For all its faults, the Surface remains in a class by itself. Apple certainly has nothing to compete with it -- unless you want to spend far more to buy and then lug around 2 devices to replace it.
Come on Apple! The world is waiting with open arms for your next great product. You can do it!
Toaster/Fridge or Combination Oven/Fridge. I feel the 2 in 1s are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. A combo oven and fridge will be a poor at both tasks as it will need to get as hot as possible whilst at the same time also get as cold as possible. I feel that's the fundamental problem with 2-in-1 devices. The idea of a tablet computer is for it to be light and easy to hold in the hand whilst using it, otherwise you may as well make that device into a laptop or even desktop computer. It is for that reason that the Surface is a fundamentally poor compromise. A compromise further exacerbated by the kludge of using an OS with a user interface that's far from ideal for handheld use.
Apple have been researching handheld and touch computers for the past thirty years. Their iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch have been by far the most profitable and commercially successful of all the numerous attempts at handheld/touch computers. There's probably a good reason they've avoided the 2-in-1 market in the same way they avoided the netbook market: netbooks were the poor kludge of their day.
This doesnt make sense. The Surface is a severe compromise of products, just read this thread for those who have and said the same -- as a tablet, it sucks.
The iPad Pro 10.5" is the their latest great product. It's awesome. When I want to run Photoshop I'll get myself to my desktop.
It sucks because its designed and built by Microsoft who have always been better at marketing than design.... By your logic the iPod must fail because the Zune was crappy. And, the iPhone must fail because the Windows phone was crappy...
Actually GeorgeBMac the sequential flow of your reasoning doesn't make sense: it implies that the Zune and Windows phone were launched at the same time or before the iPod and iPhone; the reality was that both the Zune and Windows Phone were launched in reaction to the earliersuccess of the iPod and iPhone.
Sorry, but my point holds: Using Microsoft as proof that any particular product (be it a phone, music player or convertible tablet/laptop) cannot work is foolish. Microsoft builds crap. It's what they do best.
For all its faults, the Surface remains in a class by itself. Apple certainly has nothing to compete with it -- unless you want to spend far more to buy and then lug around 2 devices to replace it.
Come on Apple! The world is waiting with open arms for your next great product. You can do it!
Toaster/Fridge or Combination Oven/Fridge. I feel the 2 in 1s are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. A combo oven and fridge will be a poor at both tasks as it will need to get as hot as possible whilst at the same time also get as cold as possible. I feel that's the fundamental problem with 2-in-1 devices. The idea of a tablet computer is for it to be light and easy to hold in the hand whilst using it, otherwise you may as well make that device into a laptop or even desktop computer. It is for that reason that the Surface is a fundamentally poor compromise. A compromise further exacerbated by the kludge of using an OS with a user interface that's far from ideal for handheld use.
Apple have been researching handheld and touch computers for the past thirty years. Their iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch have been by far the most profitable and commercially successful of all the numerous attempts at handheld/touch computers. There's probably a good reason they've avoided the 2-in-1 market in the same way they avoided the netbook market: netbooks were the poor kludge of their day.
The fault in your argument is that they are not at all contradictory or in any way opposed to each other -- such as the hot & cold example that you site. -- touch is an input -- cursor is an input
At this point, all Apple has to do is add cursor input to the iPad and it will actually be the laptop replacement that they claim it to be. And, in fact, they already have added rudimentary cursor input to it via the pencil.
This doesnt make sense. The Surface is a severe compromise of products, just read this thread for those who have and said the same -- as a tablet, it sucks.
The iPad Pro 10.5" is the their latest great product. It's awesome. When I want to run Photoshop I'll get myself to my desktop.
GeorgeBMac said: It sucks because its designed and built by Microsoft who have always been better at marketing than design.... By your logic the iPod must fail because the Zune was crappy. And, the iPhone must fail because the Windows phone was crappy...
Chia said: Actually GeorgeBMac the sequential flow of your reasoning doesn't make sense: it implies that the Zune and Windows phone were launched at the same time or before the iPod and iPhone; the reality was that both the Zune and Windows Phone were launched in reaction to the earliersuccess of the iPod and iPhone.
Sorry, but my point holds: Using Microsoft as proof that any particular product (be it a phone, music player or convertible tablet/laptop) cannot work is foolish. Microsoft builds crap. It's what they do best.
Your two points are straw men of your own creation GeorgeBMac: StrangeDays comment went no further than saying the Surface as a product sucked. Any further assertions that StrangeDays comment is a criticism of all 2in1s or Microsoft's prowess with creating products is unwarranted.
For all its faults, the Surface remains in a class by itself. Apple certainly has nothing to compete with it -- unless you want to spend far more to buy and then lug around 2 devices to replace it.
Come on Apple! The world is waiting with open arms for your next great product. You can do it!
No, what the Surface has instead is a niche.
Compare what the MS Surface tablet has accomplished in 4 hardware revisions to what Apple achieved with just iPad1. For all of the faults, and I mean, ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL of those faults you and everyone else has with iPhone and iPad -- they instantly changed market. Which is something that you'd expect of truly paradigm shifting "in a class by itself" products.
On that topic though, what ever happened to the MS Surface Studio All-in-one that made every Apple critic jizz their pants (or panties) and supposedly "schooled" Apple on how to design the iMac? Well, I'm interested to see how a Rev 2 of it compares this falls iMac Pro line up.
The Surface has outlived its purpose of live testing Apple’s patent for a keyboard case for a tablet. Time for Microsoft to retire it and license another Apple patent for another of Apple R&D’s tests.
For all its faults, the Surface remains in a class by itself. Apple certainly has nothing to compete with it -- unless you want to spend far more to buy and then lug around 2 devices to replace it.
Come on Apple! The world is waiting with open arms for your next great product. You can do it!
Toaster/Fridge or Combination Oven/Fridge. I feel the 2 in 1s are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. A combo oven and fridge will be a poor at both tasks as it will need to get as hot as possible whilst at the same time also get as cold as possible. I feel that's the fundamental problem with 2-in-1 devices. The idea of a tablet computer is for it to be light and easy to hold in the hand whilst using it, otherwise you may as well make that device into a laptop or even desktop computer. It is for that reason that the Surface is a fundamentally poor compromise. A compromise further exacerbated by the kludge of using an OS with a user interface that's far from ideal for handheld use.
Apple have been researching handheld and touch computers for the past thirty years. Their iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch have been by far the most profitable and commercially successful of all the numerous attempts at handheld/touch computers. There's probably a good reason they've avoided the 2-in-1 market in the same way they avoided the netbook market: netbooks were the poor kludge of their day.
The fault in your argument is that they are not at all contradictory or in any way opposed to each other -- such as the hot & cold example that you site. -- touch is an input -- cursor is an input
At this point, all Apple has to do is add cursor input to the iPad and it will actually be the laptop replacement that they claim it to be. And, in fact, they already have added rudimentary cursor input to it via the pencil.
Not at all, and the fact that you think so indicates that you have never used a Pencil. The Pencil doesn't control a cursor at all, except during text entry. It does nothing a finger wouldn't do, but in finer detail - except for the brush mode switching to hatching if you use it at a low angle.
At this point, all Apple has to do is kludge on an entirely different interface mode that completely negates why iPad exists, and it will actually be the Surface competitor that they have absolutely no interest in making.
It would be like expecting Apple to build a hybrid car at this point - they're transitional products that will all but die out in the foreseeable future. They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today.
For all its faults, the Surface remains in a class by itself. Apple certainly has nothing to compete with it -- unless you want to spend far more to buy and then lug around 2 devices to replace it.
Come on Apple! The world is waiting with open arms for your next great product. You can do it!
Toaster/Fridge or Combination Oven/Fridge. I feel the 2 in 1s are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. A combo oven and fridge will be a poor at both tasks as it will need to get as hot as possible whilst at the same time also get as cold as possible. I feel that's the fundamental problem with 2-in-1 devices. The idea of a tablet computer is for it to be light and easy to hold in the hand whilst using it, otherwise you may as well make that device into a laptop or even desktop computer. It is for that reason that the Surface is a fundamentally poor compromise. A compromise further exacerbated by the kludge of using an OS with a user interface that's far from ideal for handheld use.
Apple have been researching handheld and touch computers for the past thirty years. Their iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch have been by far the most profitable and commercially successful of all the numerous attempts at handheld/touch computers. There's probably a good reason they've avoided the 2-in-1 market in the same way they avoided the netbook market: netbooks were the poor kludge of their day.
The fault in your argument is that they are not at all contradictory or in any way opposed to each other -- such as the hot & cold example that you site. -- touch is an input -- cursor is an input
At this point, all Apple has to do is add cursor input to the iPad and it will actually be the laptop replacement that they claim it to be. And, in fact, they already have added rudimentary cursor input to it via the pencil.
Not at all, and the fact that you think so indicates that you have never used a Pencil. The Pencil doesn't control a cursor at all, except during text entry. It does nothing a finger wouldn't do, but in finer detail - except for the brush mode switching to hatching if you use it at a low angle.
At this point, all Apple has to do is kludge on an entirely different interface mode that completely negates why iPad exists, and it will actually be the Surface competitor that they have absolutely no interest in making.
It would be like expecting Apple to build a hybrid car at this point - they're transitional products that will all but die out in the foreseeable future. They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today.
1) Text entry is where most folks want/need a cursor on their UI.
2) The energy density of gas is 36 MJ/L. The energy density of current batteries is 2 MJ/L. Next gen batteries in a few years will double this to around 4 MJ/L.
Mazda's new compression gas engine, if it provides diesel like efficiency will greatly increase the fuel economy of both gas and hybrid vehicles (20-30%) without the downsides of EV (charge time, charge infrastructure, range limit, etc) due to low energy densities.
The future of plug in hybrids is brighter than EVs in the US for the near term (i.e. not close to the high water mark yet). It's the only way to hit the desired fuel economy with the desired range and refueling convenience. Charge at night or long stop and just fill at the pump when you can't.
For all its faults, the Surface remains in a class by itself. Apple certainly has nothing to compete with it -- unless you want to spend far more to buy and then lug around 2 devices to replace it.
Come on Apple! The world is waiting with open arms for your next great product. You can do it!
Toaster/Fridge or Combination Oven/Fridge. I feel the 2 in 1s are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. A combo oven and fridge will be a poor at both tasks as it will need to get as hot as possible whilst at the same time also get as cold as possible. I feel that's the fundamental problem with 2-in-1 devices. The idea of a tablet computer is for it to be light and easy to hold in the hand whilst using it, otherwise you may as well make that device into a laptop or even desktop computer. It is for that reason that the Surface is a fundamentally poor compromise. A compromise further exacerbated by the kludge of using an OS with a user interface that's far from ideal for handheld use.
Apple have been researching handheld and touch computers for the past thirty years. Their iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch have been by far the most profitable and commercially successful of all the numerous attempts at handheld/touch computers. There's probably a good reason they've avoided the 2-in-1 market in the same way they avoided the netbook market: netbooks were the poor kludge of their day.
The fault in your argument is that they are not at all contradictory or in any way opposed to each other -- such as the hot & cold example that you site. -- touch is an input -- cursor is an input
At this point, all Apple has to do is add cursor input to the iPad and it will actually be the laptop replacement that they claim it to be. And, in fact, they already have added rudimentary cursor input to it via the pencil.
Not at all, and the fact that you think so indicates that you have never used a Pencil. The Pencil doesn't control a cursor at all, except during text entry. It does nothing a finger wouldn't do, but in finer detail - except for the brush mode switching to hatching if you use it at a low angle.
At this point, all Apple has to do is kludge on an entirely different interface mode that completely negates why iPad exists, and it will actually be the Surface competitor that they have absolutely no interest in making.
It would be like expecting Apple to build a hybrid car at this point - they're transitional products that will all but die out in the foreseeable future. They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today.
1) Text entry is where most folks want/need a cursor on their UI.
2) The energy density of gas is 36 MJ/L. The energy density of current batteries is 2 MJ/L. Next gen batteries in a few years will double this to around 4 MJ/L.
Mazda's new compression gas engine, if it provides diesel like efficiency will greatly increase the fuel economy of both gas and hybrid vehicles (20-30%) without the downsides of EV (charge time, charge infrastructure, range limit, etc) due to low energy densities.
The future of plug in hybrids is brighter than EVs in the US for the near term (i.e. not close to the high water mark yet). It's the only way to hit the desired fuel economy with the desired range and refueling convenience. Charge at night or long stop and just fill at the pump when you can't.
1) yes, and text entry has had a cursor since 2007. No need for a mouse, let alone for a whole indirect-manipulation mouse-cursor interface layer.
2) "Near term" is exactly what I wrote. Automobiles have much longer transitional periods than computers. The Surface will be all but dead in five years, if that. Automobile transitions can be measured in decades, in keeping with the useful operative lifespan and the higher investment. The mass market is going electric in twenty years, not hybrid.
For all its faults, the Surface remains in a class by itself. Apple certainly has nothing to compete with it -- unless you want to spend far more to buy and then lug around 2 devices to replace it.
Come on Apple! The world is waiting with open arms for your next great product. You can do it!
Toaster/Fridge or Combination Oven/Fridge. I feel the 2 in 1s are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. A combo oven and fridge will be a poor at both tasks as it will need to get as hot as possible whilst at the same time also get as cold as possible. I feel that's the fundamental problem with 2-in-1 devices. The idea of a tablet computer is for it to be light and easy to hold in the hand whilst using it, otherwise you may as well make that device into a laptop or even desktop computer. It is for that reason that the Surface is a fundamentally poor compromise. A compromise further exacerbated by the kludge of using an OS with a user interface that's far from ideal for handheld use.
Apple have been researching handheld and touch computers for the past thirty years. Their iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch have been by far the most profitable and commercially successful of all the numerous attempts at handheld/touch computers. There's probably a good reason they've avoided the 2-in-1 market in the same way they avoided the netbook market: netbooks were the poor kludge of their day.
The fault in your argument is that they are not at all contradictory or in any way opposed to each other -- such as the hot & cold example that you site. -- touch is an input -- cursor is an input
At this point, all Apple has to do is add cursor input to the iPad and it will actually be the laptop replacement that they claim it to be. And, in fact, they already have added rudimentary cursor input to it via the pencil.
Not at all, and the fact that you think so indicates that you have never used a Pencil. The Pencil doesn't control a cursor at all, except during text entry. It does nothing a finger wouldn't do, but in finer detail - except for the brush mode switching to hatching if you use it at a low angle.
At this point, all Apple has to do is kludge on an entirely different interface mode that completely negates why iPad exists, and it will actually be the Surface competitor that they have absolutely no interest in making.
It would be like expecting Apple to build a hybrid car at this point - they're transitional products that will all but die out in the foreseeable future. They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today.
1) Text entry is where most folks want/need a cursor on their UI.
2) The energy density of gas is 36 MJ/L. The energy density of current batteries is 2 MJ/L. Next gen batteries in a few years will double this to around 4 MJ/L.
Mazda's new compression gas engine, if it provides diesel like efficiency will greatly increase the fuel economy of both gas and hybrid vehicles (20-30%) without the downsides of EV (charge time, charge infrastructure, range limit, etc) due to low energy densities.
The future of plug in hybrids is brighter than EVs in the US for the near term (i.e. not close to the high water mark yet). It's the only way to hit the desired fuel economy with the desired range and refueling convenience. Charge at night or long stop and just fill at the pump when you can't.
1) yes, and text entry has had a cursor since 2007. No need for a mouse, let alone for a whole indirect-manipulation mouse-cursor interface layer.
2) "Near term" is exactly what I wrote. Automobiles have much longer transitional periods than computers. The Surface will be all but dead in five years, if that. Automobile transitions can be measured in decades, in keeping with the useful operative lifespan and the higher investment. The mass market is going electric in twenty years, not hybrid.
1) It's awkward to try to move the cursor around in iOS.
2) No, you wrote "They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today."
If more vehicles become hybrid over the next decade, which they will, they will sell much higher over the next 20 years than today.
Hybrid electric sales from 1999 to 2014 look like this:
We're seeing a decline in sales now due to lower gas prices which impacts the development of EVs more.
For all its faults, the Surface remains in a class by itself. Apple certainly has nothing to compete with it -- unless you want to spend far more to buy and then lug around 2 devices to replace it.
Come on Apple! The world is waiting with open arms for your next great product. You can do it!
Toaster/Fridge or Combination Oven/Fridge. I feel the 2 in 1s are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. A combo oven and fridge will be a poor at both tasks as it will need to get as hot as possible whilst at the same time also get as cold as possible. I feel that's the fundamental problem with 2-in-1 devices. The idea of a tablet computer is for it to be light and easy to hold in the hand whilst using it, otherwise you may as well make that device into a laptop or even desktop computer. It is for that reason that the Surface is a fundamentally poor compromise. A compromise further exacerbated by the kludge of using an OS with a user interface that's far from ideal for handheld use.
Apple have been researching handheld and touch computers for the past thirty years. Their iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch have been by far the most profitable and commercially successful of all the numerous attempts at handheld/touch computers. There's probably a good reason they've avoided the 2-in-1 market in the same way they avoided the netbook market: netbooks were the poor kludge of their day.
The fault in your argument is that they are not at all contradictory or in any way opposed to each other -- such as the hot & cold example that you site. -- touch is an input -- cursor is an input
At this point, all Apple has to do is add cursor input to the iPad and it will actually be the laptop replacement that they claim it to be. And, in fact, they already have added rudimentary cursor input to it via the pencil.
Not at all, and the fact that you think so indicates that you have never used a Pencil. The Pencil doesn't control a cursor at all, except during text entry. It does nothing a finger wouldn't do, but in finer detail - except for the brush mode switching to hatching if you use it at a low angle.
At this point, all Apple has to do is kludge on an entirely different interface mode that completely negates why iPad exists, and it will actually be the Surface competitor that they have absolutely no interest in making.
It would be like expecting Apple to build a hybrid car at this point - they're transitional products that will all but die out in the foreseeable future. They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today.
1) Text entry is where most folks want/need a cursor on their UI.
2) The energy density of gas is 36 MJ/L. The energy density of current batteries is 2 MJ/L. Next gen batteries in a few years will double this to around 4 MJ/L.
Mazda's new compression gas engine, if it provides diesel like efficiency will greatly increase the fuel economy of both gas and hybrid vehicles (20-30%) without the downsides of EV (charge time, charge infrastructure, range limit, etc) due to low energy densities.
The future of plug in hybrids is brighter than EVs in the US for the near term (i.e. not close to the high water mark yet). It's the only way to hit the desired fuel economy with the desired range and refueling convenience. Charge at night or long stop and just fill at the pump when you can't.
1) yes, and text entry has had a cursor since 2007. No need for a mouse, let alone for a whole indirect-manipulation mouse-cursor interface layer.
2) "Near term" is exactly what I wrote. Automobiles have much longer transitional periods than computers. The Surface will be all but dead in five years, if that. Automobile transitions can be measured in decades, in keeping with the useful operative lifespan and the higher investment. The mass market is going electric in twenty years, not hybrid.
1) It's awkward to try to move the cursor around in iOS.
2) No, you wrote "They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today."
If more vehicles become hybrid over the next decade, which they will, they will sell much higher over the next 20 years than today.
Hybrid electric sales from 1999 to 2014 look like this:
We're seeing a decline in sales now due to lower gas prices which impacts the development of EVs more.
Those are cumulative sales, not a graph of yearly sales, and that graph ends three years ago.
As for cursor placement: with two-finger positioning on iPad, and the Pencil, cursor positioning is a breeze and a moot concern. On the iPhone, the addition of 3D Touch makes it very slick, if not quite as elegant as on iPad. But adding a mouse interface there is even more ridiculous.
Comments
Toaster/Fridge or Combination Oven/Fridge. I feel the 2 in 1s are trying to do two contradictory things at the same time. A combo oven and fridge will be a poor at both tasks as it will need to get as hot as possible whilst at the same time also get as cold as possible. I feel that's the fundamental problem with 2-in-1 devices. The idea of a tablet computer is for it to be light and easy to hold in the hand whilst using it, otherwise you may as well make that device into a laptop or even desktop computer. It is for that reason that the Surface is a fundamentally poor compromise. A compromise further exacerbated by the kludge of using an OS with a user interface that's far from ideal for handheld use.
Apple have been researching handheld and touch computers for the past thirty years. Their iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch have been by far the most profitable and commercially successful of all the numerous attempts at handheld/touch computers. There's probably a good reason they've avoided the 2-in-1 market in the same way they avoided the netbook market: netbooks were the poor kludge of their day.
-- touch is an input
-- cursor is an input
At this point, all Apple has to do is add cursor input to the iPad and it will actually be the laptop replacement that they claim it to be. And, in fact, they already have added rudimentary cursor input to it via the pencil.
Your two points are straw men of your own creation GeorgeBMac: StrangeDays comment went no further than saying the Surface as a product sucked.
Any further assertions that StrangeDays comment is a criticism of all 2in1s or Microsoft's prowess with creating products is unwarranted.
Compare what the MS Surface tablet has accomplished in 4 hardware revisions to what Apple achieved with just iPad1. For all of the faults, and I mean, ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL of those faults you and everyone else has with iPhone and iPad -- they instantly changed market. Which is something that you'd expect of truly paradigm shifting "in a class by itself" products.
On that topic though, what ever happened to the MS Surface Studio All-in-one that made every Apple critic jizz their pants (or panties) and supposedly "schooled" Apple on how to design the iMac? Well, I'm interested to see how a Rev 2 of it compares this falls iMac Pro line up.
At this point, all Apple has to do is kludge on an entirely different interface mode that completely negates why iPad exists, and it will actually be the Surface competitor that they have absolutely no interest in making.
It would be like expecting Apple to build a hybrid car at this point - they're transitional products that will all but die out in the foreseeable future. They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today.
2) The energy density of gas is 36 MJ/L. The energy density of current batteries is 2 MJ/L. Next gen batteries in a few years will double this to around 4 MJ/L.
Mazda's new compression gas engine, if it provides diesel like efficiency will greatly increase the fuel economy of both gas and hybrid vehicles (20-30%) without the downsides of EV (charge time, charge infrastructure, range limit, etc) due to low energy densities.
The future of plug in hybrids is brighter than EVs in the US for the near term (i.e. not close to the high water mark yet). It's the only way to hit the desired fuel economy with the desired range and refueling convenience. Charge at night or long stop and just fill at the pump when you can't.
2) "Near term" is exactly what I wrote. Automobiles have much longer transitional periods than computers. The Surface will be all but dead in five years, if that. Automobile transitions can be measured in decades, in keeping with the useful operative lifespan and the higher investment. The mass market is going electric in twenty years, not hybrid.
2) No, you wrote "They may have merit as a product category at this point, but they're not going to ever sell in much higher numbers than they are today."
If more vehicles become hybrid over the next decade, which they will, they will sell much higher over the next 20 years than today.
Hybrid electric sales from 1999 to 2014 look like this:
We're seeing a decline in sales now due to lower gas prices which impacts the development of EVs more.
In the meantime, growth on electrics has overtaken hybrids, and it's pretty clear that hybrid numbers will peak fairly soon as electrics take off.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065393_5-2-million-electric-vehicles-will-be-on-worlds-roads-by-2017
Again: I'm talking about decades, not next year.
As for cursor placement: with two-finger positioning on iPad, and the Pencil, cursor positioning is a breeze and a moot concern.
On the iPhone, the addition of 3D Touch makes it very slick, if not quite as elegant as on iPad. But adding a mouse interface there is even more ridiculous.