The Notifications panel and Control Center are examples of using a separate process without leaving the current process. You could for example have a browser open and open the settings app to reconnect to wifi or a VPN and test different settings without having to jump between them. You could have a calculator app next to Numbers or a PDF with your accounts. A split may not work at all in portrait because the landscape UI would be designed for a full width but in landscape, the apps on either side of the split could just switch to portrait.
Sports would be an important use case. If someone is watching a live game feed but needs to send out an email, they don't want to miss anything.
It can be a simple gesture to enable it e.g touch the top center and center of the display and it splits in two. The active app would shuffle to the left and the most recently used app on the right. They have a gesture to switch apps so you'd do 4-finger swipe on each side to switch the apps. The multi-tasking view would switch out the active context. a gesture on the split bar can get rid of it.
If you don't use it, the iPad would just behave as normal.
I see what you're saying about the Notifications panel and Control Center, but you are still taking your focus away from one thing to do another thing. It may be faster with those panels instead of switching back and forth between apps, but you are not doing two things at the same time.
Same thing with your sports analogy. Even if you are a touch typist and you can type an email while your eyes are on the video, your focus is either thinking of the words you want to type or watching the game. You may think you are doing two things at once, but your focus is just switching back and forth between two things. (Granted, faster than actually switching back and forth between apps, but still....)
Many apps (like Mail) already use multi-column views, and it would be quite easy to fit another app in the place of a smaller column. And with iOS' app layout scaling, it wouldn't really be that hard to adapt that iPhone app layout for a smaller view with iPad multitasking.
That said, I have a Surface, and I *love* multitasking on it - it's a very useful feature. A lot of people say that people can't multitask, but they make the mistake of connecting a person doing multiple tasks vs. a device doing multiple tasks.
You could, for example, have Notes and iBooks snapped. The device in this case is multitasking, but that doesn't mean that the user is: they could be doing a single task - taking notes on the iBook they opened.
I doubt that the next iPad will have 4GB. It might still have just 1GB (saves battery). 2GB would be the most. After all, the Surface Pro 2 you are referring to is an Intel x64-based design (the same as the MacBook Air). The Surface 2 has 2GB RAM.
New ThinkPad Tablet 10 will have 4GB (at least some SKUs, if not all). It is x86, but Atom based... price and size/weight wise, it will be competing with other SoC tablets. Sooner or later, other platforms will offer 4GB as well. Since tablets are pushing into business, and everyone is getting on multiple-apps-on-screen banswagon, I think it will become necessity in no time.
New ThinkPad Tablet 10 will have 4GB (at least some SKUs, if not all). It is x86, but Atom based... price and size/weight wise, it will be competing with other SoC tablets. Sooner or later, other platforms will offer 4GB as well. Since tablets are pushing into business, and everyone is getting on multiple-apps-on-screen banswagon, I think it will become necessity in no time.
That tablet is venturing into the pro tablet territory (Surface Pro), though. If the OS uses RAM correctly 2 could be fine. But that won't always be the case. But considering Apple's current track record of always being behind on RAM upgrades (and Safari being a pain in the ass as a result), even if iPads do get 2 GB of RAM, they'll stay there for a long time.
New ThinkPad Tablet 10 will have 4GB (at least some SKUs, if not all). It is x86, but Atom based... price and size/weight wise, it will be competing with other SoC tablets. Sooner or later, other platforms will offer 4GB as well. Since tablets are pushing into business, and everyone is getting on multiple-apps-on-screen banswagon, I think it will become necessity in no time.
Apple tends to prefer "later" when it comes to adding RAM, since it also increases power consumption. Right now, most applications barely take advantage of the current capabilities of the processor, and there aren't many mobile applications that as yet need 1GB of RAM. Multitasking is a good argument for an increase, but if it is limited to 2 applications running side by side, there's probably no rush to increase it to 4GB. Apple still sells Macs limited to 4GB.
It's like taking the worst of Samsung's ideas and legitimizing it. Multi-tasking across windows makes sense on your typical desktop display because it's expansive. Tablets and phones are just a bit on the small side to make running apps in their own window of much value IMO.
I don't know how that would work. The entire ecosystem doesn't appear to be designed to make that work.
For example, imagine you have an iPad for family where 4 of the people play Infinity Blade. The game was bought and they all want to play it when it's their time. The game is 1.80 GiB. But right now, your game details are stored with the app which means that you would need that game installed 4x for this to work. Does that make sense? I don't think so.
But lets say space is infinite or they resolve the problem by storing apps clean in a general repository in iOS 8 but with every developer updating the million apps instantly so that apps are stored clean, like with Mac OS X. How do you switch users? On a Mac it can take many seconds to change the UI and load the app and that's with a faster system. If RAM is until 8 GiB I'm not sure you can store all these family accounts in memory so it's there at the push of a button. Even if you could there are power usage concerns by using RAM. So you are either dealing with speed or battery life.
It all just seems highly unlikely. If we still don't even have a Guest Account option that would only load Safari and a couple other apps without saving any data I can't see how we're going to get user accounts.
They could do it like Android does. The app is only installed once. User data (personal) not app data, is stored in their own partitions. Switching from one account to another takes seconds. I don't recall how much memory my Nexus 7 and 10 have, but I'd imagine 2GB and it doesn't even break into a sweat. So I don't think the hardware is going to be an issue.
I really have no idea why Google hasn't added split screen to Android already when LG and Samsung have done it for a couple of years now. Until I got a multi-item clipboard app and a keepass app that had its own keyboard from which I could paste user ids and passwords in a browser, it used to be a thoroughly sub-optimal user experience. And even this is useful for just one use case of copying/referencing data from one app in another.
They could do it like Android does. The app is only installed once. User data (personal) not app data, is stored in their own partitions. Switching from one account to another takes seconds. I don't recall how much memory my Nexus 7 and 10 have, but I'd imagine 2GB and it doesn't even break into a sweat. So I don't think the hardware is going to be an issue.
I really have no idea why Google hasn't added split screen to Android already when LG and Samsung have done it for a couple of years now. Until I got a multi-item clipboard app and a keepass app that had its own keyboard from which I could paste user ids and passwords in a browser, it used to be a thoroughly sub-optimal user experience. And even this is useful for just one use case of copying/referencing data from one app in another.
1) How does that affect security? Meaning, is Android with multiple user accounts really just as secure as iOS? It seems like we see inventive and obscure ways to get into iPhone user data every single year so I wonder if adding user accounts would just make this worse.
2) Doesn't think require a complete overall in each app for this to work? If that's the case then how does Apple make the transfer to all this? Perhaps an education-based system which they can roll out first and then allow it to filter to the rest of the system after the kinks are worked out?
3) I have no problem with this idea even though I think it' more complex than people think, but as previously noted by someone else ([@]island hermit[/@]?) Apple probably wants to keep it as one device per person.
3) I have no problem with this idea even though I think it' more complex than people think, but as previously noted by someone else (@island hermit?) Apple probably wants to keep it as one device per person.
Naw, wasn't me. Probably sog35.
I was debating the complexity of using a multi-person interface with another member who said that it would add a level of complexity to the end user that would boggle the minds of mere mortals. Har!
I was debating the complexity of using a multi-person interface with another member who said that it would add a level of complexity to the end user that would boggle the minds of mere mortals. Har!
That seems extreme but I can see a reason Apple not implementing it is because it would add extra complexity, even though it could be turned off by default and isn't what I'd consider the most pressing reason. If Apple really wanted to get rid of complexity they wouldn't make Settings such a chore to navigate. Some sort of internal Settings app search would be nice.
That seems extreme but I can see a reason Apple not implementing it is because it would add extra complexity, even though it could be turned off by default and isn't what I'd consider the most pressing reason. If Apple really wanted to get rid of complexity they wouldn't make Settings such a chore to navigate. Some sort of internal Settings app search would be nice.
I'd have to agree that "Apple" would like everyone to have their own device.
That was one of my many arguments... if people can navigate "Settings" then they would be able to use a user choice button on the home screen... but... whatever... lol.
That was one of my many arguments... if people can navigate "Settings" then they would be able to use a user choice button on the home screen... but... whatever... lol.
I'm not sure that's a good argument.
I think a user account would much simpler than Settings. You simply do some action, double tap the Home Button, to logout or switch users, or hit the Sleep button which will lock the screen, which once it's locked you can then select your user and then authenticate.
I often pop into Settings and then stop as I try to remember which is the next step to take to get to the desire page. Sometimes I'll google it.
I think a user account would much simpler than Settings. You simply do some action, double tap the Home Button, to logout or switch users, or hit the Sleep button which will lock the screen, which once it's locked you can then select your user and then authenticate.
I often pop into Settings and then stop as I try to remember which is the next step to take to get to the desire page. Sometimes I'll google it.
Which was exactly my point... if the other member believed that Apple would not implement a home screen choice because it is too complex then what the hell are we to make of "Settings".
Which was exactly my point... if the other member believed that Apple would not implement a home screen choice because it is too complex then what the hell are we to make of "Settings".
Ah, I thought you were taking the other side of the argument.
PS: *gasp* we said something negative about Apple but as rabid fans we're not allowed to do that¡
Well it's about time. Apple is playing catchup now and it's getting embarrassing. The next iPhone had better have a bigger screen and some really INNOVATIVE features or I may leaving for the dark side.
It's like taking the worst of Samsung's ideas and legitimizing it. Multi-tasking across windows makes sense on your typical desktop display because it's expansive. Tablets and phones are just a bit on the small side to make running apps in their own window of much value IMO.
I think beyond size of display (which obviously IS an issue), it's more about -- at least to me -- the different paradigms of OSX vs iOS. It's about Applications vs Apps. Etc.
If I really, really wanted something nearly iPad-sized that worked like a Mac, I would get an 11" MacBook Air. *shrug*
You know how it is, when Apple is late, they're special, when Microsoft is late they're awful and failed and etc.
That isn't how it is. When Apple is early or late it's too late, and when MS is early or late no one cares.
Apple is often special but only because they have a tendency to do it right the first time. Cut/Copy/Paste in iOS v Android is a prime example of this. Apple made it universal and complete from day one, not the sloppy, inconsistent "me first" attempt that Google released. Apple was later but they were best.
Comments
I see what you're saying about the Notifications panel and Control Center, but you are still taking your focus away from one thing to do another thing. It may be faster with those panels instead of switching back and forth between apps, but you are not doing two things at the same time.
Same thing with your sports analogy. Even if you are a touch typist and you can type an email while your eyes are on the video, your focus is either thinking of the words you want to type or watching the game. You may think you are doing two things at once, but your focus is just switching back and forth between two things. (Granted, faster than actually switching back and forth between apps, but still....)
Many apps (like Mail) already use multi-column views, and it would be quite easy to fit another app in the place of a smaller column. And with iOS' app layout scaling, it wouldn't really be that hard to adapt that iPhone app layout for a smaller view with iPad multitasking.
That said, I have a Surface, and I *love* multitasking on it - it's a very useful feature. A lot of people say that people can't multitask, but they make the mistake of connecting a person doing multiple tasks vs. a device doing multiple tasks.
You could, for example, have Notes and iBooks snapped. The device in this case is multitasking, but that doesn't mean that the user is: they could be doing a single task - taking notes on the iBook they opened.
New ThinkPad Tablet 10 will have 4GB (at least some SKUs, if not all). It is x86, but Atom based... price and size/weight wise, it will be competing with other SoC tablets. Sooner or later, other platforms will offer 4GB as well. Since tablets are pushing into business, and everyone is getting on multiple-apps-on-screen banswagon, I think it will become necessity in no time.
New ThinkPad Tablet 10 will have 4GB (at least some SKUs, if not all). It is x86, but Atom based... price and size/weight wise, it will be competing with other SoC tablets. Sooner or later, other platforms will offer 4GB as well. Since tablets are pushing into business, and everyone is getting on multiple-apps-on-screen banswagon, I think it will become necessity in no time.
That tablet is venturing into the pro tablet territory (Surface Pro), though. If the OS uses RAM correctly 2 could be fine. But that won't always be the case. But considering Apple's current track record of always being behind on RAM upgrades (and Safari being a pain in the ass as a result), even if iPads do get 2 GB of RAM, they'll stay there for a long time.
New ThinkPad Tablet 10 will have 4GB (at least some SKUs, if not all). It is x86, but Atom based... price and size/weight wise, it will be competing with other SoC tablets. Sooner or later, other platforms will offer 4GB as well. Since tablets are pushing into business, and everyone is getting on multiple-apps-on-screen banswagon, I think it will become necessity in no time.
Apple tends to prefer "later" when it comes to adding RAM, since it also increases power consumption. Right now, most applications barely take advantage of the current capabilities of the processor, and there aren't many mobile applications that as yet need 1GB of RAM. Multitasking is a good argument for an increase, but if it is limited to 2 applications running side by side, there's probably no rush to increase it to 4GB. Apple still sells Macs limited to 4GB.
Not feeling this feature.
It's like taking the worst of Samsung's ideas and legitimizing it. Multi-tasking across windows makes sense on your typical desktop display because it's expansive. Tablets and phones are just a bit on the small side to make running apps in their own window of much value IMO.
I don't know how that would work. The entire ecosystem doesn't appear to be designed to make that work.
For example, imagine you have an iPad for family where 4 of the people play Infinity Blade. The game was bought and they all want to play it when it's their time. The game is 1.80 GiB. But right now, your game details are stored with the app which means that you would need that game installed 4x for this to work. Does that make sense? I don't think so.
But lets say space is infinite or they resolve the problem by storing apps clean in a general repository in iOS 8 but with every developer updating the million apps instantly so that apps are stored clean, like with Mac OS X. How do you switch users? On a Mac it can take many seconds to change the UI and load the app and that's with a faster system. If RAM is until 8 GiB I'm not sure you can store all these family accounts in memory so it's there at the push of a button. Even if you could there are power usage concerns by using RAM. So you are either dealing with speed or battery life.
It all just seems highly unlikely. If we still don't even have a Guest Account option that would only load Safari and a couple other apps without saving any data I can't see how we're going to get user accounts.
They could do it like Android does. The app is only installed once. User data (personal) not app data, is stored in their own partitions. Switching from one account to another takes seconds. I don't recall how much memory my Nexus 7 and 10 have, but I'd imagine 2GB and it doesn't even break into a sweat. So I don't think the hardware is going to be an issue.
But the software might. I have never done any iOS development, but someone who has may be better able to answer. http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/05/bringing-windows-8-style-multitasking-to-ipads-isnt-as-simple-as-it-seems/
I really have no idea why Google hasn't added split screen to Android already when LG and Samsung have done it for a couple of years now. Until I got a multi-item clipboard app and a keepass app that had its own keyboard from which I could paste user ids and passwords in a browser, it used to be a thoroughly sub-optimal user experience. And even this is useful for just one use case of copying/referencing data from one app in another.
1) How does that affect security? Meaning, is Android with multiple user accounts really just as secure as iOS? It seems like we see inventive and obscure ways to get into iPhone user data every single year so I wonder if adding user accounts would just make this worse.
2) Doesn't think require a complete overall in each app for this to work? If that's the case then how does Apple make the transfer to all this? Perhaps an education-based system which they can roll out first and then allow it to filter to the rest of the system after the kinks are worked out?
3) I have no problem with this idea even though I think it' more complex than people think, but as previously noted by someone else ([@]island hermit[/@]?) Apple probably wants to keep it as one device per person.
3) I have no problem with this idea even though I think it' more complex than people think, but as previously noted by someone else (@island hermit?) Apple probably wants to keep it as one device per person.
Naw, wasn't me. Probably sog35.
I was debating the complexity of using a multi-person interface with another member who said that it would add a level of complexity to the end user that would boggle the minds of mere mortals. Har!
It was [@]mstone[/@].
That seems extreme but I can see a reason Apple not implementing it is because it would add extra complexity, even though it could be turned off by default and isn't what I'd consider the most pressing reason. If Apple really wanted to get rid of complexity they wouldn't make Settings such a chore to navigate. Some sort of internal Settings app search would be nice.
It was @mstone.
- http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/179521/rumor-apple-to-bring-split-screen-multitasking-to-ipad-with-ios-8#post_2533076
That seems extreme but I can see a reason Apple not implementing it is because it would add extra complexity, even though it could be turned off by default and isn't what I'd consider the most pressing reason. If Apple really wanted to get rid of complexity they wouldn't make Settings such a chore to navigate. Some sort of internal Settings app search would be nice.I'd have to agree that "Apple" would like everyone to have their own device.
That was one of my many arguments... if people can navigate "Settings" then they would be able to use a user choice button on the home screen... but... whatever... lol.
I'm not sure that's a good argument.
I think a user account would much simpler than Settings. You simply do some action, double tap the Home Button, to logout or switch users, or hit the Sleep button which will lock the screen, which once it's locked you can then select your user and then authenticate.
I often pop into Settings and then stop as I try to remember which is the next step to take to get to the desire page. Sometimes I'll google it.
Not late at all.
Much later than Samsung. I guess when Tim Cook said that there were many new products coming he meant the "iPen".
We'll be able to do what the Note does and what the Surface does.
They need Scott Forestall to bring back software innovation.
I'm not sure that's a good argument.
I think a user account would much simpler than Settings. You simply do some action, double tap the Home Button, to logout or switch users, or hit the Sleep button which will lock the screen, which once it's locked you can then select your user and then authenticate.
I often pop into Settings and then stop as I try to remember which is the next step to take to get to the desire page. Sometimes I'll google it.
Which was exactly my point... if the other member believed that Apple would not implement a home screen choice because it is too complex then what the hell are we to make of "Settings".
Ah, I thought you were taking the other side of the argument.
PS: *gasp* we said something negative about Apple but as rabid fans we're not allowed to do that¡
Not feeling this feature.
It's like taking the worst of Samsung's ideas and legitimizing it. Multi-tasking across windows makes sense on your typical desktop display because it's expansive. Tablets and phones are just a bit on the small side to make running apps in their own window of much value IMO.
I think beyond size of display (which obviously IS an issue), it's more about -- at least to me -- the different paradigms of OSX vs iOS. It's about Applications vs Apps. Etc.
If I really, really wanted something nearly iPad-sized that worked like a Mac, I would get an 11" MacBook Air. *shrug*
Much later than Samsung. I guess when Tim Cook said that there were many new products coming he meant the "iPen".
We'll be able to do what the Note does and what the Surface does.
They need Scott Forestall to bring back software innovation.
You know how it is, when Apple is late, they're special, when Microsoft is late they're awful and failed and etc.
That isn't how it is. When Apple is early or late it's too late, and when MS is early or late no one cares.
Apple is often special but only because they have a tendency to do it right the first time. Cut/Copy/Paste in iOS v Android is a prime example of this. Apple made it universal and complete from day one, not the sloppy, inconsistent "me first" attempt that Google released. Apple was later but they were best.
You know how it is, when Apple is late, they're special, when Microsoft is late they're awful and failed and etc.
You do realize how immature comments like this sound, right?
But if you are in fact 13, I apologize.