Inside iOS 9: Apple's iPad-exclusive split-screen multitasking will enhance productivity

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 115
    afrodriafrodri Posts: 190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Why would you want to do that? So it'll drain your battery faster? Consume more data faster?

     

    So you can use your tablet more like a laptop/desktop. I generally have lots of applications running & visible on my laptop:

      – terminal (remotely accessing a server)

      – web browser (reading an API spec)

      – email / message

      – video (watching a movie in the background)

     

    If I could do this on a tablet, it would be handy. Of course, my use case is not the one everyone uses, but not everyone just wants one or two apps running.

  • Reply 22 of 115
    gumbigumbi Posts: 148member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mike1 View Post

     

    Yes. MS and Samsung Tablets that nobody has bought.


     

    Surface sales Increasing... IPad sales decreasing...

  • Reply 23 of 115
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    afrodri wrote: »
    So you can use your tablet more like a laptop/desktop. I generally have lots of applications running & visible on my laptop:
      – terminal (remotely accessing a server)
      – web browser (reading an API spec)
      – email / message
      – video (watching a movie in the background)

    If I could do this on a tablet, it would be handy. Of course, my use case is not the one everyone uses, but not everyone just wants one or two apps running.

    But an iPad isn't a laptop replacement for "power" users.
    gumbi wrote: »
    Surface sales Increasing... IPad sales decreasing...

    It's easier to increase when your numbers were small to begin with.

    Still iPad sales > Surface shipments.
  • Reply 24 of 115
    afrodriafrodri Posts: 190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    But an iPad isn't a laptop replacement for "power" users.

     

     

    Currently, no. But with some changes (bigger screen, split screen) it could satisfy at least some 'power' users. For me, I do a lot of code development, but I tend to compile & run the code on a remote server / cluster so I don't really need a lot of local processing or memory. I'd like a larger iPad to use as a 'dumb' terminal and save a bit of weight when on travel.

     

    Again, this is not everyone's use case (and is not even my only use case), but you asked why someone would want to run >2 apps at once and I've suggested one possible scenario where it could be useful.

  • Reply 25 of 115
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    afrodri wrote: »
    Currently, no. But with some changes (bigger screen, split screen) it could satisfy at least some 'power' users. For me, I do a lot of code development, but I tend to compile & run the code on a remote server / cluster so I don't really need a lot of local processing or memory. I'd like a larger iPad to use as a 'dumb' terminal and save a bit of weight when on travel.

    Again, this is not everyone's use case (and is not even my only use case), but you asked why someone would want to run >2 apps at once and I've suggested one possible scenario where it could be useful.

    Fair enough. And my comment was geared towards unlimited apps running simultaneously. There has to be a limit. Perhaps not 2 but definitely < 10.
  • Reply 26 of 115



    LOL!

  • Reply 27 of 115
    jason98 wrote: »
    Too bad it is not available on iPhone 6 Plus.
    I think the new iPhone 6+ will support it since it will have 2GB ram.
  • Reply 28 of 115
    afrodriafrodri Posts: 190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Fair enough. And my comment was geared towards unlimited apps running simultaneously. There has to be a limit. Perhaps not 2 but definitely < 10.

     

    That makes sense. From an OS / processing perspective there isn't much of a limit on how many apps can run (at some point you run out of memory and start swapping, but it could be a lot of apps), but from a practical usability perspective it would be hard to get more than a handful of apps visible and running without overlapping windows. At that point, you've basically got a laptop with a touch screen not a tablet.

  • Reply 29 of 115
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    gumbi wrote: »
    Well, considering that from the description this sounds like an almost exact copy of the original windows 8 implementation, they didn't have to try to hard to get it right...

    Hmm...from what I've read this is different than Windows 8 implementation and better executed. And since Apple has been working on this for several years I highly doubt they were looking to Windows to copy anything.
  • Reply 30 of 115
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    gumbi wrote: »
    Surface sales Increasing... IPad sales decreasing...

    Not hard to increase from zero. Let's see Surface sales 2-3 years from now.
  • Reply 31 of 115
    indyfxindyfx Posts: 319member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cropr View Post



    Nothing spectacular, we've seen this feature before on Windows 8 and on the Samsung tablets. For a change, Apple is copying a nice concept from others. Strangely, nobody here at AppleInsider calls this a knock off.



    Apple (post Jobs return Apple) does things right. Sometimes that means they they aren't first. Windows8 and Samsung tablets are barely usable pieces of crap. (and the public obviously gets that)

    iPod was not the first digital music player, the iPad not the first tablet nor was Apple Watch the first wrist device, but they were the first done right (which is why the iPod dominated and the early wrist devices fell flat on their face(s) Why the apple watch has been a stunning success. I have no doubt that the split screen features will be similar to "multitasking" android was first out of the gate however Apple's implementation (introduced later) actually worked without complexity, "task managers", performance drain or sucking the life out of your batteries.

    Apple's products (and software) work well. Apparently not as simple a task as it seems, and something no one else has been able to pull off. I am assuming this feature will follow suit.

  • Reply 32 of 115
    litolooplitoloop Posts: 16member
    how does windows and samsung's implementation of split screen compare to apple's i wonder? edit — saw there was an answer already about windows. thanks.
  • Reply 33 of 115
    sog35 wrote: »
    slide over looks fairly useless

    No, it's quite useful. It's your imagination that's fairly useless. The app on the right could be your pictures where you want one for the app on the left. It could be your note app, where you want to retrieve or add something, or your calendar, or a dictionary or ... well, you either get it or you don't...
  • Reply 34 of 115
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">the smart people are arguing the limiting factor is CPU.  The Air2 has that 3rd CPU, thus giving it a lot more head room for processing.</span>

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">If that is the case, my guess is we'll have to wait until there is a 4-6-8 processor Ax chip before we see more concurency.   </span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">But your point about screen real estate is also needed.  That's probably part of the reason the iPhone 6's aren't going to allow concurrent displayed apps (again processors is part of this, especially with phones which must always allow for handling the chore of actually being a phone) [the other reason... Apple has made iPads too good.  They need to start creating reasons to upgrade more frequently than once every 4 years, so only the top top end will get these cool capabilities].</span>


    Would be nice if we all won the lottery tonight too.  But it's not going to happen any time soon.  Part of it is designing a system that can be easy to use, part of it is not overengineering the system for the 1-5% of the people who can visually multitask.   The key 'job to be solved' here is, "I need to move information from one app(document/window), to another."  my guess is <span style="line-height:1.4em;">90% of the users will find 2 concurrent apps plenty... and my guess 20-30% will find 2 or more apps on the same screen confusing.  </span>

    Also lack of infinite screen area prevents you from displaying an "unlimited number" apps together on the screen. Not to mention that the number of apps available in the App Store, local storage, and bandwidth and time available to download is not "unlimited."
  • Reply 35 of 115
    afrodri wrote: »
    jungmark wrote: »
    Fair enough. And my comment was geared towards unlimited apps running simultaneously. There has to be a limit. Perhaps not 2 but definitely < 10.

    That makes sense. From an OS / processing perspective there isn't much of a limit on how many apps can run (at some point you run out of memory and start swapping, but it could be a lot of apps), but from a practical usability perspective it would be hard to get more than a handful of apps visible and running without overlapping windows. At that point, you've basically got a laptop with a touch screen not a tablet.

    As different from Windows or Android, only the apps visible in the touchscreen at any time are running. Any other apps open have been paused to conserve battery drain. This does not necessarily include a few Apple provided apps such as the music app which can continue playing music while not visible on the screen. With the Windows and Android OS you can have energy suckers and CPU/GPU usage running in the backgroud.
  • Reply 36 of 115
    gumbi wrote: »
    Surface sales Increasing... IPad sales decreasing...

    That's it! Keep hope alive. The rest of us aren't interested in returning to the dark days of the Microsoft Empire.
  • Reply 37 of 115
    appexappex Posts: 687member
    Productivity with the iOS toy? For real productivity, just get a real computer: MacBook Air.
  • Reply 37 of 115
    rogifan wrote: »
    gumbi wrote: »
    Surface sales Increasing... IPad sales decreasing...

    Not hard to increase from zero. Let's see Surface sales 2-3 years from now.

    Even now iPad sales lead all other tablet sales. I haven't heard of the Surface even pushing past some of the better-named Android brands in sales. However Microsoft is better at monitoring their inventory... this year's pile to be buried is much smaller than the steaming pile of Surfaces buried during Ballmer's tenure.
  • Reply 39 of 115
    appex wrote: »
    Productivity with the iOS toy? For real productivity, just get a real computer: MacBook Air.

    I always had to laugh at Microsoft. First they labeled the iPad as a "consumption" device, while calling their steaming pile of electronics (the Surface) as a "creation" device. Then they demo the surface showing how you can watch a movie on it... Hello??

    At least the iPad can shoot the video and then edit it, caption it, and add in background music... While the surface is too heavy and bulky to tote around for shoot a video, and then needs to be plugged in to a power source to run the power-gobbling video editing software which was designed for desk top use...
  • Reply 40 of 115
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    sog35 wrote: »
    slide over looks fairly useless
    I dont know about that. It is similar to somthing i imagined some time ago. Slide over should be very useful in a number of situations.
Sign In or Register to comment.