The biggest one is that I find several sites that just don't behave well on iPad. The hardware (iPad 3) often doesn't seem to be up to the task. iOS Safari seems to crash a lot more. Maybe it's the site's fault, I don't know. But even my 2007 MBP handle same sites just fine.
Even in iOS 7, leave a tab alone long enough (seems half hour) and it has to reload when I revisit it, even in the same browsing session. I never get that on Windows or MacOS, it stayed loaded.
Downloaded file handling seems a bit limited.
I'd also like to "print" a page to PDF. But that need really only came up once on iOS, though I use it a lot on the desktop.
Ok, fair enough. My experience is similar (and I also have an iPad3).
It seems that most of the problems disappeared on the new iPhone (5S) and I expect that to be the case on the latest iPad also.
For me the positives like being able to browse everywhere and 'remove' ads in a few simple moves outweighs the negatives by far.
I also stop visiting websites that don't work well (AI excluded).
I do take issue with how Apple updates this productivity suite. I have no problem with iWork — do they even call it that anymore? — not being as robust as MS Office and I really like the current move to keep the feature set between platforms (Mac, iCloud, iOS) the same, but I don't like that they have so many dry spells and seemingly play chutes-and-ladders where they take these huge steps backwards in functionality. I would much rather they have a dedicated iWork team that would release only a few, incremental, and platform-balanced feature updates each and every year. Hopefully the move to make this free with the perhaps of a Mac of iOS-based iDevice is a sign of good things to come.
Agreed, in other words, they should have left the Mac version alone until the iOS version had feature parity. What they really need to do is kick the development into high gear and produce a better product than MS. That would be a good use of some portion of that $159 billion. What's the problem Apple? Can't afford to develop the iWork platform?
Agreed, in other words, they should have left the Mac version alone until the iOS version had feature parity. What they really need to do is kick the development into high gear and produce a better product than MS. That would be a good use of some portion of that $159 billion. What's the problem Apple? Can't afford to develop the iWork platform?
Hmm… I'm not sure I agree about not touching the Mac app until the iOS version had feature parity as so much of the Mac app had to be rewritten and the connectivity via iCloud might have some issues using the old code base. Also, I find the current feature set across all three platforms to be better suited for my needs than simply having a stand alone Mac version… I just wish they didn't back burner iWork for long.
Ideally I would have liked this project (including being free, like Mac OS X) to have started years ago and slowly progressed forward each year so now in the 7th year of the iPhone we might have something that is considerably more robust than it is today.
What is fucked up is your assumption that just because something can do a task at a simple level means it can replace something that does it in a more comprehensive way in an easier fashion.
This is like saying because a semi has the same horsepower engine and similar load capacity that it is a viable dump truck replacement. Sure, if you are willing to compromise on being stupid in using the right tools for the right jobs.
I don't give a shit if the task is writing documents, editing movies/photos or using garage band...a 3.5" screen sucks ass while a 8" screen is viable.
See I can use four letter words too.
ummmm, "fucked" is a six letter word. LOL, learn to count.
You missed the point. I'm saying creating pictures, emails, etc. is worthy content creation. Just because I create different content doesn't mean I'm not creating content. To keep with your analogy, you are saying that a semi isn't a vehicle because it can't dump like a dump truck. I'm calling BS on that assumption. A semi is a vehicle even though it can't dump. An iPhone is computer even if it can't do Word processing well. comprende chico?
Hmm… I'm not sure I agree about not touching the Mac app until the iOS version had feature parity as so much of the Mac app had to be rewritten and the connectivity via iCloud might have some issues using the old code base. Also, I find the current feature set across all three platforms to be better suited for my needs than simply having a stand alone Mac version… I just wish they didn't back burner iWork for long.
Ideally I would have liked this project (including being free, like Mac OS X) to have started years ago and slowly progressed forward each year so now in the 7th year of the iPhone we might have something that is considerably more robust than it is today.
yes, agreed. They obviously knew mobile was going to be successful. Steve Jobs made bold statements about it. Someone deserves a kick in the pants for doing nothing about the mobile strategy for pages over the last 5 years.
LOL what a load of crap! then tell me why Windows has a 92PCT market share? and anyway this includes iPads and iPhones, which are not PCs.. and don't give me the whole "personal computer" excuse.. Windows 8 PCs OUTSELL Macs and iMacs EVERY SINGLE QUARTER, and that's a fact. In this case, they should count Windows Laptops, Desktops, Surfaces, and WP8 devices vs. Apple's devices, to at least make it somewhat fair.
but an iPad is a MOBILE DEVICE.. not a PC! A PC is something that you use a mouse and keyboard with. and that hasn't changed in the last 30 years. no matter what you want to argue.
but an iPad is a MOBILE DEVICE.. not a PC! A PC is something that you use a mouse and keyboard with. and that hasn't changed in the last 30 years. no matter what you want to argue.
If to be defined as personal computer it has to include a mouse and physical keyboard then the IBM-PC would not have been a "PC" based on your definition, and if you say that the definition changed after the mouse and GUI were introduced then you need to explain why the definition isn't allowed change yet again now that these very personal computing devices are replacing "traditional PCs" in part and in whole, depending on the user.
Also, why were there two decades of keyboard-less and mouse-less Tablet PCs counted alongside all other Windows PCs and now all of a sudden tablets don't count now that Apple has a dominant foothold in the personal computing market? Does this go back to the 2010 claims that the iPad is just a toy?
Precisely the point. The article was posted to illustrate how mobile is taking over the market.
Tbh you have it back to front, the charts should have removed the Mac business (or at least the non-laptop Mac business) and only posted the iOS figures.
If you're including WAP in "internet-enabled phones" then that's probably true. How widely used was that though? I know I had a couple of feature phones where I never touched the internet connectivity because it was so slow and difficult to use with a little keypad. Maybe others used it more, but it never seemed widespread to me, the only times I remember seeing it used was to check the odd sports score. Whereas I imagine proportion of people that have an iPhone or iPad and don't use the internet pretty regularly and for a number of different things is at most in the low single digits, and probably <1%. Just guessing, obviously.
But more to the point, do you think Microsoft were losing any significant number of Windows sales to phones before the current (i.e. post iPhone) mobile take off (phone and tablet)? It certainly seems like their sales are being affected now.
Whilst overlooking the fact that internet enabled phones probably surpassed the number of PCs long before the iPhone was even released.
IMO the primary objective for Evans posting his cherry picking article was self-promotion. Well it certain garnered him a lot of column inches.
That brings up a good point. Where do we start measuring? Long before the iPhone there were WAP* browsers which technically connected to the internet and accessed websites. They also connected via various apps to both inter- and intranet-based services via the carrier.
That said, I think it's hard to make a solid case that this should be included outside of a footnote since the usability was absolutely horrid. It would be like saying commercial airline started in 1903 if the Wright Brothers had charged their neighbor a tanner** for a flight.
That brings up a good point. Where do we start measuring? Long before the iPhone there were WAP* browsers which technically connected to the internet and accessed websites. They also connected via various apps to both inter- and intranet-based services via the carrier.
That said, I think it's hard to make a solid case that this should be included outside of a footnote since the usability was absolutely horrid. It would be like saying commercial airline started in 1903 if the Wright Brothers had charged their neighbor a tanner** for a flight.
* Crowley, even though it's the same sound as a racial slur when spoken you shouldn't assume that it's a racial slur.
** I'm assuming their neighbor was from Britain in this scenario.
There-in lies the problem with definitions, they seem to shift over time. Whilst language is supposed to be dynamic it increases the scope for people to wilfully adapt their definition to suit their argument.
If we take the term smartphone for example, what does that mean? Gartner, for example, class Symbian as being a smartphone platform. A common pre-requisite seems to be internet connectivity but this could imply email access rather than web access, and then how do we define web access. WAP was web access, it wasn't particularly nice but it was better than no access (and it should be remembered that MMS was part of the WAP protocol.
The IBM Simon in 1993 had internet access via email, the 1999 Nokia 7110 had WAP access, the 2002 Nokia 7650 had HTML access (via the Doris browser app) and shortly after that the "PDA phones" had native HTML support. And throughout the period we had portable devices such as PDAs and laptops that could use cell phones as modems or WiFi. Again, I return to my earlier point and add that Symbian (classified by Gartner as being a smartphone) probably passed MS ages ago.
For me one of the bigger problems with the article is that it focuses on the devices rather than usage. The ability to access the internet on mobile devices hasn't radically changed over the last 10 years or so, yet very few people wanted internet access (regardless of the quality of service. Arguably the more important factor has been the rise in popularity of social media sites (for example).
That brings up a good point. Where do we start measuring? Long before the iPhone there were WAP* browsers which technically connected to the internet and accessed websites. They also connected via various apps to both inter- and intranet-based services via the carrier.
There were devices that were referred to as Pocket PCs between about 2000-2011:
[VIDEO]
Microsoft has always said that mobile devices should be considered PCs too.
Apps, Word, Excel, images, Opera, Internet Explorer etc. There's not enough of those old devices to be worth counting but they meet a lot of the PC criteria people have for smartphones. I never considered the likes of Palm, Windows Mobile, even the Newton to be PC replacement devices. Same with the likes of the palmtops back in the late 90s:
[VIDEO]
You can run Android on a watch, you get apps and browsers on the XBox and PS4 and they are even x86 now, the PS4 running some Linux OS. If it's just down to the OS capability then they're all PCs but it's not meaningful to group them together if they aren't competing products. If a graphic designer went shopping for a desktop PC in 2004, the salesman wouldn't ask if they'd rather have an iPaq because it's not a replacement for their usage. If a graphic designer went shopping for an iMac in 2014, the salesman wouldn't ask if they'd rather have an iPod Touch because it's also not a replacement.
Personal Computing implies productivity rather than consumption. An Apple TV, a Classic iPod, a smart TV, a console are considered consumption devices regardless of the OS they run. Pocket PCs, smartphones, Palm devices, Newton etc are meant to be highly mobile productivity devices but their form factor impairs productivity and it always has.
I'd say that productivity is impaired on anything with a display under 7". But then there's the UMPC devices that even run Windows:
[VIDEO]
That one's actually called the iWatch Pocket Pal Nano PC. There's a wireless USB stick that connects to a display and behaves just like a PC with external peripherals. That kind of device could run Photoshop or Office. But then, so can an iPhone using a remote desktop app. If it's just about controlling and displaying a productive PC experience, then lots of things can be PCs.
But, we have to draw a line somewhere otherwise the stats don't mean anything. Would you sit in front of an iPod Touch for an 8 hour working day to produce something you'd be paid for? Would you ever rely on it to earn an income? I don't think so. I think the same applies to Pocket PC devices. People do this with tablets though to an extent.
It's not that this makes a smartphone not fit the criteria for being a Personal Computing device, I just don't think it's a meaningful statement to call a smartphone a PC when the typical usage pattern differs so much.
jungmark is correct on this one. The Windows number includes worthless laptops and netbooks as well as their mobile devices that can't run anything more than what the iPhone can run. I like the comparison. To make matters worse for Microsoft, I'd like to know how many of those PCs are sitting in people's closets, store rooms, and recycling centers. Of course, Microsoft has to count all of them even if they aren't running.
Sitting in a closet 1-4 months after purchase (these were purchased in the 4th quarter)? I think that's unlikely even for a PC.
Now, if you want to talk installed base numbers, that would be a worthy objection, though I have the sense that Apple customers upgrade more frequently than PC customers do, so there may be a higher proportion of orphaned Apple devices. Too many unknowns to be sure, though.
I don't give a shit if the task is writing documents, editing movies/photos or using garage band...a 3.5" screen sucks ass while a 8" screen is viable.
But in the future, where snarky tweets and forum comments have supplanted all other forms of human communication, the 3.5" screen will be all you need!
Now, if you want to talk installed base numbers, that would be a worthy objection, though I have the sense that Apple customers upgrade more frequently than PC customers do, so there may be a higher proportion of orphaned Apple devices. Too many unknowns to be sure, though.
Nope. Many PC owners upgrade to the latest OS by buying a new PC. My Mac lasted 7 yrs. my PC lasted 3. iPhone users may upgrade more frequently but those early upgraders trade in their old iPhones ( to be refurbished and resold), hand-me down to children, or sell it.
But in the future, where snarky tweets and forum comments have supplanted all other forms of human communication, the 3.5" screen will be all you need!
Comments
Ok, fair enough. My experience is similar (and I also have an iPad3).
It seems that most of the problems disappeared on the new iPhone (5S) and I expect that to be the case on the latest iPad also.
For me the positives like being able to browse everywhere and 'remove' ads in a few simple moves outweighs the negatives by far.
I also stop visiting websites that don't work well (AI excluded).
I do take issue with how Apple updates this productivity suite. I have no problem with iWork — do they even call it that anymore? — not being as robust as MS Office and I really like the current move to keep the feature set between platforms (Mac, iCloud, iOS) the same, but I don't like that they have so many dry spells and seemingly play chutes-and-ladders where they take these huge steps backwards in functionality. I would much rather they have a dedicated iWork team that would release only a few, incremental, and platform-balanced feature updates each and every year. Hopefully the move to make this free with the perhaps of a Mac of iOS-based iDevice is a sign of good things to come.
Agreed, in other words, they should have left the Mac version alone until the iOS version had feature parity. What they really need to do is kick the development into high gear and produce a better product than MS. That would be a good use of some portion of that $159 billion. What's the problem Apple? Can't afford to develop the iWork platform?
Hmm… I'm not sure I agree about not touching the Mac app until the iOS version had feature parity as so much of the Mac app had to be rewritten and the connectivity via iCloud might have some issues using the old code base. Also, I find the current feature set across all three platforms to be better suited for my needs than simply having a stand alone Mac version… I just wish they didn't back burner iWork for long.
Ideally I would have liked this project (including being free, like Mac OS X) to have started years ago and slowly progressed forward each year so now in the 7th year of the iPhone we might have something that is considerably more robust than it is today.
What is fucked up is your assumption that just because something can do a task at a simple level means it can replace something that does it in a more comprehensive way in an easier fashion.
This is like saying because a semi has the same horsepower engine and similar load capacity that it is a viable dump truck replacement. Sure, if you are willing to compromise on being stupid in using the right tools for the right jobs.
I don't give a shit if the task is writing documents, editing movies/photos or using garage band...a 3.5" screen sucks ass while a 8" screen is viable.
See I can use four letter words too.
ummmm, "fucked" is a six letter word. LOL, learn to count.
You missed the point. I'm saying creating pictures, emails, etc. is worthy content creation. Just because I create different content doesn't mean I'm not creating content. To keep with your analogy, you are saying that a semi isn't a vehicle because it can't dump like a dump truck. I'm calling BS on that assumption. A semi is a vehicle even though it can't dump. An iPhone is computer even if it can't do Word processing well. comprende chico?
Hmm… I'm not sure I agree about not touching the Mac app until the iOS version had feature parity as so much of the Mac app had to be rewritten and the connectivity via iCloud might have some issues using the old code base. Also, I find the current feature set across all three platforms to be better suited for my needs than simply having a stand alone Mac version… I just wish they didn't back burner iWork for long.
Ideally I would have liked this project (including being free, like Mac OS X) to have started years ago and slowly progressed forward each year so now in the 7th year of the iPhone we might have something that is considerably more robust than it is today.
yes, agreed. They obviously knew mobile was going to be successful. Steve Jobs made bold statements about it. Someone deserves a kick in the pants for doing nothing about the mobile strategy for pages over the last 5 years.
LOL what a load of crap! then tell me why Windows has a 92PCT market share? and anyway this includes iPads and iPhones, which are not PCs.. and don't give me the whole "personal computer" excuse.. Windows 8 PCs OUTSELL Macs and iMacs EVERY SINGLE QUARTER, and that's a fact. In this case, they should count Windows Laptops, Desktops, Surfaces, and WP8 devices vs. Apple's devices, to at least make it somewhat fair.
but an iPad is a MOBILE DEVICE.. not a PC! A PC is something that you use a mouse and keyboard with. and that hasn't changed in the last 30 years. no matter what you want to argue.
If to be defined as personal computer it has to include a mouse and physical keyboard then the IBM-PC would not have been a "PC" based on your definition, and if you say that the definition changed after the mouse and GUI were introduced then you need to explain why the definition isn't allowed change yet again now that these very personal computing devices are replacing "traditional PCs" in part and in whole, depending on the user.
Also, why were there two decades of keyboard-less and mouse-less Tablet PCs counted alongside all other Windows PCs and now all of a sudden tablets don't count now that Apple has a dominant foothold in the personal computing market? Does this go back to the 2010 claims that the iPad is just a toy?
Tbh you have it back to front, the charts should have removed the Mac business (or at least the non-laptop Mac business) and only posted the iOS figures.
No. Sorry. Try again.
Obviously that means it can never change at any point in the future¡
This is you, 30 years ago:
And eight years before that:
The article was posted to illustrate how mobile is taking over the market.
Whilst overlooking the fact that internet enabled phones probably surpassed the number of PCs long before the iPhone was even released.
IMO the primary objective for Evans posting his cherry picking article was self-promotion. Well it certain garnered him a lot of column inches.
If you're including WAP in "internet-enabled phones" then that's probably true. How widely used was that though? I know I had a couple of feature phones where I never touched the internet connectivity because it was so slow and difficult to use with a little keypad. Maybe others used it more, but it never seemed widespread to me, the only times I remember seeing it used was to check the odd sports score. Whereas I imagine proportion of people that have an iPhone or iPad and don't use the internet pretty regularly and for a number of different things is at most in the low single digits, and probably <1%. Just guessing, obviously.
But more to the point, do you think Microsoft were losing any significant number of Windows sales to phones before the current (i.e. post iPhone) mobile take off (phone and tablet)? It certainly seems like their sales are being affected now.
That brings up a good point. Where do we start measuring? Long before the iPhone there were WAP* browsers which technically connected to the internet and accessed websites. They also connected via various apps to both inter- and intranet-based services via the carrier.
That said, I think it's hard to make a solid case that this should be included outside of a footnote since the usability was absolutely horrid. It would be like saying commercial airline started in 1903 if the Wright Brothers had charged their neighbor a tanner** for a flight.
Let it go man.
That brings up a good point. Where do we start measuring? Long before the iPhone there were WAP* browsers which technically connected to the internet and accessed websites. They also connected via various apps to both inter- and intranet-based services via the carrier.
That said, I think it's hard to make a solid case that this should be included outside of a footnote since the usability was absolutely horrid. It would be like saying commercial airline started in 1903 if the Wright Brothers had charged their neighbor a tanner** for a flight.
* Crowley, even though it's the same sound as a racial slur when spoken you shouldn't assume that it's a racial slur.
** I'm assuming their neighbor was from Britain in this scenario.
There-in lies the problem with definitions, they seem to shift over time. Whilst language is supposed to be dynamic it increases the scope for people to wilfully adapt their definition to suit their argument.
If we take the term smartphone for example, what does that mean? Gartner, for example, class Symbian as being a smartphone platform. A common pre-requisite seems to be internet connectivity but this could imply email access rather than web access, and then how do we define web access. WAP was web access, it wasn't particularly nice but it was better than no access (and it should be remembered that MMS was part of the WAP protocol.
The IBM Simon in 1993 had internet access via email, the 1999 Nokia 7110 had WAP access, the 2002 Nokia 7650 had HTML access (via the Doris browser app) and shortly after that the "PDA phones" had native HTML support. And throughout the period we had portable devices such as PDAs and laptops that could use cell phones as modems or WiFi. Again, I return to my earlier point and add that Symbian (classified by Gartner as being a smartphone) probably passed MS ages ago.
For me one of the bigger problems with the article is that it focuses on the devices rather than usage. The ability to access the internet on mobile devices hasn't radically changed over the last 10 years or so, yet very few people wanted internet access (regardless of the quality of service. Arguably the more important factor has been the rise in popularity of social media sites (for example).
There were devices that were referred to as Pocket PCs between about 2000-2011:
[VIDEO]
Microsoft has always said that mobile devices should be considered PCs too.
Apps, Word, Excel, images, Opera, Internet Explorer etc. There's not enough of those old devices to be worth counting but they meet a lot of the PC criteria people have for smartphones. I never considered the likes of Palm, Windows Mobile, even the Newton to be PC replacement devices. Same with the likes of the palmtops back in the late 90s:
[VIDEO]
You can run Android on a watch, you get apps and browsers on the XBox and PS4 and they are even x86 now, the PS4 running some Linux OS. If it's just down to the OS capability then they're all PCs but it's not meaningful to group them together if they aren't competing products. If a graphic designer went shopping for a desktop PC in 2004, the salesman wouldn't ask if they'd rather have an iPaq because it's not a replacement for their usage. If a graphic designer went shopping for an iMac in 2014, the salesman wouldn't ask if they'd rather have an iPod Touch because it's also not a replacement.
Personal Computing implies productivity rather than consumption. An Apple TV, a Classic iPod, a smart TV, a console are considered consumption devices regardless of the OS they run. Pocket PCs, smartphones, Palm devices, Newton etc are meant to be highly mobile productivity devices but their form factor impairs productivity and it always has.
I'd say that productivity is impaired on anything with a display under 7". But then there's the UMPC devices that even run Windows:
[VIDEO]
That one's actually called the iWatch Pocket Pal Nano PC. There's a wireless USB stick that connects to a display and behaves just like a PC with external peripherals. That kind of device could run Photoshop or Office. But then, so can an iPhone using a remote desktop app. If it's just about controlling and displaying a productive PC experience, then lots of things can be PCs.
But, we have to draw a line somewhere otherwise the stats don't mean anything. Would you sit in front of an iPod Touch for an 8 hour working day to produce something you'd be paid for? Would you ever rely on it to earn an income? I don't think so. I think the same applies to Pocket PC devices. People do this with tablets though to an extent.
It's not that this makes a smartphone not fit the criteria for being a Personal Computing device, I just don't think it's a meaningful statement to call a smartphone a PC when the typical usage pattern differs so much.
jungmark is correct on this one. The Windows number includes worthless laptops and netbooks as well as their mobile devices that can't run anything more than what the iPhone can run. I like the comparison. To make matters worse for Microsoft, I'd like to know how many of those PCs are sitting in people's closets, store rooms, and recycling centers. Of course, Microsoft has to count all of them even if they aren't running.
Sitting in a closet 1-4 months after purchase (these were purchased in the 4th quarter)? I think that's unlikely even for a PC.
Now, if you want to talk installed base numbers, that would be a worthy objection, though I have the sense that Apple customers upgrade more frequently than PC customers do, so there may be a higher proportion of orphaned Apple devices. Too many unknowns to be sure, though.
I don't give a shit if the task is writing documents, editing movies/photos or using garage band...a 3.5" screen sucks ass while a 8" screen is viable.
But in the future, where snarky tweets and forum comments have supplanted all other forms of human communication, the 3.5" screen will be all you need!
Nope. Many PC owners upgrade to the latest OS by buying a new PC. My Mac lasted 7 yrs. my PC lasted 3. iPhone users may upgrade more frequently but those early upgraders trade in their old iPhones ( to be refurbished and resold), hand-me down to children, or sell it.