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.
You are right if you consider doing the kinds of things that we do at work which have been almost designed around using the capabilities of MS Office for decades - long boring text based presentations, big spreadsheets with macros, long complex documents with bibliographies, footnotes etc. All of which I have to do on occasion and would be hard to do with iWork.
Flip your argument over and talk about all the lightweight productivity work that people have to do for home/charity/hobby/school/family etc. and iWork is generally a much better solution since it is easier to make good looking content, has more creativity baked into the templates etc. and has a much lower learning curve and less feature bloat.
Since the iPad/iWork will never be a full on productivity platform, it will probably do a great job of a huge segment of casual productivity work for which Office is a far inferior tool.
As for other people's points...
Macbook Air vs. Netbook - Air is already old so not really fair to compare to unreleased netbooks but fundamentally Netbooks are miserably slow, small screened, tiny keyboard runts. The Air is a proper laptop with a proper CPU (C2D at full speed >2Ghz) in a netbook weight. Key advantage is battery life but not surprising considering you can do so little with them.
As for the footprint, a lot of people like the low weight/large size because netbooks screens/kbds are so small and crappy. When it is as thin/light as it is and the size of a paper pad the only size inconvenience is if you carry it around without any sort of case or want to put it in a purse/manbag? I see plenty of Airs on the plane in the hands of people who can afford them. As for price, they are predictably expensive but if you look at the Apple refurbs, they are often found approaching $1000 - still no netbook $s but much less.
I was round at a friend's last night and his wife was using her netbook (which she generally likes) to surf around but then had a problem that hubby had to try to fix. To watch him use this tiny thing was comical. We then competed to find something out via google - my iphone vs. her netbook. Needless to say, I won since the touch UI is so much easier to move around in (and not much slower to type a few keywords). She is now considering an iPad.
BTW did you know that the native Intuit peoples of the frozen Canadian north who designed the 2010 Olympic rock man figure make their living these days making trinkets and preparing taxes? That's what you get using a netbook
In Mac you are in control. In iPhone OS Apple is in control (which is awful).
Really? Apple is in control? So I the contacts, songs, videos, podcasts and applications on my iPhone weren't put there by me but by Apple? I really didn't call my friend earlier this morning but Apple did it instead?
No, what you wanted was Mac, for cheap. Nobody wants a netbook, they just can't afford anything else.
Actually, I would like a replacement for my 12" PowerBook G4 which is the same size or smaller than many netbooks and is over six years old! And the G4 in it is more powerful than many of the currently shipping Atom processors The 13" MacBook Pro is the closest Apple has came, but it's still significantly larger than my beloved 12" PB G4.
Having said that, I have a 15" MBP (typing on it now) and the iPad will replace everything I did with the PB G4 with ease - I can't wait for them to shiop! When I need more umph for my photography, I'll schlep out my 15" MBP, and when I go to replace my MBP in four to five years, I will pick the smallest one they are offering unless someone devises an add-on for the iPad where I can plug in an external USB hard drive for mass storage. If so, then the iPad will even do all I need when I'm on the go. I'm wagering that by the time I look at replacing my MBP, the iPad and accessory market will probably have matured where I will no longer require a full blown notebook.
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.
Not to me it won't. I will judge the utility of the device by the applications that are available for it, not by a long list of features.
Features matter to geeks, but this is a tool or an appliance. I for one am glad that Apple is not focusing on technical specs. If you want that, there are tons of other devices you can "geek out" on.
But I guarantee you the absence of a tech spec will not limit my enjoyment of the iPad any more than it has for my iPhone. That's the point - the iPhone, iPod Touch and IPad aren't traditional computing platforms. The same rules don't apply and it's silly to try to apply them.
You can't want something different and then when it's delivered complain that it's not like everything else
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.
When and what CPU are you thinking of? Apple has always used off the shelf parts when it comes to CPU's. True, they have often created their own chips for IO and other functionality, but Apple vs. third party's certainly hasn't caused stability issues - heck, look at the problems from the NVIDIA GPS's here recently. Anyone can have an issue - if anything apple is no better or worse than the rest of industry. Of course if you have something concrete, I'm always interested.
Quote:
OSX and the move to Intel processors was a good step for Apple.
Something like OSX was inevitable, they were dead otherwise. The fact that they happened to get Jobs with the deal was the real godsend even though there were probably many in Apple management at the time that didn't think so months after the deal was finished
If the PowerPC architecture would have been able to deliver decent mobile chips, the move to Intel would never have happened. And if something better comes up in the future, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple moves from Intel to something else. With Intel's volume that's probably pretty unlikely - then again, even with their volume their efforts for ultra low power (atom vs. arm) has been pretty lackluster. Can Apple scale up ARM with their PA Semi engineers? Now that would be fascinating indeed. Highly unlikely, but I can see it as very appealing to Apple who is notorious for control
Quote:
I'd hate to see a new generation of extension conflicts arise because of the processor design and manufacturing moving in house.
Apple has been very good with processor transitions in the past, if it were to happen in the future I have no doubt it would be just as smooth. The ability to run Windows might be the worst thing at jeopardy with such a move, but frankly with each day that becomes less and less of an issue. I expect the iPad to create an even larger wave of Mac OSX buzz, further reducing the dependency on Windows.
If Valve does release Steam for Mac OSX the last complaint about the Mac, it stinks for games, will finally start to fade away.
Yup hated netbooks from the start. Having a mobile device that is a crippled version of a non mobile device is quite silly. That is why iPhone OS was so sucessful - it was better at mobile then Mac OS X, Windows or Symbian plain and simple. Since iPad is meant for mobility as well it should have iPhone OS. The only problem is the app compatibility. Since iPad can do more some of its apps won't run on an iPhone, creating some confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
I have to disagree. Windows on touch tablets is terrible. Plain and simple. Its 3rd, perhaps 4th-rate product. There is no innovation or design, its idea A scotch taped to idea B. Apple does not design products this way,
And to say OSX runs fine on netbooks is the same as saying Windows runs fine on netbooks. Based on no other experience? Maybe.
If you've used even a cheap Mac or cheap PC running Mac or Windows, however, No it does run "fine" from that perspective. It is in fact "slow" and "frustrating" and "purposeless".
You don't gain anything by have a slow clunky device that can theoretically do "more". The entire netbook community thrives on this concept, and its doomed to failure.
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.
One problem though: you can't really take notes with an iPad in a lecture. You'll need a hardware keyboard for that - hence my wishes for an Air Mini or something like that. Although an Air Pro would be an interesting idea too.
Mac OS X rules. Mac OS X touch is what the iPad should have.
and it does. Mac OS X Touch is the iphone OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
The problem here is that there is a misconception regarding the intended position the iPad will be in re the overall digital ecosystem. This device is not meant to flat-out replace a fully functioning computer, be it a laptop or desktop. It's intended to compliment such as system. There are functions that require a more portable, less powerful solution with the advantage that you have a device that is easier to handle and with much better battery life. Your typical laptop is a compromised product in certain situations in that it has capabilities built in that have no value for certain activities yet those capabilities are needed to ensure that other situations can be handled. It's like using a sedan to commute to work. You don't need a back seat, a trunk, or even a front passenger seat. But most of us can't afford to keep an additional vehicle for a specific situation. With computers, this doesn't apply. You can afford to have a second computing device designed for specific uses because the cost of purchasing such a device is not daunting.
as my Pappy would say, here's a fellow that's using his head for something more than holding his hat.
thanks for your comments. It is nice to read some good posts on this site for once. Maybe there was a convention of Wintel lovers somewhere and they took the weekend off from criticizing Apple. Is refreshing to come to a so called pro-Apple site and not see a bunch of blathering about how evil Steve Jobs and the iPad are.
If you've used even a cheap Mac or cheap PC running Mac or Windows, however, No it does run "fine" from that perspective. It is in fact "slow" and "frustrating" and "purposeless".
my ipod touchj runs slow, frustratingly but its still fantastic
Quote:
You don't gain anything by have a slow clunky device that can theoretically do "more". The entire netbook community thrives on this concept, and its doomed to failure.
If the netbook market is doomed to failure on that reasoning, the iPad wont make enough sales to fail.
That's the clearest explanation I've read of why the iPad needs to be an iPhone OS platform rather than an OS X platform. Bravo. I also noticed that there are 2.5 times as many iPhone & iPod Touch units in the field than there are Macs which is an astonishing fact give the youth of the former and the old age of the latter.
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.
that is playing with semantics. the word "resolution" can be used differently depending on the context of the discussion.
just look at your own Mac display System Preference, and it specifically refers to "Resolutions" as lines of resolutions - vertical and horizontal, e.g. 1344 x 840, my current screen resolution - NOT DPI as you would have. so Apple is wrong too? the same is true of television discussions of resolution. yes, that version of resolutions is independent of the measured screen dimensions. and the article never implied otherwise.
BUT DPI of course IS directly related to a fixed measured dimension - one inch. so many dots per inch. so it DOES relate directly to screen size. tell me your screen dimensions in inches and its DPI and i'll tell you how many pixels it contains. this use of the word resolutions is of course to be able to discuss the varying densities of different displays' pixels. which is exactly what the article went on to do, noting how this key factor affects touch UI precision etc. it then looked at the larger issue of how much screen real estate is needed to provide easy to use error-free UI controls, which is related to that. and then how that also relates to the % of total screen area required on any device of given measurements for such controls.
in other words, it is all interrelated. which was clear in the article.
now one can say the article did not bother to differentiate all this at length like this, lumping both concepts into a single sentence. but boy, is that ever nit-picking. the topic of that paragraph was the UI consequences of it all. to say as you did earlier "Much of the article is completely invalidated due to the confused usage of the word resolution" is baloney.
Excellent article! I have been deploying applications for a large pharmaceutical firm for almost a decade. We have shipped over 12,000 systems to physicians around the globe so they can enter clinical trial data. About 5k of those systems have been Pc tablets. I have logged just under 500 hours over the years profiling how uses intreract with these PC tablets and notebooks.
The verdict.
You can get people to use them... even efficiently, but the overall experience kind of sucked. It required a massive change in thinking on how designed the UI. We ended up hidind as much of the Win interface because it got in the way. Users got frustrated with using the stylus. The stylus often was lost ( yes we taped it the the tablet), and most importantly training the user was tough. Really tough.
The iPad is exciting because millions of people already know how to use it. The UI conventions in the iPhone OS are the similar to what we implemented to simplify how the user gets their job done. The price is amazing and it is 3.5 lbs lighter than the systems we shipped around the globe.
The medical field will love the iPad. It is soo nice to read a well thought article. Unlike the dribble that many people wrote about just after the announcement.
How many people use the more advanced functions of Excel?
Do you have a link which shows how Excel is used?
I've found Numbers to be perfectly adequate for the things I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
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.
Comments
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.
You are right if you consider doing the kinds of things that we do at work which have been almost designed around using the capabilities of MS Office for decades - long boring text based presentations, big spreadsheets with macros, long complex documents with bibliographies, footnotes etc. All of which I have to do on occasion and would be hard to do with iWork.
Flip your argument over and talk about all the lightweight productivity work that people have to do for home/charity/hobby/school/family etc. and iWork is generally a much better solution since it is easier to make good looking content, has more creativity baked into the templates etc. and has a much lower learning curve and less feature bloat.
Since the iPad/iWork will never be a full on productivity platform, it will probably do a great job of a huge segment of casual productivity work for which Office is a far inferior tool.
As for other people's points...
Macbook Air vs. Netbook - Air is already old so not really fair to compare to unreleased netbooks but fundamentally Netbooks are miserably slow, small screened, tiny keyboard runts. The Air is a proper laptop with a proper CPU (C2D at full speed >2Ghz) in a netbook weight. Key advantage is battery life but not surprising considering you can do so little with them.
As for the footprint, a lot of people like the low weight/large size because netbooks screens/kbds are so small and crappy. When it is as thin/light as it is and the size of a paper pad the only size inconvenience is if you carry it around without any sort of case or want to put it in a purse/manbag? I see plenty of Airs on the plane in the hands of people who can afford them. As for price, they are predictably expensive but if you look at the Apple refurbs, they are often found approaching $1000 - still no netbook $s but much less.
I was round at a friend's last night and his wife was using her netbook (which she generally likes) to surf around but then had a problem that hubby had to try to fix. To watch him use this tiny thing was comical. We then competed to find something out via google - my iphone vs. her netbook. Needless to say, I won since the touch UI is so much easier to move around in (and not much slower to type a few keywords). She is now considering an iPad.
BTW did you know that the native Intuit peoples of the frozen Canadian north who designed the 2010 Olympic rock man figure make their living these days making trinkets and preparing taxes? That's what you get using a netbook
Oh and Daniel/Cara - the new Dr Tiki/Lala?
In Mac you are in control. In iPhone OS Apple is in control (which is awful).
Really? Apple is in control? So I the contacts, songs, videos, podcasts and applications on my iPhone weren't put there by me but by Apple? I really didn't call my friend earlier this morning but Apple did it instead?
Fascinating...
No, what you wanted was Mac, for cheap. Nobody wants a netbook, they just can't afford anything else.
Actually, I would like a replacement for my 12" PowerBook G4 which is the same size or smaller than many netbooks and is over six years old! And the G4 in it is more powerful than many of the currently shipping Atom processors
Having said that, I have a 15" MBP (typing on it now) and the iPad will replace everything I did with the PB G4 with ease - I can't wait for them to shiop! When I need more umph for my photography, I'll schlep out my 15" MBP, and when I go to replace my MBP in four to five years, I will pick the smallest one they are offering unless someone devises an add-on for the iPad where I can plug in an external USB hard drive for mass storage. If so, then the iPad will even do all I need when I'm on the go. I'm wagering that by the time I look at replacing my MBP, the iPad and accessory market will probably have matured where I will no longer require a full blown notebook.
I swear that some people complain that their toaster sucks because they can't cook soup in it.
Exactly! Such a good point I felt it worthy of repeating
What part of "Good luck with that ridiculous dock while on-the-go" doesn't Apple understand?
They understand it perfectly - if you always need a "real" keyboard you can get a notebook.
See what they did there? Different products for different needs. If you don't need an iPad, congratulations! No one is forcing you to buy one
Should be good humor to see how well it works in a lecture hall or airplane seat.
A heck of a lot better than a notebook with a keyboard! The footprint is killer (along with the battery life). I can't wait to fly with an iPad.
IMO carrying a bagful of desk-only trinkets kinda defeats the purpose of a mobile device.
IMO expecting a touch device to be configured like every other existing device kind of defeats the purpose of having a different device.
Which is why I'm glad Apple doesn't listen to people like you
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.
Not to me it won't. I will judge the utility of the device by the applications that are available for it, not by a long list of features.
Features matter to geeks, but this is a tool or an appliance. I for one am glad that Apple is not focusing on technical specs. If you want that, there are tons of other devices you can "geek out" on.
But I guarantee you the absence of a tech spec will not limit my enjoyment of the iPad any more than it has for my iPhone. That's the point - the iPhone, iPod Touch and IPad aren't traditional computing platforms. The same rules don't apply and it's silly to try to apply them.
You can't want something different and then when it's delivered complain that it's not like everything else
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.
When and what CPU are you thinking of? Apple has always used off the shelf parts when it comes to CPU's. True, they have often created their own chips for IO and other functionality, but Apple vs. third party's certainly hasn't caused stability issues - heck, look at the problems from the NVIDIA GPS's here recently. Anyone can have an issue - if anything apple is no better or worse than the rest of industry. Of course if you have something concrete, I'm always interested.
OSX and the move to Intel processors was a good step for Apple.
Something like OSX was inevitable, they were dead otherwise. The fact that they happened to get Jobs with the deal was the real godsend even though there were probably many in Apple management at the time that didn't think so months after the deal was finished
If the PowerPC architecture would have been able to deliver decent mobile chips, the move to Intel would never have happened. And if something better comes up in the future, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple moves from Intel to something else. With Intel's volume that's probably pretty unlikely - then again, even with their volume their efforts for ultra low power (atom vs. arm) has been pretty lackluster. Can Apple scale up ARM with their PA Semi engineers? Now that would be fascinating indeed. Highly unlikely, but I can see it as very appealing to Apple who is notorious for control
I'd hate to see a new generation of extension conflicts arise because of the processor design and manufacturing moving in house.
Apple has been very good with processor transitions in the past, if it were to happen in the future I have no doubt it would be just as smooth. The ability to run Windows might be the worst thing at jeopardy with such a move, but frankly with each day that becomes less and less of an issue. I expect the iPad to create an even larger wave of Mac OSX buzz, further reducing the dependency on Windows.
If Valve does release Steam for Mac OSX the last complaint about the Mac, it stinks for games, will finally start to fade away.
It's all about momentum baby!
I have to disagree. Windows on touch tablets is terrible. Plain and simple. Its 3rd, perhaps 4th-rate product. There is no innovation or design, its idea A scotch taped to idea B. Apple does not design products this way,
And to say OSX runs fine on netbooks is the same as saying Windows runs fine on netbooks. Based on no other experience? Maybe.
If you've used even a cheap Mac or cheap PC running Mac or Windows, however, No it does run "fine" from that perspective. It is in fact "slow" and "frustrating" and "purposeless".
You don't gain anything by have a slow clunky device that can theoretically do "more". The entire netbook community thrives on this concept, and its doomed to failure.
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.
One problem though: you can't really take notes with an iPad in a lecture. You'll need a hardware keyboard for that - hence my wishes for an Air Mini or something like that. Although an Air Pro would be an interesting idea too.
Mac OS X rules. Mac OS X touch is what the iPad should have.
and it does. Mac OS X Touch is the iphone OS.
The problem here is that there is a misconception regarding the intended position the iPad will be in re the overall digital ecosystem. This device is not meant to flat-out replace a fully functioning computer, be it a laptop or desktop. It's intended to compliment such as system. There are functions that require a more portable, less powerful solution with the advantage that you have a device that is easier to handle and with much better battery life. Your typical laptop is a compromised product in certain situations in that it has capabilities built in that have no value for certain activities yet those capabilities are needed to ensure that other situations can be handled. It's like using a sedan to commute to work. You don't need a back seat, a trunk, or even a front passenger seat. But most of us can't afford to keep an additional vehicle for a specific situation. With computers, this doesn't apply. You can afford to have a second computing device designed for specific uses because the cost of purchasing such a device is not daunting.
as my Pappy would say, here's a fellow that's using his head for something more than holding his hat.
If you've used even a cheap Mac or cheap PC running Mac or Windows, however, No it does run "fine" from that perspective. It is in fact "slow" and "frustrating" and "purposeless".
my ipod touchj runs slow, frustratingly but its still fantastic
You don't gain anything by have a slow clunky device that can theoretically do "more". The entire netbook community thrives on this concept, and its doomed to failure.
If the netbook market is doomed to failure on that reasoning, the iPad wont make enough sales to fail.
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.
that is playing with semantics. the word "resolution" can be used differently depending on the context of the discussion.
just look at your own Mac display System Preference, and it specifically refers to "Resolutions" as lines of resolutions - vertical and horizontal, e.g. 1344 x 840, my current screen resolution - NOT DPI as you would have. so Apple is wrong too? the same is true of television discussions of resolution. yes, that version of resolutions is independent of the measured screen dimensions. and the article never implied otherwise.
BUT DPI of course IS directly related to a fixed measured dimension - one inch. so many dots per inch. so it DOES relate directly to screen size. tell me your screen dimensions in inches and its DPI and i'll tell you how many pixels it contains. this use of the word resolutions is of course to be able to discuss the varying densities of different displays' pixels. which is exactly what the article went on to do, noting how this key factor affects touch UI precision etc. it then looked at the larger issue of how much screen real estate is needed to provide easy to use error-free UI controls, which is related to that. and then how that also relates to the % of total screen area required on any device of given measurements for such controls.
in other words, it is all interrelated. which was clear in the article.
now one can say the article did not bother to differentiate all this at length like this, lumping both concepts into a single sentence. but boy, is that ever nit-picking. the topic of that paragraph was the UI consequences of it all. to say as you did earlier "Much of the article is completely invalidated due to the confused usage of the word resolution" is baloney.
The verdict.
You can get people to use them... even efficiently, but the overall experience kind of sucked. It required a massive change in thinking on how designed the UI. We ended up hidind as much of the Win interface because it got in the way. Users got frustrated with using the stylus. The stylus often was lost ( yes we taped it the the tablet), and most importantly training the user was tough. Really tough.
The iPad is exciting because millions of people already know how to use it. The UI conventions in the iPhone OS are the similar to what we implemented to simplify how the user gets their job done. The price is amazing and it is 3.5 lbs lighter than the systems we shipped around the globe.
The medical field will love the iPad. It is soo nice to read a well thought article. Unlike the dribble that many people wrote about just after the announcement.
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...he-ipad-2010-2
How many people use the more advanced functions of Excel?
Do you have a link which shows how Excel is used?
I've found Numbers to be perfectly adequate for the things I do.
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.