Steve Jobs wants the computer to be the equivalent of a toaster... which I think is absolutely awesome for "normal folks". The computer is supposed to solve problems, not create them. That's why I'm bullish on the iPad. Some type of black swan event is likely to occur in personal computing. I don't know if the iPad is "the event" or just a major accelerant, but people are clearly waking up to the fact that they don't need all this complex shit.
I'm not worried about guys like us. There will always be machines for us (powerful, complex, etc.). Why? Because if for some magical reason there wasn't all of a sudden, we're the type that would just make one.
From what I'm getting, it seems the current and future generations of young people are adapting to computers, not shying away. Sure people who grew up before PCs may love this type of stuff (because it's more intuitive to them), but they'll eventually all pass away. Intuition is based on what we know and are used to, and the current generation is growing up on PCs. That's why I'm wary that dumbing down computer for "normal folks" is the future.
If the iPad replaces traditional computers, it will only be because using a touchscreen and virtual keyboard is more practical than a mouse and a physical keyboard.
Also as a tradeoff to simplifying the experience, the experience is also weakened. And as users become more savvy, they'll want to try out new stuff. These things may not be compatible with the iPad platform because of its closed nature. There are eventually going to be some scenarios where some cool new thing only works on open platforms like OS X or Windows (or linux).
Also I'd like to add that one of most popular reasons I hear from friends who don't like mac is that it dumbs down the experience. That it's for people who don't know how to use computers (like their parents). I actually had this same faulty preconceived notion until I found out programmers usually preferred os x (and switched).
Like TV replaced radio and movies, like automobiles replaced bicycles, etc. Why would iPad replace anything? It just makes it more comfortable to me browse the web or read the book on a couch. When I am in mood for some programming I will put it aside and sit down in front of my desktop or grab my notebook.
The iPad replaces traditional computers no more than spoon replaces fork.
Exactly. It can certainly excel in a niche, as Apple is well known for doing. I think that niche exists, but I think it's shining point will be enabling new ways of doing things we never thought of, primarily through it being a standardized platform with creative eager developers.
I don't think there's any reason why a nice simple product with great design and UI can't be used by all, including the technical/geeky type.
I don't think it's going to replace traditional computers.
There are two kinds of people. Those who like to fiddle around with technology per se, and those who use it as a means to an end. Just because most of your friends are in the former category doesn't mean most young people are.
Also as a tradeoff to simplifying the experience, the experience is also weakened.
This is a classic geek fallacy. This is the reason smart phones were so godawfully unusable before the iPhone came out. Ask any designer—removing things can dramatically improve a user experience because it decreases the cognitive load.
There are eventually going to be some scenarios where some cool new thing only works on open platforms like OS X or Windows (or linux).
Definitely. I'm not quite ready to jump on the iPad world-domination bandwagon just yet. But keep in mind that many cool new things will only work on the iPad as well, and it remains to be seen how locked down the iPad will remain, so this isn't a definitive argument by a long shot.
> There are two kinds of people. Those who like to fiddle around with technology per se, and those who use it as a means to an end. Just because most of your friends are in the former category doesn't mean most young people are.
I'm not even talking about all my friends. (I'm not even a CS major.) I'm talking about pretty much all the people in my high school. And all the kids which the media portrays as technically savvier than their parents. So unless my high school was somehow unusually technically capable, I don't think I've been a victim to selection.
But I do understand what you're saying. Obviously there will be people who will be more technically savvy than others, but the overall trend will be towards more new technology in our lives. What seems new and complicated now will just be pencils and erasers to the next generation. So while I do believe that technology will become more transparent (more natural), I don't think it should/will become dumbed down.
> This is a classic geek fallacy. This is the reason smart phones were so godawfully unusable before the iPhone came out. Ask any designer—removing things can dramatically improve a user experience because it decreases the cognitive load.
Yea I'm well aware of that. I don't think good design and power are mutually exclusive. But I was specifically referring to the general idea that simplifying things naturally results in less power. The trick is to simplify it without sacrificing power, in which you'll result with what we call design. But I think it's important to realize that simplifying without sacrificing any power is probably impossible. You'll undoubtedly lose some degree of power. Closing the app platform results in a simplified experience, but we can all agree it takes some power away from developers too. I probably shouldn't have used the word "experience." I meant experience to describe the capabilities of the system.
Sorry I have a tendency to complicate my communications.
Not sure exactly which part you thought was complicated, but I'll take a stab and reexplain this:
good design is about fitting as much power into as intuitive an interface as possible. Simply removing things does not necessarily mean better design.
It's like getting a car with raw power or good mileage. The trick is in getting as much of both as you can, but sometimes you may prefer one over the other.
I was trying to put down your argument against simplicity by poiting your argument's complexity. Hence the smart-ass downmod, I accept it.
But I still disagree with you, there isn't a simple equilibrium between power and simplicity. And this is my interpretation of the Apple philosophy, I would bet I share it with many Mac users, and it's odd to me, not with you.
The simplicity in the experience greatly determines the pleasure you take from it, and this determines the context where the "power exchange" happens. Your "power", or the value you get from a product/service is all determined in this context. Albeit being a techie, and having a special interface with these machines I can no longer stand more hurdles since I discovered that it hasn't to be like that.
let me first define simplicity. I do not mean it in the sense of lack of unecessary complexity. That is always a good thing. I mean it in the sense of removing complexity (any type of complexity).
My argument's not that simplicity is bad. I'm saying that you can't just strip away things or a single button would always be the best product in the world.
I'm not saying there's an equilibrium between power and simplicity. I'm saying the trick is in getting as much of both as pasible.
I think it's not ludicrous to say that os x has a simpler user interface but you have just as much power as windows. The complexity is still there. It's just well hidden under intuitiveness. But the important thing is that os x didn't get there simply by having less features. Stripping away things doesn't always help make it better. Consider a video encoding tool. You could make the software easier to use by making it a file picker and a encode button. But this easier is relative to the user. You're definitely sacrifing some power. But if you hide advanced controls you can simplify th ui but removing often unused controls while keeping power features like codec selection available. But it's not just about simplifying by removing any and all features that a single group finds unecessary. It depends in your users. Ideally, all the power with all the simplicity.
There are two kinds of people. Those who like to fiddle around with technology per se, and those who use it as a means to an end.
I used to be the first, now I consider myself more the second. You could say I'm getting older, but I like to think I'm getting smarter.
Hey--I enjoy hacking away more than ever. But if the means is getting in the way of the end, then I'm just really impatient anymore. It's like waiting for a slow computer, sort of. Or, better yet--having to figure out which slot of RAM in my desktop is having problems before I can do some development at an acceptable speed without tons of swapping. I can do this stuff. If I'm learning something from it, great--but it's still getting in the way of what I want to be doing.
Just because technology gets in the way of doing work doesn't mean that work is not technical in nature. And, of course, there are plenty of valuable, useful endeavors out there that are not inherently technical in nature. Those are not somehow lessened simply they desire to focus less on the tool and more on the result.
I don't think appliance computing institutes a disconnect between what hackers and non-hackers compute on. I actually think the opposite is true but that the tools aren't here just yet to support that conjecture.
All you really need is a scary "programmer mode" on the iPad that lets you be root. Does anyone have any guess as to whether Apple will allow that? Presumably if you could be root you'd be able to get around whatever horrible drm they're planning for iPad as paywall on the client. Does that mean they'd never allow it?
You don't have to assume that. Maybe the biggest company that grows off the iPad will be one that merely uses an iPad app to acquire users for something else.
Plus, is it better to make $10 and give $3 to Apple or make $5 and keep all of it?
Being at their mercy is a little more worrying. But if you had enough users you'd be much less at their mercy.
I don't have a problem with paying a business partner 30% if it makes sense. In the past, I built a business where I only had one client, IBM...they sold my app frameworks into their clients...big honkin' enterprise deals. They dictated the terms at all times. Life was good for a few years, but the party did end. My issue with Apple isn't how much they want for their cut, its that there is no choice...only one market, they control all the terms.
It may be that Apple factors that 30% into its pricing decisions and ends up with a razors & razorblades model, at least to some degree. This could be a huge net positive for developers because of the expanded market.
You say "root", but do you mean, "root"? There's a difference between "more access that permits development" and root.
I want to be root. When it comes to deciding what code runs on my system, I want to be the final decider. I want to be real root, not sandboxed root. See: PS3 Linux. I suspect the Apple of today would give us sandboxed root and tell us to like it or get bent.
I doubt they're going to allow it. Doesn't matter, since the device will probably be jailbroken rather fast and some dev tools are already out there as iPhone apps. I remember having terminal pre app store days on iPhone v1 when I jailbroke it.
I think jailbreaking on the iPad is going to be a very interesting thing. Jailbreaking your phone was kind of a scary proposition because you'd lose your phone if it got bricked and not be able to get the $200-$300 subsidy on replacement,etc. With the iPad, the worst case is going and buying the equivalent of another computer at the same price.
Yeah, but it could be because they assume no one would want to do development on such small devices. Whereas it might actually be optimal to develop some iPad apps on the iPad. I should just ask the guys at Apple...
Do you really think there is good reason to develop on handhelds or do you just think that solving this problem might be a good way of unexpectedly solving other problems?
There might eventually be XCode for the iPad, but I doubt it'll come with root access. Apple doesn't want people developing apps that require root access to run, that would circumvent their entire model. Anyway I suspect the current iPad hardware would have a hard time compiling anything.
No doubt if Apple did make XCode for the iPad it would require an Apple developer license to run. What they seem very keen to avoid is having a cheap compiler or virtual machine or interpreter on the platform that lets people download code and circumvent the App Store. I doubt that they are against people developing on the platform for its own sake.
Very true. I'm sure there will be some power apps made for the iPad. It's definitely doable for us to work on the "watered down" machines, but I think the problem lies in the fact that "normals" have been working on the difficult machines. We can create what we want. The "normals" cannot. The "normals" need someone to champion them, kind of like a PC Messiah who will save them from the shitshow that is Windows and difficult computing.
" ... but people are clearly waking up to the fact that they don't need all this complex shit."
Telephones used to be complex, in that they needed many people to complete calls, then they got bone simple.
But then they got complex in a different way. I don't think you can buy a phone today that just gives you a dial tone and basic DTMF buttons.
Mobile phones are worse (so to speak). But as best can see there are increasing numbers of people using their mobile as their only phone.
There's a market for feature-less devices (check out Reader's Digest for their ads for phones and such; basic behavior and a few Big Button options for the AARP crowd).
But it seems there's a larger market for at least all sorts of complexity.
Someone please make a paper-killer application. I love working with pen & ink because there are no distractions and the form factor is awesome for free thinking. I want those thoughts to get permanence. I'd love to be able to jump into a mini-drawing program as well.
For app makers, I could see the tablet as an extremely fast prototyping tool. You could draw up a mockup, add some hooks for click through transitions, maybe some data entry. I could make a full application mock in 10 minutes. I know, I've done it before on paper, but with clumsy transitions (i.e. now look over at this other picture).
Also, I've been colaboratively drawing with my 3 year old a lot. We just draw different parts of a big sheet. I'd love to do this on the go. In fact, I think this is a whole application class that is growing on the iphone: kids apps. The difference with the iPad is that they can be collaborative. The education apps will be awesome.
[O]rdinary people just want something cheap that works.
And that's how the iPad will seem to them. Many will never
make a conscious decision to switch. They'll get an iPad as
well, then find they use their Windows machine less and
less. When it dies they won't replace it.
That is why I find all of the iPad vs laptop/netbook/whatever silly. They are invariably comparing some excellent value, highly functional Amazon best seller to the iPad. That's not what it needs to be compared. Noone is going to be sitting there deciding between an iPadn & an Eee.
The real comparison happens where the real choice happens: at home. There is a nice new ipad on the kitchen table and a 3 year old computer in the other room. The computer has all sorts of crap installed on it, gives off 4 alerts a minute, takes 5 minutes to boot. It's tied to the power point because even thought it's a laptop, the battery died 2 years ago.
I actually think that lately (viz., reactions to the "Facebook Login" incident) most tech people are forgetting that the vast majority of computer users are not dummies, but intelligent, educated professionals who use a computer as a tool to complete their job.
For example: how many people use Microsoft Excel at least once a week? 100 million people? 250 million? It's certainly a large chunk of the computing public. These are sophisticated users of desktop software, and I can't imagine they'll be putting down their Windows PCs in favor of iPads.
Lately, HN-types have been suggesting that there are two classes of users: the sophisticated software engineer, and the unsophisticated masses. This is both insulting and wrong.
There is no reason that iPad software won't be as sophisticated as current desktop applications like Excel. What makes iPad really interesting to me is that we may be able to invent new ways to interact with software. The iWork (Numbers) demo in the iPad keynote shows some possibilities directly relevant to your point about Excel.
There is no reason that iPad software won't be as sophisticated as current desktop applications like Excel.
Yes there is. Apple seems pretty intent on keeping their policy of forbidding interpreters, plug-ins, virtual machines and the like. To really be as sophisticated as Excel, a program must include a scripting language and extension mechanism. That's not to say that a spreadsheet without those features isn't just as useful to most users, but it certainly isn't as sophisticated.
Apple may, of course ignore the rules it requires third-party developers to live under when building its own software.
> There is no reason that iPad software won't be as sophisticated as current desktop applications like Excel.
Only if you consider the fact that both are computers and theoretically capable of running any arbitrary code.
Also factor in the new way of using a computer (via touchscreen). Will that work out? Consider the fact that Apple has a tight control on apps and development. How will the amount of innovation fostered by each system compare?
When you consider those things, you'll realize the argument is not on whether or not the iPad is capable of replacing the software but on whether or not the iPad's design and platform can be a viable alternative to the way we use computers. Because, theoretically any computer is capable of replicating software capabilities.
Consider the Mac vs PC battle. The Mac is capable of doing pretty much everything your PC does, but why does it have less market penetration? Consider the various factors to that.
I can't imagine they'll be putting down their Windows PCs in favor of iPads.
They won't be putting Windows PC's down in favor of iPads, they'll be picking up iPads in addition to using using Windows PC's.
I agree with pg's suggestion that something organic is going to evolve from the new form factor. I also think it's really hard to imagine exactly what that will be until you are using it and developing for it.
You're right that it's an oversimplification (and frequently an inaccurate and harmful one) to lump people into two groups. You're wrong about the rest though.
Pretty much everyone uses a computer at some point nowadays, and most people are not intelligent educated professionals, ergo most computer users are not intelligent educated professionals. I would suspect fewer than 1% of Facebook users even know about that incident.
Also many people specialize in certain softwares, Excel being a great case in point. I know some accountants who can do things in Excel that baffle me, but still have to call me to set up their Wi-Fi network password for them. They are educated professionals who spend most of their working hours in front of a PC, yet are still not at all sophisticated computer users.
Use of a device at home does not automatically beget use of that device at the office.
For example, over 50 million Nintendo Wiis are installed in homes around the world, but nobody is clamoring for "Wiimote" apps at work.
The iPad surely has the potential to change the way casual home users interact with their computers... but I believe pg's comparison to microcomputers in the enterprise is a misplaced analogy.
Paul, if you're reading this, I urge you to spend a few days observing the 'knowledge workers' at a bank, claims processor, hospital, or real estate developer. Watch how they have memorized all the shortcuts and quirks of their custom line-of-business apps. You'll discover a class of users who want power and control, not simplicity and ease-of-use.
I'd suggest you do the same at a medical office. The people who man the computers are typically paid just above minimum wage and have a painfully difficult time using the software, in my experience.
That said I think you are right about other professions, e.g. anyone who works in IB for a large firm isn't allowed a mouse because it is much more effective to become efficient with the shortcuts.
" Watch how they have memorized all the shortcuts and quirks of their custom line-of-business apps. You'll discover a class of users who want power and control, not simplicity and ease-of-use."
Doesn't "quirks" already imply that it's non-optimal? Shouldn't we think of applications and user interfaces which don't make someone remembering all shortcuts a "professional"? As stated by others before, simplicity and ease of use aren't strongly correlated to power and control.
A widespread and, I think, unfortunate response to "Facebook Login" was for people to say "oh, sure, these people didn't realize they weren't on facebook.com, but that's because they were too busy curing malaria and designing maglev trains to concentrate on anything so petty."
Fact is, we have to design for smart non-technical people AND dumb non-technical people.
I guess nobody is counting on Excel(Office) users to be switching to the iPad, as well as businesses won't be switching their desktops to Mac. But you can bet you will look damn sexy if you present your service reporting to your clients on an iPad.
This became apparent to me when I checked Google Analytics for the first time and found Internet Explorer was overwhelmingly the default browser for our website.
Aside from the "cheap" part, though my laptop is dirt-cheap compared to the time I've spent on it, that's what's happened to me since I got my MacBook Pro. I don't miss my Windows box... which is kinda strange, as I grew up on Windows.
I think the idea of one company controlling what people may do with computers is pretty horrible. I hope this doesn't happen, and would rather develop or invest in something that could make the iPad fail than something complementary to it.
I agree with this, and would like to expand on it a bit. For me personally, I do not mind that the iPad is "simple" or even single tasking. The problem is that the software that is run on it is controlled. Worse, it is controlled by a company who has already demonstrated that they are happy to deny applications based on money interests or the opinions of their primarily US market.
Last year they decided joke political apps were "not worth offending their user base" for and banned them. This year they ban all applications related to sexuality for the same reason. Web browsers and email clients are banned for money interests. It goes without saying that apps like itunes are banned.
What is next? Apps related to evolution and science? Any 3rd party apps related to music? Who knows. Maybe nothing, maybe all those things.
This sets a FAR more dangerous precedent than Microsoft's monopoly on the OS market. And as this article correctly points out, very few people outside of IT will care. For them it will be "why isn't there app X, guess IT people are just boring/uncreative/didn't think of it, oh well."
This level of control is enough for me to buy an alternative product, even if it may not be quite as good.
OK, if Apple will release such an app... let's not start this topic. Instead, consider this example:
I've built a software that allows publishers to distribute their books on many devices at once: Kindle, iPad, iPhone, Sony Reader, etc. Do you think Apple and Amazon will allow me to release such apps for their devices? I doubt it. The only way left for me is to write it as a webapp. Such control is bad for free market in general.
Do you think Apple and Amazon will allow me to releas
such apps for their devices? I doubt it. The only way
left for me is to write it as a webapp. Such control is
bad for free market in general.
First you assume Apple won't allow such an app. Then you reason on your assumption which may have nothing to do with reality. That's exactly what I call FUD.
BTW, I bought a kindle edition of the book yesterday on Amazon.com and was reading it on my iPhone with a free kindle app. I assume, that if I had Kindle too, I'd be able to read said book on both devices.
Apple did not care much where music on you iPod came from — why should they care where do books on iPhone/iPad come from? The more content available, the more useful the device is. It is hardware that makes money for Apple, and if something helps to sell more of it it is good for Apple.
One company, Microsoft, currently controls how most people use their computers. As mentioned in the RFS the iPad is likely a challenge to this near monopoly.
Also, I think more technical use cases where a larger touch device can be a control surface could be important as well. A few obvious applications are MIDI controllers, video application controllers and others applications where complex mechanical controllers are used.
One company, Microsoft, currently controls how most people use their computers.
No, they don't. Microsoft got raked over the coals in both the courts and public opinion for making it somewhat more inconvenient to use third party browsers and media players. Under Apple's policies third party browsers and media players are entirely prohibited, and that's just a side effect of their complete control. If Microsoft had that kind of power 20 years ago, the web wouldn't exist. Likewise if the iPad and similar devices take over, Apple will be in excellent position to block the next major innovations that might interfere with their established business models.
If/When Apple reaches a majority on one of these markets, mobile?, the regulators will enforce them to behave properly. Although if it's really bad to free market they should be enforcing them earlier.
+1. At the risk of sounding too dramatic, it feels pretty evil to help Apple just because there are some profits to be made in apps; feels like helping a tyrannical dictatorship take over the world. I'd rather help some other simplified -but open- platform succeed.
Haha, i love how everyone is like "uhm, yeah, it will change our future, appple is so genius, but i don't know why and how, but somehow it must be true because i say so".
Translates to: Nobody knows, there is no evidence, people are wishing for the ipad to become the computing device of the future, but dont know how that new computing future could be different from tomorrow.
But, since apple did a great marketing job, as always, you are not alone. There are hell of a lot of people who will buy the ipad, but don't exactly know why. I know a lot of people that want an ipad, but when i ask them what would be so great about it, what would they do with it, they don't really know, they just think it's awesome. Which in my oppinion, is a result of good marketing (and neat design). It looks neat, the whole world is talking about it, apple is cool, so i need one too!
This discussion is somehow the same, but discussed by geeks: It's cool, it's easy to use, those dumb other 99% of computer users will need this, but i don't know why. :)
Ok. What's your point? Is someone supposed to know?
I think people didn't really have any idea how the iPhone would really have an impact. At best people said, "Now I don't need to carry a phone and an iPod." That's probably one of the least touted feature today because it is simply taken for granted.
The thing with iPhone is that it really removed any threshold to mobile applications. Sure, I could've probably done everything on my laptop that I do on my iPhone. But who wants to bust out their laptop every 5 minutes to check Facebook, find directions and beam someone money using PayPal? Oh yeah.. you'd also have the barrier of actually having connectivity no matter where you are.
I will say that there will be a similar evolution with the iPad. Certain applications lends themselves better to a touch interface with a lightweight form factor. These applications need more screen real estate than an iPhone but less power than a laptop. The most obvious? A book reader.
I can see any sort of designer app being huge: web page designing, graphic designing, photo editing. Personally I would love a personal entertainment console. In a perfect world, I'd have a smooth, user friendly and rich touch interface to pick a movie to stream from Netflix and have it start playing automatically through my Apple TV.
Just use the "Print" command in any application - Word, OpenOffice, LyX, Dia, PageMaker, whatever - and choose "my iPad" from the list of printers. Then the document is wirelessly synced to an iPad app with a simple browsing interface. Basically like Instapaper, but it could work really well with complex graphical documents.
Yup, and that works okay for me, but I think "print to iPad" would be appealingly simple not just for me but for lots of less-savvy users. "Print to Kindle DX" (or other large-screen e-ink reader) would be good too.
Actually, this is a really brilliant idea. Combine it with push notifications and you have a service that could actually be dead simple and replace a lot of the common print jobs at my work.
I completely agree with Paul and the others at Ycombinator. Although my writeup was specifically about control systems, my point is that this device is not about eBook reading, so comparing it to the Kindle is a waste of time.
One particularly interesting subproblem is how to introduce iPads into big companies.
There's already an app for this, keynote. The iPad is perfect for sales presentations hooked up to a projector or by passing the tablet around. You can edit on the go and email the deck. It's easy to slip from presentation to app demo.
The only thing missing is easy wireless printing from the iPad or iPhone. Opportunity here?
You could just use a Lenovo X-series tablet that's been around for years, runs PowerPoint and every other Windows program, has a fold-out full-sized keyboard, and already connects to existing projectors and printers without dongles.
Lenovo X-series tablet - Starting model price: $1879.00 (currently on sale for $1399.00).
Apple iPad - Starting model price: $499.00.
I think it does not matter whether the Lenovo tablet is more fully featured. People will buy the iPad without a second thought, because it is affordable, and then make it work for this purpose.
Additionally, and I hate to admit this, but the iPad will probably have greater fashion value to be seen with in a boardroom than the Lenovo tablet.
We're thinking about building an iPad app, but I am still just a little bit concerned it won't be nearly as big as the iPhone. It's a big risk for us to take as a three-person start-up.
We currently develop a GPS/tracking/mapping app for the iPhone, and a bunch of our users have emailed us to ask us what our plans for the iPad are. The obvious application would be a trip planning app - something where you could trace out trails and waypoints on the iPad, and then load that data into your iPhone or other GPS unit out in the field. You could even take the iPad with you I guess, considering how light and slim it is.
We're still iffy on doing something like this, but a big part of me wants to, particularly since I'd use the app for my own trips, and it would be a good excuse to buy an iPad :)
I guess we'll see. We also see opportunities in boating and aviation, and we're talking to a boating maps company about a deal that might lead to an iPad app as well.
We've applied to YC with a music composition application as opposed to a music reader. We think the iPad is ideal for this domain since the much larger screen will allow users to take advantage of interfaces like a virtual keyboard or guitar that you can't really fit in an iPhone's screen.
Essentially, the user touches an interface element, then slides their finger off the element to "cancel" the touch.
For most iPhone UI buttons/elements, it doesn't register a button click unless the the finger touches down on the button then releases up off the same button.
I'd like to see hardware for it. A docking port that made it accept a real keyboard might make me want to buy one. A virtual keyboard's fine for browsing Facebook, but I couldn't do any real work on one without wanting to kill myself. The ability to type while looking at the screen with nearly flawless precision is just too good to give up.
It may be worth noting that developers don't necessarily need official apps for everything. That is, github becomes an implicit app store because we can build locally and push to our own devices.
I suspect this to be the only means by which Emacs will become available on iPhoneOS, for instance. Considering the intended user base, that's acceptable as a starting place.
(To preempt certain class of questions: Use the "happy hacker"/"das keyboard" concept by implementing an unmarked keyboard underneath a partially transparent background, so you maximize text on screen while also accommodating typing without external keyboard. For Emacs in particular, just hit C-l or otherwise scroll when cursor lands beneath fingers. That's one step closer to YCRFS5...)
Software pros and cons aside, in 10-20 years devices with UIs almost exclusively controlled through touch on their primary display are going to appear quite comical. The iPad will encourage horrible ergonomics for extended periods of time which may cause RSS and CTS. Also, I am guessing the iPad will have the highest percentage of drops (physical falling) per unit for devices of similar dimensions (e.g. netbooks).
Seriously, how is controlling a semi-portable device by touching its primary display a good idea for general computing tasks? When considering angles, line of sight, and ergonomics, this product makes little sense to me, except in usages that require sparse interaction.
>>>Software pros and cons aside, in 10-20 years devices with UIs almost exclusively controlled through touch on their primary display are going to appear quite comical.
Like all these touchscreen cash registers that have been out there for 10-20 years already? Sure, many of them still have bubble/chiclet overlays, but they're still touch. And all of the input machines for the NY State Lottery have dropped the keyboard and gone with touchscreen.
For touch to be effective and limit the possibility of RSI, the screen should be on a gentle slope, not vertical as our current monitors.
What general computing tasks are you referring to? Most people's daily computing tasks involve web browsing and email or social networking, things the iPhone does and presumably iPad will do quite well.
Also what is wrong with touch displays? 10-20 years is a very long time in terms of computers! What do you see as the future of UIs? To me, touch is more intuitive/easier than using a mouse for most things. The interaction you can get with multitouch pinch/pull, swipe, etc allow for rich new possibilities in UI design.
I was really surprised when I saw my mother using Safari on her iPhone (which we gave her for christmas just to have a "simple" phone and iPod, nothing more). It's not like she can't use a PC, but she rarely does so.
This made me think that an iPad, or a similar super simple tablet is the right product for her. Appliance is the way to go.
If my parents TV set took 5 minutes to boot up and frequently asked to download and install the latest security updates before letting them watch TV, maybe they would do it less often. :)
I hear this a lot, and am always perplexed. Why is anybody actually shutting down their computers these days? I know Windows didn't sleep reliably many years ago, but don't they have that working now?
People who do the recommended security updates shut down their computers quite often. And yes, sleep reliability varies a lot with the hardware (unfortunately).
> One particularly interesting subproblem is how to introduce iPads into big companies. This will probably have to be done by stealth initially, as happened with microcomputers. They'll have to be introduced as something individuals use, and which doesn't really count as a computer and thus can't be vetoed by the IT department.
It almost sounds like pg is trying to encourage us all to become iPad evangelists. It kind of feels a bit like a paid promotion to me. I'd understand the attitude if it was some kind of non-commercial product or an open standard. But suggesting that we shill this locked down, DRM infested thing is not what I would expect.
