yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
Not quite true. Microsoft was caught with its hand in the cookie jar. They were found to have stolen the QuickTime source code for use in Windows. That $150 million investment in Apple was probably going to be a lot cheaper than the lawsuit that would have followed instead.
I suspect that Apple have implemented all manner of display-size-resolution-independent solutions already.
Here's my guess. It does not work.
The best interfaces are a result of design decisions which are based on the designer creating interfaces for.
1) A known display resolution
2) A known display size
3) A known input method
Apple now address themselves to making the workflow and design process easier.... And not a technical solution which will try to make a one-size-fits-all work.
Success has alot more to it than creating products people want, its also convincing people that they want your product. Which Apple has done very succsessfully, sublimely, while leaving them with the illusion that they are still a consumer who is in control, even though their purchase was irrational.
So Apple's biggest success appears to be mind control. Somehow just watching an Apple commercial gives one an instant lobotomy?
After reading this article all I could think was "man these guys like to hear themselves talk". If you listen to both sides of their argument and more importantly, look at the tablet industry you can see that both companies are right and wrong at the same time. Both have great ideas, but they both fail to look at the full picture.
Apple, the iPad is an outstanding product! In world where manufacturers ideas of tablet computing was an 8 pound computer with a rotating touchscreen, you gave us a product that we could Carry every day in one hand without having to see a chiropractor. It is a beautiful design! And you are correct, I believe the 9.7" display is the perfect size. But steve, come on... FLASH PLAYER!
RIM, The playbook is a great attempt at breaking into the tablet market. From the pictures I have seen and the specs, I ink you are on the right track. But with the 7" screen I think you will have to learn to live with criticism. RIM understands that people want flash player and the ability to attach peripherals. The thing RIM needs to remember, is that the thing that drives sales for RIM is not so much the device, but the enterprise manageability.
In my corporate world I have thousands of users that don't get much say in what device they will carry. That decision is left up to those few, the proud, the IT Geeks. We are tasked with evaluating each new device that is requested and determining how secure it is as well as how much control we can exercise over the device in the event it is lost or stolen. At the end of the day RIM gets the call. And when it comes time to look at tablets, even with the 7" screen RIM will most likely come out on top, not necessarily because they have a better tablet, no, more likely because I can attach it to my Blackberry Enterprise server, control the apps that are loaded onto it, and wipe it clean if it is lost or stolen.
If Steve Jobs truly wants to leave the competition in the dust, all he needs to do is recognize that most corporate environments want the kind of control that they get with a Blackberry Enterprise Server. And create an enterprise management solution for the iProducts. He would then have executives singing his praises and rejoicing in the streets because they could have an iPad or even an iPhone, sync their mail and not have iT glaring at them in the halls. OK, maybe they won't throw a ticker tape parade in Steve's honor, but it is a big piece of market share that would be up for grabs!
Actually, the regular consumers does not give a damn about trade-offs and sweet spots, only techies and geeks care about that . Does it work consistently as promised and can I use the damn thing right now are what appeals to the average consumers.
You're right. The customer just looks at the big beautiful screen, and knows that his friend gets good battery life with his Droid X.
He also knows that there is plenty of great software, so it will work as he wants it to work.
Naw, its all in the user experience. Big, beautiful screens running Flash videos with all your friends drooling while looking on. That's what new smartphone buyers want. And Apple is losing a whole generation of them.
Having used a 7" android-based tablet, I would gladly say its use is much limited due largely to the small screen sized. Surfing, word processing, etc are a pain. .
I know. It is even worse, in fact MUCH worse, on an iPhone.
This is due largely to the small screen size. Surfing, word processing, etc. are a pain. Just like you said. You are totally correct. A seven inch screen is MUCH LIMITED, and therefore, a 3 inch screen is much MORE limited.
When will these fools learn that unless you have smaller than a 10 inch touchscreen, it is much limited?
I suspect that Apple have implemented all manner of display-size-resolution-independent solutions already.
Here's my guess. It does not work.
The best interfaces are a result of design decisions which are based on the designer creating interfaces for.
1) A known display resolution
2) A known display size
3) A known input method
Apple now address themselves to making the workflow and design process easier.... And not a technical solution which will try to make a one-size-fits-all work.
C.
I totally disagree! That's the current way of doing it -- designing inside of the box, if you will.
Just as 2D windows broke the bindings between display size and content size, a 3D perspective breaks the bindings between display size and content navigation and manipulation.
Have a look at this-- better yet download the free app and try it on your iPad and iPhone:
Apple does make good products,,, But Jobs is a big wanker, his comments where childish and irrelevant,
I hope he stirred up a hornets nest all the better for us consumers,
and anyone who doesnt think apple can fall,, have a good look at where GM is right now, they had the same attitude , we are on top, deserve to be on top, and will always be on top
and yes I agree Itunes is bloated and about the least user friendly media player out there
Again, his comments weren't made for consumers. It was made for investors and analysts who needed an explanation why apple wasn't participating with the same form factor as their competitors. The comments were appropriate
I started out thinking that a one-size-fits-all solution was technically possible. This is what Nokia are currently pursuing with QT.
But I have ended up really intensely disliking automated solutions for rescaling content up or down. They end-up compromising the usability or aesthetics intended by the designer.
It's one of the standard responses to the question "How come Apple are so successful"
1. It's all marketing and spin
2. All their customers are stupid / fashion led / mind-controlled
3. It's just a trick of some kind
4. If you charge that much, no wonder you are making so much money
It's what minds do when they refuse to accept the simpler solution.
C.
You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better looking product., even when it lacks some of the features they would like to have. "Oh, you wanted cup holders with you Lexus?"
RIM has enough pull with enterprise to sell quite a few of these, the direction of success will depend on how much developers can achieve with the development aspect. Who knows if a new Microsoft'ish platform is born, where flaws work most of the time.
You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better User Experience, even when it lacks some of the features tech geeks think they should have.
Fixed.
Yes, part of the User Experience is design. Design is a *very* big deal. The competition should learn what it means.
You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better looking product., even when it lacks some of the features they would like to have. "Oh, you wanted cup holders with you Lexus?"
I don't think it is all down to Jobs. But he is good at creating corporate cultures that focus on the outcomes. On the products.
Job's other company, Pixar also succeeded by focussing intensely on the products. Not the inputs.
Hey Quadra 610 - - I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me or even arguing a point with me, but DON’T put your words in my mouth just to justify your opinion! And while I don't totaly disagree with you, there are a large number of people that buy products (Yes, even outside the tech market) solely because they look better than a product that offers more of the features they want. After all, you only need to look at guys with trophy wives to prove my point. They are expensive and can’t boil water without burning it, but they look great.
I'm not talking about market share, I'm talking about bragging rights. RIM doesn't have any so they should button up and focus their efforts on delivering something compelling to consumers.
Side note: Android is sold by at least 10 OEMs with at least 50 handsets in the market and they barely sell more than iPhone. That, in my books, is a big fat fail. All those companies expending all that effort to just barely sell more than one single competitor? Fail! Its not a market share fail, its a strategy fail.
So what strategy should they have? Do you really think it would be a wise decision for every phone maker to make their own mobile OS, and their own App store? How many developers will make Apps for 5,6,....10 different OSs? Fragmentation is a small price to pay to sell devices. For instance, Moto was thisclose to giving up making handsets, trying to copy what Apple did would've spelled certain doom for its mobile division. Using Android's OS has for now been a smart move on their part. For most of my Droid owning friends its their first smart phone while my friends with iPhones were previous iPhone owners. I personally own a Droid but not because I dislike Apple or the iPhone, but simply because I'm a VZW customer in NYC.
Now IMO SJ is correct, 7" is to small for a tablet. When I eventually get one it'll be for reading and the 9.7" form factor is almost identical to most magazines and good enough for newspapers.
I started out thinking that a one-size-fits-all solution was technically possible. This is what Nokia are currently pursuing with QT.
But I have ended up really intensely disliking automated solutions for rescaling content end up or down. They end up compromising the usability or aesthetics intended by the designer.
C.
I agree with the latter.
But I think that auto-scaling can work if content-presence (e.g. another item the presentation), scale granularity and scale bounds could be set by the developer and manipulated by the user.
As a developer and content presenter, I would prefer to design an app where content navigation, say, a drill-down is designed from an idealistic point of view -- then adapted to a range of presentation sizes (bounds) based on display size and user zoom. For example the mail app.
Let's say that three columns is the ideal display content for this app: mailboxes; message summary; message detail.
On an iPhone it is programmed as a one-column-at-a-time drill-down:
On an iPad portrait it is a one column display (the selected message) and a pop-up with one-column-at-a-time display of the mailboxes and message summaries.
On an iPad landscape it is a one column display (the selected message) and a left column that switches between the mailboxes and message summaries..
On, say, a 15" screen all 3 columns would be present (the ideal).
But if the user zoomed in a certain amount the presentation would automatically change to either:
1) move the leftmost column off screen (where it could be panned to)
2) collapse the mailboxes column so that it will alternate with the message headers column (as in the iPad Landscape. above)
Thus, the number of columns and their interaction would be designed for the ideal, then adjusted by the OS Presentation Services - according to rules set by the developer and options chosen by the user.
For example the developer might set a rule that the message requires a minimum width of 60 characters of font-size 14 -- any combination of screen size and user zoom, less than that would limit the number of columns to 1... and so on.
Designing for an ideal, with developer rules, would allow the app to present well on any size display-- and still be useable and work as expected.
This, compared to rethinking and developing each app for each specific screen size.
Comments
yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
Not quite true. Microsoft was caught with its hand in the cookie jar. They were found to have stolen the QuickTime source code for use in Windows. That $150 million investment in Apple was probably going to be a lot cheaper than the lawsuit that would have followed instead.
That is prescient!
I suspect that Apple have implemented all manner of display-size-resolution-independent solutions already.
Here's my guess. It does not work.
The best interfaces are a result of design decisions which are based on the designer creating interfaces for.
1) A known display resolution
2) A known display size
3) A known input method
Apple now address themselves to making the workflow and design process easier.... And not a technical solution which will try to make a one-size-fits-all work.
C.
Success has alot more to it than creating products people want, its also convincing people that they want your product. Which Apple has done very succsessfully, sublimely, while leaving them with the illusion that they are still a consumer who is in control, even though their purchase was irrational.
So Apple's biggest success appears to be mind control. Somehow just watching an Apple commercial gives one an instant lobotomy?
Apple, the iPad is an outstanding product! In world where manufacturers ideas of tablet computing was an 8 pound computer with a rotating touchscreen, you gave us a product that we could Carry every day in one hand without having to see a chiropractor. It is a beautiful design! And you are correct, I believe the 9.7" display is the perfect size. But steve, come on... FLASH PLAYER!
RIM, The playbook is a great attempt at breaking into the tablet market. From the pictures I have seen and the specs, I ink you are on the right track. But with the 7" screen I think you will have to learn to live with criticism. RIM understands that people want flash player and the ability to attach peripherals. The thing RIM needs to remember, is that the thing that drives sales for RIM is not so much the device, but the enterprise manageability.
In my corporate world I have thousands of users that don't get much say in what device they will carry. That decision is left up to those few, the proud, the IT Geeks. We are tasked with evaluating each new device that is requested and determining how secure it is as well as how much control we can exercise over the device in the event it is lost or stolen. At the end of the day RIM gets the call. And when it comes time to look at tablets, even with the 7" screen RIM will most likely come out on top, not necessarily because they have a better tablet, no, more likely because I can attach it to my Blackberry Enterprise server, control the apps that are loaded onto it, and wipe it clean if it is lost or stolen.
If Steve Jobs truly wants to leave the competition in the dust, all he needs to do is recognize that most corporate environments want the kind of control that they get with a Blackberry Enterprise Server. And create an enterprise management solution for the iProducts. He would then have executives singing his praises and rejoicing in the streets because they could have an iPad or even an iPhone, sync their mail and not have iT glaring at them in the halls. OK, maybe they won't throw a ticker tape parade in Steve's honor, but it is a big piece of market share that would be up for grabs!
Actually, the regular consumers does not give a damn about trade-offs and sweet spots, only techies and geeks care about that . Does it work consistently as promised and can I use the damn thing right now are what appeals to the average consumers.
You're right. The customer just looks at the big beautiful screen, and knows that his friend gets good battery life with his Droid X.
He also knows that there is plenty of great software, so it will work as he wants it to work.
At the end of the day... it's all in the stock.
Naw, its all in the user experience. Big, beautiful screens running Flash videos with all your friends drooling while looking on. That's what new smartphone buyers want. And Apple is losing a whole generation of them.
Having used a 7" android-based tablet, I would gladly say its use is much limited due largely to the small screen sized. Surfing, word processing, etc are a pain. .
I know. It is even worse, in fact MUCH worse, on an iPhone.
This is due largely to the small screen size. Surfing, word processing, etc. are a pain. Just like you said. You are totally correct. A seven inch screen is MUCH LIMITED, and therefore, a 3 inch screen is much MORE limited.
When will these fools learn that unless you have smaller than a 10 inch touchscreen, it is much limited?
I suspect that Apple have implemented all manner of display-size-resolution-independent solutions already.
Here's my guess. It does not work.
The best interfaces are a result of design decisions which are based on the designer creating interfaces for.
1) A known display resolution
2) A known display size
3) A known input method
Apple now address themselves to making the workflow and design process easier.... And not a technical solution which will try to make a one-size-fits-all work.
C.
I totally disagree! That's the current way of doing it -- designing inside of the box, if you will.
Just as 2D windows broke the bindings between display size and content size, a 3D perspective breaks the bindings between display size and content navigation and manipulation.
Have a look at this-- better yet download the free app and try it on your iPad and iPhone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEPvUfC7wh8
It gives you an idea of what can be done with a 3D perspective.
Apple has several patents in this area.
.
Apple does make good products,,, But Jobs is a big wanker, his comments where childish and irrelevant,
When you're the champ, you're allowed. It's war.
Apple actually walks the talk. If SJ wants to talk down the flat-footed competition, all the more power to him.
He's exposing the also-rans for the numbnuts that that they are. It's about time.
SJ's throwing down the gauntlet by talking smack, but these amateurs are just way too slow on the uptake.
So Apple's biggest success appears to be mind control. Somehow just watching an Apple commercial gives one an instant lobotomy?
The "mind-control" theory is the last refuge of the envious and perpetually out-of-touch.
Look at the bright side: at least these folks are entertaining.
Apple does make good products,,, But Jobs is a big wanker, his comments where childish and irrelevant,
I hope he stirred up a hornets nest all the better for us consumers,
and anyone who doesnt think apple can fall,, have a good look at where GM is right now, they had the same attitude , we are on top, deserve to be on top, and will always be on top
and yes I agree Itunes is bloated and about the least user friendly media player out there
Again, his comments weren't made for consumers. It was made for investors and analysts who needed an explanation why apple wasn't participating with the same form factor as their competitors. The comments were appropriate
I totally disagree! .
I am happy to agree to disagree!
I started out thinking that a one-size-fits-all solution was technically possible. This is what Nokia are currently pursuing with QT.
But I have ended up really intensely disliking automated solutions for rescaling content up or down. They end-up compromising the usability or aesthetics intended by the designer.
C.
The "mind-control" theory is the last refuge of the envious and perpetually out-of-touch.
It's one of the standard responses to the question "How come Apple are so successful"
1. It's all marketing and spin
2. All their customers are stupid / fashion led / mind-controlled
3. It's just a trick of some kind
4. If you charge that much, no wonder you are making so much money
It's what minds do when they refuse to accept the simpler solution.
C.
It's one of the standard responses to the question "How come Apple are so successful"
1. It's all marketing and spin
2. All their customers are stupid / fashion led / mind-controlled
3. It's just a trick of some kind
4. If you charge that much, no wonder you are making so much money
It's what minds do when they refuse to accept the simpler solution.
C.
You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better looking product., even when it lacks some of the features they would like to have. "Oh, you wanted cup holders with you Lexus?"
You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better User Experience, even when it lacks some of the features tech geeks think they should have.
Fixed.
Yes, part of the User Experience is design. Design is a *very* big deal. The competition should learn what it means.
You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better looking product., even when it lacks some of the features they would like to have. "Oh, you wanted cup holders with you Lexus?"
I don't think it is all down to Jobs. But he is good at creating corporate cultures that focus on the outcomes. On the products.
Job's other company, Pixar also succeeded by focussing intensely on the products. Not the inputs.
C.
I'm not talking about market share, I'm talking about bragging rights. RIM doesn't have any so they should button up and focus their efforts on delivering something compelling to consumers.
Side note: Android is sold by at least 10 OEMs with at least 50 handsets in the market and they barely sell more than iPhone. That, in my books, is a big fat fail. All those companies expending all that effort to just barely sell more than one single competitor? Fail! Its not a market share fail, its a strategy fail.
So what strategy should they have? Do you really think it would be a wise decision for every phone maker to make their own mobile OS, and their own App store? How many developers will make Apps for 5,6,....10 different OSs? Fragmentation is a small price to pay to sell devices. For instance, Moto was thisclose to giving up making handsets, trying to copy what Apple did would've spelled certain doom for its mobile division. Using Android's OS has for now been a smart move on their part. For most of my Droid owning friends its their first smart phone while my friends with iPhones were previous iPhone owners. I personally own a Droid but not because I dislike Apple or the iPhone, but simply because I'm a VZW customer in NYC.
Now IMO SJ is correct, 7" is to small for a tablet. When I eventually get one it'll be for reading and the 9.7" form factor is almost identical to most magazines and good enough for newspapers.
I am happy to agree to disagree!
I started out thinking that a one-size-fits-all solution was technically possible. This is what Nokia are currently pursuing with QT.
But I have ended up really intensely disliking automated solutions for rescaling content end up or down. They end up compromising the usability or aesthetics intended by the designer.
C.
I agree with the latter.
But I think that auto-scaling can work if content-presence (e.g. another item the presentation), scale granularity and scale bounds could be set by the developer and manipulated by the user.
As a developer and content presenter, I would prefer to design an app where content navigation, say, a drill-down is designed from an idealistic point of view -- then adapted to a range of presentation sizes (bounds) based on display size and user zoom. For example the mail app.
Let's say that three columns is the ideal display content for this app: mailboxes; message summary; message detail.
On an iPhone it is programmed as a one-column-at-a-time drill-down:
On an iPad portrait it is a one column display (the selected message) and a pop-up with one-column-at-a-time display of the mailboxes and message summaries.
On an iPad landscape it is a one column display (the selected message) and a left column that switches between the mailboxes and message summaries..
On, say, a 15" screen all 3 columns would be present (the ideal).
But if the user zoomed in a certain amount the presentation would automatically change to either:
1) move the leftmost column off screen (where it could be panned to)
2) collapse the mailboxes column so that it will alternate with the message headers column (as in the iPad Landscape. above)
Thus, the number of columns and their interaction would be designed for the ideal, then adjusted by the OS Presentation Services - according to rules set by the developer and options chosen by the user.
For example the developer might set a rule that the message requires a minimum width of 60 characters of font-size 14 -- any combination of screen size and user zoom, less than that would limit the number of columns to 1... and so on.
Designing for an ideal, with developer rules, would allow the app to present well on any size display-- and still be useable and work as expected.
This, compared to rethinking and developing each app for each specific screen size.
Let the OS do some of the work.
.