As far as I can tell, Dalrymple hasn't "Nope"d this date yet. It does seem odd to do it on a Thursday, though. Although I suppose they could be trying to shake themselves out of a pattern.
As for the discussion on the idea of a touchscreen iMac, it really doesn't make much sense. It's a really bad ergonomic design. I'm not an expert, but the best position for working seems to be looking straight ahead, with hands on the desk in front. Using a touch interface where the screen is best positioned is uncomfortable and would lead to potential strain injuries in the arms. Moving the screen to the best position for a touch interface leads to a hunched posture which is bad for the neck and shoulders. (Try typing for any appreciable length of time with your iPad flat, or even slightly raised by the smart cover, on the desk in front of you.)
Touchscreen computers have their uses, obviously, but prolonged desktop usage isn't one of them. At least not until someone comes up with a better design than we currently have.
When you got a trackpad, did you stop using your keyboard? Of course not. Different control devices for different tasks. Some of those tasks overlap and whether you use one or the other depends on the circumstances and your preferences.
So it can be (and so I keep saying) with a touch screen. It doesn't have to REPLACE anything. It's ANOTHER way of interacting with the machine, one that allows new ways of doing things that simply are not possible with a single-point cursor. Remember how you stretched an image you lifted from a comic book with Silly Putty? How do you recreate that kind of action with a mouse or keyboard? Or when you're mixing the sound for your iMovie epic, how do you pull down the fader for the music while also pushing up the dialog track?
SOMETIMES, for certain activities, fingers on the screen are just a better, easier, more intuitive and versatile way of controlling the machine. For the stuff that's better done some other way, like typing, do it some other way. There's no rule that says once touch screen is enabled it must be used for everything.
If you compare the Yosemite calculator to the Mavericks calculator, it looks like it's been redesigned for a touch screen.
I said this a few years back: When Apple switches to desktop multitouch, users will have been clamoring for it for at least a year prior. That’s how they roll; they give you things only after they’ve taught you that you need them.
Why would anyone get upset if Apple started using touch screens, I say it's a about time. I absolutely love using touch controls while recording and editing music. I finially bought my first 4K monitor, the reason why I waited so long is that I wanted a version with touch and the ability to lay it flat or just at a slight angle. After buying the Surface Pro 3 I actually got mad at myself for waiting so long to use a touch screen, it works so great with Abelton live. I can customize the interface with big controls so while I'm playing the violin it's easy to stop recording, move to different positions in the recording, changing volumes, gains, etc. Also a big reason why I have been so taken with the iPad and am hoping for a 12" version. If the new iMac indeed has a touch interface I think I would defiantly consider one, but most likely will just get a Mac Pro and use it with my new touch monitor.
On a side note my husband's firm has two Panasonic 20" 4K tablets that were given to them as presents by some Prince last Christmas, when you work for a private bank you always get all kinds of weird stuff. Anyway they are still sitting in some closet, my husband asked the president, Mr. Muller a couple of times if he could let his wife play with one as she would go ape shitt over something like this but was blown off, my husband had the sneaky suspicion that the president wanted them for himself. Thus they sat in the closet for 9 months. Last week Mr. Muller came over to our house for a work dinner, while showing the house off they came to my office, Mr. Muller was dumbfounded, he turned to my husband and said that he could take one of the Panasonics home with him for me, continued, when you said your wife liked computers, I assumed that she, like my own wife just likes to shop using their iPads, but this, this is something else. My husband simply said, you should see the basement. My office isn't really all that impressive, what gets people is my monitors, I have 4 29" rotating Wide Nec monitors in a vertical position, got 3 for the price of 2 during an overstock auction at UBS and paid full price for the first one. Banks always buy more than they need as backups, these came out of the trading department, new, in boxes. So anyone seeing this for the first would be kind of taken, I also have 3 32" Samsung marketing monitors hanging on the wall, they were used for trade shows, the resolution isn't the highest, but the colors are vivid, touchscreen and a self contained computer, nothing special, AMD CPU, with upgraded 4GB of RAM, they only came with 1GB, got'em used for [URL=http://www.benno-shop.com/index.php?id=5]150 [/URL]a piece, I think you can get them now for a hundred. I use them to display art, photos and movie poster from a USB stick, sometimes even AngryBirds competition, got the idea from a movie I saw once. Unfortunately I wasn't there as I'm still stuck in this stupid hospital bed but I would have kissed Mr. Muller a thousand times over. This is one of those gadgets that you see on Engadget and go wow that's pretty awesome, until you see the price and then question the sanity of the person who buys one. I will defiantly put it to good use, the perfect size for virtual Monopoly.
Why would anyone get upset if Apple started using touch screens, I say it's a about time. I absolutely love using touch controls while recording and editing music.
I agree - to me the issue has nothing to do with whether or not a touch screen exists; that is just a means to an end.
The bigger questions (in my mind) aren't about touch screens, but about what touch screen implementation means for things like hardware form factor and OS. That is, you'd want to change the OS in some significant ways to be touch screen relevant, and you couldn't really comfortably use existing form factors (e.g. the sample concept image you put in your post is an example of the kind of angle required to do this naturally).
My office isn't really all that impressive, what gets people is my monitors, I have 4 29" rotating Wide Nec monitors in a vertical position, got 3 for the price of 2 during an overstock auction at UBS and paid full price for the first one.
I guess Mr. Mueller hasn't heard about Lloyd Chambers who does the same, being a photographer / reviewer: http://diglloyd.com
Oh, and from his site, this may be of interest to you:
NEC to Offer 32-Inch Professional UltraHD 4K Display Soon (PA322UHD)
The image you included here looks pretty awkward. Notice the way the arm is so elevated and stretched out? This would become very uncomfortable over a sustained period of time.
Having said that, I think the form factor where this stuff is really tricky is the desktop, rather than the laptop. I think Steve Jobs discussed this at one stage as well. The idea is that for touch interfaces to work really well and to feel really natural, you need to have a certain screen angle and position, as well as a certain distance from your face. Desktops as they are generally don't cater well for that, especially because they anticipate that your arm will be elevated in front of you, which isn't an ergonomic solution.
Aside from this - and as I mentioned earlier - simply putting a touch screen on a MacBook (as in your image) would be a pretty terrible idea. It wouldn't be fit for purpose. Doing touch well involves a specific fusion of hardware and software. At the very least, you'd need a touch-friendly OS (and OS X itself is not designed this way).
So as I said earlier, I have no objection to Apple creating touch-based iMacs and MacBooks, but only if they do it right - that is, not just for the sake of it, but because there's a real problem to solve with a real solution. :-)
The image you included here looks pretty awkward. Notice the way the arm is so elevated and stretched out? This would become very uncomfortable over a sustained period of time.
You guys wouldn't do well in my line of work, then:
The reach to adjust the upper controls on the console is a heckuvalot longer than the distance to the screen of a computer. It would actually be EASIER to reach up and touch the screen because it is both closer and at a better angle. In fact, lots of audio consoles are now employing central touch screens for EQ/dynamics/aux sends with only a fader and a couple physical knobs per channel.
I also have to operate a pile of devices positioned above and to either side of the console. I reach for one of those every couple of minutes, and so far my arms haven't fallen off or developed some horrifying malady.
My already-been-doing-it-for-twenty years experience clearly demonstrates that the perception some of you have that using a touch screen is somehow an ergonomic nightmare is simply wrong. All kinds of people reach around their workplaces all day long, and not just audio engineers. Think grocery clerk, for example, or machinist, auto mechanic... the list of jobs that require arm extension could go on for days. It's just not a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc
Aside from this - and as I mentioned earlier - simply putting a touch screen on a MacBook (as in your image) would be a pretty terrible idea. It wouldn't be fit for purpose. Doing touch well involves a specific fusion of hardware and software. At the very least, you'd need a touch-friendly OS (and OS X itself is not designed this way).
Well yeah. I think that's sort of a given, isn't it?
All kinds of people reach around their workplaces all day long, and not just audio engineers. Think grocery clerk, for example, or machinist, auto mechanic... the list of jobs that require arm extension could go on for days. It's just not a problem.
I'm sorry, but this is a really terrible justification for simply adding a touch screen to an existing form factor. What problem are you solving? People comfortably use keyboards and mice on these devices now - you are adding a problem and justifying it by essentially saying "people in uncomfortable jobs do this all the time, what's the big deal?" I'm sorry, but the average computer user doesn't want to replicate the experience of a machinist or a grocery clerk.
No. That's not how good design works, and it's certainly not how Apple works.
Again, to just take a step back for a moment; the problem here is not the idea of adding touch screen. I think that's fine, and it can really solve problems and be an improvement in terms of functionality and intuitiveness. But you don't just throw a touch screen on a product that a) isn't designed for it in terms of hardware and b) that isn't remotely designed for it in terms of software.
That was my key point. So, yes, you could say that changing the OS interface is a given - but in that sense you're agreeing with me to some extent; the design has to be fit for purpose rather than awkwardly shoehorned.
So I'd be very happy for Apple to do touch on, say, iMac - but they have to ensure that there's a careful symbiosis of hardware and software to make that a truly attractive proposition.
The display is still at a steeper angle but the main thing is that flipping a switch is not the same effort as photoshopping an image, editing a film nor typing long documents. A digital switchboard would be fine. I'm in favor of a productive touch device but I think there are big problems to solve with the UI. An iPad is currently not as efficient as a laptop - no touch devices are. I think they can get close though.
The inability of mouse and keyboard to address more than one "point" at a time. With a touch screen (and presumably a touch pad) it should be possible to grab two points at once and manipulate them simultaneously. Like pinch/pull, or this fader goes up while that one goes down.
Also quicker selection of elements. On a screen with many items displayed, it's faster and more intuitive to "touch" the one your eyes have selected than it is to click on it with a mouse. I probably wouldn't buy a touch screen just for that alone, but I can tell you that it made the difference between "impractical" and "works great" for a playback system in our control room. (You'll see, below.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc
But you don't just throw a touch screen on a product that a) isn't designed for it in terms of hardware and b) that isn't remotely designed for it in terms of software.
I guess I don't understand what you perceive as the limitations inherent in present systems. Obviously software has to be able to accommodate touch gestures, but even if a particular app added no NEW capability at all and simply provided the means to control it as-is via the screen, it would be an improvement. Obviously it would be BETTER if a title is customized to take full advantage of touch, but it's not NECESSARY.
You've said you don't think current hardware is good enough, but you haven't said why. I gave you a bunch of real-world examples of how and why there simply isn't a problem even with existing form-factors. If you can explain what stands between a user and effective use of a touch screen using existing hardware I'm prepared to be persuaded, but considering that I'm already doing just that at work all day, every day, your arguments will have to be pretty convincing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The display is still at a steeper angle but the main thing is that flipping a switch is not the same effort as photoshopping an image, editing a film nor typing long documents. A digital switchboard would be fine. I'm in favor of a productive touch device but I think there are big problems to solve with the UI. An iPad is currently not as efficient as a laptop - no touch devices are. I think they can get close though.
As I have already said over and over and over again: a touch screen SUPPLEMENTS, ADDS TO, EXISTS IN ADDITION TO your keyboard and mouse and graphics tablet and fader controller and whatever other devices you use to interact with your computer, IT DOES NOT REPLACE THEM.
You may continue to use the keyboard for typing and the mouse for pointing, and simply use the touch screen when it is the easiest, preferable, or most logical approach.
As for the angle, yes, it is more comfortable to have the screen positioned lower and at 45 degrees or less, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's not a deal-breaker to have the screen vertical. It would be if you tried to type on it, but why on Earth would you do that when you have a perfectly good keyboard right in front of you?
Look at these consoles from Calrec, probably the most widely used broadcast console in the world. The screens are positioned in a manner pretty similar to a desktop computer:
Here's a really bad photo of one of the touch screens we use for firing music cues and canned announcer lines. It's only used for button pushes, so a mouse could be used instead, but it wouldn't be nearly as fast or intuitive as just touching the screen. It's hard to tell from the photo, but two of these hang on monitor arms about 18" above the console. Reaching up to press one of the buttons every couple minutes is not a hardship. I lower them to configure the layout before a show, but they remain vertical. That hasn't posed a significant obstacle to my ability to manage selection, dragging and pull-down menu operations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...not the same effort as photoshopping an image, editing a film nor typing long documents..
Indeed, that would be ridiculous to do on an (almost) vertical touch screen.
Once you actually DO it you quickly discover that it's really not a big deal. Stretching, dragging, pinching, flipping and pointing are just fine on an (almost) vertical screen. Again, it's more comfortable with the screen lower and at a shallower angle, but it's not essential.
I think that once you've tried it (as I have), those of you who are concerned about Gorilla Arm and the Absolute Rule of Ergonomic Law would be surprised to discover that it's really not as big a problem as the marketing department at Apple would have you believe.
I think that once you've tried it (as I have), those of you who are concerned about Gorilla Arm and the Absolute Rule of Ergonomic Law would be surprised to discover that it's really not as big a problem as the marketing department at Apple would have you believe.
I'm not talking about their marketing, I'm talking about typing without having an armrest. Typing with a stretched out arm is no fun when doing that for an extensive period of time. Period.
As I have already said over and over and over again: a touch screen SUPPLEMENTS, ADDS TO, EXISTS IN ADDITION TO your keyboard and mouse and graphics tablet and fader controller and whatever other devices you use to interact with your computer, IT DOES NOT REPLACE THEM.
You may continue to use the keyboard for typing and the mouse for pointing, and simply use the touch screen when it is the easiest, preferable, or most logical approach.
If it's an addition that doesn't increase the price, it does no harm. It's mostly treated as a gimmick with hybrid PCs like the HP Touchsmart line but there's little to complain about free features. I don't think Apple necessarily wants to put people off the idea overall but if they bundle a new feature and people use it and then find it's not useful, they'll say bad things about it.
Comments
Sounds like someone needs to put his big boy pants on and just not whine about things he doesn’t care about.
[VIDEO]
As far as I can tell, Dalrymple hasn't "Nope"d this date yet. It does seem odd to do it on a Thursday, though. Although I suppose they could be trying to shake themselves out of a pattern.
As for the discussion on the idea of a touchscreen iMac, it really doesn't make much sense. It's a really bad ergonomic design. I'm not an expert, but the best position for working seems to be looking straight ahead, with hands on the desk in front. Using a touch interface where the screen is best positioned is uncomfortable and would lead to potential strain injuries in the arms. Moving the screen to the best position for a touch interface leads to a hunched posture which is bad for the neck and shoulders. (Try typing for any appreciable length of time with your iPad flat, or even slightly raised by the smart cover, on the desk in front of you.)
Touchscreen computers have their uses, obviously, but prolonged desktop usage isn't one of them. At least not until someone comes up with a better design than we currently have.
When you got a trackpad, did you stop using your keyboard? Of course not. Different control devices for different tasks. Some of those tasks overlap and whether you use one or the other depends on the circumstances and your preferences.
So it can be (and so I keep saying) with a touch screen. It doesn't have to REPLACE anything. It's ANOTHER way of interacting with the machine, one that allows new ways of doing things that simply are not possible with a single-point cursor. Remember how you stretched an image you lifted from a comic book with Silly Putty? How do you recreate that kind of action with a mouse or keyboard? Or when you're mixing the sound for your iMovie epic, how do you pull down the fader for the music while also pushing up the dialog track?
SOMETIMES, for certain activities, fingers on the screen are just a better, easier, more intuitive and versatile way of controlling the machine. For the stuff that's better done some other way, like typing, do it some other way. There's no rule that says once touch screen is enabled it must be used for everything.
If you compare the Yosemite calculator to the Mavericks calculator, it looks like it's been redesigned for a touch screen.
I said this a few years back: When Apple switches to desktop multitouch, users will have been clamoring for it for at least a year prior. That’s how they roll; they give you things only after they’ve taught you that you need them.
On a side note my husband's firm has two Panasonic 20" 4K tablets that were given to them as presents by some Prince last Christmas, when you work for a private bank you always get all kinds of weird stuff. Anyway they are still sitting in some closet, my husband asked the president, Mr. Muller a couple of times if he could let his wife play with one as she would go ape shitt over something like this but was blown off, my husband had the sneaky suspicion that the president wanted them for himself. Thus they sat in the closet for 9 months. Last week Mr. Muller came over to our house for a work dinner, while showing the house off they came to my office, Mr. Muller was dumbfounded, he turned to my husband and said that he could take one of the Panasonics home with him for me, continued, when you said your wife liked computers, I assumed that she, like my own wife just likes to shop using their iPads, but this, this is something else. My husband simply said, you should see the basement. My office isn't really all that impressive, what gets people is my monitors, I have 4 29" rotating Wide Nec monitors in a vertical position, got 3 for the price of 2 during an overstock auction at UBS and paid full price for the first one. Banks always buy more than they need as backups, these came out of the trading department, new, in boxes. So anyone seeing this for the first would be kind of taken, I also have 3 32" Samsung marketing monitors hanging on the wall, they were used for trade shows, the resolution isn't the highest, but the colors are vivid, touchscreen and a self contained computer, nothing special, AMD CPU, with upgraded 4GB of RAM, they only came with 1GB, got'em used for [URL=http://www.benno-shop.com/index.php?id=5]150 [/URL]a piece, I think you can get them now for a hundred. I use them to display art, photos and movie poster from a USB stick, sometimes even AngryBirds competition, got the idea from a movie I saw once. Unfortunately I wasn't there as I'm still stuck in this stupid hospital bed but I would have kissed Mr. Muller a thousand times over. This is one of those gadgets that you see on Engadget and go wow that's pretty awesome, until you see the price and then question the sanity of the person who buys one. I will defiantly put it to good use, the perfect size for virtual Monopoly.
Yes, I have a problem.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/50298/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/50296/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
Why would anyone get upset if Apple started using touch screens, I say it's a about time. I absolutely love using touch controls while recording and editing music.
I agree - to me the issue has nothing to do with whether or not a touch screen exists; that is just a means to an end.
The bigger questions (in my mind) aren't about touch screens, but about what touch screen implementation means for things like hardware form factor and OS. That is, you'd want to change the OS in some significant ways to be touch screen relevant, and you couldn't really comfortably use existing form factors (e.g. the sample concept image you put in your post is an example of the kind of angle required to do this naturally).
you couldn't really comfortably use existing form factors
Why not?
I guess Mr. Mueller hasn't heard about Lloyd Chambers who does the same, being a photographer / reviewer:
http://diglloyd.com
Oh, and from his site, this may be of interest to you:
NEC to Offer 32-Inch Professional UltraHD 4K Display Soon (PA322UHD)
source:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20141006_1712-NEC-PA322UHD-32-inch-UltraHD-display.html
He also blogs about cycling (my thing) and he has his Mac Performance Guide, a great review site:
http://macperformanceguide.com
Why not?
How is it a laptop if you stand to use it?
Why not?
The image you included here looks pretty awkward. Notice the way the arm is so elevated and stretched out? This would become very uncomfortable over a sustained period of time.
Having said that, I think the form factor where this stuff is really tricky is the desktop, rather than the laptop. I think Steve Jobs discussed this at one stage as well. The idea is that for touch interfaces to work really well and to feel really natural, you need to have a certain screen angle and position, as well as a certain distance from your face. Desktops as they are generally don't cater well for that, especially because they anticipate that your arm will be elevated in front of you, which isn't an ergonomic solution.
Aside from this - and as I mentioned earlier - simply putting a touch screen on a MacBook (as in your image) would be a pretty terrible idea. It wouldn't be fit for purpose. Doing touch well involves a specific fusion of hardware and software. At the very least, you'd need a touch-friendly OS (and OS X itself is not designed this way).
So as I said earlier, I have no objection to Apple creating touch-based iMacs and MacBooks, but only if they do it right - that is, not just for the sake of it, but because there's a real problem to solve with a real solution. :-)
The image you included here looks pretty awkward. Notice the way the arm is so elevated and stretched out? This would become very uncomfortable over a sustained period of time.
You guys wouldn't do well in my line of work, then:
The reach to adjust the upper controls on the console is a heckuvalot longer than the distance to the screen of a computer. It would actually be EASIER to reach up and touch the screen because it is both closer and at a better angle. In fact, lots of audio consoles are now employing central touch screens for EQ/dynamics/aux sends with only a fader and a couple physical knobs per channel.
I also have to operate a pile of devices positioned above and to either side of the console. I reach for one of those every couple of minutes, and so far my arms haven't fallen off or developed some horrifying malady.
My already-been-doing-it-for-twenty years experience clearly demonstrates that the perception some of you have that using a touch screen is somehow an ergonomic nightmare is simply wrong. All kinds of people reach around their workplaces all day long, and not just audio engineers. Think grocery clerk, for example, or machinist, auto mechanic... the list of jobs that require arm extension could go on for days. It's just not a problem.
Aside from this - and as I mentioned earlier - simply putting a touch screen on a MacBook (as in your image) would be a pretty terrible idea. It wouldn't be fit for purpose. Doing touch well involves a specific fusion of hardware and software. At the very least, you'd need a touch-friendly OS (and OS X itself is not designed this way).
Well yeah. I think that's sort of a given, isn't it?
All kinds of people reach around their workplaces all day long, and not just audio engineers. Think grocery clerk, for example, or machinist, auto mechanic... the list of jobs that require arm extension could go on for days. It's just not a problem.
I'm sorry, but this is a really terrible justification for simply adding a touch screen to an existing form factor. What problem are you solving? People comfortably use keyboards and mice on these devices now - you are adding a problem and justifying it by essentially saying "people in uncomfortable jobs do this all the time, what's the big deal?" I'm sorry, but the average computer user doesn't want to replicate the experience of a machinist or a grocery clerk.
No. That's not how good design works, and it's certainly not how Apple works.
Again, to just take a step back for a moment; the problem here is not the idea of adding touch screen. I think that's fine, and it can really solve problems and be an improvement in terms of functionality and intuitiveness. But you don't just throw a touch screen on a product that a) isn't designed for it in terms of hardware and b) that isn't remotely designed for it in terms of software.
That was my key point. So, yes, you could say that changing the OS interface is a given - but in that sense you're agreeing with me to some extent; the design has to be fit for purpose rather than awkwardly shoehorned.
So I'd be very happy for Apple to do touch on, say, iMac - but they have to ensure that there's a careful symbiosis of hardware and software to make that a truly attractive proposition.
The display is still at a steeper angle but the main thing is that flipping a switch is not the same effort as photoshopping an image, editing a film nor typing long documents. A digital switchboard would be fine. I'm in favor of a productive touch device but I think there are big problems to solve with the UI. An iPad is currently not as efficient as a laptop - no touch devices are. I think they can get close though.
Indeed, that would be ridiculous to do on an (almost) vertical touch screen.
What problem are you solving?
The inability of mouse and keyboard to address more than one "point" at a time. With a touch screen (and presumably a touch pad) it should be possible to grab two points at once and manipulate them simultaneously. Like pinch/pull, or this fader goes up while that one goes down.
Also quicker selection of elements. On a screen with many items displayed, it's faster and more intuitive to "touch" the one your eyes have selected than it is to click on it with a mouse. I probably wouldn't buy a touch screen just for that alone, but I can tell you that it made the difference between "impractical" and "works great" for a playback system in our control room. (You'll see, below.)
But you don't just throw a touch screen on a product that a) isn't designed for it in terms of hardware and b) that isn't remotely designed for it in terms of software.
I guess I don't understand what you perceive as the limitations inherent in present systems. Obviously software has to be able to accommodate touch gestures, but even if a particular app added no NEW capability at all and simply provided the means to control it as-is via the screen, it would be an improvement. Obviously it would be BETTER if a title is customized to take full advantage of touch, but it's not NECESSARY.
You've said you don't think current hardware is good enough, but you haven't said why. I gave you a bunch of real-world examples of how and why there simply isn't a problem even with existing form-factors. If you can explain what stands between a user and effective use of a touch screen using existing hardware I'm prepared to be persuaded, but considering that I'm already doing just that at work all day, every day, your arguments will have to be pretty convincing.
As I have already said over and over and over again: a touch screen SUPPLEMENTS, ADDS TO, EXISTS IN ADDITION TO your keyboard and mouse and graphics tablet and fader controller and whatever other devices you use to interact with your computer, IT DOES NOT REPLACE THEM.
You may continue to use the keyboard for typing and the mouse for pointing, and simply use the touch screen when it is the easiest, preferable, or most logical approach.
As for the angle, yes, it is more comfortable to have the screen positioned lower and at 45 degrees or less, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's not a deal-breaker to have the screen vertical. It would be if you tried to type on it, but why on Earth would you do that when you have a perfectly good keyboard right in front of you?
Look at these consoles from Calrec, probably the most widely used broadcast console in the world. The screens are positioned in a manner pretty similar to a desktop computer:
Here's a really bad photo of one of the touch screens we use for firing music cues and canned announcer lines. It's only used for button pushes, so a mouse could be used instead, but it wouldn't be nearly as fast or intuitive as just touching the screen. It's hard to tell from the photo, but two of these hang on monitor arms about 18" above the console. Reaching up to press one of the buttons every couple minutes is not a hardship. I lower them to configure the layout before a show, but they remain vertical. That hasn't posed a significant obstacle to my ability to manage selection, dragging and pull-down menu operations.
...not the same effort as photoshopping an image, editing a film nor typing long documents..
Indeed, that would be ridiculous to do on an (almost) vertical touch screen.
Once you actually DO it you quickly discover that it's really not a big deal. Stretching, dragging, pinching, flipping and pointing are just fine on an (almost) vertical screen. Again, it's more comfortable with the screen lower and at a shallower angle, but it's not essential.
I think that once you've tried it (as I have), those of you who are concerned about Gorilla Arm and the Absolute Rule of Ergonomic Law would be surprised to discover that it's really not as big a problem as the marketing department at Apple would have you believe.
I'm not talking about their marketing, I'm talking about typing without having an armrest. Typing with a stretched out arm is no fun when doing that for an extensive period of time. Period.
If it's an addition that doesn't increase the price, it does no harm. It's mostly treated as a gimmick with hybrid PCs like the HP Touchsmart line but there's little to complain about free features. I don't think Apple necessarily wants to put people off the idea overall but if they bundle a new feature and people use it and then find it's not useful, they'll say bad things about it.