So there's actually people who think a tablet running OSX would have been a better move, or would have been better received/more successful than the iPad? You're absolutely insane.
From developers' perspectives (notice how I did that the iPad is much more than a big iPod Touch.
The SDK provided additional APIs to help the developers exploit the iPad's larger screen.
You had to completely rethink your app, and usually re-implement it, to take intelligent advantage of the additional real estate.
The iPad mail app is a good example of this where 2 columns are concurrently displayed:
-- a left-hand column (list) of emails showing: From; Subject; and 3 lines of the body
-- a right-hand column displaying the content of the email selected in the left column,
There is no way to do that on the smaller screen!
And, it makes a world of difference from a usability standpoint -- you can much, much more easily navigate, delete and move messages (without losing your place or train of thought).
True, Apple allowed apps designed for the smaller screen to be displayed actual size (or double size) for backwards compatibility -- and that was a necessary good thing.
But users were quick to demand (and get) apps that exploited the large screen.
And, trust me -- while it is easy to change the overall display size of an iPhone/Touch app... it usually made the app work worse on the large screen than on the small...
Instead of being intuitive, it becomes awkward -- leaving the user thinking: "Why didn't they..."
AIR, there were more than 1,000 apps designed (or redesigned) specifically for the iPad, available on the day of iPad's release.
By contrast, it appears that Android wants to go in another direction -- According to Andy Rubin:
?I don?t think there should be apps specific to a tablet.?
You are completely short minded and don't see the real point of the iPad. You want a "real os" on it. Why? So you can put some stupid program on it you downloaded from the internet? Or run "Real Photoshop"? Or have Flash?! The iPad didn't need to be a laptop. It was never meant to be. It was meant to do a few tasks extremely well that 99.99% of people due every single day which are email, web surfing, consuming media and playing games. It does those things near perfect and yet your too stupid to even see that. Your comment is pathetic. The iPad put those few tasks into the hands of the common man...grandparents, children, aunts and uncles who have no idea how to use a Mac..let alone some god awful windows box and gave them the ability to now use an iPad with basically zero learning curve. You pick it up and your going instantly. Thats what Apple does best. Simplifies the tasks we do in our every day to day lives. Thats why I love Apple so much. They make computing fun for the rest of us....not some stupid geeky tech boy who enjoys spending their days twiddling around with an OS to get it to "work for him" or to "customize it". People like you don't value your time on this earth. I'd much rather have a beautiful device that does exactly what I need it to do..so I can get on with living my life and enjoying that time with my friends and family.
Good reply. I agree with this. What the people who keep saying the iPad is not useful because it doesn't run "full desktop apps" are forgetting is that what they want has been on the market for nearly 20 years in the Windows Tablet PCs. It's been tried. Microsoft has been trying to crack the tablet PC market for years. And there will always be a slice of the market that needs full desktop in a tablet. If these people aren't already using a Windows Tablet PC, or UMPC, and they're posting how crappy iPad is because it doesn't run desktop apps, then they aren't really interested in running desktop apps; they just want to whine about iPad.
So how is that even valid criticism in the first place? Of course it was a giant iPod Touch and it still is. It is a larger version of the same device with the same operating system. The difference is in the uses for large screen versus small screen. You can't just say that you don't need the iPad because you have an iPod, or an iPhone for that matter. The size difference is what makes them different from a functional standpoint, phone functionality aside of course. Early on, many people just couldn't imagine what they would use a tablet for and the prospect of an Apple device actually failing was obviously exciting to the media. What a great story that would have made and they all would have been in on the beginning. Instead, they only demonstrated the lack of imagination that so seriously hampers our media today.
If you put your pants on one leg at a time and report to work for some Boss in the hopes of collection a check two weeks later then don't tell me SH** about what you think it hot or not.
What did Jobs expect? He could have stopped working years ago and would have lived comfortably. You don't go the to lackey for advice...what do they know? They aren't even smart enough to put themselves in a position where they don't have to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
Multitasking? it is nice to have, but never was essential. save the much overused adolescent slang "fail" for things that are genuinely essential but lacking (like email on the BB PlayBook, for example).
Flash? neither nice, since it worked like crap, nor essential.
Removable battery? it was always stupid to open up any valuable electronic device to dirt, dust, moisture, and finger oil for any reason.
the boo-birds that have shown up here are the same kind of boo-birds that pooh-pooh anything Apple comes out with. which is DED's point. surprised it got to Jobs, tho, i really thought he was too arrogant to be bothered by it. sounds like he was more vulnerable than we realized.
the average intellectual maturity age of many of the tech bloggers - like Gizmodo - is around 17 years old. talk about arrested development ...
Daniel, thanks for writing this up and taking the usual flack. I needed to hear it said, even though I'm in "non-spoiler mode" (Gruber's phrase) when it comes to this forthcoming book. I'm skipping all the leak articles that I can.
But this one. Of course Jobs would be disgusted, infuriated, hurt, baffled by the narrowness, meanness, stupidity the tablet was greeted with. To say nothing of worse that came out of posters to forums like this one. He put his heart into it and it was his like his child, for goddess's sake, and the consensus was "fail." Of course he cared what people think.
I got mine on the first day, now about a year and a half ago. I still use it for hours every day, all over the house, in the car in traffic jams, in any kind of line at Starbucks or the bank or whatever. While the iKols of this world were (so he says) sitting it out waiting for their stupid multitasking or whatever, I was learning thousands of things on my iPad, a year's worth of history, archeology, ethnopharmacology and much else. I was not "consuming" any fucking content, I was learning things. I have never played games on it, have a few apps that I hardly ever use, I just use it as a tool, an instrument for learning.
I didn't know this was going to happen. I got the Pad because I knew it would be the greatest portable video player ever for my own videos, and it is. Who knew it would be full of books and PDFs as well? (Answer: Steve Jobs.)
Daniel, thanks for flushing out the perennial left-brainers who still don't get it. They're the reason I had to join this forum though, so their ignorant kindling does keep the fire going around here, I suppose.
By the way, the lame non-replaceable battery still gets through a full day of on and off use, probably 8 hours or so. I'm going to be 70 years old soon; we'll see who wears out first.
Loved your post. I m rather younger (i m in my thirties) but I hope I ll be as forward thinking and curious when I get to your age. I too use the iPad for learning. iTunes and podcasts are a joy, keeping reference material on the iPad and a large portion of my library is a joy too. read it later with all my daily to reads autocategorized, ins tapper for my longer stories and articles, early edition picking up all the news I d like to read from rss, voice reading apps for when my eyes are tired...you name it.
God bless Steve's soul, I wish he were here, I am writing this and my eyes fill with tears, because death, this ultimate equaliser, doesn't make exceptions to anyone.
The fact is that the iPad is a giant iPod Touch. What the market has proven is that a giant iPod Touch has many functions. Of course, with the iPad surpassing the iPod Touch in hardware specs quite a bit, we can now call the latter the Minipad.
Likewise, it is fair and true that the iPad is primarily consumption device (which was the other *criticism* that irked fanboys). There's no shame in that. Again, the market has proven that more than 50% of computer use is consumption.
I too use the iPad for learning. iTunes and podcasts are a joy, keeping reference material on the iPad and a large portion of my library is a joy too. ( . . .)
God bless Steve's soul, I wish he were here, I am writing this and my eyes fill with tears, because death, this ultimate equaliser, doesn't make exceptions to anyone.
Thanks, and a tip o' the Fool's cap to ya.
Learning is not consumption!!!! Or if it is, what are we consuming, knowledge? Have things come to such a sorry pass?
Buts that's only. 1/3rd the solution- what about the other 2/3rds?
It's the full solution - apparently you're not able to understand.
You use the iPad for tasks that it is suitable for. Use the computer for tasks that the iPad is not suitable for. What part of that is beyond your comprehension?
Grumpy? Not really. This article is like it was written in a state of defensive paranoia. The media called the iPad a big iPod touch when it came out originally because that's what they actually believed. This teenage angst/rebellion feeling from everyone of Dilger's articles becomes tiring. He's got it all wrong. He needs to try some wine or orange juice.
Thanks for including the link, as those who follow it to read the full article will discover that Rubin's comment was actually saying almost the opposite of what it might seem to out of context:
Quote:
After being grilled by Walt Mossberg at the Asia D kick-off, we decided to ask Android boss Andy Rubin about the lack of tablet-optimized apps and if that would improve with the new version of Android — Ice Cream Sandwich. Rubin didn’t answer the latter part of that question specifically, but he did stress the one-app-for-all-devices strategy. “I don’t think there should be apps specific to a tablet,” he said. He also added that “if someone makes an ICS app it’s going to run on phones and it’s going to run on tablets.” Now, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t think there shouldn’t be apps optimized for larger screens, it just means that ICS will continue to work like Honeycomb, with a single app scaling differently to different screen sizes. (He referenced staying away from the Apple iPad / iPhone division in the App Store.)
Exactly the point I was making!
Rubin says:
“I don’t think there should be apps specific to a tablet,” he said. He also added that “if someone makes an ICS app it’s going to run on phones and it’s going to run on tablets.” Now, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t think there shouldn’t be apps optimized for larger screens, it just means that ICS will continue to work like Honeycomb, with a single app scaling differently to different screen sizes."
That says to me:
1) the app will look and work exactly the same on all screens some larger some smaller
2) there will be no provision for additional capabilities to take advantage of larger screen sizes
3) Android may not be a robust enough OS to handle the differences dictated by larger displays
The latter is an interesting thought.
Many posters, here and elsewhere, claim the iPad is just a big iPhone/iPod Touch and it doesn't run a proper OS.
When, in fact, the original iPhone and all the iDevices that followed do run a proper, desktop-class OS -- Mac OS X that has been skinnyed down to run on an iPhone. Most of the underlying UNIX constructs and OS X core enhancements run on the iOS devices.
That means that as the capability of the mobile hardware grows, over time, iOs can easily grow accordingly and become closer to the capabilities of Mac OS X running on the desktop.
No one else but Apple, has a desktop-class OS running on a phone!
Android, Windows Phone 7, WebOS, the QNX variant, etc. are written specifically for a phone class device.
They have no code bases to draw from to grow these limited phone OSes into tablet OSes that approach a desktop-class OS.
The fact that there are [modified] versions of desktop apps like Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie running totally on the iPad illustrates my point.
It appears that others' phone/tablet OSes are too limited and must rely on the cloud to accomplish the equivalent of desktop apps.
MS, apparently, is going to partially implement limited desktop app capabilities on Windows 8 running on ARM...
I don't really know what that means... or what it means for the future of Windows Phone 7 (nor does MS, IMHO).
But, MS is the only Apple competitor out there with a desktop OS (and apps) that could be conceivably migrated to ARM phones/tablets to take advantage of their eventual convergence with their desktop OS...
"With Apple now being run by Tim Cook and the executive team Jobs assembled and orchestrated, it remains to be see if the media will continue to mock and denigrate its products while enthusiastically recommending alternatives that are almost always inferior, poorly designed and deeply flawed. "
You have GOT to be kidding......
The idea that Apple is the underdog in the media coverage department is flat-out false.
.
I am guessing that you do not read much do you. The media in general is always been anti-apple. Period. And just like Daniel says, they over hype and complain that it does not do anti-gravity and does not look like a Windows machine.
But, constant success tends to make even the most skeptical, a little less skeptical.
That's just it right? If you had truly productive tasks to perform, to which a tablet computer were suited, you wouldn't be sprouting this b.s. All you are interested in, according to your own words, are web sites that rely on the laziness of flash to entertain. Go grab a netbook then and don't clutter up this thread!
The post I replied to was asking how many websites still use flash, not what other tasks I use my iPad for.
Besides, when I have work to do, I use a Mac. The iPad has got a long way to go before it would be possible for me to use one for work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0
And again, just because the device isn't what your wife or daughter want, does not make it a failure.
The question was about how many sites use flash. The answer still is, a lot of them. When it comes to children's content, there are very few that don't.
Comments
The SDK provided additional APIs to help the developers exploit the iPad's larger screen.
You had to completely rethink your app, and usually re-implement it, to take intelligent advantage of the additional real estate.
The iPad mail app is a good example of this where 2 columns are concurrently displayed:
-- a left-hand column (list) of emails showing: From; Subject; and 3 lines of the body
-- a right-hand column displaying the content of the email selected in the left column,
There is no way to do that on the smaller screen!
And, it makes a world of difference from a usability standpoint -- you can much, much more easily navigate, delete and move messages (without losing your place or train of thought).
True, Apple allowed apps designed for the smaller screen to be displayed actual size (or double size) for backwards compatibility -- and that was a necessary good thing.
But users were quick to demand (and get) apps that exploited the large screen.
And, trust me -- while it is easy to change the overall display size of an iPhone/Touch app... it usually made the app work worse on the large screen than on the small...
Instead of being intuitive, it becomes awkward -- leaving the user thinking: "Why didn't they..."
AIR, there were more than 1,000 apps designed (or redesigned) specifically for the iPad, available on the day of iPad's release.
By contrast, it appears that Android wants to go in another direction -- According to Andy Rubin:
?I don?t think there should be apps specific to a tablet.?
Andy Rubin: ?I don?t think there should be apps specific to a tablet?
You are completely short minded and don't see the real point of the iPad. You want a "real os" on it. Why? So you can put some stupid program on it you downloaded from the internet? Or run "Real Photoshop"? Or have Flash?! The iPad didn't need to be a laptop. It was never meant to be. It was meant to do a few tasks extremely well that 99.99% of people due every single day which are email, web surfing, consuming media and playing games. It does those things near perfect and yet your too stupid to even see that. Your comment is pathetic. The iPad put those few tasks into the hands of the common man...grandparents, children, aunts and uncles who have no idea how to use a Mac..let alone some god awful windows box and gave them the ability to now use an iPad with basically zero learning curve. You pick it up and your going instantly. Thats what Apple does best. Simplifies the tasks we do in our every day to day lives. Thats why I love Apple so much. They make computing fun for the rest of us....not some stupid geeky tech boy who enjoys spending their days twiddling around with an OS to get it to "work for him" or to "customize it". People like you don't value your time on this earth. I'd much rather have a beautiful device that does exactly what I need it to do..so I can get on with living my life and enjoying that time with my friends and family.
Good reply. I agree with this. What the people who keep saying the iPad is not useful because it doesn't run "full desktop apps" are forgetting is that what they want has been on the market for nearly 20 years in the Windows Tablet PCs. It's been tried. Microsoft has been trying to crack the tablet PC market for years. And there will always be a slice of the market that needs full desktop in a tablet. If these people aren't already using a Windows Tablet PC, or UMPC, and they're posting how crappy iPad is because it doesn't run desktop apps, then they aren't really interested in running desktop apps; they just want to whine about iPad.
So how is that even valid criticism in the first place? Of course it was a giant iPod Touch and it still is. It is a larger version of the same device with the same operating system. The difference is in the uses for large screen versus small screen. You can't just say that you don't need the iPad because you have an iPod, or an iPhone for that matter. The size difference is what makes them different from a functional standpoint, phone functionality aside of course. Early on, many people just couldn't imagine what they would use a tablet for and the prospect of an Apple device actually failing was obviously exciting to the media. What a great story that would have made and they all would have been in on the beginning. Instead, they only demonstrated the lack of imagination that so seriously hampers our media today.
Thanks for that, well said.
My theory is this.
If you put your pants on one leg at a time and report to work for some Boss in the hopes of collection a check two weeks later then don't tell me SH** about what you think it hot or not.
What did Jobs expect? He could have stopped working years ago and would have lived comfortably. You don't go the to lackey for advice...what do they know? They aren't even smart enough to put themselves in a position where they don't have to work.
Multitasking? it is nice to have, but never was essential. save the much overused adolescent slang "fail" for things that are genuinely essential but lacking (like email on the BB PlayBook, for example).
Flash? neither nice, since it worked like crap, nor essential.
Removable battery? it was always stupid to open up any valuable electronic device to dirt, dust, moisture, and finger oil for any reason.
the boo-birds that have shown up here are the same kind of boo-birds that pooh-pooh anything Apple comes out with. which is DED's point. surprised it got to Jobs, tho, i really thought he was too arrogant to be bothered by it. sounds like he was more vulnerable than we realized.
the average intellectual maturity age of many of the tech bloggers - like Gizmodo - is around 17 years old. talk about arrested development ...
Here here to both comments.
Daniel, thanks for writing this up and taking the usual flack. I needed to hear it said, even though I'm in "non-spoiler mode" (Gruber's phrase) when it comes to this forthcoming book. I'm skipping all the leak articles that I can.
But this one. Of course Jobs would be disgusted, infuriated, hurt, baffled by the narrowness, meanness, stupidity the tablet was greeted with. To say nothing of worse that came out of posters to forums like this one. He put his heart into it and it was his like his child, for goddess's sake, and the consensus was "fail." Of course he cared what people think.
I got mine on the first day, now about a year and a half ago. I still use it for hours every day, all over the house, in the car in traffic jams, in any kind of line at Starbucks or the bank or whatever. While the iKols of this world were (so he says) sitting it out waiting for their stupid multitasking or whatever, I was learning thousands of things on my iPad, a year's worth of history, archeology, ethnopharmacology and much else. I was not "consuming" any fucking content, I was learning things. I have never played games on it, have a few apps that I hardly ever use, I just use it as a tool, an instrument for learning.
I didn't know this was going to happen. I got the Pad because I knew it would be the greatest portable video player ever for my own videos, and it is. Who knew it would be full of books and PDFs as well? (Answer: Steve Jobs.)
Daniel, thanks for flushing out the perennial left-brainers who still don't get it. They're the reason I had to join this forum though, so their ignorant kindling does keep the fire going around here, I suppose.
By the way, the lame non-replaceable battery still gets through a full day of on and off use, probably 8 hours or so. I'm going to be 70 years old soon; we'll see who wears out first.
Loved your post. I m rather younger (i m in my thirties) but I hope I ll be as forward thinking and curious when I get to your age. I too use the iPad for learning. iTunes and podcasts are a joy, keeping reference material on the iPad and a large portion of my library is a joy too. read it later with all my daily to reads autocategorized, ins tapper for my longer stories and articles, early edition picking up all the news I d like to read from rss, voice reading apps for when my eyes are tired...you name it.
God bless Steve's soul, I wish he were here, I am writing this and my eyes fill with tears, because death, this ultimate equaliser, doesn't make exceptions to anyone.
Likewise, it is fair and true that the iPad is primarily consumption device (which was the other *criticism* that irked fanboys). There's no shame in that. Again, the market has proven that more than 50% of computer use is consumption.
I too use the iPad for learning. iTunes and podcasts are a joy, keeping reference material on the iPad and a large portion of my library is a joy too. ( . . .)
God bless Steve's soul, I wish he were here, I am writing this and my eyes fill with tears, because death, this ultimate equaliser, doesn't make exceptions to anyone.
Thanks, and a tip o' the Fool's cap to ya.
Learning is not consumption!!!! Or if it is, what are we consuming, knowledge? Have things come to such a sorry pass?
Look, the media thought the iPad was a big iPod touch, but they were wrong - end of discussion.
Probably the worst article ever written on AI.
Look, the media thought the iPad was a big iPod touch, but they were wrong - end of discussion.
Why so grumpy today?
Then you've already solved the problem. You don't use the iPad for purposes that it isn't suitable for.
That doesn't justify turning the iPad into a POS machine by installing Flash just so you can view your porn.
Buts that's only. 1/3rd the solution- what about the other 2/3rds?
Buts that's only. 1/3rd the solution- what about the other 2/3rds?
It's the full solution - apparently you're not able to understand.
You use the iPad for tasks that it is suitable for. Use the computer for tasks that the iPad is not suitable for. What part of that is beyond your comprehension?
Why so grumpy today?
Grumpy? Not really. This article is like it was written in a state of defensive paranoia. The media called the iPad a big iPod touch when it came out originally because that's what they actually believed. This teenage angst/rebellion feeling from everyone of Dilger's articles becomes tiring. He's got it all wrong. He needs to try some wine or orange juice.
Thanks for including the link, as those who follow it to read the full article will discover that Rubin's comment was actually saying almost the opposite of what it might seem to out of context:
After being grilled by Walt Mossberg at the Asia D kick-off, we decided to ask Android boss Andy Rubin about the lack of tablet-optimized apps and if that would improve with the new version of Android — Ice Cream Sandwich. Rubin didn’t answer the latter part of that question specifically, but he did stress the one-app-for-all-devices strategy. “I don’t think there should be apps specific to a tablet,” he said. He also added that “if someone makes an ICS app it’s going to run on phones and it’s going to run on tablets.” Now, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t think there shouldn’t be apps optimized for larger screens, it just means that ICS will continue to work like Honeycomb, with a single app scaling differently to different screen sizes. (He referenced staying away from the Apple iPad / iPhone division in the App Store.)
Exactly the point I was making!
Rubin says:
“I don’t think there should be apps specific to a tablet,” he said. He also added that “if someone makes an ICS app it’s going to run on phones and it’s going to run on tablets.” Now, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t think there shouldn’t be apps optimized for larger screens, it just means that ICS will continue to work like Honeycomb, with a single app scaling differently to different screen sizes."
That says to me:
1) the app will look and work exactly the same on all screens some larger some smaller
2) there will be no provision for additional capabilities to take advantage of larger screen sizes
3) Android may not be a robust enough OS to handle the differences dictated by larger displays
The latter is an interesting thought.
Many posters, here and elsewhere, claim the iPad is just a big iPhone/iPod Touch and it doesn't run a proper OS.
When, in fact, the original iPhone and all the iDevices that followed do run a proper, desktop-class OS -- Mac OS X that has been skinnyed down to run on an iPhone. Most of the underlying UNIX constructs and OS X core enhancements run on the iOS devices.
That means that as the capability of the mobile hardware grows, over time, iOs can easily grow accordingly and become closer to the capabilities of Mac OS X running on the desktop.
No one else but Apple, has a desktop-class OS running on a phone!
Android, Windows Phone 7, WebOS, the QNX variant, etc. are written specifically for a phone class device.
They have no code bases to draw from to grow these limited phone OSes into tablet OSes that approach a desktop-class OS.
The fact that there are [modified] versions of desktop apps like Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie running totally on the iPad illustrates my point.
It appears that others' phone/tablet OSes are too limited and must rely on the cloud to accomplish the equivalent of desktop apps.
MS, apparently, is going to partially implement limited desktop app capabilities on Windows 8 running on ARM...
I don't really know what that means... or what it means for the future of Windows Phone 7 (nor does MS, IMHO).
But, MS is the only Apple competitor out there with a desktop OS (and apps) that could be conceivably migrated to ARM phones/tablets to take advantage of their eventual convergence with their desktop OS...
But they are at least 4 years behind Apple!
The original iPad was a disappointment before the release of iOS 4.2.
It has become a super great product since then.
Sales numbers were the "facts" that prove you wrong.
Nobody cares about your opinion.
"With Apple now being run by Tim Cook and the executive team Jobs assembled and orchestrated, it remains to be see if the media will continue to mock and denigrate its products while enthusiastically recommending alternatives that are almost always inferior, poorly designed and deeply flawed. "
You have GOT to be kidding......
The idea that Apple is the underdog in the media coverage department is flat-out false.
.
I am guessing that you do not read much do you. The media in general is always been anti-apple. Period. And just like Daniel says, they over hype and complain that it does not do anti-gravity and does not look like a Windows machine.
But, constant success tends to make even the most skeptical, a little less skeptical.
just a thought,
en
That's just it right? If you had truly productive tasks to perform, to which a tablet computer were suited, you wouldn't be sprouting this b.s. All you are interested in, according to your own words, are web sites that rely on the laziness of flash to entertain. Go grab a netbook then and don't clutter up this thread!
The post I replied to was asking how many websites still use flash, not what other tasks I use my iPad for.
Besides, when I have work to do, I use a Mac. The iPad has got a long way to go before it would be possible for me to use one for work.
And again, just because the device isn't what your wife or daughter want, does not make it a failure.
The question was about how many sites use flash. The answer still is, a lot of them. When it comes to children's content, there are very few that don't.
Sales numbers were the "facts" that prove you wrong.
Nobody cares about your opinion.
I care about his opinion. I value all opinions.