First the mild disappointment with the name iPad, now the sheer embarassment of "iAd" (if this is indeed the name)... Oofah! There's something wrong in the 'naming department'.
Couldn't agree more. Apple needs to become a little more sophisticated on that front.
Btw, congratulations, AI, on two significant rumor calls: iPad and multitasking! Kudos.
I am hoping for avrcp bluetooth to be able to advance to next/previous tracks
This would be awesome. I can't figure out why this is not enabled. Would be great when I'm at the gym, and want to go back to that track that had me in the zone.
He suggested that Apple sell a system which was 100% user configurable - no standards, just a framework for the user to configure it however they wish. I merely took that argument to the extreme.
What's the scoop on the Ford Sync as it relates to Apple products. I had crossed getting a new Ford off my list once I saw ads stating it used M$ technology for the entertainment system..
In reality, Apple should leave everything to the user. They can design the framework and let us decide whether we want to enable a feature or not. Multitasking, toggle switch. Custom themes, toggle switch and so on and so on.
How long have you been using Apple products?
Excessive preferences to enable/disable features, and especially stuff like appearance themes, add complexity, which is the antithesis of what Apple does. Brace yourself, because it's not gonna happen to the extent that you want.
I can't believe the people on here who seem to believe that Apple is just going to start spamming them with unwanted ads!
Could this be Apple's way of giving you subsidized 3G service? What if there were two plans: The one you have now and one that is 50% less expensive with iAd advertising? Following the money, Apple could collect money from advertisers, pay some of that to the carrier to subsidize the lower rate plan, and attract customers who might have been unwilling to commit to the full-price data plan as it now exists.
What if you had the option of month-to-month service with no commitment if you opted in for the iAd content? Don't want the ads? Sign a two year service agreement.
There are all kinds of scenarios in which this could be something desirable to some consumers while not impacting those who wish to opt out. Let's wait to see what the actual iAd service (if real) turns out to be.
What's the scoop on the Ford Sync as it relates to Apple products. I had crossed getting a new Ford off my list once I saw ads stating it used M$ technology for the entertainment system..
I still will place my bet that it won't be true multi-tasking, but the ability to pause a program (saving its state to a portion of the NAND chip) then coming back to its saved state when you want to go back to what you were doing. Personally, I would actually prefer this method as it won't impact your battery.
That would be great for many devs. The pain to save state and restore it grows exponentially with the complexity of your app (amount and type of screens, user input in progress restored "a la Facebook" et al, etc. ), and you don't have too much time to save/restore. But that approach won't help Pandora or Skype, will it? Those NEED to stay awake.
I'd rather propose having the bulk of the app go to sleep, except for possibly one special "sentinel" thread especially designed for that purpose (a fictional "NSBackgroundThread", to say) that stays active in the background monitoring networks (not user input for sure), etc, with limited resources (some memory to store data, but NO UI objects at all, no UIViews, no UIViewControllers, no Events).
If Apple makes such a feature available with good documentation and several code samples, it shouldn't be that hard to implement in your app. Just dreaming...
What if you had the option of month-to-month service with no commitment if you opted in for the iAd content? Don't want the ads? Sign a two year service agreement.
That would surely be an "iPhone only" plan since the iPad will already be month-to-month. I wonder how they would manage the gap. They are two different devices, I know, but it still sounds awkward.
Given that the iPhone is UNIX under the hood it already *has* a "robust file system." If you are talking about revealing this robust file system to the user and giving the user tools like an explorer type app or a GUI for navigating said file system it will never happen and it's quite a bad idea actually.
A part of the whole point of the iPhone OS is that it doesn't use abstract metaphors for accessing files. The file system access you seek is one of the main aspects of computing that people find confusing and have problems with. The iPhone OS is at least in part, an attempt to abstract all that file management completely out of the picture. This is a very good thing and one of the main reasons the iPhone is so useful for so many people.
What you will probably see is some kind of documents folder with direct access, much like the documents stack on desktop OS-X. This will load on the desktop as a thumb drive type of thing, whenever the phone is docked with a computer. Most likely drag and drop access will be provided.
People do need access to documents on the phone and they do need an easy way to do that. They *don't* however need a "robust file system" or access to same.
While I understand the choice to maintain data with each application, for simplicity sake, I wish that there was a central storage option that all applications could access. iDisk works for me, but not everybody is willing to pay for it. Also, onboard storage is faster. I've had files on my iPhone that I wanted to access by another application. I had to upload to the cloud and re-download to the other app. What a pain. This will be more important on the iPad.
For multitasking on the iPhone, I would be happy with a switcher program, as provided with the old Mac OS. Not multitasking, but simply suspension. When I switch back and forth between apps now, I have to wait on multiple reloads. That is particularly annoying when the files are on iDisk. A switcher mechanism should be available for all apps. It would provide a pseudo-multitasking that would not kill your battery, and if managed properly, would not hurt performance.
I would probably have a different opinion for the iPad (which I do not own [yet]). That is likely to be used more like a netbook. The ability to shove something in the background while it is processing is pretty basic to a modern OS.
Cocoa Touch is fun, believe me. Managed memory is a pain at first, but having it imposed on you promotes better programming practices in the long run than garbage collection IMHO. And I believe no garbage collector can be smart enough to understand your code at a high level and know better than you what's needed and what isn't when and where. And you do away with the performance hit. It's a win-win. Once you get used to all the [[Me hates:this] because: itSucks];
Excessive preferences to enable/disable features, and especially stuff like appearance themes, add complexity, which is the antithesis of what Apple does. Brace yourself, because it's not gonna happen to the extent that you want.
I am fully aware it won't happen. That's why jailbreaking exists. I just find it funny that Chairman Mao ZeJobs thinks he knows what's best for his buyers. He doesn't. To answer your first question, I've been using them since I was very young.
While I understand the choice to maintain data with each application, for simplicity sake, I wish that there was a central storage option that all applications could access.
There's always the risk of a malicious app saving a file in that directory, one "specially crafted" to exploit some known (guessed?) vulnerability in some other app. Me Paranoid much?
I just find it funny that Chairman Mao ZeJobs thinks he knows what's best for his buyers. He doesn't.
Actually, he apparently does.
Apple is consistently rated #1 (by far) in customer satisfaction among computer companies. That means that, on the whole, Apple does a better job of meeting customer needs than any other company in the industry.
One of the ways they do this is by keeping things simple. Apple would rather have 100 functions that work properly and work well together than 10,000 functions that are a jumbled mess and don't work well. If you need the 101st function, then the product might not be for you, but Apple was one of the first in the industry to realize that you can't be all things to all people - and that has accounted for a great deal of their success.
So, while no one would claim that Apple can always make EVERYONE happy, they do a better job than anyone else.
In reality, Apple should leave everything to the user. They can design the framework and let us decide whether we want to enable a feature or not. Multitasking, toggle switch. Custom themes, toggle switch and so on and so on.
Sounds like Android to me.
In my opinion, iPhone and probably iPad are a success because they leave almost nothing to the user, so everything works simply and cleanly. The more customization they add, the more complex things will become.
Comments
First the mild disappointment with the name iPad, now the sheer embarassment of "iAd" (if this is indeed the name)... Oofah! There's something wrong in the 'naming department'.
Couldn't agree more. Apple needs to become a little more sophisticated on that front.
Btw, congratulations, AI, on two significant rumor calls: iPad and multitasking! Kudos.
I am hoping for avrcp bluetooth to be able to advance to next/previous tracks
This would be awesome. I can't figure out why this is not enabled. Would be great when I'm at the gym, and want to go back to that track that had me in the zone.
He never said anything like that, Troll.
Look up 'sarcasm'. You might learn something.
He suggested that Apple sell a system which was 100% user configurable - no standards, just a framework for the user to configure it however they wish. I merely took that argument to the extreme.
Um . . . SEARCH?
I think that is the point for many people.
Especially since its pretty much ready to go and just needs to be enabled and optimized a bit.
The double-tap Home button search does pretty good...
It finds stuff in mail, calendars, etc. (not for iWork file names or content, though ).
*
What's the scoop on the Ford Sync as it relates to Apple products. I had crossed getting a new Ford off my list once I saw ads stating it used M$ technology for the entertainment system..
Me too...It was a total turnoff!
In reality, Apple should leave everything to the user. They can design the framework and let us decide whether we want to enable a feature or not. Multitasking, toggle switch. Custom themes, toggle switch and so on and so on.
How long have you been using Apple products?
Excessive preferences to enable/disable features, and especially stuff like appearance themes, add complexity, which is the antithesis of what Apple does. Brace yourself, because it's not gonna happen to the extent that you want.
Oh admit it... you'd love to get carded again.
You mean AARP card for the early-bird buffet special?
Could this be Apple's way of giving you subsidized 3G service? What if there were two plans: The one you have now and one that is 50% less expensive with iAd advertising? Following the money, Apple could collect money from advertisers, pay some of that to the carrier to subsidize the lower rate plan, and attract customers who might have been unwilling to commit to the full-price data plan as it now exists.
What if you had the option of month-to-month service with no commitment if you opted in for the iAd content? Don't want the ads? Sign a two year service agreement.
There are all kinds of scenarios in which this could be something desirable to some consumers while not impacting those who wish to opt out. Let's wait to see what the actual iAd service (if real) turns out to be.
What's the scoop on the Ford Sync as it relates to Apple products. I had crossed getting a new Ford off my list once I saw ads stating it used M$ technology for the entertainment system..
Bing!
I still will place my bet that it won't be true multi-tasking, but the ability to pause a program (saving its state to a portion of the NAND chip) then coming back to its saved state when you want to go back to what you were doing. Personally, I would actually prefer this method as it won't impact your battery.
That would be great for many devs. The pain to save state and restore it grows exponentially with the complexity of your app (amount and type of screens, user input in progress restored "a la Facebook" et al, etc. ), and you don't have too much time to save/restore. But that approach won't help Pandora or Skype, will it? Those NEED to stay awake.
I'd rather propose having the bulk of the app go to sleep, except for possibly one special "sentinel" thread especially designed for that purpose (a fictional "NSBackgroundThread", to say) that stays active in the background monitoring networks (not user input for sure), etc, with limited resources (some memory to store data, but NO UI objects at all, no UIViews, no UIViewControllers, no Events).
If Apple makes such a feature available with good documentation and several code samples, it shouldn't be that hard to implement in your app. Just dreaming...
What if you had the option of month-to-month service with no commitment if you opted in for the iAd content? Don't want the ads? Sign a two year service agreement.
That would surely be an "iPhone only" plan since the iPad will already be month-to-month. I wonder how they would manage the gap. They are two different devices, I know, but it still sounds awkward.
Given that the iPhone is UNIX under the hood it already *has* a "robust file system." If you are talking about revealing this robust file system to the user and giving the user tools like an explorer type app or a GUI for navigating said file system it will never happen and it's quite a bad idea actually.
A part of the whole point of the iPhone OS is that it doesn't use abstract metaphors for accessing files. The file system access you seek is one of the main aspects of computing that people find confusing and have problems with. The iPhone OS is at least in part, an attempt to abstract all that file management completely out of the picture. This is a very good thing and one of the main reasons the iPhone is so useful for so many people.
What you will probably see is some kind of documents folder with direct access, much like the documents stack on desktop OS-X. This will load on the desktop as a thumb drive type of thing, whenever the phone is docked with a computer. Most likely drag and drop access will be provided.
People do need access to documents on the phone and they do need an easy way to do that. They *don't* however need a "robust file system" or access to same.
While I understand the choice to maintain data with each application, for simplicity sake, I wish that there was a central storage option that all applications could access. iDisk works for me, but not everybody is willing to pay for it. Also, onboard storage is faster. I've had files on my iPhone that I wanted to access by another application. I had to upload to the cloud and re-download to the other app. What a pain. This will be more important on the iPad.
For multitasking on the iPhone, I would be happy with a switcher program, as provided with the old Mac OS. Not multitasking, but simply suspension. When I switch back and forth between apps now, I have to wait on multiple reloads. That is particularly annoying when the files are on iDisk. A switcher mechanism should be available for all apps. It would provide a pseudo-multitasking that would not kill your battery, and if managed properly, would not hurt performance.
I would probably have a different opinion for the iPad (which I do not own [yet]). That is likely to be used more like a netbook. The ability to shove something in the background while it is processing is pretty basic to a modern OS.
Forget about Flash, I want Java!
Cocoa Touch is fun, believe me. Managed memory is a pain at first, but having it imposed on you promotes better programming practices in the long run than garbage collection IMHO. And I believe no garbage collector can be smart enough to understand your code at a high level and know better than you what's needed and what isn't when and where. And you do away with the performance hit. It's a win-win. Once you get used to all the [[Me hates:this] because: itSucks];
How long have you been using Apple products?
Excessive preferences to enable/disable features, and especially stuff like appearance themes, add complexity, which is the antithesis of what Apple does. Brace yourself, because it's not gonna happen to the extent that you want.
I am fully aware it won't happen. That's why jailbreaking exists. I just find it funny that Chairman Mao ZeJobs thinks he knows what's best for his buyers. He doesn't. To answer your first question, I've been using them since I was very young.
While I understand the choice to maintain data with each application, for simplicity sake, I wish that there was a central storage option that all applications could access.
There's always the risk of a malicious app saving a file in that directory, one "specially crafted" to exploit some known (guessed?) vulnerability in some other app. Me Paranoid much?
I'm waiting for the MS software to crash the ignition system or something :-) Hopefully no one will be injured.
yes, the jokes could be endless ... "Why has my windscreen gone blue when I changed tracks?"
I just find it funny that Chairman Mao ZeJobs thinks he knows what's best for his buyers. He doesn't.
Actually, he apparently does.
Apple is consistently rated #1 (by far) in customer satisfaction among computer companies. That means that, on the whole, Apple does a better job of meeting customer needs than any other company in the industry.
One of the ways they do this is by keeping things simple. Apple would rather have 100 functions that work properly and work well together than 10,000 functions that are a jumbled mess and don't work well. If you need the 101st function, then the product might not be for you, but Apple was one of the first in the industry to realize that you can't be all things to all people - and that has accounted for a great deal of their success.
So, while no one would claim that Apple can always make EVERYONE happy, they do a better job than anyone else.
In reality, Apple should leave everything to the user. They can design the framework and let us decide whether we want to enable a feature or not. Multitasking, toggle switch. Custom themes, toggle switch and so on and so on.
Sounds like Android to me.
In my opinion, iPhone and probably iPad are a success because they leave almost nothing to the user, so everything works simply and cleanly. The more customization they add, the more complex things will become.