Multi-tasking proponents seem to be in denial about the nature of the decision to not allow 3rd party multi-tasking. Granted, mac fanactics can be equally non-objective in blind support of Apple.
But please, let's both acknowledge that preventing 3rd party multi-tasking is a deliberate design decision which wasn't taken lightly by Apple's design team. They no doubt had this exact same discussion. They didn't just choose the current design for the hell of it. Nor did they take the decision lightly. The easy thing to do would have been to allow 3rd party multi-tasking.
I for one am a believer in the theory that the design choice was made based upon concerns about battery-life / responsiveness. With 140000 apps in the app store, we can assume that thousands of them would have pegged the processor in the background.
While us geeks could certainly manage that kind of problem, the majority of iPhone/iPod/iPad users would prefer not to. Many would be incapable of understanding what they needed to manage.
Thus it is my belief that 3rd party multi-tasking was prevented because the majority of users would have a worse experience. Sure, it sucks for power users. But if it were enabled, even as a non-default option, the majority of users would suffer.
I wonder if maybe Jobs is having Newton flashbacks.
Perhaps, though wasn't the Newton something they came up with while Jobs wasn't there? I don't know what his involvement was, if at all with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Multi-tasking proponents seem to be in denial about the nature of the decision to not allow 3rd party multi-tasking. Granted, mac fanactics can be equally non-objective in blind support of Apple.
But please, let's both acknowledge that preventing 3rd party multi-tasking is a deliberate design decision which wasn't taken lightly by Apple's design team. They no doubt had this exact same discussion. They didn't just choose the current design for the hell of it. Nor did they take the decision lightly. The easy thing to do would have been to allow 3rd party multi-tasking.
I for one am a believer in the theory that the design choice was made based upon concerns about battery-life / responsiveness. With 140000 apps in the app store, we can assume that thousands of them would have pegged the processor in the background.
While us geeks could certainly manage that kind of problem, the majority of iPhone/iPod/iPad users would prefer not to. Many would be incapable of understanding what they needed to manage.
Thus it is my belief that 3rd party multi-tasking was prevented because the majority of users would have a worse experience. Sure, it sucks for power users. But if it were enabled, even as a non-default option, the majority of users would suffer.
Assuming that's a response to me.
I've specifically stated it's a design decision, not a technical, so we do agree there.
I'd still like to see the fanboys at least acknowledge that the hardware is up to the task, the OS is up to the task, and that, as you suggest, it's merely another one of Apple's "we know best, our users are stupid" decisions they seem to be making more and more. (Not just on iMobileDevices...can you say BluRay drivers for our Macs?)
I'd also like to see some acknowledgment that, for the most part, allowing it as an advanced option, perhaps with dire warnings about whatever battery risks and responsiveness times you think might occur, would not harm any of the fanboys who blindly spurt out "Apple knows best" or "I don't want the ability to multitask to ruin my experience." If you don't want the impacts of multitasking, don't turn on the option - simple, huh?
Will Apple fail because of this design decision? Of course not. Will some geeks leave the fold over this continued refusal to give features the hardware/OS support? Definitely. And we'll stop recommending Apple products as much as we do currently. It won't be a huge difference on sales, perhaps, but it will happen.
I'm the kind of guy who's bought each new Apple product as soon as it's released for years.
New iPod, I'm there. MacBook Pro? I'm there. Switch to unibodyMacBook Pro? I'm there. Mac Pro? Yep. AppleTV? Got one the first day the hit the market. iPhone 2G? I stood in line 3 hours opening day. iPhone 3G? Stood in line two hours opening day. iPhone 3G[s]? Stood in line an hour opening day. New Airport Extreme? Yep, I've got three of them.
Will I stand in line for the iPad? Nope. Not planning on it, but I won't mock those who do. I do see a niche for this, despite the hobbling Apple's put on it.
Will I stand in line for the iPhone 4G? Maybe, maybe not. I'm really enjoying the Nexus One for the most part, and it's open, with none of this lock down crap. Apple will really have to step up with something amazing and significantly better in both the iPhone OS and the hardware to get me excited about the iPhone 4G after having the Nexus One. They might do it. It would be cool, but I'm skeptical at this time.
So, so, so disappointed. I really hope I'm proven wrong, but it looks to me like Apple just jumped the shark. \
iPad is a big iPhone that can't make phone calls -- which makes it even more like a big iPhone. At least the iPhone (which struggles to maintain a 2G connection in the Phoenix region) fits in my pocket. So, so, so disappointed.
You probably think the Google Nexus One is cool...
EDIT: much longer post then planned. The point was to say some of the smartphones are getting really good. Not sure what model his was but away from home, he's web browsing was much faster than my iPhone. Almost double. You know if you're a computer user you just know? I knew the second I launched the browser.
END EDIT.
A friend of mine was contemplating an iPhone as a present his wife was getting for him. AT&T has great signal where he lives, verizon not so good. Anyway he ended up getting another smart phone, the Internet was blazingly fast. It also had some great games. He's also a PC nut, overclocks, supports AMD, like the idea of a mac, but haven't converted him yet.
Thing is, he's the type this tablet would appeal to but it won't due to the lack of flash for his kids and movies. No xvid, mpeg, or flash where most network sites use to play movies.
Some over zelous fans don't get it but flash plays a big roll in shows and it's ironic that the item flash, is a portion of the market, (and a large one at that), is missing. Apple needs to get their act together and stop fearing that flash games will hurt (real reason it's not in there or iPhone), and let it play the shows and games.
I think it's a matter of time, not if, but when. These networks makes some decent $$ from the adverts. For someone like me, I have a Macbook Pro with a nice large HDMI in/out and speakers. I don't use the speakers I prefer 2.1 which can be upgraded to 7.1 I believe, 5.1 for sure. Anyway, I prefer watching the next day as you only have to deal with a few :15 or :30 second ads and only one. I hardly ever use cable. Hope we see it in time. Flash that is.
An Apple tablet would be preferred, but at over three times the cost, no thanks. I like Apple products (my original black MacBook is by far my most used system), but I am a practical person who can do a simple cost-to-benefit analysis - i.e. I get a lot more for $500 than I do for $1700.
I like the black MacBook. It looked so cool. However I don't know about you but I never got the $150.00 more if you wanted it in black. True, it gave the illusion of a larger display but that's all, an illusion.
I still think if Apple plays there cards right and sees all the negative press, they can make a lot of changes to the OS. You're crazy if you do t believe they have a flash, multitasking, stylus, voice to text model, with Wacom capabilities somewhere in their lab.
I know the jailbroken iPhones have multitasking which I've tried. It works really easy.
Again, Apple can still make this one heck of a device if they've got their nose to the ground and a feel for the Apple Nations pulse. Almost all of the complaints (less camera), can be fixed via OS. I might get one. We'll see but the thing about Apple is you know they know they can release this now, get sales, then release a camera, video conferencing, gaming (high end GPU), down the road and sell it all over again to the loyal. I think this is good marketing 101, but with all the hype, it should have been this now then down the road the pixel camera so we are talking straight on and other perks. Just my op.
I still think if Apple plays there cards right and sees all the negative press, they can make a lot of changes to the OS. You're crazy if you do t believe they have a flash, multitasking, stylus, voice to text model, with Wacom capabilities somewhere in their lab.
I know the jailbroken iPhones have multitasking which I've tried. It works really easy.
I'll bet you Steve Jobs has a multitasking iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp
We'll see but the thing about Apple is you know they know they can release this now, get sales, then release a camera, video conferencing, gaming (high end GPU), down the road and sell it all over again to the loyal. I think this is good marketing 101, but with all the hype, it should have been this now then down the road the pixel camera so we are talking straight on and other perks. Just my op.
I'm wondering how long they can play that game with the loyalists. I've been as loyal as they come the last 5-6 years (see my post a couple above this one). I'm a little burned out on the buying a slightly crippled device (iPhone 2G) this year, slightly less crippled (3G) this year, finally fully functional device (3G[s] next year treadmill they're putting us on. It wouldn't be so bad if each year it really was revolutionary new hardware, but the 2G wasn't (close, but lack of 3G hurt it) the 3G wasn't, and the 3G[s] was barely.
Apple may just burn out the loyal, especially with the move towards locked down devices instead of open devices. They've certainly burned me out, and it's not because of the upgrade costs, the fact that I purchased an unsubsidized Nexus One shows I'll pay up for the latest and greatest, it's the fact that Apple wants to control my experience with artificial restrictions, instead of letting me control it. VERY DISAPPOINTING direction they're taking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
I agree. The OS is the main problem with the device. The hardware (except for the ugly bezel) is pretty cool.
Which wouldn't even be an issue for me, except you know Apple's done its damnedest to lock it down so that jailbreakers will have a difficult, if not impossible time modifying it to meet it's fullest potential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
God, I hope so. Aren't there Android discussion boards?
Don't write us all off to some other forum. I still like Apple and it's product, and look forward to intelligent discussions re: their pros and cons. Android's success is good for both Android and Apple. Intelligent discussion is good, too. When you weed out the kool-aid drinking, Steve Jobs worshiping fanboys around here, there's some really sharp people with some great points of view, whether pro-Apple, or not-so-pro-Apple, don't you think?
I'd also like to see some acknowledgment that, for the most part, allowing it as an advanced option, perhaps with dire warnings about whatever battery risks and responsiveness times you think might occur, would not harm any of the fanboys who blindly spurt out "Apple knows best" or "I don't want the ability to multitask to ruin my experience." If you don't want the impacts of multitasking, don't turn on the option - simple, huh?
The ability to switch push\
otifications on\\off is similar to the multi-tasking argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedLoop
Will Apple fail because of this design decision? Of course not. Will some geeks leave the fold over this continued refusal to give features the hardware/OS support? Definitely. And we'll stop recommending Apple products as much as we do currently. It won't be a huge difference on sales, perhaps, but it will happen.
I actually think it could have quite a big big impact, not just a few geeks.
There is a whole new class of consumers that are starting to trust Apple products now (look at the increase in iMac sales off the back of iPod\\iPhone).
If Apple say "this is the best internet browsing experience you'll ever have" people are going to believe that. When they unwrap their shinny new iPad and realise hug chunks of the WWW are simply not supported and they can't even sit on Facebook chat and watch YouTube at the same time... they're going to be disappointed and disillusioned.
I think this whole lack of multi-tasking issue is FUD. I call bullshit.
For instance on my iPod touch, I can pause the recording app and still play chess.
That's multi-tasking.
You haven't read a lot of the posts have you?
Of course the hardware and OS can support multitasking, as you've pointed out.
The issue is Apple's business decision to restrict background operations (aka multitasking) to applications written by Apple only.
Many of us with jailbroken iPhones are happily backgrounding several 3rd party applications right now, so it's ridiculous to say that the iPhone can't handle it. I'd almost find this acceptable, except for Apple's continued efforts, in both the OS and the latest hardware, to prevent jailbreaking at all. At least Google doesn't prevent you from "rooting" (aka jailbreaking) Android phones - they simply pop up a warning about the risks and voiding of warranties. If you're willing to risk it, root away. Apple on the other hand, well, they're not so friendly about it.
I think this whole lack of multi-tasking issue is FUD. I call bullshit.
For instance on my iPod touch, I can pause the recording app and still play chess.
That's multi-tasking.
Yes, you are correct. The device is fully capable of multitasking - and quite nicely. It is NOT a matter of the hardware or the OS being unable to do it elegantly. Indeed, the shovelware apps play quite nicely in the background.
Instead, it is a matter of policy by a huge multinational corporation. They won't let you.
The lack of multi-tasking is totally indefensible.
The inability of Apple bashers to ever check their facts before posting their inaccurate whining is indefensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
For all the same reasons you run more than one app on any computer. Is that irrational? Or not specific enough?
How's this: I want to surf the web while waiting for an IM to come in, or while downloading a movie. Is that irrational?
My iPhone allows me to surf the web while waiting for an IM. It allows me to download an app while surfing the web (I never tried to download a movie). It allows me to talk on the phone while surfing the web. So what makes you think the iPad won't allow me to do that?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why you'd want to play two games at the same time or surf the web while playing an action game. The things that most people need multitasking for work just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
Funny, the lack of multi-tasking is why my wife went from wanting an Apple tablet (she has a Macbook and an iPhone) to having zero interest in one. All she wants to be able to do is browse the web while instant messaging at the same time. Not too much to ask, but far too much for iPad to deliver on.
Multi-tasking has been standard since the late 1980s. It's absurd not to have it now.
It's absurd that the iPhone has been out nearly 3 years and you still don't have a clue how it works.
I use the IM app on my iPhone while browsing the web all the time. So why are you giving your wife incorrect information - and what are you going to do when she finds out you're lying to her?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
WWhen it comes right down to it.
-Can't run multiple applications.
-Can't watch hulu because of a complete lack of flash. Yes, it sucks, but many many things use it.
-Can't do video conferencing
-Too big to fit in your pocket.
Can't run multiple apps? Then why are there 140,000 apps on the App Store? Or maybe you mean at the same time? You can do almost everything you'd want multiple apps for - browse the web while downloading your email. Download an app while reading your email. Talk on the phone (on the iPhone) while browsing the web. Use Skype while browsing the web. Listen to music while browsing the web.
The only thing it won't let you do is use multiple third party apps at the same time - and no one has yet explained why you need to play two action games at the same time, for example.
Video conferencing? Third parties are already working on something for that (Belkin, for one). If you really want it, it will be available. Most people won't, so there's no reason to include it on millions of units for people who don't want it.
Hulu? Just a matter of time. Youtube is already going away from Flash. Hulu won't be far behind.
Fit in your pocket? Your laptop won't fit in your pocket. Your big screen TV won't fit into your pocket. Your refrigerator won't fit into your pocket. Your city's buses won't fit into your pocket. Who made the rule that everything has to fit into your pocket to be useful? If fitting into your pocket is a requirement, buy an iPod Touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedLoop
And no one has given a rational reason why it would not be worth the MINIMAL sacrifice in performance and battery life to multitask a couple of 3rd party apps.
No one has yet made a convincing argument to Apple that it's worth while. It means extra programming, extra debugging, reduced battery life (even if you're not using it, the code's there and has to be used), and extra expense for everyone. If you can think of a single thing that requires it, feel free to explain it to Apple.
So far, every time someone comes up with something that requires multitasking (checking your mail while browsing the web, for example), it's something that iPhone OS already does. So why is it important enough to require all the extra time and money?
No one has yet made a convincing argument to Apple that it's worth while. It means extra programming, extra debugging, reduced battery life (even if you're not using it, the code's there and has to be used), and extra expense for everyone. If you can think of a single thing that requires it, feel free to explain it to Apple.
So far, every time someone comes up with something that requires multitasking (checking your mail while browsing the web, for example), it's something that iPhone OS already does. So why is it important enough to require all the extra time and money?
The code is already there, or all those things that already multitask wouldn't, would they? So there's no extra code to be written. It was probably more effort (code added) to impose these artificial limitations in the first place. That kind of blows away your argument there.
The only way you can convince Apple to step out of their business model is to stop giving them your business. When they've pissed off enough people with artificial restrictions on functionality, they'll feel the pinch, and maybe change. Until then, they've got the Apple-can-do-wrong fanboys like yourself who just happily take the crumbs.
Enjoy your hobbled Apple devices - I'm getting tired of having to hack my iPhone's and AppleTV to get the functionality the hardware supports but Apple has chosen to keep from me. This Nexus One is a fine replacement for the current iPhone. Maybe it's time to get a Roku to replace the AppleTV...
The issue is Apple's business decision to restrict background operations (aka multitasking) to applications written by Apple only.
I think it's more about keeping control of perceptions. Flash and background apps are both the same in that if they crash, it looks to the user like something else is faulty. If Flash crashes and takes down Safari it looks like Apple is to blame. If you're working in Keynote and the Skype background process starts taking all the CPU, it looks like Keynote is slow and buggy.
Banning plugin and background processes ensures that buggy 3rd party apps do not make the device as a whole (and therefore Apple) look bad.
Paper. Go to an office supply shop and ask them for 16:9 paper. They don't have it.
One part of the iPad is as a book reader. Another major app (iWork's Pages) is for creating paper documents. There are other apps for calendar and note taking and emailing and net surfing. Most of those do not use a 16:8 form factor. It is not purely a video player.
Another thing would be shape and style: take a piece of cardboard (better yet heavy wood) and cut in to the dimensions of the iPad. Cut another piece in a slightly longer form. Imagine holding it, taking into account balance and the average user's hand. I think the iPad is the right size and weight. Any longer and it would possibly be awkward to hold (and look weird). I did this and found the current shape to be much easier to hold and it felt much lighter although it was only slightly so.
Comments
But please, let's both acknowledge that preventing 3rd party multi-tasking is a deliberate design decision which wasn't taken lightly by Apple's design team. They no doubt had this exact same discussion. They didn't just choose the current design for the hell of it. Nor did they take the decision lightly. The easy thing to do would have been to allow 3rd party multi-tasking.
I for one am a believer in the theory that the design choice was made based upon concerns about battery-life / responsiveness. With 140000 apps in the app store, we can assume that thousands of them would have pegged the processor in the background.
While us geeks could certainly manage that kind of problem, the majority of iPhone/iPod/iPad users would prefer not to. Many would be incapable of understanding what they needed to manage.
Thus it is my belief that 3rd party multi-tasking was prevented because the majority of users would have a worse experience. Sure, it sucks for power users. But if it were enabled, even as a non-default option, the majority of users would suffer.
I wonder if maybe Jobs is having Newton flashbacks.
Perhaps, though wasn't the Newton something they came up with while Jobs wasn't there? I don't know what his involvement was, if at all with that.
Multi-tasking proponents seem to be in denial about the nature of the decision to not allow 3rd party multi-tasking. Granted, mac fanactics can be equally non-objective in blind support of Apple.
But please, let's both acknowledge that preventing 3rd party multi-tasking is a deliberate design decision which wasn't taken lightly by Apple's design team. They no doubt had this exact same discussion. They didn't just choose the current design for the hell of it. Nor did they take the decision lightly. The easy thing to do would have been to allow 3rd party multi-tasking.
I for one am a believer in the theory that the design choice was made based upon concerns about battery-life / responsiveness. With 140000 apps in the app store, we can assume that thousands of them would have pegged the processor in the background.
While us geeks could certainly manage that kind of problem, the majority of iPhone/iPod/iPad users would prefer not to. Many would be incapable of understanding what they needed to manage.
Thus it is my belief that 3rd party multi-tasking was prevented because the majority of users would have a worse experience. Sure, it sucks for power users. But if it were enabled, even as a non-default option, the majority of users would suffer.
Assuming that's a response to me.
I've specifically stated it's a design decision, not a technical, so we do agree there.
I'd still like to see the fanboys at least acknowledge that the hardware is up to the task, the OS is up to the task, and that, as you suggest, it's merely another one of Apple's "we know best, our users are stupid" decisions they seem to be making more and more. (Not just on iMobileDevices...can you say BluRay drivers for our Macs?)
I'd also like to see some acknowledgment that, for the most part, allowing it as an advanced option, perhaps with dire warnings about whatever battery risks and responsiveness times you think might occur, would not harm any of the fanboys who blindly spurt out "Apple knows best" or "I don't want the ability to multitask to ruin my experience." If you don't want the impacts of multitasking, don't turn on the option - simple, huh?
Will Apple fail because of this design decision? Of course not. Will some geeks leave the fold over this continued refusal to give features the hardware/OS support? Definitely. And we'll stop recommending Apple products as much as we do currently. It won't be a huge difference on sales, perhaps, but it will happen.
I'm the kind of guy who's bought each new Apple product as soon as it's released for years.
New iPod, I'm there. MacBook Pro? I'm there. Switch to unibodyMacBook Pro? I'm there. Mac Pro? Yep. AppleTV? Got one the first day the hit the market. iPhone 2G? I stood in line 3 hours opening day. iPhone 3G? Stood in line two hours opening day. iPhone 3G[s]? Stood in line an hour opening day. New Airport Extreme? Yep, I've got three of them.
Will I stand in line for the iPad? Nope. Not planning on it, but I won't mock those who do. I do see a niche for this, despite the hobbling Apple's put on it.
Will I stand in line for the iPhone 4G? Maybe, maybe not. I'm really enjoying the Nexus One for the most part, and it's open, with none of this lock down crap. Apple will really have to step up with something amazing and significantly better in both the iPhone OS and the hardware to get me excited about the iPhone 4G after having the Nexus One. They might do it. It would be cool, but I'm skeptical at this time.
iPad is a big iPhone that can't make phone calls -- which makes it even more like a big iPhone. At least the iPhone (which struggles to maintain a 2G connection in the Phoenix region) fits in my pocket. So, so, so disappointed.
You probably think the Google Nexus One is cool...
EDIT: much longer post then planned. The point was to say some of the smartphones are getting really good. Not sure what model his was but away from home, he's web browsing was much faster than my iPhone. Almost double. You know if you're a computer user you just know? I knew the second I launched the browser.
END EDIT.
A friend of mine was contemplating an iPhone as a present his wife was getting for him. AT&T has great signal where he lives, verizon not so good. Anyway he ended up getting another smart phone, the Internet was blazingly fast. It also had some great games. He's also a PC nut, overclocks, supports AMD, like the idea of a mac, but haven't converted him yet.
Thing is, he's the type this tablet would appeal to but it won't due to the lack of flash for his kids and movies. No xvid, mpeg, or flash where most network sites use to play movies.
Some over zelous fans don't get it but flash plays a big roll in shows and it's ironic that the item flash, is a portion of the market, (and a large one at that), is missing. Apple needs to get their act together and stop fearing that flash games will hurt (real reason it's not in there or iPhone), and let it play the shows and games.
I think it's a matter of time, not if, but when. These networks makes some decent $$ from the adverts. For someone like me, I have a Macbook Pro with a nice large HDMI in/out and speakers. I don't use the speakers I prefer 2.1 which can be upgraded to 7.1 I believe, 5.1 for sure. Anyway, I prefer watching the next day as you only have to deal with a few :15 or :30 second ads and only one. I hardly ever use cable. Hope we see it in time. Flash that is.
Thus it is my belief that 3rd party multi-tasking was prevented because the majority of users would have a worse experience.
I guess that means Android is for the rest of us?
I guess that means Android is for the rest of us?
God, I hope so. Aren't there Android discussion boards?
An Apple tablet would be preferred, but at over three times the cost, no thanks. I like Apple products (my original black MacBook is by far my most used system), but I am a practical person who can do a simple cost-to-benefit analysis - i.e. I get a lot more for $500 than I do for $1700.
I like the black MacBook. It looked so cool. However I don't know about you but I never got the $150.00 more if you wanted it in black. True, it gave the illusion of a larger display but that's all, an illusion.
I still think if Apple plays there cards right and sees all the negative press, they can make a lot of changes to the OS. You're crazy if you do t believe they have a flash, multitasking, stylus, voice to text model, with Wacom capabilities somewhere in their lab.
I know the jailbroken iPhones have multitasking which I've tried. It works really easy.
Again, Apple can still make this one heck of a device if they've got their nose to the ground and a feel for the Apple Nations pulse. Almost all of the complaints (less camera), can be fixed via OS. I might get one. We'll see but the thing about Apple is you know they know they can release this now, get sales, then release a camera, video conferencing, gaming (high end GPU), down the road and sell it all over again to the loyal. I think this is good marketing 101, but with all the hype, it should have been this now then down the road the pixel camera so we are talking straight on and other perks. Just my op.
I agree. The OS is the main problem with the device. The hardware (except for the ugly bezel) is pretty cool.
I still think if Apple plays there cards right and sees all the negative press, they can make a lot of changes to the OS. You're crazy if you do t believe they have a flash, multitasking, stylus, voice to text model, with Wacom capabilities somewhere in their lab.
I know the jailbroken iPhones have multitasking which I've tried. It works really easy.
I'll bet you Steve Jobs has a multitasking iPhone.
We'll see but the thing about Apple is you know they know they can release this now, get sales, then release a camera, video conferencing, gaming (high end GPU), down the road and sell it all over again to the loyal. I think this is good marketing 101, but with all the hype, it should have been this now then down the road the pixel camera so we are talking straight on and other perks. Just my op.
I'm wondering how long they can play that game with the loyalists. I've been as loyal as they come the last 5-6 years (see my post a couple above this one). I'm a little burned out on the buying a slightly crippled device (iPhone 2G) this year, slightly less crippled (3G) this year, finally fully functional device (3G[s] next year treadmill they're putting us on. It wouldn't be so bad if each year it really was revolutionary new hardware, but the 2G wasn't (close, but lack of 3G hurt it) the 3G wasn't, and the 3G[s] was barely.
Apple may just burn out the loyal, especially with the move towards locked down devices instead of open devices. They've certainly burned me out, and it's not because of the upgrade costs, the fact that I purchased an unsubsidized Nexus One shows I'll pay up for the latest and greatest, it's the fact that Apple wants to control my experience with artificial restrictions, instead of letting me control it. VERY DISAPPOINTING direction they're taking.
I agree. The OS is the main problem with the device. The hardware (except for the ugly bezel) is pretty cool.
Which wouldn't even be an issue for me, except you know Apple's done its damnedest to lock it down so that jailbreakers will have a difficult, if not impossible time modifying it to meet it's fullest potential.
God, I hope so. Aren't there Android discussion boards?
Don't write us all off to some other forum. I still like Apple and it's product, and look forward to intelligent discussions re: their pros and cons. Android's success is good for both Android and Apple. Intelligent discussion is good, too. When you weed out the kool-aid drinking, Steve Jobs worshiping fanboys around here, there's some really sharp people with some great points of view, whether pro-Apple, or not-so-pro-Apple, don't you think?
I'd also like to see some acknowledgment that, for the most part, allowing it as an advanced option, perhaps with dire warnings about whatever battery risks and responsiveness times you think might occur, would not harm any of the fanboys who blindly spurt out "Apple knows best" or "I don't want the ability to multitask to ruin my experience." If you don't want the impacts of multitasking, don't turn on the option - simple, huh?
The ability to switch push\
otifications on\\off is similar to the multi-tasking argument.
Will Apple fail because of this design decision? Of course not. Will some geeks leave the fold over this continued refusal to give features the hardware/OS support? Definitely. And we'll stop recommending Apple products as much as we do currently. It won't be a huge difference on sales, perhaps, but it will happen.
I actually think it could have quite a big big impact, not just a few geeks.
There is a whole new class of consumers that are starting to trust Apple products now (look at the increase in iMac sales off the back of iPod\\iPhone).
If Apple say "this is the best internet browsing experience you'll ever have" people are going to believe that. When they unwrap their shinny new iPad and realise hug chunks of the WWW are simply not supported and they can't even sit on Facebook chat and watch YouTube at the same time... they're going to be disappointed and disillusioned.
For instance on my iPod touch, I can pause the recording app and still play chess.
That's multi-tasking.
I think this whole lack of multi-tasking issue is FUD. I call bullshit.
For instance on my iPod touch, I can pause the recording app and still play chess.
That's multi-tasking.
You haven't read a lot of the posts have you?
Of course the hardware and OS can support multitasking, as you've pointed out.
The issue is Apple's business decision to restrict background operations (aka multitasking) to applications written by Apple only.
Many of us with jailbroken iPhones are happily backgrounding several 3rd party applications right now, so it's ridiculous to say that the iPhone can't handle it. I'd almost find this acceptable, except for Apple's continued efforts, in both the OS and the latest hardware, to prevent jailbreaking at all. At least Google doesn't prevent you from "rooting" (aka jailbreaking) Android phones - they simply pop up a warning about the risks and voiding of warranties. If you're willing to risk it, root away. Apple on the other hand, well, they're not so friendly about it.
I think this whole lack of multi-tasking issue is FUD. I call bullshit.
For instance on my iPod touch, I can pause the recording app and still play chess.
That's multi-tasking.
Yes, you are correct. The device is fully capable of multitasking - and quite nicely. It is NOT a matter of the hardware or the OS being unable to do it elegantly. Indeed, the shovelware apps play quite nicely in the background.
Instead, it is a matter of policy by a huge multinational corporation. They won't let you.
The lack of multi-tasking is totally indefensible.
The inability of Apple bashers to ever check their facts before posting their inaccurate whining is indefensible.
For all the same reasons you run more than one app on any computer. Is that irrational? Or not specific enough?
How's this: I want to surf the web while waiting for an IM to come in, or while downloading a movie. Is that irrational?
My iPhone allows me to surf the web while waiting for an IM. It allows me to download an app while surfing the web (I never tried to download a movie). It allows me to talk on the phone while surfing the web. So what makes you think the iPad won't allow me to do that?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why you'd want to play two games at the same time or surf the web while playing an action game. The things that most people need multitasking for work just fine.
Funny, the lack of multi-tasking is why my wife went from wanting an Apple tablet (she has a Macbook and an iPhone) to having zero interest in one. All she wants to be able to do is browse the web while instant messaging at the same time. Not too much to ask, but far too much for iPad to deliver on.
Multi-tasking has been standard since the late 1980s. It's absurd not to have it now.
It's absurd that the iPhone has been out nearly 3 years and you still don't have a clue how it works.
I use the IM app on my iPhone while browsing the web all the time. So why are you giving your wife incorrect information - and what are you going to do when she finds out you're lying to her?
WWhen it comes right down to it.
-Can't run multiple applications.
-Can't watch hulu because of a complete lack of flash. Yes, it sucks, but many many things use it.
-Can't do video conferencing
-Too big to fit in your pocket.
Can't run multiple apps? Then why are there 140,000 apps on the App Store? Or maybe you mean at the same time? You can do almost everything you'd want multiple apps for - browse the web while downloading your email. Download an app while reading your email. Talk on the phone (on the iPhone) while browsing the web. Use Skype while browsing the web. Listen to music while browsing the web.
The only thing it won't let you do is use multiple third party apps at the same time - and no one has yet explained why you need to play two action games at the same time, for example.
Video conferencing? Third parties are already working on something for that (Belkin, for one). If you really want it, it will be available. Most people won't, so there's no reason to include it on millions of units for people who don't want it.
Hulu? Just a matter of time. Youtube is already going away from Flash. Hulu won't be far behind.
Fit in your pocket? Your laptop won't fit in your pocket. Your big screen TV won't fit into your pocket. Your refrigerator won't fit into your pocket. Your city's buses won't fit into your pocket. Who made the rule that everything has to fit into your pocket to be useful? If fitting into your pocket is a requirement, buy an iPod Touch.
And no one has given a rational reason why it would not be worth the MINIMAL sacrifice in performance and battery life to multitask a couple of 3rd party apps.
No one has yet made a convincing argument to Apple that it's worth while. It means extra programming, extra debugging, reduced battery life (even if you're not using it, the code's there and has to be used), and extra expense for everyone. If you can think of a single thing that requires it, feel free to explain it to Apple.
So far, every time someone comes up with something that requires multitasking (checking your mail while browsing the web, for example), it's something that iPhone OS already does. So why is it important enough to require all the extra time and money?
No one has yet made a convincing argument to Apple that it's worth while. It means extra programming, extra debugging, reduced battery life (even if you're not using it, the code's there and has to be used), and extra expense for everyone. If you can think of a single thing that requires it, feel free to explain it to Apple.
So far, every time someone comes up with something that requires multitasking (checking your mail while browsing the web, for example), it's something that iPhone OS already does. So why is it important enough to require all the extra time and money?
The code is already there, or all those things that already multitask wouldn't, would they? So there's no extra code to be written. It was probably more effort (code added) to impose these artificial limitations in the first place. That kind of blows away your argument there.
The only way you can convince Apple to step out of their business model is to stop giving them your business. When they've pissed off enough people with artificial restrictions on functionality, they'll feel the pinch, and maybe change. Until then, they've got the Apple-can-do-wrong fanboys like yourself who just happily take the crumbs.
Enjoy your hobbled Apple devices - I'm getting tired of having to hack my iPhone's and AppleTV to get the functionality the hardware supports but Apple has chosen to keep from me. This Nexus One is a fine replacement for the current iPhone. Maybe it's time to get a Roku to replace the AppleTV...
The issue is Apple's business decision to restrict background operations (aka multitasking) to applications written by Apple only.
I think it's more about keeping control of perceptions. Flash and background apps are both the same in that if they crash, it looks to the user like something else is faulty. If Flash crashes and takes down Safari it looks like Apple is to blame. If you're working in Keynote and the Skype background process starts taking all the CPU, it looks like Keynote is slow and buggy.
Banning plugin and background processes ensures that buggy 3rd party apps do not make the device as a whole (and therefore Apple) look bad.
I read in this article that it's proving to be one of the deal breakers.
I'm sure Apple has reason for putting it there though. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Thanks!
Does Apple offer explanation for choosing 4:3 aspect ratio screen for the iPad?
I'm sure Apple has reason for putting it there though. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Thanks!
4:3 is the shape of a sheet of paper.
Always has been - always will be.
C.
4:3 is the shape of a sheet of paper.
Always has been - always will be.
C.
That's very 20th century. Where's the innovation?
That's very 20th century. Where's the innovation?
Paper. Go to an office supply shop and ask them for 16:9 paper. They don't have it.
One part of the iPad is as a book reader. Another major app (iWork's Pages) is for creating paper documents. There are other apps for calendar and note taking and emailing and net surfing. Most of those do not use a 16:8 form factor. It is not purely a video player.
Another thing would be shape and style: take a piece of cardboard (better yet heavy wood) and cut in to the dimensions of the iPad. Cut another piece in a slightly longer form. Imagine holding it, taking into account balance and the average user's hand. I think the iPad is the right size and weight. Any longer and it would possibly be awkward to hold (and look weird). I did this and found the current shape to be much easier to hold and it felt much lighter although it was only slightly so.