A pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft article from Gruber? I'm shocked.
However, even though this is yet another iteration of his "Why <insert Microsoft technology here> sucks compared to <insert Apple technology here>" theme, I tend to agree with him this time.
I cannot imagine the iOS devices finding success if they were actually just Macs with a new category of touch apps strapped on. This only leads to market and developer confusion. If it's just one platform, what is my target device as a developer? If I develop to touch-driven HTML5+JS, why would anyone want to use it with a mouse? If I develop to WPF, why would anyone want to use it with multi-touch? Whatever they call it, it's two platforms, crammed together, and they just don't fit well. As a developer, you still have to make a choice, and it is the device itself that determines what development path you will take.
Then there is the hardware requirements. Windows 7 made great strides in this direction, but I just cannot imagine Windows 8 running as efficiently on an ARM-based device as iOS does today. I hope to be surprised here.
I cannot imagine the iOS devices finding success if they were actually just Macs with a new category of touch apps strapped on.
Maybe we'll see with Lion. :-)
This only leads to market and developer confusion. If it's just one platform, what is my target device as a developer?
How would people want to use it? In some cases you may even do two apps, although you probably could share code (not clear what the app model is for Win8 still). Just like today you might build an app just for OS X, or just for iOS, or you might build one for each. Depends on the app.
Then there is the hardware requirements. Windows 7 made great strides in this direction, but I just cannot imagine Windows 8 running as efficiently on an ARM-based device as iOS does today. I hope to be surprised here.
No idea, but if WP7 is any indication, they are killing perf. WP7 flies on relatively weak hardware. On old SnapDragons it kills the perf of Android on dual-core modern SnapDragons. I hope Win8 has those chops.
The new touch interface looks interesting, but backwards compatability is baggage that threatens to make the Windows 8 user experience an ugly inconsistent mess.
Touch is great for mobile apps, but it doesn't beat the old mouse + keyboard when it comes to desktop productivity.
This discussion reminds me of arguments from the "Raymond Chen Camp" [1]. Backwards compatibility is of huge value and importance to Microsoft, but it's a big burden to carry as well. Throwing away all the code that has been developed to date for Windows would be a fatally stupid mistake.
Microsoft would be better served by keeping their touch based phone / mobile platform seperate from the desktop. I don't think it's possible to build a platform that nicely mixes UI metaphores.
Attacking Gruber because he says Apple's approach is better than Microsoft's isn't addressing the arguments he raises so let's address them:
"Microsoft’s demo video shows Excel — the full version of Excel for Windows — running alongside new touch-based apps. They can make buttons more “touch friendly” all they want, but they’ll never make Excel for Windows feel right on a touchscreen UI."
No one said Excel for Win 8 would be just a touch friendly version. Gruber's argument assumes that Microsoft won't attempt to think through the use-case of touch on Office products. Given that Office is one of their top pilars of profitability, you can bet that they'll at least attempt to create Office 2012 (or whatever) to fit in naturally with how people will want to and need to use it.
"The iPad succeeds because it has eliminated complexity, not because it has covered up the complexity of the Mac with a touch-based “shell”. "
You definitely have a point with that but a particular quote comes to mind "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein. You can't do real work on the iPad version of iWorks. Making Excel simpler just for simplicities sake would be a mistake for Microsoft. Exposing the right amount of simplicity for the various tasks is what they should be aiming for.
"Apple’s radical notion is that touchscreen personal computers should make severely different tradeoffs than traditional computers — that you can’t design one system that does it all."
You can't until you can. iOS is built on the same technology of OSX. IF they wanted, they could make iOS able to run OSX apps and be able to do many of the things that OSX can do. They've simply elected not to.
Most of the tradeoffs that Apple has made has less to do with what is possible and more to do with training their developers. If I remember correctly, Apple elected not to allow a 2 button mouse for a long time earlier in their history because they wanted to force developers to build apps that worked just fine with 1 button... to force them to create a different type of experience for users.
Microsoft's goals are actually the opposite. They don't want to create a completely different experience. Their corporate clients will buy the next version of Windows because it is an evolution, not a revolution. Creating a revolutionary product may actually be counter to their interests.
> If I remember correctly, Apple elected not to allow a 2 button mouse for a long time earlier in their history because they wanted to force developers to build apps that worked just fine with 1 button.
I think you might be thinking of the reason the 128K Mac didn't have a terminal. In that case, they wanted to force developers to make new, graphical programs instead of just porting their terminal programs to the Mac. The mouse had one button [to cater to users][1]:
> The powers at Apple concluded that because the mouse was a whole new way for users to interact with their computers, it should be as uncomplicated as possible. Hence, one button.
The original Mac did not have arrow keys on its keyboard. This was to encourage programmers to write programs that use the mouse. I'm pretty sure I read this originally on http://www.folklore.org, but I can't find that particular story right now.
I think the biggest thing that Apple got right that Microsoft is in danger of not getting right is that people should have different expectations for a tablet. A tablet shouldn't have to do everything that a PC can, because it will end up doing most of them poorly.
You can't do real work on the iPad version of iWorks.
Again, this is okay with most people due to the different expectations one has with a tablet over a PC. If all you need to do is update one small item on the iPad, it's doable.
Making Excel simpler just for simplicities sake would be a mistake for Microsoft. Exposing the right amount of simplicity for the various tasks is what they should be aiming for.
I certainly wouldn't want to use a version of Excel that was designed for a PC on a tablet. It would be a horrible user experience. The only way to make it workable is to write something from scratch. Sure, it could read and write .xlsx files, but under the hood, it would need to be very different.
they could make iOS able to run OSX apps
I think that Apple has shown that they are actually going the opposite way. More and more of OSX looks like it was ported over from iOS.
One of Microsoft's problems with Tablet PCs in the early 2000s was that they were PCs. Because of this, they needed to have all of the horsepower to run Windows and still be portable enough to use as a tablet. This meant that they were always expensive. iPads on the other hand don't need to run a full copy of OSX, so they can be much lighter, smaller, and cheaper (than a Mac).
The best line in the Gruber piece is this:
You can’t make something conceptually lightweight if it’s carrying 25 years of Windows baggage
This is why Microsoft is going to have issues using the same code base for a tablet and the full Windows 8. It has too much extra stuff. A tablet doesn't need all of that stuff. This is one of those categories where having raw power isn't as important as being lightweight and using what you have as efficiently as possible.
Microsoft may be primarily selling to corporate clients and OEMs, but they will still be competing with iOS and Android tablets in terms of mindshare and expectations.
> A tablet shouldn't have to do everything that a PC can, because it will end up doing most of them poorly.
Yes, but that's ok. It might be a less than stellar experience to pull up a complex work spreadsheet that was emailed to me on my tablet while I'm on vacation but at least it's possible. I can get my work done and get back to sipping mai tais.
It's amazing how many people are down on the idea of having access to their apps simply because the experience is slightly degraded.
I agree, there is certainly a market for the tablet that keeps things possible. The iPad type device is great for consuming content, it excels here, its probably not going to be beaten (at least not any time soon). But there is a huge market waiting to be tapped outside of just consuming content, and microsoft is rightly looking at that.
Not only is a useful tablet what I'm waiting for in a consumer device (for my definitions of useful), but business will love the thing. At work we have tons of netbooks and win xp tablet-ish devices littered around the labs and I love those little fuckers. There is never going to be an iScience or iEngieneer app to do even the bog-standard things that we need the netbooks around the lab for, and if there was it would be a re-invention of the wheel that is watered down with a toy interface slapped on it.
Look at android, many of us use it because we're willing to take a hit on the UI of our phone if it means we can do more. It will happen with tablets where we can get a step less polish and a huge jump of possibility.
At this point I'm convinced the Android UI is way better than the iOS UI. Forget how pretty it looks -- the presence of the back button alone elevates the UI in my opinion.
I think the biggest thing that Apple got right that Microsoft is in danger of not getting right is that people should have different expectations for a tablet.
I agree. Managing the expectations of what people should be doing on the different form factors is going to be important.
If all you need to do is update one small item on the iPad, it's doable. I certainly wouldn't want to use a version of Excel that was designed for a PC on a tablet. It would be a horrible user experience. The only way to make it workable is to write something from scratch. Sure, it could read and write .xlsx files, but under the hood, it would need to be very different.
Again, you're making the assumption that it was designed for a PC. I think they'll think through both use cases and expose the right functionality at the right times. (Yes, this is an assumption that gives MS the benefit of the doubt but given how important Office is to their profitability, I'm comfortable with this assumption.) Also, it wouldn't need to be very different under the hood. It would just need to be different UI. Yes, bigger buttons isn't going to cut it but UI is so much more than just 'bigger buttons'.
One of Microsoft's problems with Tablet PCs in the early 2000s was that they were PCs. Because of this, they needed to have all of the horsepower to run Windows and still be portable enough to use as a tablet. This meant that they were always expensive. iPads on the other hand don't need to run a full copy of OSX, so they can be much lighter, smaller, and cheaper (than a Mac).
You've definitely got a point there. They'll need to address this head-on.
The best line in the Gruber piece is this: You can’t make something conceptually lightweight if it’s carrying 25 years of Windows baggage
Agreed, though not completely. Making selective cuts would allow them to maintain the same code base for tablets and desktops. It might actually result in a better desktop experience.
Microsoft may be primarily selling to corporate clients and OEMs, but they will still be competing with iOS and Android tablets in terms of mindshare and expectations.
Agreed, which is why I'm excited to see the new UI. Not sure how far they are going to be willing to push things in order to compete on the excitement factor and winning consumers over.
I'm sure the next version of Office will be optimized for the new Win8 UI style or at least have a companion version that's optimized for new Win8 style, but it'll be awkward for Microsoft if that next version isn't out until ~8 months after Win8 itself, which is very possible given that Office 2010 came 8 months after Windows 7 and they usually have similar release cycles.
(Were it up to me, I'd make damn sure Office 2012 is ready day-and-date with Win8, and accelerate the release by cutting absolutely anything, other than support for the new touch UI, necessary to make that happen.)
It's too early to say anything about Office on Windows 8. What Microsoft showed today was Windows 8, not Office. I'm sure Microsoft will has something for Office on Windows 8 with touch interface in mind. So far, I haven't seen any good office productivity applications on touch interface. I hope Microsoft impresses me.
PowerPoint and other presentation apps are naturals for touch. A lot of the stuff our engineers present in SolidWorks would be much easier done with a touchscreen.
The actual document/drawing creation lends itself to a tradional keyboard/mouse UI, but presentation is more intuitive when you can touch the screen and drag or rotate/enlarge an object with your fingers.
I think Gruber is actually missing something pretty important here. Something everyone has traditionally understood, but its been forgetten (and honestly, largely irrelevent nowadays):
Microsoft sells a boatload of copies of Windows.
They don't sell a lot of MP3 devices. Or tablets. Or phones. But they sell a lot of copies of Windows. And a very strong OEM partnership market.
With Windows 8 expect on the low-end they ship 200M copies its first year. On the high-end, think 450M. (they did 350M for Win7). This will be the default UI for all tablets and probably laptops (maybe desktops, but desktops are increasingly niche devices).
You're going to have a huge market of people now getting touch devices because the default touch experience is actually really good. Sure there's the other experience, but people will be able to largely stay in the default touch experience while doing consumption. They only pop out when doing creation. And those are the times on the iPad that you would typically go get your laptop anyways.
And in terms of the appstore... when there are 50M machines using this OS the first month -- there will be apps. Non-Apple devs will love to have an app store ecosystem of this size.
To put it another way, Gruber would be absolutely right if they had tried this with Windows Mobile. WP7 would be held back due to it, and WinMo had no marketshare to speak of. But for Windows proper this is actually the right move. It actually harkens back to them shipping IE with Windows and catching and passing Netscape. This is old fashioned MS leveraging their huge market position. It's something they frankly can rarely do anymore, but I think it will actually work for them this time -- maybe the last time.
And lastly, note that the legacy experience is really only there for Intel based processors. For ARM there will probably be very few legacy experience apps. I'm thinking Office and maybe one or two others. In a typical world, think Honeycomb, those tablets never build an app ecosystem. But in this world they get the huge installed user base of the Intel platform for app devs to target. So in one generation you may well have a solid app eco system completely sitting outside the legacy experience. They solved the chicken vs egg problem.
So did Microsoft sell 350 million copies of Windows 7 in a year, or are desktops "increasingly niche devices"? I'm not sure the two positions are compatible.
Sure some of the win 7 sales are upgrades, but while growth of pc sales has slowed, pc sales are up.
Given the number of pc's out there running windows xp, and with no data to suggest that those machines will be _replaced_ by tablets, I think the assertion that desktop machines are "niche" is somewhat pre-mature.
It's just a reality distortion field, typical for developers. A couple of years ago I also thought desktop-Linux will completely replace Windows.
Truth of the matter is desktops still represent the largest market of devices consumers are buying and at least 90% of them run Windows. This whole post-PC notion is crappy and doesn't hold water - tables and smartphones are complementary products to desktops, and won't replace desktops until you'll be able to attach to them a 21 inch monitor, a keyboard and a mouse/trackball.
> A couple of years ago I also thought desktop-Linux will completely replace Windows.
I don't understand how you could have ever thought that.
> Truth of the matter is desktops still represent the largest market of devices consumers are buying and at least 90% of them run Windows. This whole post-PC notion is crappy and doesn't hold water - tables and smartphones are complementary products to desktops, and won't replace desktops until you'll be able to attach to them a 21 inch monitor, a keyboard and a mouse/trackball.
There's a contingent of desktop users who just can't let go. The idea of things changing is a scary thought. Tablets are exploding in sales because they're fulfilling the ultimate goal of accessible computing. The maintenance hell of PCs, tying people to a desk, will be viewed as a fluke in an industry that was in its technological infancy, the same way we no longer hand-crank automobiles to start them.
You talk about connecting to a 21-inch monitor and using a keyboard and mouse as if people WANT to do that. People today are using game consoles and touchscreens. If they want to see something on a big screen, they'll plug their mobile devices into their giant HDTVs, or they'll use their Apple TV or their game console. With the exception of Blizzard, PC gaming already died and went to consoles and mobile devices, and it's not as if PCs are going to let users watch YouTube videos, send email, or read books better than an iPad will.
Mobile devices are the futuristic vision of appliance computing that everyone has envisioned for decades. That leaves PCs as something leftover for power users. Steve Jobs gave a quote about desktop PCs, comparing them to pickup trucks. Most people won't need them, but they'll still be around for those who do.
but suppose the average user wants to write a long note on facebook (cause real non-techy people do not use email, anymore). They will also plug a keyboard. Now, you are back to have a big screen (tv, monitor) and a computing unit (pc, post-pc-device), and external input device.
You have a PC, again, except the tower casing is small enough and can be used independently.
So did Microsoft sell 350 million copies of Windows 7 in a year, or are desktops "increasingly niche devices"? I'm not sure the two positions are compatible.
Of course they're compatible. Laptops outsold desktops for the first time in 2005. See the attached chart for the US, which actually tends to lag the world in laptop vs desktop ratios:
Desktops are becoming a niche device. I do friends/family tech support on about 50 PCs. Of those about 10 are desktops. The other 40 are laptops (not saying my anecdote is data, but I don't think its unusual, and the actual data does suggest the same).
Ahh - ok - I see laptops, and desktops as basically the same thing in the context of the original discussion (which was on the merits of a tablet OS vs a PC OS).
So I guess my point is this -
Tablets have gotten huge market traction, and of course are all the rage as new models are announced and ship almost daily. but tablets are not great devices for "work". they're great consuming devices, fantastic for web browsing, you-tube, facebook, twitter and so on, but less great for "creation".
I'm not sure there are many _jobs_ where a tablet removes the need for a desktop (or laptop) - especially when it comes to the classic office functions (documents, spreadsheets, accounting, presentations, graphic or video creation, software development and so on.)
The tablet market will grow as it places a consumption device in the hands of consumers - however there are hundreds of millions of content producers already producing
who are unlikely to give up their regular PC's, keyboard, mouse or big screen anytime soon.
I see laptops, and desktops as basically the same thing in the context of the original discussion (which was on the merits of a tablet OS vs a PC OS).
My niche comment was based on the fact that I think the new UI works for tablets and laptops. Less so for actual desktops. But I thought desktops were becoming more niche.
With that said, I agree with everything else you said. Tablets are great for consumption, not creation/productivity. This is actually why I like the Win8 approach if I can seamless hop between the two worlds.
I think that's exactly his point. Most users of PCs are consumers, not producers. That consumption will move towards tablet devices because they are easier to use, while the fraction of users that are producers will decline.
What I expect to also happen is that the move to cheaper PC tablets will make other applications feasible that are now constrained by hardware costs.
There are a lot of empty boasts in ken's comment. 50M machines running Win8 in the first month? Not touch devices, that's for sure. The default OS for all tablets? Tablets have a default OS. Right now, it's iOS. Microsoft will have to beat them in the marketplace. What is there about Win8 that is going to do that? I can't see anything.
Exactly. MS's bread and butter is selling $400 laptops which may or may not even have touchscreens and it remains to be seen if a touchscreen UI makes sense on traditional laptop or desktop formfactor (Jobs convincingly argued "no" before unveiling OSX 10.7). So I disagree that this gives Microsoft any advantage in the tablet space.
Look at Microsoft's MediaCenter. It's great software and it's on every PC, but it's nothing like an industry standard because it's just not a normal PC use case.
Exactly. MS's bread and butter is selling $400 laptops which may or may not even have touchscreens and it remains to be seen if a touchscreen UI makes sense on traditional laptop or desktop formf actor
It definitely makes sense on a traditional laptop. Just there haven't been decent UIs for it. I wanted to get that Dell with the touchscreen that came out earlier this year, but Win7 wasn't ready for it.
Now regarding the pricepoint, it will have to go up, but not as much as you think. There are tablets today with good capacitive touchscreens selling for $150. Expect to see a 10-20% price bump, depending on screen size (although screen sizes in general will probably shrink). But I guarantee you that with this UI Costco will sell a LOT more $499 touchscreen laptops than the $400 non-touch equivalent.
Look at Microsoft's MediaCenter. It's great software and it's on every PC, but it's nothing like an industry standard because it's just not a normal PC use case.
The Media Center problem is a LOT different. The problem with the Media Center is you need a computer hooked up to your TV. Have you tried to hook one up? You need a video card with HDMI out, a quiet fan, some IR receiver for the remote (unless you put the computer in your entertainment rack), if you're using cable you need a CableCard tuner and the actual Cable Cards. I'm wore out just typing this in!
A Win8 tablet or touch laptop you buy and use. A Media Center was literally a weekend affair where you had to buy a bunch of stuff up front in preparation. I know, I used to use one with two extenders in the house.
"It definitely makes sense on a traditional laptop."
If you have a keyboard, a mouse (or trackpad), and a big screen in front of you, or if the laptop weighs much more than 1.5 lbs, "touch" really adds limited functionality and might actually be tiring to use for a lot of common tasks (requiring much more movement unless your work area is perfectly calibrated). I returned an iPad 1 because I thought it was a little too heavy to be enjoyably used. I can't imagine using touch software on a 5 lb laptop or my work desktop for any length of time. So again, as impressive as Win8 looks, I don't think it does much to position Microsoft against the iPad and Android unless unless we see some outrageous hardware breakthroughs from Microsoft's partners.
Ugg, you're right... it's supposed to be the "default UI". It's correct in my original post, but I took on the language of the responder and said something technically incorrect. Good catch.
"Something everyone has traditionally understood, but its been forgetten (and honestly, largely irrelevent nowadays):
Microsoft sells a boatload of copies of Windows."
Sticking to a cash cow while the world changes is a sure way to become irrelevant.
1) Is there .NET on ARM? :-) I assume there is since Windows ships with .NET now.
2) Does the app use native code, e.g., COM interop? If so, you need to get the same COM interfaces tareting ARM.
3) Are you using any functionality that was deprecated and likely not carried over to a new platform?
If you satisfy all of those then its just like Java. Just copy the binary over and it gets JITted (or NGENed) on the ARM comoputer and runs just fine. No recompile, no extra work needed, besides maybe perf work since perf characteristics likely change.
Shocker, Gruber thinks that if you're not approaching something the way Apple does, you're not going to succeed. That's really all there is to this article. Let's wait and see what they produce, considering that there's over a year before this will hit the shelves, shall we?
They're not mutually exclusive. Time will tell whether they can effectively realize their vision, of course, but at least they've made clear that they have one.
To be fair, Microsoft has tried portable, non-PC devices for more than a decade and failed miserably, largely because they cling to the windows metaphor on small screens.
But to be more fair, in the past MS didn't really change the UI at all -- they just said, here's a stylus. In this case they actually provide a radically different UI.
No, but I think that had as much to do with marketing and overall execution than it did the UI itself. I have to admit that what I've seen of the WP7 UI looks quite nice, even if it pains me to complement MS.
If they execute properly on this I could see it being a big hit.
Yes, yes, Gruber's pro apple, let's agree on that point and save the bytes.
He makes a very valid point about trying to run regular windows alongside this beautiful interface. MS just couldn't resist the temptation to make it fully backwards compatible with their old software. I can almost guarantee it was some outside, higher C-level person (Balmer?) that "loved the new interface, but could we get it to run windows too?"
If MS knows what it's doing, it will make custom mobile versions of its office apps like Apple did and never try to shoehorn an interface designed for a mouse and keyboard into their mobile operating system again. But, alas, they lack the discipline to do it.
Why can't applications do both? Have a touch interface for cases where it's warranted, have a 'normal' interface for when it's not. I expect Office 2012/2013 will do this.
So did Apple have a touchscreen friendly version of iWork ready a year before the iPad launch? i'm pretty sure that the next office version will feature a native metro UI.
The excel version from the video is just an existing version that hasn't been adjusted to touchscreens yet.
It is also an important demonstration to business users and developers that their billions of dollars invested in keyboard+mouse oriented applications won't be made obsolete over night.
It has been speculated that MS has lost their backwards-compatibility religion, but you still see vestiges of it in their strategies.
Maybe they don't have the discipline to ditch Windows for tablets, but they certainly have the willingness to steal (borrow?) ideas from their competitors. Putting the OS from Windows Phone 7 on lower power hardware (à la iOS and the iPad) is clearly the right decision.
It honestly looks more like a problem with pride and less like a problem with discipline.
I think it has to do with neither pride nor discipline. It's all about business.
Microsoft won't make much money by breaking backwards compatibility; in fact, they'd lose billions if they did. Think of the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of business licenses they have sold. Business customers want their old apps to keep working. Yes, I'm talking about the same people who still use IE6. Whether you like them or not, these are the customers who purchase thousands of licenses each, and there are lots of them. Losing these customers could hurt Microsoft just as much as, if not much more than, losing tablet-toting consumers.
Of course, Microsoft doesn't want to lose either market, so they'll produce a version of Windows that has both complete backwards compatibility with existing Windows apps, and a fancy shell to appeal to tablet users.
I can totally see that "X is great, but can we have Y?" question being asked, and it makes my skin crawl. Why? Because it signals - in the clearest way possible - that the product vision is NOT being set at the top, meaning the "leaders" are leading in name only.
When you say "they lack the discipline", I suspect you're being too kind. After all, discipline means being firm in hewing to your vision - which assumes you HAVE a vision to hew to in the first place.
Not sure he gets it. One of the big selling points of windows is its pursuit of backwards compatibility. As a windows dev and user I was close to having a heart attack until I saw "normal Windows" alongside.
Sure, maybe they can't "pull it off" but in all frankness I'm more of a fan of utility than "usability". I want all my old apps to work as they worked in the original OS and working as well on the new OS.
Basically... to people who enter data into those 200-and-more-input-controls UIs, accountants who do horrible stuff with excel, secretaries who struggled hard to learn how to create a standard letter in MS Word 2003 and don't want to go through this experience every odd year and developers who run Visual Studio, a browser and fiddler side by side on two or three 24'' monitors. Ah, and last but not least businesses who are not very eager to write of billions in licenses and custom applications...
I don't necessarily buy the idea that iOS's lack of complexity and compatibility is the reason for its success. You can already see complexity and compatibility problems 4 years in with iOS. Things like the undiscoverable double click method to call up the app drawer and the weird double pixel support for iPhone apps on the iPad are already here. iCloud seems to be poised to basically become the filesystem for iOS devices (if my prediction is right). Even Gruber says that iOS will eventually consume Mac OS X in this article. So if iOS is going to continue growing in complexity and trying to maintain compatibility over the years while also trying to remain user friendly, why is attacking the same goal with Windows from the opposite direction any worse?
I agree. I was very skeptical about having a "Windows" OS slapped on the touch devices, but after seeing this first video I would say that it doesn't look bad.
Lack of complexity in UX and lack of capabilities are 2 different things. The former is desirable while the latter is a limitation. For instance, IIRC, iOS didn't start out with bluetooth API and they came in later. It is an example of lack of capability. Gruber seems to imply that one means the other, in fact he seems to infer that you need the OS to be less capable for it to be easier to use.
People like iOS not because it does less or in other words can not do certain things. They like it because it does things that it is capable of with ease in a pleasurable way.
Great usability and versatility are not mutually exclusive things and that is how MS seems to be approaching this.
Ok seems to me that a lot of people are missing the point entirely here... <insert zzzzzoooooooommmmmmm flying hand over the head motion here>
Microsoft has always worked hard to make Windows as flexible as possible, hardware wise, functionality, etc. Some consider this a credit, some a detriment, but no matter what I consider it to be a huge technical challenge. Several people seem to be taking this from the perspective of an iPad attack which is a very narrow minded view of the possibilities here.
What MS is doing here (and very wisely I think... IF they can pull it off) is to produce one OS that works cross hardware environment. Win 8 it seems to me CAN run like classic Win 7 (and earlier) supporting the plethora of existing Windows apps. This is a MUST for MS. But originally MS tried to make the old Windows UI touch friendly, which is a very bad approach. The existing Windows UI grew up around a mouse and keyboard and MS has finally realized it. You can't make it work for touch effectively, and so they are wisely separating the two.
To solve the problem they are wrapping Windows in an OPTIONAL alternate touch designed UI for systems where that is the preferred interaction method. They have developed a new class of touch apps and a new way to manage the overall UI. But most importantly they have blended the two forms of personal computer interaction. This is BRILLIANT to me. You can now have one device, let's say a tablet, that you can use like a touch device. But you can ALSO sit it in a dock, with a keyboard and mouse and use it to replace your desktop PC including all those legacy apps and Office programs that are the standard. When done you undock and flip back to the touch UI to take it with you, but you still have access to all your documents. Microsoft has for the first time realized that the ultimate device will function in BOTH modes and to be efficient the OS on that device also needs two distinct methods of interaction. And this I think is what is brilliant.
You'll never see an iPad as the primary device on an office desk in its current form and UI. Your accountant or DB admin or whatever will always be more productive with a keyboard and mouse when it comes to heavy "business" style applications. This is what the existing touch UI's can't provide. But a device that can run no compromise Office style apps, business apps, the millions of existing Windows apps in general... and then pick up and go with a nice touchscreen keyboard, touch UI, web browsing, etc... I know I've used the word a couple times but it's brilliant. I just hope their execution is up to their vision.
Edit... my mind is running with the further possibilities... they will definitely cross up development between Win Phone and Win 8... so now Windows developers can target the mobile market and the largest desktop market with one app. I still don't see the future of Win Phone turning around but who knows, this could be a very smart move on MS's part to leverage their Windows developer base and established market.
My feeling is that this is very much like the "Classic" support that Mac OS X had for a few iterations. Yes, you can run Classic apps, but you don't really want to.
Apple themselves only just recently got iTunes from out of their Carbon compatibility layer, so calling Microsoft out for not getting a 10+ million line code base wrapped in a new UI in time for Windows 8 is pretty rich. That said, getting some form of Office Reader or something into the new UI would be nice.
I am so, so, so glad that Microsoft has double-downed on Metro. Many other companies would have walked away, given the sales and the guffaws from their competitors. It honestly makes me respect them a whole lot.
I also like the idea of the multifunctional machine, that can be the workhorse during the day and the bedroom tablet at night. I would not be surprised if we see something similar from Apple next year, but it depends on how far the iOS and Mac OS X codebases/kernels have drifted.
+1 for the support on Metro. I think the design and interaction is great (and more importantly some nicely original thinking).
One of the things that really impressed me with the demo video was the access to the file system from touch apps (and the use of open app resources as an extension of it). One of the things that I feel has been pretty detrimental to iOS is the removal of any direct access to the file system, meaning that apps can't share access to a file but have to have their own copies.
I wasn't too thrilled to see traditional Windows apps sitting next door though. Yes it's taken Apple some time to get rid of some of their legacy support, but this looks like MS is unwilling to really try and move forward. Despite the backlash they would no doubt suffer for it, at some point soon they really need to put their foot down and say "No, you cannot run 1990s software on this operating system".
But see that's the thing... touch is not "forward". Touch is an alternate method of PC interaction which is good for day to day tasks but definitely not good for everything. This is exactly what I find impressive about this new concept, that it can function in a mode for "keyboard/mouse' (which is not going away for the foreseeable future), and it can function as a slick touch UI device. I can finger browse, flip pages in my e-book, buzz off a quick email, flip through songs, etc... but I can also work in a business mode with all the programs where keyboard/mouse is the proper UI choice. And I can do it on one device and share apps and files.
Also MS's decision to maintain legacy support is their biggest asset. If MS suddenly cut off a huge portion of their past compatibility, and hence established application base, then there is a MUCH bigger risk people will jump ship to Linux or Mac since they need to change up their apps anyhow. Familiarity breeds loyalty, even if sometimes begrudgingly.
They key is will the performance be reasonable on "mobile" hardware. The performance of portable hardware is advancing at a rapid pace but I'm not quite sure it's ready yet (even in a year from now) to run a desktop/touch merged Windows code base. That is where MS is taking a big gamble to me.
I wasn't so much suggesting that touch was the future, as suggesting that nowhere was the future if they keep lugging about compatibility for the last 6 or 7 (major) versions of the OS, all the while looking at radically changing the way things work. This is the approach that brought us Windows 3.1 and 95.
I remember DOS programs just fine. In fact, thanks to today's technology, I don't even need to be old enough to remember them, I'm still living with some of them ;) [slight exaggeration sure, but not excessively so IMO]
My point wasn't so much the advances that 3.1 and 95 were or weren't, it's that each had fairly impressive improvements in the UI, but were still veneers bolted on to the last OS. I can appreciate them wanting legacy support since their cash cow is the business sector, but in doing so they limit their scope for advancement.
if touch is not "forward" then at least the mouse is definitely "backward". the ideal PARC machine would have been keyboard + touch, not keyboard + mouse. "touch" is interaction with something approaching the real world as it's been known since hunter-gatherer times. the "mouse" is just an artifice to make up for technology that didn't exist in the '70's/early-'80's.
the only thing missing for business apps on iPad form factor is quick text entry. we should drop the mouse. for precise detailed work one could use a stylus. touch is the ideal.
The problem with touch is that's a coarse-resolution input. You can be much, more precise with a mouse and hence have denser UIs. For "pro" apps this is a must.
> Apple themselves only just recently got iTunes from out of their Carbon compatibility layer
iTunes is still a Carbon application, but in fairness, it mostly has to due with retaining Windows compatibility, and Carbon maps more easily to Win32 than Cocoa would.
NeXT used to have a Windows compatability layer - it was rumoured to be included in Mac OSX (yellowbox). I'd bet Apple maintained it alongside Cocoa (just like they kept the x86 port alive). itunes being carbon is probably just down to the size of the rewrite.
I suspect they're on the tail end of a big rewrite, and it could even be that they're announcing a cocoa-based itunes next week. It's been pretty quiet around itunes for a while now, and it's a product that needs a lot of love to bring it back up to apple's standards.
I get the impression that iTunes is the one division in Apple that's truly like a different 'business unit' and doesn't sit in the same ship as the rest of Apple, who are all on board and sail together in the same direction when focusing on 'the next thing'.
iTunes 10 was the worst thing Apple have launched recently (IMO). I hope they fix it soon, but I'm not holding my breath.
It's a shame, because iTunes 3 and 4, when it was just Mac-only music management (with a couple of devices supported), were amongst my favourite bits of software ever.
Everything wrong with Gruber's argument is right there in one sentence: "Microsoft is obviously trying to learn from Apple, but they clearly don’t understand why the iPad runs iOS, and not Mac OS X."
Of course Microsoft understands what Apple is doing — they just disagree
Undoubtedly some people at Microsoft understand. But equally undoubtedly some people don't and are clearly pushing a vision based on legacy products. Unfortunately for Microsoft those people win.
Wow, you just blew my mind there! But now that you say it it makes total sense. Have a tablet style computer on the go, plug it into a dock and transform it into a desktop style computer. This is brilliant!
One obvious implication of this is the death of the desktop computer. For the first time, this OS is not designed for desktop-only computers.
I wonder how they plan to integrate applications that need big screens like software development or graphic design into the experience. After all, big screens don't lend themselves for touch. Maybe you would plug in your mobile device and it would show the Metro UI, but a big external monitor would only show classic UI. (Maybe with some touch-stuff in a sidebar)
It will also be interesting how they will integrate hardware upgradability. That pretty much exclusively works with desktop towers, wich is at odds with mobility.
GNOME3, Unity, Lion, Windows 8... There is a lot of UI innovation going on! Interesting times, I must say!
"Microsoft has for the first time realized that the ultimate device will function in BOTH modes and to be efficient the OS on that device also needs two distinct methods of interaction. And this I think is what is brilliant."
I hardly think this is the first time they or anyone else has realized this. A swiss army knife would be in principle the ultimate tool if it were as good at each of its functions as a dedicated device, but in practice it turns out not to be. Anything great is built to meet constraints, perhaps even transcend them, but not to try to be all things to all people. Much of what you say is compelling, but here I think you're drinking Kool-aid.
"You'll never see an iPad as the primary device on an office desk in its current form and UI. Your accountant or DB admin or whatever will always be more productive with a keyboard and mouse when it comes to heavy "business" style applications. This is what the existing touch UI's can't provide."
This immediately reminds me of people who said EXACTLY the same things about the Mac UI relative to the command line. In a sense they were right, because the Mac UI evolved. But they were wrong in a much more important sense, because the UI they considered indispensable simply became a tiny little-used relic tucked in the corner of its successor.
In the end, a computer is a device that provides information to a user and allows that user to make and express decisions. There are fundamental bandwidth arguments we can make about UI "paradigms" -- e.g. mice are spectacularly more precise at pointing than fingers, and keyboards allow a user to input textual information far more quickly than other devices.
Imagine when displays become cheap and flexible enough that your entire laptop is a display, so keys can change their appearance and so can your trackpad. Which UI paradigm will adapt better to this situation?
Or imagine if your display could subtly change its tactile properties to eliminate most or all of the text entry advantage of keyboards.
> When done you undock and flip back to the touch UI to take it with you, but you still have access to all your documents.
I view this as an antiquated approach to having access to your documents between your "desktop" and "tablet". As much as I hate the word, the future of sharing and accessing documents between devices is in the "cloud". Music and video are already headed in that direction. Services like Dropbox and Evernote have made huge strides. Web apps are also taking us there. And Google's Chromebook intends for everything to be in the cloud.
For sure, right now, it's not a purely seamless task if I say, create a Powerpoint presentation on my Mac and want to share it with someone on my iPad later at a lunch meeting. But, it's not rocket science either. I just throw it into my Dropbox folder. Then I open it from my Dropbox folder on my iPad. But I see these types of tasks becoming automated in the future until it becomes the norm. I don't think local storage will ever go away completely, but I do think it will be used for niche or archaic reasons.
One possibility I was thinking of is in terms of multi-screening support, where one screen (smaller?) would have the Metro UI customized with news, RSS feeds, music widget, FB/Twitter, Email, youtube, stocks or whatever, while the other screen, the main one, would have your actual working space. Hell the Metro one could even be touch to fully take advantage of the experience.
I Agree. It's very difficult to have an environment when you can be productive with the same application using a touch device. If you look for example at the iPhone/iPad native controls, they are pretty standard (and very well implemented): listviews, browser, etc.
If the people time with a tablet will be spend mainly on the browser (thinking html5)/mail applications there is not reason to spend a lot of time developing complex controls to use Excel perfectly on a touch device, just switch it to desktop mode and attach a keyboard and a mouse.
The question for mobile/tablet users is: are you using a complex spreadsheet on your mobile/tablet?
I was an intern on the windows user experience team last summer, so I saw a lot of this new ui. While I will never personally enjoy it (emacs is my ui), I'm proud of them for it and I think it will do well.
The first thing to remember is that you have seen very little of the os as a whole. You saw a "desktop" and some sample apps. There is a lot to come, and a big part of the experience will be determined by third-party developers, so try not to judge too harshly just yet.
Also, it is absolutely gorgeous. iOS looks like rocks after this. Big sharp clunky rocks. Sure, you can pinch and zoom and rotate with some fingers, but that's all at the app level in iOS. In windows 8 (from the video at least, I didn't play with it in such a mature form during my stint), everything is fluid and responsive, transitioning smoothly between actions, rather than closing one before opening the other. Where iOS enforces conformity between apps' ui and puts clear separation between them, windows 8 seems to let each app define itself, yet still be somewhat symbiotic with the os itself, and with other apps.
Why all the complaints about excel? Microsoft can't alienate enterprise, and I think we all know how much enterprise hates even UI changes. You aren't going to do real excel work on a tablet anyway (the most you'll do is scroll around and look at the figures someone emailed you), so why do you care if the ui sucks for tablet?
Most importantly, though, I'd like to examine one of Gruber's points:
The iPad succeeds because it has eliminated complexity, not because it has covered up the complexity of the Mac with a touch-based “shell”.
The iPad does eliminate complexity: this gives it an opportunity to break current notions of computing, and this helps users recontextualize the tablet and reintroduce themselves to it. In a way, it's a My First Post-PC Computer, designed to re-teach us about computers, as infants, to clear the way for better things to come.
Windows 8 might be that better thing, or at least the first real instantiation. I find that it seems extremely futuristic, in the sci-fi movie sense. It seems like the type of interface we've seen in movies about future societies where computers are embedded in everything, and they all interoperate seamlessly.
Notice the emphasis on home networking, and imagine your desktop, with all your pictures and movies, serving them through your house to your TV, your tablets, your kids' tablets, your picture frames. Your kitchen table runs the same browser as your desktop, and can access everything on your desktop, so you can pull up recipes that you bookmarked earlier that day. It also lets you know when you have to finish dinner so you can make the movie you scheduled. Your fridge knows what's stocked (and what's expired), and can send a message to your spouse's car asking them to pick up the ingredients you're missing for dinner tonight. Of course, when they get to the store, the cart recognizes them and loads up the list too.
Of course I've gone a little bit crazy there, but I'm sure you can see what I'm doing. Right now, we have (or, in about a year I guess we will have) two devices that interact in a way something like this. The only thing left to do then, is to scale up from 2 to 100. That's easy, the step from 1 to 2 is the hard part.
The point is that windows 8 looks to me like the first real step toward this goal, and the progress is happening exactly in the fact that it does not eliminate complexity, it does not segregate the tablet and the pc.
Why do you need to plug your iPad in to your Mac in order to do stuff with it (if this is not the case, sorry, I don't own one and my memory of being told this may be fabricated)? Because iOS doesn't have all the stuff in OS X that it needs to do things on its own. Your windows 8 tablet will have all that, so it can function on its own, but it also speaks exactly the same language as your windows 8 pc, so communication and cooperation between devices is trivial, even natural.
Of course, I still don't like microsoft, but I have to give them this one. They are absolutely killing it.
It seems like all Microsoft's "futuristic" products, from the 90s up to this one, are attempts to make smart houses. Is there a reason for this besides that BillG has one?
To me this UI looks like the tile-based UIs people have been experimenting with on Linux for a while, only much more polished and user-friendly. It makes a lot more sense to me than the old WIMP model or the fullscreen-app mode of iOS.
I was just thinking about the Linux similarity too. I didn't even notice it at first, but after reading through this thread, I couldn't help but wonder about tiling window managers like Xmonad and Ion.
Man, I want this UI.
Honestly, with my workflow, which is about 85% Ruby coding, 10% web browser and 5% Lisp exploration; using a touch-based screen with a keyboard and a fancy-pants tiling window manager like Windows 8 Metro - damn. I'd be one happy camper.
Other tiling wms can "split the screen". Of course, that's where the similarities end.
The problem with tiling wms on linux is that apps are not built for that model: to be stretched and squeezed like that. Notice how the video got real small and then took advantage of the extra space below the video? That's what we need linux apps to do before tiling wms will be great (well, and touch ui) for the average user.
Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but I don't see how the following two statements are easily resolved.
I was an intern on the windows user experience team last summer, so I saw a lot of this new ui.
...
Of course, I still don't like microsoft, but I have to give them this one. They are absolutely killing it.
Also, I don't understand what great distinction you're making between a potential Windows 8 tablet and an iOS device. An iOS device needs to be plugged into a PC precisely once, in order to be setup. After that it can be used happily as an entirely independent device if you choose. Also, iOS and the MacOS have far more in common than they have different. The principal difference is the interface related APIs.
Your post seems to be making the usual mistake of comparing something that doesn't exist to products that Apple are selling right now.
In what sense? If I release a controlled promotional video demonstrating my new product, I would expect people to assume it will be at least representative of what will ship, likely showing the product in the best possible light.
On the other hand, if a company claims that their unreleased product is an 'x-killer' then I'm inclined to reserve judgement until I read a review or try it in person.
It's worth remembering that Windows tends to alternate hit-and-miss (eg. Win95, Win2000, WinXP, Vista, Win7), which in some cases indicates experimentation with something new that didn't work out at first.
Also, MS will really want to work on ARM. It's easy to port the OS, but legacy software (MS's key strength) is not. However, much recent software is written for their VM (.Net) and can be ported. It will be great for MS to make this leap - and every organization that is dependent on such software will be rooting for them. One would think the same would be true for Java...
I have to admit, this new Windows 8 approach has one aspect that is surprisingly reminiscent of how I saw the whole Windows CE product up to version 6. That is, trying to cram as much as possible of the Windows desktop into a form factor it was never going to function well in (both due to UI and performance).
Now I could be wrong that this is the reason why Windows CE 6.x and below failed to gain much popularity, but it is why I found it never got my attention no matter how much I wanted it to.
The big problem with Windows CE is that it looked like Windows but it wasn't; you couldn't take a Windows 95 app and run on it CE. If you could have done that, it may have been much more successful.
To me this seems very misguided. If Win8 has a tablet-touch mode that is well suited for operation at casual usage and the ability to drill down into a power user full Windows UI, that strikes me as ideal. And from what I'm seeing in these vids, it's pretty well done.
Or to put it another way, this seems to be the proverbial 3.0 version of MS software - if WinCE was 1.0 and TabletXP/Origamiproject was 2.0, this looks like the one that'll get it right. (So far, and from what we see, etc.)
> They can make buttons more “touch friendly” all they want, but they’ll never make Excel for Windows feel right on a touchscreen UI.
I suspect it goes the other way, too: touch friendly apps won't feel right with a mouse. The video reassures us that "of course [the new apps] work great with mouse and keyboard as well, if that's what you have", but the trade-offs and requirements are completely different. Just based on the video:
- For a touchscreen, buttons must be large and spread out, but the result with a mouse would be a lot of unnecessary movement-- jumping all over the screen.
- This also means you can't pack a lot of buttons into a small space (or have a menu bar), which, when done in moderation, is a good way to add flexibility to a mouse UI. A touch UI would seem unnecessarily simplified.
- Scrolling things around is really natural on a touchscreen, but most mice don't even have horizontal scroll wheels. How do you scroll sideways, flick with the mouse? Reach over to the keyboard?
>I suspect it goes the other way, too: touch friendly apps won't feel right with a mouse.
That's the angle I'm looking at it from too. Why should I install this on my non-touchscreen Thinkpad? Will I need to constantly 'flick' and scroll things with my Trackpoint?
From the video: "[The apps] are designed for touch... but of course they work well with mouse and keyboard as well if that's what you have."
Sorry, but that's not how it works. Microsoft needs to realize this. Everything he was doing there would be terrible with a mouse.
Most of the time Gruber's right about stuff like this, in a round-about way. But this feels stressed. Gruber can find simple brilliances in Apple products (rightfully so), but cannot see the brilliance of bringing the concept of a unified OS back from the grave and totally reconceptualizing that idea? Come on.
I don't usually do this (http://xkcd.com/386/), but this is the second article I've read today which shows the author's complete lack of understanding about the subject (like that's never happened before in the tech industry...)
Windows currently comes in 7 different flavours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions), which have varying numbers of features. Why would anyone with half a brain assume that a full blown Windows 8 complete with touch enabled apps would be used across all form factors? That doesn't make sense on any level and assuming that Microsoft would do something that silly undermines the intelligence of the people working there (granted there is a lot of beaureacracy at MS that hold them back from being truly successful, but their engineers are far from idiots). Already, Windows Phone is a vastly cut down version of the OS (to the point of being annoying as it lacks some much needed features)
From what I've seen and heard so far, Windows 8 is meant to be scalable. Now whether that will work in practice is yet to be seen, but I don't see any reason for them not to be able to have a minimal OS for phones (like Windows Phone 7), a slightly more feature-rich tablet OS and a full blown desktop OS (which itself will probably come in the Home, Pro, IcingOnCake, etc. editions) that can also run on larger touch-screens. Of course, all of this is contingent on whether they can properly modularise the OS so that unwanted bulk can be dropped for lighter versions and also making sure that lighter versions are optimised for their respective form factors in terms of performance and battery life.
So what this looks like to me is that Microsoft took OS X's Dashboard, skinned it with Metro, and moved it to be front and center in the OS's UI.
It definitely looks striking, but seeing as how I wound up not actually using Dashboard -- ever, really -- I'm skeptical about how this will succeed in practice, i.e. in Getting Things Done On A Computer. What is the flow for doing something like working on a Word document, reading/replying to an email, and then switching back to Word?
Insofar as desktops/laptops are concerned, this doesn't appear to help with that flow, and actually appears to interfere with it. That's the point that Gruber is making, I believe.
I think Gruber is wrong to believe that Microsoft truly means to continue their long-suffering approach of putting legacy Windows on touch devices.
The whole time Microsoft was developing WP7, they were touting CE 6.5. A bolt-on veneer for a failed approach. Clearly, Microsoft didn't believe a word of the nonsense they were spouting about 6.5. That's just how they are. They talk up the old platform until the day they kill it.
And I think Windows-on-ARM is the giveaway. If Microsoft believed legacy apps were still so important, why would they have so alienated Intel to create a flavor of Windows that will never run those legacy apps? [1]
The iPad's noted deficiency in any attempt to truly replace a PC is the lack of a 'docked' mode. that is: some way to drop it into a keyboard/mouse/display dock to get some desktop-type-work done. The existing keyboard dock just underscores how poorly it handles these things at present. [2]
And now Microsoft is pruning and optimizing Windows for ARM. The apps will all have to be rewritten [3]. But clearly they're thinking about touch and keyboard/mouse. This sounds like an obvious lead-in to encouraging people to write those Windows 8 ARM apps with a native touch interface as well as a 'docked' kb/m interface.
And if they pull that off -- an all-metro Windows 8 touch default and plenty of designed-for-touch apps, but the capability to dock and go kb/m on desktop work -- they'll be on solid footing to fight for their business customers.
And, honestly, if Microsoft could get out of its own way and streamline their media offerings, they could turn 8 into a really great device for consumers too.
[1] The nascent arm-in-the-datacenter market is somewhat plausible, but I don't buy it as a lone justification to so thoroughly piss of Intel. It's not nearly as important as trying to protect the relevance of user-facing Windows in a post-PC era.
[2] Try navigating around an app or the OS with the keyboard. Oh wait, you can't. How many writers don't switch apps constantly during their process to check references/email/etc? And isn't that who the keyboard was for?
[3] CLR apps that run on Windows 8 ARM are going to be about as popular as pixel-doubled iPhone apps on the iPad.
They've shown a couple minutes of software for a product that is atleast a year away. This article is completely pointless and is sensational to attract traffic of fanboys.
Kudos to Microsoft for doing more than trying to create their own copy of iOS. Microsoft's biggest strength is the Windows ecosystem, and if they are able to leverage it in a userfriendly touch-based environment, tablets based on Windows 8 should be a big win for them.
We should be applauding Microsoft for going their own way. With all due respect to Gruber, we already have iOS, WebOS and Android, why do we need yet another implementation of the same stripped-down OS idea?
This is what Microsoft has always done, and afair it's the only company to ever have really succeeded at it: make a piece of software accessible and understandable for novices, yet powerful enough for power users. Office has this. Windows has always had this.
If any company can actually make something that works great on very different devices, it's Microsoft.
I think having dual modes makes a lot of sense. Being able to dock your tablet and then have a keyboard/mouse with full Windows is a superior experience to docking your tablet and still have a touch device. The iPad docking experience is not very good, compared to a computer.
This is what Win 8 hopes to offer. Its a bold , risky & tough task , but if it does work WIN 8 will blow every other tablet out of the water ( I am saying this while being an Droid Army member :-) ).
While it's what I'd expect Gruber to say, it's not realistic to say that nobody else would have made a touchscreen OS for phones and tablets by now if Apple had not.
With Windows 8's Metro interface being a shell on top of the old Windows 7 shell, I can imagine pretty well how HP's Web OS running on Windows is going to work.
'If not for the existence and success of iOS, Nokia wouldn’t be in trouble..' If not for Nokia, iOS would never existed, touch screen phones would not have been invented.
If not for the competitiveness and success of Windows, Apple wouldn't have had to redesign itself. And now Windows is redesigning itself to compete. Apple didn't invent this stuff, they re-adapted existing technologies into a pioneering product. And now other companies are doing the same.
Gruber's points do not impact as much with such a thick layer of bias.
If you think Gruber's biased in favor of Apple, just wait until you meet Steve Jobs.
I'm only half-joking. I mean the whole POINT of DF is that it's written from a very Apple-centric point of view. That doesn't mean lavishing uncritical praise on everything Apple does, while mindlessly heaping opprobrium on their competitors. What it DOES mean is cultivating a point-of-view that attempts to closely track the one held by Apple itself.
If Gruber says something is idiotic, what he means is "I think Apple thinks this is idiotic, and here's why."
Obviously, his insights aren't perfect. But given that Jobs & Co. don't blog, DF provides one of the more reliable guides as to what the folks in Cupertino are actually seeing and thinking. Its sustained success indicates that, all things considered, Gruber is doing a pretty solid job.
I have seen that, and I do like enthusiasts, and I have enjoyed DF before, but every now and then a little too much seethes through and I feel that the point of comparing Windows 8 to Mac OSX gets lost in the forest of praise for Apple.
I wanted to read DF's Apple-centric point of view, but couldn't get past the third paragraph.
Its difficult when you're independent of platforms and have to read literature written by those who are limited by their sole choice of one platform.
"Its difficult when you're independent of platforms and have to read literature written by those who are limited by their sole choice of one platform."
Don't bother posting such comments here, HN is known for having a whole bunch of Apple fanboys who will mercilessly mod down any valid criticism so that it's grayed out while fawning posts and posts critical of other companies get modded up to the sky. Notice how there is no other analysis of this news on the front page. They HAVE to feel justified about their choice and Gruber just tells them what they want to hear. There have been a few HN'ers who quit HN in disgust because of this cavaliier attitude. (bye bye karma)
If Gruber is biased toward the Apple way of doing things, maybe that's because iPad is currently the king of tablets, so they must be doing something right (especially after everyone mocked it as a giant iPod touch with a silly name).
Well, this article in particular has more biased based phrases than actual content, but I do see why people are so inclined towards Apple due to the success of the iPad.
And you are right, I had the same misconception of the iPad, now it is a common place name, and product that all CEO's must have.
I just desire that people not be so part of the -cult- of certain groups. My favourite are those who switch, Windows one day, Apple the next. I have a growing dislike for those who limit themselves.
But mostly, why am I bothering to comment at all. I'm just a cubicle worker. Its comments exactly like mine that I think pg and hackernews complain about when it comes to quality. Meh.
Not sure if you're being ironic here, but I'll assume you're not - iPhone DOES run OSX, but with those parts removed that are not required for the device, it's not Mac OSX, but it is OSX
However, even though this is yet another iteration of his "Why <insert Microsoft technology here> sucks compared to <insert Apple technology here>" theme, I tend to agree with him this time.
I cannot imagine the iOS devices finding success if they were actually just Macs with a new category of touch apps strapped on. This only leads to market and developer confusion. If it's just one platform, what is my target device as a developer? If I develop to touch-driven HTML5+JS, why would anyone want to use it with a mouse? If I develop to WPF, why would anyone want to use it with multi-touch? Whatever they call it, it's two platforms, crammed together, and they just don't fit well. As a developer, you still have to make a choice, and it is the device itself that determines what development path you will take.
Then there is the hardware requirements. Windows 7 made great strides in this direction, but I just cannot imagine Windows 8 running as efficiently on an ARM-based device as iOS does today. I hope to be surprised here.