows 8 mobile. The reason I have no interest in any of those aside from it being very confusing is there is paltry amount of apps to choose from. Again I ask you what good is a multi-user support when there are no decent apps I want to run on any account? I think that is a pretty relevant point even if I concede that multi-user support is better than beta quality.
I don't see that there is a huge groundswell of people demanding this feature. If people start demanding it by the millions and Apple determines they are losing sales due to this feature not being included I am sure they will decide to add it at that time. But quite frankly I think all Windows mobile type phones and tablets are very limited due to the rather tiny ecosystem of popular apps.
The app is only downloaded once even if it's used by two or more different "profiles" on that tablet. Obviously each would have their own user file for their own data tho so yeah available space could be an issue especially if there's no allowance for an SD card. Of course there's Android Cloud Save for games that can help mitigate storage
I am not sure a storage card would help with app storage since the latest versions of Android require apps to be stored internally and not on SD cards.
Your example might work for some apps like Facebook for example where you log in with a ID and password but I don't think it would work on apps that have no log in per se and instead depend on the hardware ID. Try installing Modern War on your tablet with 2 accounts for example and see what happens.
This discussion is like saying a Toyota Corolla is a better car than a Ferrari because the Corolla has more doors.
99% of tablet owners don't give a sheet about multi-user. Apple doesn't add features just to add features. It costs money, cpu speed, programing time, battery life, ect to add new features. They will only add new features that bring VALUE to its users. Many of the Surface features seem to add nothing but more mire and confusion.
Now iPadPro. That's a different story.
Most of the comments from iPad users offering opinions here at AI seems to be in favor of multi-user rather than against it. 99% of tablet owners opposed to it? Personally I doubt it.
This discussion is like saying a Toyota Corolla is a better car than a Ferrari because the Corolla has more doors.
99% of tablet owners don't give a sheet about multi-user. Apple doesn't add features just to add features. It costs money, cpu speed, programing time, battery life, ect to add new features. They will only add new features that bring VALUE to its users. Many of the Surface features seem to add nothing but more mire and confusion.
Now iPadPro. That's a different story.
Most of the comments from iPad users offering opinions here at AI seems to be in favor of multi-user rather than against it. 99% of tablet owners opposed to it? Personally I doubt it.
I'm sure that some users would like multi-user capabilities, but I'm not sure that counting comments is a good metric. Those who don't feel a need for it are quite unlikely to comment compared to those who do. I doubt that many are actually opposed to it and, in any case, that is not what sog35 asserted.
I'm sure that some users would like multi-user capabilities, but I'm not sure that counting comments is a good metric.
Completely agree. That's not what I mentioned it for. Instead I was hoping he took note that few may be as emphatically opposed to it as he is. Having the feature choice available shouldn't have any downside for those that don't have a need for it anymore than it does on a Mac.
I'm sure that some users would like multi-user capabilities, but I'm not sure that counting comments is a good metric.
Completely agree. That's not what I mentioned it for. Instead I was hoping he took note that few may be as emphatically opposed to it as he is. Having the feature choice available shouldn't have any downside for those that don't have a need for it anymore than it does on a Mac.
Fair enough, although I stand by my earlier post that I think there is a substantial single-user philosophy behind the iPad concept, in which case it is not necessarily a feature choice with no downside.
Fair enough, although I stand by my earlier post that I think there is a substantial single-user philosophy behind the iPad concept, in which case it is not necessarily a feature choice with no downside.
I actually agreed with your earlier post and meant to give it a thumbs up at the time. I don't personally think there is any technical reason preventing multi-user profiles on an iPad. I too think it's a marketing decision.
Fair enough, although I stand by my earlier post that I think there is a substantial single-user philosophy behind the iPad concept, in which case it is not necessarily a feature choice with no downside.
I actually agreed with your earlier post and meant to give it a thumbs up at the time. I don't personally think there is any technical reason preventing multi-user profiles on an iPad. I too think it's a marketing decision.
I'm not privy to Apple's marketing strategy of course, but I don't know that I would even put this down just to marketing. Apple has a history of disrupting the status quo, and I think that one element of that in this case is to move the market towards personal devices. The cynical view would be that it is just to sell more devices, but I actually think that they are pushing a technological paradigm shift here.
My original post was a rebuttal to a guy discussing Android. You jumped into that conversation. I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about the various flavors of Windows phones and tablets. I have no idea what are the differences between a Surface, a Surface Pro, Windows RT, or Windows 8 mobile. The reason I have no interest in any of those aside from it being very confusing is there is paltry amount of apps to choose from. Again I ask you what good is a multi-user support when there are no decent apps I want to run on any account? I think that is a pretty relevant point even if I concede that multi-user support is better than beta quality.
I don't see that there is a huge groundswell of people demanding this feature. If people start demanding it by the millions and Apple determines they are losing sales due to this feature not being included I am sure they will decide to add it at that time. But quite frankly I think all Windows mobile type phones and tablets are very limited due to the rather tiny ecosystem of popular apps.
I jumped in because you mentioned windows on more than one of your replies - I was correcting you on your lumping windows and android together as having the same beta level of support.
First off - Surface Pro runs full windows 8 pro. To say it has a paltry amount of apps available for it is laughable. It has millions of apps because it can run any windows x86 app that any other pc can run. This is true of any of the windows x86 tablets - they are only limited by their processor and memory limits.
As for Windows RT, since it runs on ARM based processors, traditional x86 binaries will not work so, it is limited to the out of the box software as well as what is available in the Windows Store. Currently, that's something like 130,000 apps and growing. There is no question that there are less apps available for a Surface RT/2 device - the iPad and Android ecosystems have had a couple more years to grow their offerings. But, the RT devices have a couple of things going for them that make this gap much less noticeable. The biggest being having a full desktop class browser (IE11) with built in flash support. That alone gives you pretty broad access to services that are only available as "apps" on other mobile platforms. For instance, Amazon Prime streaming video. You don't need an app on the RT device as you do on an iPad - you can just use the browser. You can't do this on Android device (the exception being a kindle device or one that has had the old flash mobile hacked on to it) because the browser doesn't support flash and their is no Amazon video app for Android.
Anyway, I don't really want to get into a discussion about ecosystems, etc. I simply wanted you to be aware that you were incorrect in your assessment of features. You may not agree they are needed and it's obvious that you like your ipad/ios devices and that's great.
My original post was a rebuttal to a guy discussing Android. You jumped into that conversation. I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about the various flavors of Windows phones and tablets. I have no idea what are the differences between a Surface, a Surface Pro, Windows RT, or Windows 8 mobile. The reason I have no interest in any of those aside from it being very confusing is there is paltry amount of apps to choose from. Again I ask you what good is a multi-user support when there are no decent apps I want to run on any account? I think that is a pretty relevant point even if I concede that multi-user support is better than beta quality.
I don't see that there is a huge groundswell of people demanding this feature. If people start demanding it by the millions and Apple determines they are losing sales due to this feature not being included I am sure they will decide to add it at that time. But quite frankly I think all Windows mobile type phones and tablets are very limited due to the rather tiny ecosystem of popular apps.
I jumped in because you mentioned windows on more than one of your replies - I was correcting you on your lumping windows and android together as having the same beta level of support.
First off - Surface Pro runs full windows 8 pro. To say it has a paltry amount of apps available for it is laughable. It has millions of apps because it can run any windows x86 app that any other pc can run. This is true of any of the windows x86 tablets - they are only limited by their processor and memory limits.
As for Windows RT, since it runs on ARM based processors, traditional x86 binaries will not work so, it is limited to the out of the box software as well as what is available in the Windows Store. Currently, that's something like 130,000 apps and growing. There is no question that there are less apps available for a Surface RT/2 device - the iPad and Android ecosystems have had a couple more years to grow their offerings. But, the RT devices have a couple of things going for them that make this gap much less noticeable. The biggest being having a full desktop class browser (IE11) with built in flash support. That alone gives you pretty broad access to services that are only available as "apps" on other mobile platforms. For instance, Amazon Prime streaming video. You don't need an app on the RT device as you do on an iPad - you can just use the browser. You can't do this on Android device (the exception being a kindle device or one that has had the old flash mobile hacked on to it) because the browser doesn't support flash and their is no Amazon video app for Android.
Anyway, I don't really want to get into a discussion about ecosystems, etc. I simply wanted you to be aware that you were incorrect in your assessment of features. You may not agree they are needed and it's obvious that you like your ipad/ios devices and that's great.
Have a great day!
For the RT devices I suspect that the Flash "advantage" depends on your point of view, since many believe that Flash usage will continue to decline. And, with respect to your example, I really can't see how the ability to view Amazon streaming video on a browser rather than in a free and functional app is an advantage at all. Office might be a better example of a potential advantage, at least until it is available on iOS.
Multiple User Profiles only works on paper. Have any of you ever tried to tell your kids to "share" an iPad? I did, and it didn't work. Eventually we all need an iPad ourselves.
How does the logic of this statement work? Multiple User Profiles only works on paper because it doesn't work on the iPad, which doesn't have user profiles to begin with?
For the RT devices I suspect that the Flash "advantage" depends on your point of view, since many believe that Flash usage will continue to decline. And, with respect to your example, I really can't see how the ability to view Amazon streaming video on a browser rather than in a free and functional app is an advantage at all. Office might be a better example of a potential advantage, at least until it is available on iOS.
Flash will decline eventually - but, so far I haven't actually seen any evidence of it... And, at least as long as it is still prevalent, I in fact do see it as an advantage over the iPad and even Android in the short term. One example where this is true would be Hulu Plus. There is an official Hulu Plus application in the windows store - but, like all of the app versions of Hulu it comes with some content restrictions. There is content that is not available on mobile devices. Yet, on the Surface RT you can just use the browser if the app restricts you from viewing said content.
As for the specific example given earlier - I wasn't saying it was an advantage over the iPad - I was pointing out that by having the flash functionality and full desktop browser makes the app gap actually not nearly as noticeable. Spotify, Pandora, etc - all accessible through the browser - as are the full facebook experience including those stupid flash based games that the kids like so well
Erm what about the Mac vs PC ad's? Apple kinda started all of this.
Wow, can you really not differentiate between the ‘tone and manner’ of those “I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC" ads versus these? The difference in attitude alone in those ads speaks volumes.
Touch ID while sounding cool, would also be useless for this scenario. A 1 year old doesn't have proper finger prints. If it brings user profiles with it then great, but to me it's less about adding whizzy features and more about fixing an issue with an otherwise excellent toy for a child.
This is starting to sound like a specious argument. You’re fist complaining about not being able to control what the kid does (meaning, leave the child alone to play with the “great toy” that an iPad is). But now you’re seriously talking about leaving a $400 or $500 drool-averse device alone with a ONE YEAR OLD?
Please….. bad rationale for what could be a reasonable argument.
I’ve found both my iPad and my iPhone to be very “personal” devices. That said, I also have family, with kids, who share an iPad. Parental Controls works just fine on that one. The “use case” shown in the MS Ad here was grossly misleading. It implied kids buying things when parents aren’t looking. There ARE controls for that.
As for “monitoring” all the behavior of those “other users”? No. Just no… Children can be taught to be smart, honest, and have trust extended to them. Spying on them like that feels way too overbearing...
Last year it was a Microsoft Surface RT $900,000,000 product write off. I guess this year it will be a $900,000,000 Advertising write off. Really, MS?!
Comments
I couldn't let this go. The level of ignorance is just too high. Google's multi-user support is still developing - and is indeed a beta quality experience - but, that is not the case with the Surface RT/2/Pro. All of these run Windows 8 (and yes, Windows RT is Windows - despite what ignorant tech journalists might say) - a system that is inherently multi-user.
Your examples of games/applications being downloaded multiple times is not the case on a surface device. An application is only downloaded once - by the first user that installs it. Any subsequent user that "installs" the app, simply has it added to their profile along with any user specific data - global data and settings are not duplicated.
Also, I noticed a comment earlier about Windows not having something like game center... It's called xbox games. Look it up - it integrates into Microsoft's Xbox live service.
All the games I play like Modern War, Kingdom Age, Clash of Clans, PvZ2, and so many other games and apps aren't even available on Windows so what good is multiple accounts when the games and apps aren't available to any user profile? Xbox live is also a paid service. You can't even watch Netflix or Youtube on an Xbox unless you pay Microsoft their yearly tribute. What a ripoff. I have a huge group of friends with iOS devices that I can challenge to games with Game Center which is free and don't know of any with a Windows phone or tablet with Xbox live account so who exactly could I challenge to a game?
I don't know if they still call it Spotlight but either on an iPhone or iPad under iOS 7, just rest a finger anywhere on the screen and slowly pull down. You'll see a search box come up and there you can type what you're looking for.
For example, typing the word "face" on my iPhone immediately yields the application facebook and facetime, along with songs "The face", "the face of the nation", "god put a smile upon your face" etc. Very elegant way of searching for an application or any other object in general, without flipping through screens.
On the other hand you can categorize your apps into folders. Example my "Social" folder contains facebook, twitter, linkedin, flipboard. My folders are all on my 2nd iPad screen and they are all ordered alphabetically. A bit of work, I agree but once done, very easy to maintain.
Yes I often use spotlight but what happens when you don't know the name of an app? In OS X there are all sorts of ways to sort and shuffle and browse to find what you are looking for. Some of that power would be very welcome in my opinion on iOS to help find things faster.
I also use folders but find them very limiting. I need an easier way to sort and organize and move apps around and rearrange my screens. In OS X for example you can use command+select or shift+select to select multiple items or a group to move around. Perhaps there would be a way with a gesture to do something similar in iOS. I think iOS works great if you only have about 75 or less apps installed but once you get into the hundreds it gets a but unwieldy and I think there is some room for better app management. I think iOS will evolve to add an additional layer to help manage what is essentially an application folder perhaps not as advanced as OS X but more robust than what is currently available.
User profiles are great.
Arguing it is needed because of your 1 year old is retarded.
All the games I play like Modern War, Kingdom Age, Clash of Clans, PvZ2, and so many other games and apps aren't even available on Windows so what good is multiple accounts when the games and apps aren't available to any user profile? Xbox live is also a paid service. You can't even watch Netflix or Youtube on an Xbox unless you pay Microsoft their yearly tribute. What a ripoff. I have a huge group of friends with iOS devices that I can challenge to games with Game Center which is free and don't know of any with a Windows phone or tablet with Xbox live account so who exactly could I challenge to a game?
All of that is well and good for you... I'm happy that you enjoy your ios devices and integrated services. But, this comment does not in anyway change the fact that your were making ignorant statements about multi-user support on surface devices. I corrected you - your response is simply not relevant to the fact that
1) Surface is multi-user support is not beta quality
2) does have an equivalent to game center.
Have a nice day.
The app is only downloaded once even if it's used by two or more different "profiles" on that tablet. Obviously each would have their own user file for their own data tho so yeah available space could be an issue especially if there's no allowance for an SD card. Of course there's Android Cloud Save for games that can help mitigate storage
All of that is well and good for you... I'm happy that you enjoy your ios devices and integrated services. But, this comment does not in anyway change the fact that your were making ignorant statements about multi-user support on surface devices. I corrected you - your response is simply not relevant to the fact that
1) Surface is multi-user support is not beta quality
2) does have an equivalent to game center.
Have a nice day.
My original post was a rebuttal to a guy discussing Android. You jumped into that conversation. I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about the various flavors of Windows phones and tablets. I have no idea what are the differences between a Surface, a Surface Pro, Windows RT, or Windows 8 mobile. The reason I have no interest in any of those aside from it being very confusing is there is paltry amount of apps to choose from. Again I ask you what good is a multi-user support when there are no decent apps I want to run on any account? I think that is a pretty relevant point even if I concede that multi-user support is better than beta quality.
I don't see that there is a huge groundswell of people demanding this feature. If people start demanding it by the millions and Apple determines they are losing sales due to this feature not being included I am sure they will decide to add it at that time. But quite frankly I think all Windows mobile type phones and tablets are very limited due to the rather tiny ecosystem of popular apps.
The app is only downloaded once even if it's used by two or more different "profiles" on that tablet. Obviously each would have their own user file for their own data tho so yeah available space could be an issue especially if there's no allowance for an SD card. Of course there's Android Cloud Save for games that can help mitigate storage
I am not sure a storage card would help with app storage since the latest versions of Android require apps to be stored internally and not on SD cards.
Your example might work for some apps like Facebook for example where you log in with a ID and password but I don't think it would work on apps that have no log in per se and instead depend on the hardware ID. Try installing Modern War on your tablet with 2 accounts for example and see what happens.
Most of the comments from iPad users offering opinions here at AI seems to be in favor of multi-user rather than against it. 99% of tablet owners opposed to it? Personally I doubt it.
This discussion is like saying a Toyota Corolla is a better car than a Ferrari because the Corolla has more doors.
99% of tablet owners don't give a sheet about multi-user. Apple doesn't add features just to add features. It costs money, cpu speed, programing time, battery life, ect to add new features. They will only add new features that bring VALUE to its users. Many of the Surface features seem to add nothing but more mire and confusion.
Now iPadPro. That's a different story.
Most of the comments from iPad users offering opinions here at AI seems to be in favor of multi-user rather than against it. 99% of tablet owners opposed to it? Personally I doubt it.
I'm sure that some users would like multi-user capabilities, but I'm not sure that counting comments is a good metric. Those who don't feel a need for it are quite unlikely to comment compared to those who do. I doubt that many are actually opposed to it and, in any case, that is not what sog35 asserted.
Completely agree. That's not what I mentioned it for. Instead I was hoping he took note that few may be as emphatically opposed to it as he is. Having the feature choice available shouldn't have any downside for those that don't have a need for it anymore than it does on a Mac.
I'm sure that some users would like multi-user capabilities, but I'm not sure that counting comments is a good metric.
Completely agree. That's not what I mentioned it for. Instead I was hoping he took note that few may be as emphatically opposed to it as he is. Having the feature choice available shouldn't have any downside for those that don't have a need for it anymore than it does on a Mac.
Fair enough, although I stand by my earlier post that I think there is a substantial single-user philosophy behind the iPad concept, in which case it is not necessarily a feature choice with no downside.
I actually agreed with your earlier post and meant to give it a thumbs up at the time. I don't personally think there is any technical reason preventing multi-user profiles on an iPad. I too think it's a marketing decision.
Those are some pretty weird kids:-
It could explain all the childishness of cnet comments.
Fair enough, although I stand by my earlier post that I think there is a substantial single-user philosophy behind the iPad concept, in which case it is not necessarily a feature choice with no downside.
I actually agreed with your earlier post and meant to give it a thumbs up at the time. I don't personally think there is any technical reason preventing multi-user profiles on an iPad. I too think it's a marketing decision.
I'm not privy to Apple's marketing strategy of course, but I don't know that I would even put this down just to marketing. Apple has a history of disrupting the status quo, and I think that one element of that in this case is to move the market towards personal devices. The cynical view would be that it is just to sell more devices, but I actually think that they are pushing a technological paradigm shift here.
My original post was a rebuttal to a guy discussing Android. You jumped into that conversation. I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about the various flavors of Windows phones and tablets. I have no idea what are the differences between a Surface, a Surface Pro, Windows RT, or Windows 8 mobile. The reason I have no interest in any of those aside from it being very confusing is there is paltry amount of apps to choose from. Again I ask you what good is a multi-user support when there are no decent apps I want to run on any account? I think that is a pretty relevant point even if I concede that multi-user support is better than beta quality.
I don't see that there is a huge groundswell of people demanding this feature. If people start demanding it by the millions and Apple determines they are losing sales due to this feature not being included I am sure they will decide to add it at that time. But quite frankly I think all Windows mobile type phones and tablets are very limited due to the rather tiny ecosystem of popular apps.
I jumped in because you mentioned windows on more than one of your replies - I was correcting you on your lumping windows and android together as having the same beta level of support.
First off - Surface Pro runs full windows 8 pro. To say it has a paltry amount of apps available for it is laughable. It has millions of apps because it can run any windows x86 app that any other pc can run. This is true of any of the windows x86 tablets - they are only limited by their processor and memory limits.
As for Windows RT, since it runs on ARM based processors, traditional x86 binaries will not work so, it is limited to the out of the box software as well as what is available in the Windows Store. Currently, that's something like 130,000 apps and growing. There is no question that there are less apps available for a Surface RT/2 device - the iPad and Android ecosystems have had a couple more years to grow their offerings. But, the RT devices have a couple of things going for them that make this gap much less noticeable. The biggest being having a full desktop class browser (IE11) with built in flash support. That alone gives you pretty broad access to services that are only available as "apps" on other mobile platforms. For instance, Amazon Prime streaming video. You don't need an app on the RT device as you do on an iPad - you can just use the browser. You can't do this on Android device (the exception being a kindle device or one that has had the old flash mobile hacked on to it) because the browser doesn't support flash and their is no Amazon video app for Android.
Anyway, I don't really want to get into a discussion about ecosystems, etc. I simply wanted you to be aware that you were incorrect in your assessment of features. You may not agree they are needed and it's obvious that you like your ipad/ios devices and that's great.
Have a great day!
My original post was a rebuttal to a guy discussing Android. You jumped into that conversation. I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about the various flavors of Windows phones and tablets. I have no idea what are the differences between a Surface, a Surface Pro, Windows RT, or Windows 8 mobile. The reason I have no interest in any of those aside from it being very confusing is there is paltry amount of apps to choose from. Again I ask you what good is a multi-user support when there are no decent apps I want to run on any account? I think that is a pretty relevant point even if I concede that multi-user support is better than beta quality.
I don't see that there is a huge groundswell of people demanding this feature. If people start demanding it by the millions and Apple determines they are losing sales due to this feature not being included I am sure they will decide to add it at that time. But quite frankly I think all Windows mobile type phones and tablets are very limited due to the rather tiny ecosystem of popular apps.
I jumped in because you mentioned windows on more than one of your replies - I was correcting you on your lumping windows and android together as having the same beta level of support.
First off - Surface Pro runs full windows 8 pro. To say it has a paltry amount of apps available for it is laughable. It has millions of apps because it can run any windows x86 app that any other pc can run. This is true of any of the windows x86 tablets - they are only limited by their processor and memory limits.
As for Windows RT, since it runs on ARM based processors, traditional x86 binaries will not work so, it is limited to the out of the box software as well as what is available in the Windows Store. Currently, that's something like 130,000 apps and growing. There is no question that there are less apps available for a Surface RT/2 device - the iPad and Android ecosystems have had a couple more years to grow their offerings. But, the RT devices have a couple of things going for them that make this gap much less noticeable. The biggest being having a full desktop class browser (IE11) with built in flash support. That alone gives you pretty broad access to services that are only available as "apps" on other mobile platforms. For instance, Amazon Prime streaming video. You don't need an app on the RT device as you do on an iPad - you can just use the browser. You can't do this on Android device (the exception being a kindle device or one that has had the old flash mobile hacked on to it) because the browser doesn't support flash and their is no Amazon video app for Android.
Anyway, I don't really want to get into a discussion about ecosystems, etc. I simply wanted you to be aware that you were incorrect in your assessment of features. You may not agree they are needed and it's obvious that you like your ipad/ios devices and that's great.
Have a great day!
For the RT devices I suspect that the Flash "advantage" depends on your point of view, since many believe that Flash usage will continue to decline. And, with respect to your example, I really can't see how the ability to view Amazon streaming video on a browser rather than in a free and functional app is an advantage at all. Office might be a better example of a potential advantage, at least until it is available on iOS.
Multiple User Profiles only works on paper. Have any of you ever tried to tell your kids to "share" an iPad? I did, and it didn't work. Eventually we all need an iPad ourselves.
How does the logic of this statement work? Multiple User Profiles only works on paper because it doesn't work on the iPad, which doesn't have user profiles to begin with?
For the RT devices I suspect that the Flash "advantage" depends on your point of view, since many believe that Flash usage will continue to decline. And, with respect to your example, I really can't see how the ability to view Amazon streaming video on a browser rather than in a free and functional app is an advantage at all. Office might be a better example of a potential advantage, at least until it is available on iOS.
Flash will decline eventually - but, so far I haven't actually seen any evidence of it... And, at least as long as it is still prevalent, I in fact do see it as an advantage over the iPad and even Android in the short term. One example where this is true would be Hulu Plus. There is an official Hulu Plus application in the windows store - but, like all of the app versions of Hulu it comes with some content restrictions. There is content that is not available on mobile devices. Yet, on the Surface RT you can just use the browser if the app restricts you from viewing said content.
As for the specific example given earlier - I wasn't saying it was an advantage over the iPad - I was pointing out that by having the flash functionality and full desktop browser makes the app gap actually not nearly as noticeable. Spotify, Pandora, etc - all accessible through the browser - as are the full facebook experience including those stupid flash based games that the kids like so well
Anyway, have a great day.
Wow, can you really not differentiate between the ‘tone and manner’ of those “I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC" ads versus these? The difference in attitude alone in those ads speaks volumes.
This is starting to sound like a specious argument. You’re fist complaining about not being able to control what the kid does (meaning, leave the child alone to play with the “great toy” that an iPad is). But now you’re seriously talking about leaving a $400 or $500 drool-averse device alone with a ONE YEAR OLD?
Please….. bad rationale for what could be a reasonable argument.
I’ve found both my iPad and my iPhone to be very “personal” devices. That said, I also have family, with kids, who share an iPad. Parental Controls works just fine on that one. The “use case” shown in the MS Ad here was grossly misleading. It implied kids buying things when parents aren’t looking. There ARE controls for that.
As for “monitoring” all the behavior of those “other users”? No. Just no… Children can be taught to be smart, honest, and have trust extended to them. Spying on them like that feels way too overbearing...