Hi, I apologise if this has been addressed/discussed elsewhere but....
....it seems to me that the iPad will be much more of a multiuser device than an iPhone, if you see what I mean. Phones are a little more personal and private. However the iPad will come into it's own in a household with multiple occupants where anyone can quickly grab it to fire off an email etc. However I am not sure I would want my mail account to be so accessible to everybody in the household - I know you can pin-code protect an iPhone (and I do) but that only really prevents visitors from picking it up and snooping my email. Anyone in the household would presumably know the PIN.
So - I hope Apple address this at some stage in the iPad's deployment.
fl
excellent point that no one else has picked up on. we will have to wait and see if the iPad allows separate user accounts. hope so.
When will Mac OS get the ability to shop apps from the App Store? It might not have made all that much sense to make it happen when all of the Apps were designed to utilize the screen size of the iPhone/iPod Touch, but with the table that's all gonna change.
Apple has already done much of the work since the dev tools provide a method of running iPhone and now iPad apps... all that would be needed is to make it more seamless.
Mac OS X rules. Mac OS X touch is what the iPad should have. And the reason that it does not have it is simple: Intel could not deliver a chip with a TDP as low as ARM. Simply that. A shame! Now, bring Microsoft Office to the iPad and specifically PowerPoint to the iPad and it will make it.
Yes, Mac OS X rules and the iOS shares the same OS X core as Mac OS X.
The problem with Atom processor, even Intel admits, is that it has much higher power requirements than ARM-based processors.
iWork does everything Office does. Keynote is part of iWork.
There will be many other exciting apps available, such as OmniGroup's OmniFocus, OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner (at some point).
Yes, Mac OS X rules and the iOS shares the same OS X core as Mac OS X.
The problem with Atom processor, even Intel admits, is that it has much higher power requirements than ARM-based processors.
iWork does everything Office does. Keynote is part of iWork.
There will be many other exciting apps available, such as OmniGroup's OmniFocus, OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner (at some point).
iWorks doesn't even come close to doing what Office does. Keynote is the best part of iWorks but you have to jump through hoops to show a presentation if you don't live in an all Apple world. Numbers isn't even remotely in the same league as Excel.
That's very true. If iWorks can be ported to the iPad then there's no reason why Microsoft can't write Office apps for the iPad too. Oh wait, that would require innovation on Microsoft's part. Probably not likely then.
If MS brought Office to iPad, it would sell iPads, which is what Apple does, sell Hardware. I have a hard time believing MS will fork over 25% of those licenses to Apple, that would be the day indeed!
First off if an author here doesn't understand the word "resolution" then he should not be allowed to to publish. Much of the article is completely invalidated due to the confused usage of the word resolution.
Second the article seems to be a bit of speculation more than anything. Like it or not iPhone OS was chosen for this tablet even before iPhone came out. While Apple hasn't detailed exactly what happened here, there is ample evidence that iPhone OS came from a tablet prototypye OS.
As to what the OS'es are they both (iPhone & Mac OS) derive from the same base code. For the most part they only differ in the UI kit and how multitasking is handled. The OS'es are otherwise the same. Where they do differ though is extremely important to delivering viable user experiences. The bloggo sphere should be more focused on how the two OS'es are alike than different.
Sure from a developers standpoint there are a lot of important details that separate the two OS'es that are significant. From the users standpoint though both are very capable. IPhone OS greatest limitation being the lack of virtual memory. Unfortunately here Apple has not been honest with us regarding how much RAM each iPad will have. This has a direct impact on what sort of apps can be built for the device. This one little missing detail makes it impossible to judge the utility of the device.
This will be a good test of Apple's ability to use its own chips. As a 25-year Apple user, I remember the days When Apple had much greater control over their processors, and it resulted in stability problems. OSX and the move to Intel processors was a good step for Apple. I'd hate to see a new generation of extension conflicts arise because of the processor design and manufacturing moving in house.
First off if an author here doesn't understand the word "resolution" then he should not be allowed to to publish. Much of the article is completely invalidated due to the confused usage of the word resolution.
Pray, tell us how it is invalidated, and what's your take to the contrary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Second the article seems to be a bit of speculation more than anything.
What else were you expecting, when it relates to a product/UI that is not even out yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The bloggo sphere should be more focused on how the two OS'es are alike than different.
What insights do you think that will give us? If you have any to share as examples, why don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
From the users standpoint though both are very capable.
That's basically about all that the article is saying, imho. The video at the end was just a bit of silly (although, I must admit, very watchable) spoof.
They could make it a bit thicker for all I care. Although Asus is on the cusp of releasing a new netbook in an aluminum-chassis that is just 0.7 inches thick and still offers 10 hours of battery life (see here), so they might not even have to. And I agree with you about the Air's screen; that bezel is huge and ugly. Shrink the whole thing to 9 or ten inches, make it slightly thicker if need be, get rid of the bezel and give us a 10 hour+ battery - that would be awesome.
Agreed, I like the 'instant-on' of the SSD version, too. But still out of my budget range. I'll be getting an iPad now, Save a $1,000 to apply to a 27" iMac maybe.
Ps. Thanks. It's nice to have someone agree with me once in awhile! Sometimes they are are little 'grumpy' here...I can get that at home from my GF anytime I want!
It isn't a question of the lack of a keypad or the multi touch interface but rather hardware. If iPhone OS doesn't support virtual memory then the installed RAM will have a significant impact upon the behaviour of installed apps like iWork. Sadly Apple hasn't been up front about installed RAM so we don't really know how well iPad will handle business productivity apps that use lots of RAM. Based on this issue alone I wouldn't assume that iPad would be viable for such apps. Maybe th RAM compliment isn't that bad but we just don't know.
Beyound that there are issues commonly discussed about volume text entry and such. That isn't always important though. For example once a spread sheet is developed, mass text entry might not be common place. Same thing for presentations, iPad could really shine for use in the field. What I'm saying is the in my mind business productivity isn't the killer app on these machines. Atleast not in the sense that common laptop users would expect.
As a side note; people have mentioned the issue of repetive stress injuries and the use of Glass keyboards. This is a real possibility folks, don't dismiss it out of hand. A glass keyboard should not be assumed to be safe for long term usage. Atleast not for mass text entry like one would with a normal keyboard. I'm actually hoping for handwriting input in iPhone OS 4.0 which should help some.
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by kube
You frequenlty hear requests for Microsoft Office in the ipad. It's there (and better). Its called iWork. If iWork for OS X is any indication, import and export compatibility with office will be terrific, especially for Word/Pages and PowerPoint/Keynote. if Office were ported to the iPad, it would, by necessity, be very different from office on OS X. Think about menus, views, headers-and-footers, right-click options, etc. When I heard the iPad announcement, the port of iWork was what pleased me most.
The app that I am most interested in is a pdf viewer with the functionality of Preview. The current version of Preview is terrific. I want to be able to read complex pdf documents, highlight, and make light notes.
Pray, tell us how it is invalidated, and what's your take to the contrary?
If you had read the article the usage problem should have stood right out. Either that or you flunked high school science.
In a nutshell resolution has nothing to do with the screen size. With video hardware resolution is often expressed in "dpi" or Dots Per Inch. As you can see this has nothing to do with the screen size. An iPhone screen for example has relatively high resolution. The new iMacs have screens with much higher resolution than before, currently industry leading.
This particular article really bothers me because so many people don't seem to understand what the words resolution and precision mean. They are often mixed up or completely misunderstood even by well educated people like engineers surprisingly. The one common mistake being picking up a 6 digit DVM expecting 6 digits of precision on every range. It is really something that should have been drilled into the heads of high school students well before graduation. It is extremely frustrating when dealling with people with 4 or more years of college.
In this case if your going to run an article that is even somewhat technical you really need yo have the basics covered well.
Quote:
What else were you expecting, when it relates to a product/UI that is not even out yet?
In this case it doesn't matter, because they don't have the information to detail the implied decision making process. They most likely never will be privy to that information either. In the end it ends up looking like a fabrication to support the position taken.
Quote:
What insights do you think that will give us? If you have any to share as examples, why don't you?
Well for one Appleinsider could effectively educate thier readers and explain to them that the two systems contain the same UNIX like core. That would lead to reducing the number of posts here whinning about iPhone OS and it's lack of capability. It is ligitimate to express concern about specific issues with iPhone OS, such as the lack of user multitasking, it is another thing to imply that iPhone OS is a completely different beast.
As to examples the best one cintelligent method an do there is to download the current public SDK and learn ones self. This way everything comes from the horses mouth so to speak. Outside of the user interface APIs one quickly discovers that the other APIs are either exactly the same or near complete subsets of what runs on the Mac.
Quote:
That's basically about all that the article is saying, imho. The video at the end was just a bit of silly (although, I must admit, very watchable) spoof.
I'm still of the opinion that what the article implies as fact is not. As far as I know there has not been a public discussion of what caused the feature set of iPhone OS to be developed. There is some evidence though that it began as a tablet project. So the whole idea that the iPhone interface developed specifically to support a small screen is false.
.. Shrink the whole thing to 9 or ten inches, make it slightly thicker if need be, get rid of the bezel and give us a 10 hour+ battery - that would be awesome.
I'd rather buy Air Pro with 15" screen to replace my current MBP - no need for DVD drive or high-end graphic card. Or new Core i5-based 13" Air with at least 4 GB RAM.
And for small screen device to carry around the cheapest iPad with 3g is more than enough. Also than I might replace my iPhone with no-data-plan-required phone.
This will be a good test of Apple's ability to use its own chips. As a 25-year Apple user, I remember the days When Apple had much greater control over their processors, and it resulted in stability problems. OSX and the move to Intel processors was a good step for Apple. I'd hate to see a new generation of extension conflicts arise because of the processor design and manufacturing moving in house.
What exactly is the connection between Apple's "control" over their chips and stability problems?
OSX has been very stable going back to nearly its inception. The stability problems of the pre X MacOS was due largely to its lack of protected memory in the operating system, and in combination with virtually unrestricted extensibility afforded again by the operating system. There certainly was additional instability in OS9 on PPC, but this setup included emulation of 68k apps, as well as the fact that significant portions of the OS (including the Finder) were also running in emulation. I don't know how any of this can legitimately be blamed on Apple having "much greater control over their processors".
It's difficult to tell based on the lack of specificity in your post whether you simply don't know what you're talking about or whether you're spreading FUD. The title of your post "Proprietary chip" leads me to suspect it's the latter.
What part of "Good luck with that ridiculous dock while on-the-go" doesn't Apple understand?
Should be good humor to see how well it works in a lecture hall or airplane seat.
IMO carrying a bagful of desk-only trinkets kinda defeats the purpose of a mobile device.
\\
Then do not buy it. Go get a laptop instead. But is it okay if I get one? Is is okay that it will meet my needs for a mobile keyboard less touch screen device that runs thousands of applications (some of which I already own)?
Sadly Apple hasn't been up front about installed RAM so we don't really know how well iPad will handle business productivity apps that use lots of RAM.
It's funny, I could swear that the same people on tech forums who say that the iPad will fail specifically because all other tablets have failed in this space are the same ones who are saying that Apple should have used Mac OS X on the iPad, despite the unmodified desktop OS being the crux of the problem for a decade of tablet failures.
Comments
Hi, I apologise if this has been addressed/discussed elsewhere but....
....it seems to me that the iPad will be much more of a multiuser device than an iPhone, if you see what I mean. Phones are a little more personal and private. However the iPad will come into it's own in a household with multiple occupants where anyone can quickly grab it to fire off an email etc. However I am not sure I would want my mail account to be so accessible to everybody in the household - I know you can pin-code protect an iPhone (and I do) but that only really prevents visitors from picking it up and snooping my email. Anyone in the household would presumably know the PIN.
So - I hope Apple address this at some stage in the iPad's deployment.
fl
excellent point that no one else has picked up on. we will have to wait and see if the iPad allows separate user accounts. hope so.
When will Mac OS get the ability to shop apps from the App Store? It might not have made all that much sense to make it happen when all of the Apps were designed to utilize the screen size of the iPhone/iPod Touch, but with the table that's all gonna change.
Apple has already done much of the work since the dev tools provide a method of running iPhone and now iPad apps... all that would be needed is to make it more seamless.
Mac OS X rules. Mac OS X touch is what the iPad should have. And the reason that it does not have it is simple: Intel could not deliver a chip with a TDP as low as ARM. Simply that. A shame! Now, bring Microsoft Office to the iPad and specifically PowerPoint to the iPad and it will make it.
Yes, Mac OS X rules and the iOS shares the same OS X core as Mac OS X.
The problem with Atom processor, even Intel admits, is that it has much higher power requirements than ARM-based processors.
iWork does everything Office does. Keynote is part of iWork.
There will be many other exciting apps available, such as OmniGroup's OmniFocus, OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner (at some point).
Yes, Mac OS X rules and the iOS shares the same OS X core as Mac OS X.
The problem with Atom processor, even Intel admits, is that it has much higher power requirements than ARM-based processors.
iWork does everything Office does. Keynote is part of iWork.
There will be many other exciting apps available, such as OmniGroup's OmniFocus, OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner (at some point).
iWorks doesn't even come close to doing what Office does. Keynote is the best part of iWorks but you have to jump through hoops to show a presentation if you don't live in an all Apple world. Numbers isn't even remotely in the same league as Excel.
That's very true. If iWorks can be ported to the iPad then there's no reason why Microsoft can't write Office apps for the iPad too. Oh wait, that would require innovation on Microsoft's part. Probably not likely then.
If MS brought Office to iPad, it would sell iPads, which is what Apple does, sell Hardware. I have a hard time believing MS will fork over 25% of those licenses to Apple, that would be the day indeed!
Second the article seems to be a bit of speculation more than anything. Like it or not iPhone OS was chosen for this tablet even before iPhone came out. While Apple hasn't detailed exactly what happened here, there is ample evidence that iPhone OS came from a tablet prototypye OS.
As to what the OS'es are they both (iPhone & Mac OS) derive from the same base code. For the most part they only differ in the UI kit and how multitasking is handled. The OS'es are otherwise the same. Where they do differ though is extremely important to delivering viable user experiences. The bloggo sphere should be more focused on how the two OS'es are alike than different.
Sure from a developers standpoint there are a lot of important details that separate the two OS'es that are significant. From the users standpoint though both are very capable. IPhone OS greatest limitation being the lack of virtual memory. Unfortunately here Apple has not been honest with us regarding how much RAM each iPad will have. This has a direct impact on what sort of apps can be built for the device. This one little missing detail makes it impossible to judge the utility of the device.
Dave
iWKeynote is the best part of iWorks but you have to jump through hoops to show a presentation if you don't live in an all Apple world
What does that mean? Can you provide an example of the jumping through hoops?
First off if an author here doesn't understand the word "resolution" then he should not be allowed to to publish. Much of the article is completely invalidated due to the confused usage of the word resolution.
Pray, tell us how it is invalidated, and what's your take to the contrary?
Second the article seems to be a bit of speculation more than anything.
What else were you expecting, when it relates to a product/UI that is not even out yet?
The bloggo sphere should be more focused on how the two OS'es are alike than different.
What insights do you think that will give us? If you have any to share as examples, why don't you?
From the users standpoint though both are very capable.
That's basically about all that the article is saying, imho. The video at the end was just a bit of silly (although, I must admit, very watchable) spoof.
They could make it a bit thicker for all I care. Although Asus is on the cusp of releasing a new netbook in an aluminum-chassis that is just 0.7 inches thick and still offers 10 hours of battery life (see here), so they might not even have to. And I agree with you about the Air's screen; that bezel is huge and ugly. Shrink the whole thing to 9 or ten inches, make it slightly thicker if need be, get rid of the bezel and give us a 10 hour+ battery - that would be awesome.
Agreed, I like the 'instant-on' of the SSD version, too. But still out of my budget range. I'll be getting an iPad now, Save a $1,000 to apply to a 27" iMac maybe.
Ps. Thanks. It's nice to have someone agree with me once in awhile!
I nominate this post for the Best Unintended Irony award.
'Dull' very funny! First time I've heard that but oh so apropos (that's french, BTW)
Wait until I grab a tablet of paper to make a note of that.
hahaha, so funny...
Beyound that there are issues commonly discussed about volume text entry and such. That isn't always important though. For example once a spread sheet is developed, mass text entry might not be common place. Same thing for presentations, iPad could really shine for use in the field. What I'm saying is the in my mind business productivity isn't the killer app on these machines. Atleast not in the sense that common laptop users would expect.
As a side note; people have mentioned the issue of repetive stress injuries and the use of Glass keyboards. This is a real possibility folks, don't dismiss it out of hand. A glass keyboard should not be assumed to be safe for long term usage. Atleast not for mass text entry like one would with a normal keyboard. I'm actually hoping for handwriting input in iPhone OS 4.0 which should help some.
Dave
You frequenlty hear requests for Microsoft Office in the ipad. It's there (and better). Its called iWork. If iWork for OS X is any indication, import and export compatibility with office will be terrific, especially for Word/Pages and PowerPoint/Keynote. if Office were ported to the iPad, it would, by necessity, be very different from office on OS X. Think about menus, views, headers-and-footers, right-click options, etc. When I heard the iPad announcement, the port of iWork was what pleased me most.
The app that I am most interested in is a pdf viewer with the functionality of Preview. The current version of Preview is terrific. I want to be able to read complex pdf documents, highlight, and make light notes.
Pray, tell us how it is invalidated, and what's your take to the contrary?
If you had read the article the usage problem should have stood right out. Either that or you flunked high school science.
In a nutshell resolution has nothing to do with the screen size. With video hardware resolution is often expressed in "dpi" or Dots Per Inch. As you can see this has nothing to do with the screen size. An iPhone screen for example has relatively high resolution. The new iMacs have screens with much higher resolution than before, currently industry leading.
This particular article really bothers me because so many people don't seem to understand what the words resolution and precision mean. They are often mixed up or completely misunderstood even by well educated people like engineers surprisingly. The one common mistake being picking up a 6 digit DVM expecting 6 digits of precision on every range. It is really something that should have been drilled into the heads of high school students well before graduation. It is extremely frustrating when dealling with people with 4 or more years of college.
In this case if your going to run an article that is even somewhat technical you really need yo have the basics covered well.
What else were you expecting, when it relates to a product/UI that is not even out yet?
In this case it doesn't matter, because they don't have the information to detail the implied decision making process. They most likely never will be privy to that information either. In the end it ends up looking like a fabrication to support the position taken.
What insights do you think that will give us? If you have any to share as examples, why don't you?
Well for one Appleinsider could effectively educate thier readers and explain to them that the two systems contain the same UNIX like core. That would lead to reducing the number of posts here whinning about iPhone OS and it's lack of capability. It is ligitimate to express concern about specific issues with iPhone OS, such as the lack of user multitasking, it is another thing to imply that iPhone OS is a completely different beast.
As to examples the best one cintelligent method an do there is to download the current public SDK and learn ones self. This way everything comes from the horses mouth so to speak. Outside of the user interface APIs one quickly discovers that the other APIs are either exactly the same or near complete subsets of what runs on the Mac.
That's basically about all that the article is saying, imho. The video at the end was just a bit of silly (although, I must admit, very watchable) spoof.
I'm still of the opinion that what the article implies as fact is not. As far as I know there has not been a public discussion of what caused the feature set of iPhone OS to be developed. There is some evidence though that it began as a tablet project. So the whole idea that the iPhone interface developed specifically to support a small screen is false.
.. Shrink the whole thing to 9 or ten inches, make it slightly thicker if need be, get rid of the bezel and give us a 10 hour+ battery - that would be awesome.
I'd rather buy Air Pro with 15" screen to replace my current MBP - no need for DVD drive or high-end graphic card. Or new Core i5-based 13" Air with at least 4 GB RAM.
And for small screen device to carry around the cheapest iPad with 3g is more than enough. Also than I might replace my iPhone with no-data-plan-required phone.
This will be a good test of Apple's ability to use its own chips. As a 25-year Apple user, I remember the days When Apple had much greater control over their processors, and it resulted in stability problems. OSX and the move to Intel processors was a good step for Apple. I'd hate to see a new generation of extension conflicts arise because of the processor design and manufacturing moving in house.
What exactly is the connection between Apple's "control" over their chips and stability problems?
OSX has been very stable going back to nearly its inception. The stability problems of the pre X MacOS was due largely to its lack of protected memory in the operating system, and in combination with virtually unrestricted extensibility afforded again by the operating system. There certainly was additional instability in OS9 on PPC, but this setup included emulation of 68k apps, as well as the fact that significant portions of the OS (including the Finder) were also running in emulation. I don't know how any of this can legitimately be blamed on Apple having "much greater control over their processors".
It's difficult to tell based on the lack of specificity in your post whether you simply don't know what you're talking about or whether you're spreading FUD. The title of your post "Proprietary chip" leads me to suspect it's the latter.
What part of "Good luck with that ridiculous dock while on-the-go" doesn't Apple understand?
Should be good humor to see how well it works in a lecture hall or airplane seat.
IMO carrying a bagful of desk-only trinkets kinda defeats the purpose of a mobile device.
\\
Then do not buy it. Go get a laptop instead. But is it okay if I get one? Is is okay that it will meet my needs for a mobile keyboard less touch screen device that runs thousands of applications (some of which I already own)?
Sadly Apple hasn't been up front about installed RAM so we don't really know how well iPad will handle business productivity apps that use lots of RAM.
Um .... this does not seems to be a problem: http://www.quickoffice.com/quickoffi..._suite_iphone/
It's funny, I could swear that the same people on tech forums who say that the iPad will fail specifically because all other tablets have failed in this space are the same ones who are saying that Apple should have used Mac OS X on the iPad, despite the unmodified desktop OS being the crux of the problem for a decade of tablet failures.
Spot on!
Mac OS X rules. Mac OS X touch is what the iPad should have
Well, Apple agrees with you - it has Cocoa Touch instead of the desktop version of Coca! Relax, your covered
I mean, you do realize the iPhone and iPod touch and soon to be iPad have OSX at their core?