The post I replied to was asking how many websites still use flash, not what other tasks I use my iPad for.
Okay - got that thanks. I did feel that you inference was a more general criticism, however, I am happy to concede.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Those are perhaps the most dangerous words ever posted here. I hope your health insurance is paid up, as I fear you may have an unfortunate accident when the regulars here dig up your home address after writing something so inflammatory.
Clearly you didn't get the memo, so let me save your bacon:
This is the post-PC era. All that stuff you do on your computer? You don't need to do that. That $3000 machine you just bought from Apple? Steve says you might as well throw it into the rubbish bin, it was all a ruse. All you need to do is get an iPad. If you think you need to do something the iPad doesn't support, you're such an isolated edge-case freak that you're probably just mistaken. Give it up. Toss out your Macs. Get an iPad.
No doubt your interpretation interests you, and will be very welcome here in this tiny corner of the Internet in which any company but Apple is presumed to be incapable of doing anything that isn't somehow stupid.
But just as you read into Rubin's words what you wanted to hear based on your own preconceived notions, Android developers have a very different take on what Rubin was getting at there.
Smart dynamic UIs are a growing necessity in the Android world as that OS is used on an ever wider variety of form factors that cater to every taste.
This may not be obvious to those who only use iOS, since Apple provides only two form factors and if you prefer anything else Apple won't sell it to you.
Android smartphone sizes vary greatly, tablets are available in 7", 10", and others, and a new in-between screen size is in development now as well (5.6" IIRC).
It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.
What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.
But that doesn't sound very stupid of them so I don't expect anyone here to do anything but argue about it. Carry on...
so ... uh ... an ICS app on a 10" screen will be able to have more - not just reformatted - design elements in its single view - buttons, graphics, whatever - than that app when running on a 4" screen? or not?
No doubt your interpretation interests you, and will be very welcome here in this tiny corner of the Internet in which any company but Apple is presumed to be incapable of doing anything that isn't somehow stupid.
But just as you read into Rubin's words what you wanted to hear based on your own preconceived notions, Android developers have a very different take on what Rubin was getting at there.
Smart dynamic UIs are a growing necessity in the Android world as that OS is used on an ever wider variety of form factors that cater to every taste.
This may not be obvious to those who only use iOS, since Apple provides only two form factors and if you prefer anything else Apple won't sell it to you.
Android smartphone sizes vary greatly, tablets are available in 7", 10", and others, and a new in-between screen size is in development now as well (5.6" IIRC).
It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.
What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.
But that doesn't sound very stupid of them so I don't expect anyone here to do anything but argue about it. Carry on...
Surely you understand that Android device manufacturers are desperately trying to differentiate their product from the competition. They don't care less whether they give you a 3" or 5" smartphone screen or a 5" or 7" tablet screen, just so long as they can separate themselves from the pack. I say again, they only care about differentiating their product. Apple does not need to play that game. The iPad was and always will be, at the confluence of technology, cost and utility. Choice in this respect is a stupid, yes - stupid, concept. My guess is that, even if you understand this, you won't admit such and this is why the trolls are such a pain, they throw reason out of the window in order to criticise everything Apple. I encounter this daily, always have with Apple products, always will. Steve Jobs suffered small minds on a scale that would confound even the most able, intelligent observer here.
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?
You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.
You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.
Are you sure? Certainly it can't be both a tablet and a computer, can it?! Are you playing some sort of word game with us? Oh, you sly dog!
Those are perhaps the most dangerous words ever posted here. I hope your health insurance is paid up, as I fear you may have an unfortunate accident when the regulars here dig up your home address after writing something so inflammatory.
Clearly you didn't get the memo, so let me save your bacon:
This is the post-PC era. All that stuff you do on your computer? You don't need to do that. That $3000 machine you just bought from Apple? Steve says you might as well throw it into the rubbish bin, it was all a ruse. All you need to do is get an iPad. If you think you need to do something the iPad doesn't support, you're such an isolated edge-case freak that you're probably just mistaken. Give it up. Toss out your Macs. Get an iPad.
Where did anyone (much less Apple) make the claims above?
"Post-PC era does not mean that no one needs computers. In fact, Jobs specifically stated that PCs would be around forever. Remember the car vs truck analogy?
But for many people, an iPad will be able to take over many of the functions that their PC used to do. Essentially, instead of a home with 5 computers, a home might have 1 computer and 4 iPads. Or 2 and 3, perhaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol
You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.
What I use my Mac for is irrelevant. The point which you're so diligently trying to obfuscate is that for many people an iPad is all they need. For many households, an iPad can replace one or more of their computers. Or, perhaps more commonly, the iPad will be used to supplement the existing computers. They're different things, but that doesn't mean that some tasks can't be done several different ways.
When I need to go to work, I can drive an 18 wheeler, a school bus, a car, an SUV, a bicycle, or a dog sled. Any one of them will get me to work. Does that mean that they're the same thing? Obviously not.
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.
What if the standard computer screen was 11 inches, like on the MBA.
And then Apple came out with the iMac with a gigantic 27 inch screen.
Would you say that the size difference makes them different from a functional standpoint? What if neither of them could open multiple windows or run the program of your choice in the background? Would they be different from a functional standpoint? Or just different sizes?
If different sized Macs are not different in functionality, why are different sized slab computers different in functionality?
I was disappointed with the decision to use iOS in the iPad.
Me, I'd rather have a bunch of cheap web-browsing tablets laying around the house, ready to be grabbed and taken on the bus, to the throne, to the couch, or whatever, -or- a device which is a real computer, but portable. The big iTouch doesn't really do it for me.
If OSX were modular, so that portions of it could be left out, due to the RAM and CPU constraints, I think that would be superior to using a cellphone OS.
What if the standard computer screen was 11 inches, like on the MBA.
And then Apple came out with the iMac with a gigantic 27 inch screen.
Would you say that the size difference makes them different from a functional standpoint? What if neither of them could open multiple windows or run the program of your choice in the background? Would they be different from a functional standpoint? Or just different sizes?
If different sized Macs are not different in functionality, why are different sized slab computers different in functionality?
I was disappointed with the decision to use iOS in the iPad.
Me, I'd rather have a bunch of cheap web-browsing tablets laying around the house, ready to be grabbed and taken on the bus, to the throne, to the couch, or whatever, -or- a device which is a real computer, but portable. The big iTouch doesn't really do it for me.
If OSX were modular, so that portions of it could be left out, due to the RAM and CPU constraints, I think that would be superior to using a cellphone OS.
Obviously, you are not representative of the market as a whole. Apple has clearly demonstrated that they know what they're doing. What's the evidence that your 'thoughts' are any more than the inane ramblings of a troll?
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?
That would be one excellent reason for a "real os".
Quote:
Or run "Real Photoshop"? Or have Flash?!
Two more great reasons.
Quote:
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..
I am none of those people, so maybe that is why I would love a tablet computer with a "real os".
Quote:
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.
You and the "99.9%" are not "the rest of us". You and the 99.9% are "them". Apple is no longer focused on the rest of us. Their focus is on the great mass of unsophisticated, naive consumers, "the common man...grandparents, children, aunts and uncles who have no idea how" to use complex (or even semi-dumbed-down) tech.
I have little use for a dumbed down tablet, unless it is so cheap and rugged and portable as to be semi-disposable.
I'd love to see, for example, a $49.00, 7 inch tablet that runs Chrome OS. Or an $830 tablet that has the functionality of a laptop. I don't see buying an expensive, relatively fragile tablet that does less than a cellphone.
It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.
What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.
To me, that is normal. Different computers have different sized screens.
What is it about iOS which makes it necessary to always use a limited amount of form factors, and necessary for devs to rewrite software for different form factors?
IOW, what is this "resolution independence" I hear so much about? Isn't that the way normal computers work? Why is it something new or unusual or special in any way?
I think that this might factor into the multitasking discussion. If you can only have one window on the screen at a time, you cannot adjust the window to the optimal size. If only one window, background programs may as well be inoperative, because you cannot use them anyhow.
IMO, the lack of multiple windows on current tablets is a big factor which argues against them being more than glorified toys.
so ... uh ... an ICS app on a 10" screen will be able to have more - not just reformatted - design elements in its single view - buttons, graphics, whatever - than that app when running on a 4" screen? or not?
Is there any need for the UI to be different on a 11 inch screen and a 30 inch screen?
Think resizeable windows, multiple open programs, and then you will start to appreciate a bigger screen. But when the bigger screen acts just the same as a tiny 3.5 inch screen, the capabilities are not fully exploited.
Hence my disappointment with using a cellphone OS. I really expected something with the capabilities of OSX and the simplicity of iOS, but instead, all we got was a bigger screen and an OS designed for a tiny screen.
Comments
As for the "big iPod" comment. That is such a stupid criticism. That's like saying a swimming pool is "just a big bathtub".
We already had both bathtubs and swimming pools, what Apple gave us was more like a swim spa.
deleted
The post I replied to was asking how many websites still use flash, not what other tasks I use my iPad for.
Okay - got that thanks.
Those are perhaps the most dangerous words ever posted here. I hope your health insurance is paid up, as I fear you may have an unfortunate accident when the regulars here dig up your home address after writing something so inflammatory.
Clearly you didn't get the memo, so let me save your bacon:
This is the post-PC era. All that stuff you do on your computer? You don't need to do that. That $3000 machine you just bought from Apple? Steve says you might as well throw it into the rubbish bin, it was all a ruse. All you need to do is get an iPad. If you think you need to do something the iPad doesn't support, you're such an isolated edge-case freak that you're probably just mistaken. Give it up. Toss out your Macs. Get an iPad.
You really are just full of it...
deleted
deleted
No doubt your interpretation interests you, and will be very welcome here in this tiny corner of the Internet in which any company but Apple is presumed to be incapable of doing anything that isn't somehow stupid.
But just as you read into Rubin's words what you wanted to hear based on your own preconceived notions, Android developers have a very different take on what Rubin was getting at there.
Smart dynamic UIs are a growing necessity in the Android world as that OS is used on an ever wider variety of form factors that cater to every taste.
This may not be obvious to those who only use iOS, since Apple provides only two form factors and if you prefer anything else Apple won't sell it to you.
Android smartphone sizes vary greatly, tablets are available in 7", 10", and others, and a new in-between screen size is in development now as well (5.6" IIRC).
It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.
What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.
But that doesn't sound very stupid of them so I don't expect anyone here to do anything but argue about it. Carry on...
so ... uh ... an ICS app on a 10" screen will be able to have more - not just reformatted - design elements in its single view - buttons, graphics, whatever - than that app when running on a 4" screen? or not?
No doubt your interpretation interests you, and will be very welcome here in this tiny corner of the Internet in which any company but Apple is presumed to be incapable of doing anything that isn't somehow stupid.
But just as you read into Rubin's words what you wanted to hear based on your own preconceived notions, Android developers have a very different take on what Rubin was getting at there.
Smart dynamic UIs are a growing necessity in the Android world as that OS is used on an ever wider variety of form factors that cater to every taste.
This may not be obvious to those who only use iOS, since Apple provides only two form factors and if you prefer anything else Apple won't sell it to you.
Android smartphone sizes vary greatly, tablets are available in 7", 10", and others, and a new in-between screen size is in development now as well (5.6" IIRC).
It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.
What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.
But that doesn't sound very stupid of them so I don't expect anyone here to do anything but argue about it. Carry on...
Surely you understand that Android device manufacturers are desperately trying to differentiate their product from the competition. They don't care less whether they give you a 3" or 5" smartphone screen or a 5" or 7" tablet screen, just so long as they can separate themselves from the pack. I say again, they only care about differentiating their product. Apple does not need to play that game. The iPad was and always will be, at the confluence of technology, cost and utility. Choice in this respect is a stupid, yes - stupid, concept. My guess is that, even if you understand this, you won't admit such and this is why the trolls are such a pain, they throw reason out of the window in order to criticise everything Apple. I encounter this daily, always have with Apple products, always will. Steve Jobs suffered small minds on a scale that would confound even the most able, intelligent observer here.
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?
You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.
I care about his opinion. I value all opinions.
There are lots of opinions, but most of them are worthless.
You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.
Are you sure? Certainly it can't be both a tablet and a computer, can it?! Are you playing some sort of word game with us? Oh, you sly dog!
Those are perhaps the most dangerous words ever posted here. I hope your health insurance is paid up, as I fear you may have an unfortunate accident when the regulars here dig up your home address after writing something so inflammatory.
Clearly you didn't get the memo, so let me save your bacon:
This is the post-PC era. All that stuff you do on your computer? You don't need to do that. That $3000 machine you just bought from Apple? Steve says you might as well throw it into the rubbish bin, it was all a ruse. All you need to do is get an iPad. If you think you need to do something the iPad doesn't support, you're such an isolated edge-case freak that you're probably just mistaken. Give it up. Toss out your Macs. Get an iPad.
Where did anyone (much less Apple) make the claims above?
"Post-PC era does not mean that no one needs computers. In fact, Jobs specifically stated that PCs would be around forever. Remember the car vs truck analogy?
But for many people, an iPad will be able to take over many of the functions that their PC used to do. Essentially, instead of a home with 5 computers, a home might have 1 computer and 4 iPads. Or 2 and 3, perhaps.
You obviously dont or cant comprehend that the iPad IS a computer so discussing anything further with your lack of knowledge is futile. You probably use yours Mac primarily for chit chatting on facebook.
What I use my Mac for is irrelevant. The point which you're so diligently trying to obfuscate is that for many people an iPad is all they need. For many households, an iPad can replace one or more of their computers. Or, perhaps more commonly, the iPad will be used to supplement the existing computers. They're different things, but that doesn't mean that some tasks can't be done several different ways.
When I need to go to work, I can drive an 18 wheeler, a school bus, a car, an SUV, a bicycle, or a dog sled. Any one of them will get me to work. Does that mean that they're the same thing? Obviously not.
There are lots of opinions, but most of them are worthless.
You are such a positive guy.
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.
What if the standard computer screen was 11 inches, like on the MBA.
And then Apple came out with the iMac with a gigantic 27 inch screen.
Would you say that the size difference makes them different from a functional standpoint? What if neither of them could open multiple windows or run the program of your choice in the background? Would they be different from a functional standpoint? Or just different sizes?
If different sized Macs are not different in functionality, why are different sized slab computers different in functionality?
I was disappointed with the decision to use iOS in the iPad.
Me, I'd rather have a bunch of cheap web-browsing tablets laying around the house, ready to be grabbed and taken on the bus, to the throne, to the couch, or whatever, -or- a device which is a real computer, but portable. The big iTouch doesn't really do it for me.
If OSX were modular, so that portions of it could be left out, due to the RAM and CPU constraints, I think that would be superior to using a cellphone OS.
The futility of trying to reason with trolls
What if the standard computer screen was 11 inches, like on the MBA.
And then Apple came out with the iMac with a gigantic 27 inch screen.
Would you say that the size difference makes them different from a functional standpoint? What if neither of them could open multiple windows or run the program of your choice in the background? Would they be different from a functional standpoint? Or just different sizes?
If different sized Macs are not different in functionality, why are different sized slab computers different in functionality?
I was disappointed with the decision to use iOS in the iPad.
Me, I'd rather have a bunch of cheap web-browsing tablets laying around the house, ready to be grabbed and taken on the bus, to the throne, to the couch, or whatever, -or- a device which is a real computer, but portable. The big iTouch doesn't really do it for me.
If OSX were modular, so that portions of it could be left out, due to the RAM and CPU constraints, I think that would be superior to using a cellphone OS.
Obviously, you are not representative of the market as a whole. Apple has clearly demonstrated that they know what they're doing. What's the evidence that your 'thoughts' are any more than the inane ramblings of a troll?
You are such a positive guy.
I like to think of it as being realistic.
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?
That would be one excellent reason for a "real os".
Or run "Real Photoshop"? Or have Flash?!
Two more great reasons.
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..
I am none of those people, so maybe that is why I would love a tablet computer with a "real os".
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.
You and the "99.9%" are not "the rest of us". You and the 99.9% are "them". Apple is no longer focused on the rest of us. Their focus is on the great mass of unsophisticated, naive consumers, "the common man...grandparents, children, aunts and uncles who have no idea how" to use complex (or even semi-dumbed-down) tech.
I have little use for a dumbed down tablet, unless it is so cheap and rugged and portable as to be semi-disposable.
I'd love to see, for example, a $49.00, 7 inch tablet that runs Chrome OS. Or an $830 tablet that has the functionality of a laptop. I don't see buying an expensive, relatively fragile tablet that does less than a cellphone.
I like to think of it as being realistic.
You like to yeah.
It would be as silly to ask developers to write different versions of their apps as it would be to ask consumers to deal with having a different app store for every form factor.
What Rubin described is simply the necessity of smartly dynamic layouts that are optimized for the full range of devices that Android supports.
To me, that is normal. Different computers have different sized screens.
What is it about iOS which makes it necessary to always use a limited amount of form factors, and necessary for devs to rewrite software for different form factors?
IOW, what is this "resolution independence" I hear so much about? Isn't that the way normal computers work? Why is it something new or unusual or special in any way?
I think that this might factor into the multitasking discussion. If you can only have one window on the screen at a time, you cannot adjust the window to the optimal size. If only one window, background programs may as well be inoperative, because you cannot use them anyhow.
IMO, the lack of multiple windows on current tablets is a big factor which argues against them being more than glorified toys.
so ... uh ... an ICS app on a 10" screen will be able to have more - not just reformatted - design elements in its single view - buttons, graphics, whatever - than that app when running on a 4" screen? or not?
Is there any need for the UI to be different on a 11 inch screen and a 30 inch screen?
Think resizeable windows, multiple open programs, and then you will start to appreciate a bigger screen. But when the bigger screen acts just the same as a tiny 3.5 inch screen, the capabilities are not fully exploited.
Hence my disappointment with using a cellphone OS. I really expected something with the capabilities of OSX and the simplicity of iOS, but instead, all we got was a bigger screen and an OS designed for a tiny screen.