iPad Reactions

[Ashles]

For you. It would have been better for you. This is the thing that is really bugging me about the iPad backlash. Whether it's intentional or simply an oversight, people are coming across as if their personal needs and wants are universal. It's as if they're ignoring (or perhaps refusing to acknowledge) that there are different types of people in the world and not everybody requires the same things.

I guess that's the main criticism - that the only people who really want an iPad at the moment are the people who really want - exactly what the iPad can do (perhaps before they even knew what it could do).

But the vast majority of people appear to currently want other, actual specific, things from a mobile device.

It seems a very weak defence of a new device to simply say that you can't explain why people might specifically want it but, you know, everyone wants different things.

Maybe somebody wants a tea tray that can show photos.

 

[Ducky]

Touch support is not the same as touch centric. OSX (and Windows) are mouse centric. Areas of the window frame, some scrolling areas, etc. are designed to be accessed with a pointing device, which is more accurate than a finger. Selecting an object requires a mouse click. Yes a tap on the screen is intrepretated as a mouse click, but that is not how the OS UI is designed. Multi-select is more difficult, although not impossible.

This is in no way a slight on the two OSes, they just weren't designed that way. This is why Apple developed the iPhone OS. It is designed from the ground up understanding that the primary input device will be a fat finger on a relatively small interface zone. If you have had the opportunity to use the ZuneHD interface, it, too, has been designed to interface with a fat finger on a small input area.

Now, to question of "how hard is it to put that interface on OSX/Windows?" I believe that it is more difficult than you think. Both OSX and Windows have so many deep elements that were never envisioned to host a non-mousse style pointer. Each of these areas would need to be revamped, causing possible regression errors. A specialized version of the OS (ala iPhone OS to OSX) is probably required. The new OS should be more robust than the iPhone OS and have the capability of running standard apps. However, these apps may not be touch centric, so an alternative input device (stylus of some sort) needs to be supported.

PhreePhly

You have no idea what I think, and obviously read way more into my point than was written.

Tablet interfaces do suck because of OS's that were not designed for them. My comment was to point out to someone who had commented OS X doesn't do touch interfaces that it was patently untrue.

But thanks for the speech, it looked great on the soapbox.

 

[Ducky]

If you read the caption below the video it says that the touch screen computer in the video is a Dell laptop running OSX

From the web site:
"Who knows exactly what Apple will unveil on October 14th, but it’s doubtful the news will be a touchscreen Macbook. For those of you that are wondering how OS X would behave in the touchscreen environment hit the video. To be clear, this is a Dell Gigabyte M912 laptop modified to run OS X." *

*emphasis mine

Yes, and it was using native OS X drivers. Thanks for playing. there's a reason those dells were chosen to have OS X installed on them, they run the same hardware OS X is written to use.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I meant, simply, that it would have more fulfilled the created expectations, and received less of the backlash you so hate, had it been done that way.

Yes, but satisfying those expectations would cause problems for others. No matter what a product turns out to be, somebody is going to be upset. That's the nature of business. One cannot please everyone equally, so to be effective one must decide who is most important given the particular business goals. This is exactly what Apple has done. Those who are upset about the iPad are just mad that Apple's plans currently seem to exclude them, and they cannot understand why Apple would choose to do that.

 

[uruk]

Yes, and it was using native OS X drivers. Thanks for playing. there's a reason those dells were chosen to have OS X installed on them, they run the same hardware OS X is written to use.

Yep. That's called an intel duo core processor. A modified version of OSX will run on just about any intel box using a duo core processor ever since OSX was ported to the intel cpu family.

Here is a list of PC hardware configurations OSX will run on:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.6.2

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Those who are upset about the iPad are just mad that Apple's plans currently seem to exclude them, and they cannot understand why Apple would choose to do that.

I think you attribute more to the reaction than is offered.

"Unimpressed" is not the same thing as "upset". Definitely not the same thing as "mad".

 

[Ducky]

Yep. That's called an intel duo core processor. A modified version of OSX will run on just about any intel box using a duo core processor ever since OSX was ported to the intel cpu family.

Here is a list of PC hardware configurations OSX will run on:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.6.2

Yes I'm well aware of that wiki, and of many of the capabilities to run OS X on other hardware. You seem to be missing the core fact that I was pointing out -- namely that multi-touch input has been in OS X for years now, and screen or pad, the multi-touch input is treated as a usb interface. (It is this way in BSD and Linux as well. Load up ubuntu netbook remix on some of those hardware configurations and modprobe your hardware or scroll through your messages in dmesg after boot.) Many many inputs (mostly screens) have already been shown to be working out of the box by OS X and is in fact the beginning of the rumors of a netbook tablet almost a decade ago.

I'm sorry, did you think I wasn't familiar with these things?

 

[GreNME]

It would have no problems passing HIPAA, you build that in to the app. That’s what the current vendors have done on the iPhone app, which are all HIPAA compliant. They would just need to scale up their apps to take better use of the screen. You will be seeing doctors in hospitals using these devices by the end of the year.

I'm willing to take you up on a wager on that last prediction.

The device won't meet HIPAA compliance because the device is unable to be centrally administered. An app that is won't change that about the device, and that will keep it out of compliance. There isn't a CIO around that's going to want to touch this in a corporate environment.

-----

Yes, but satisfying those expectations would cause problems for others. No matter what a product turns out to be, somebody is going to be upset. That's the nature of business. One cannot please everyone equally, so to be effective one must decide who is most important given the particular business goals. This is exactly what Apple has done. Those who are upset about the iPad are just mad that Apple's plans currently seem to exclude them, and they cannot understand why Apple would choose to do that.

I hope you don't ever wonder why Apple or Apple fans often get the characterization as being elitist.

However, you're right that some of the upset is by a number of people who expected something that fit what they wanted. Apple's computers have been finding their way more and more in business environments, even if only in limited capacities or in smaller numbers, and the iPhone has finally entered the realm of viability to IT departments with decent corporate e-mail support. This device is going to be worthless in anything outside of novelty or lifestyle applications. That still means there could be a market for it, but it's a backwards step for Apple in terms of an expanding market and that disappoints a lot of folks.

 

[arthwollipot]

This.

The iPad would have been better (and I don't believe it's complete ass as it is) as a scaled down MacBook rather than a scaled up iPod Touch.

Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion, in my opinion.

 

[StanBearclaw]

I hope you don't ever wonder why Apple or Apple fans often get the characterization as being elitist.

Not elitists, just cultists.

 

[not daSkeptic]

There isn't a CIO around that's going to want to touch this in a corporate environment.

This may be a valid statement in regard to HIPAA-compliance, but it is by no means correct about all corporations. The CIO in my own company, for instance, is very excited about the prospects of the device, and numerous uses are in development as we speak. Operations, administration, it's across the board.

Once again, not everybody sees things the way you do. Not everything you perceive as a limitation is necessarily so for others. Everybody's situation is different. We don't all have the same needs or wishes. To think you know what does and does not work for everyone is sheer arrogance.

 

[Ducky]

This may be a valid statement in regard to HIPAA-compliance, but it is by no means correct about all corporations. The CIO in my own company, for instance, is very excited about the prospects of the device, and numerous uses are in development as we speak. Operations, administration, it's across the board.

Once again, not everybody sees things the way you do. Not everything you perceive as a limitation is necessarily so for others. Everybody's situation is different. We don't all have the same needs or wishes. To think you know what does and does not work for everyone is sheer arrogance.

Possibly. With regard to iPhones my company sees them as unable to fill the management and security needs that keep us in PCI compliance with sensitive data. This is why we still have Blackberries. The central management, remote wipe capability and the fashion in which they lock down is important when your emails may contain log dumps of ecommerce servers, etc. for troubleshooting, or sensitive executive discussions.

The thing is, Apple has never aimed for that market. OS X is marginally secure with regards to whole disk/data encryption (I have posted several times what a joke filevault is, and sourced several papers showing this) and as a platform isn't security minded. While some may say this is a trade off for usability, that also is a false dichotomy. PGP disk encryption/Pointsec, etc. can secure a whole disk relatively well without much hinderance on usability.

The iPhones/iPods/iPad reflect this model Apple has aimed for: Home/Personal use or professional use without regard to corporate security needs.

Viruses aren't the only threat to computers (when I say this, I mean the socially/non-technical impression of viruses/trojans/malware from Windows machines) and real time processes to secure against buffer overflows/attacks on stack dumps or shared memory modules don't exist for OS X in a readily and easily used way. There is no SE/SULinux port to OS X I have seen be effective and not cumbersome to build.

Things missing from Apple's platforms like this make it a pretty good target for rooting/attack and don't pass corporate muster (which, admittedly is standard on windows right now however my company and many others employ a whole host of policies and application-layer protections that do much more than I have seen available for OS X/i(phone/pad/pod).)

A secure app may help, but data leakage on the device and no ability to remote wipe/lock it down/have it lock itself after timeout means that data from your app may be recoverable from someone who just nicks it off the counter.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Possibly. With regard to iPhones my company sees them as unable to fill the management and security needs that keep us in PCI compliance with sensitive data. This is why we still have Blackberries. The central management, remote wipe capability and the fashion in which they lock down is important when your emails may contain log dumps of ecommerce servers, etc. for troubleshooting, or sensitive executive discussions.

I absolutely agree. If a company has certain requirements that a device cannot meet then it's the wrong tool for the job. That goes for anything. The only point I was trying to make is that not all businesses have the same requirements. Some have needs that the iPhone (and now the iPad) can fill, and those needs are not necessarily limited to email.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I can say this though: the iPad will sell.

I do computer retail and repair and almost without fail the first couple of sentences my customers utter when they come into my shop include the phrase "I'm not computer literate"*. They want me to fix their PCs and laptops to be sure, but above all they want devices that just work; maintenance they couldn't care less about. Anything that makes it easier to browse the web, send email, manage their photos, music and videos will be welcome.

Power users, tinkerers like me will still want PCs where we control every aspect of the machine, but like it or lump it, Joe Public isn't interested. If we can get rid of the fear of computers as mentioned in this article maybe that might change, though I'd hedge my bets on that.

I think this is a very important point. Many people still just want to get from A to B (browse web/email/etc as easily as possible and often underestimate how daunting and that can be for some. And many (the question is how many) computer illiterates may be prepared to pay (more) for simplicity, which for many of us , translates as lack of functionality/customisation/tweakability, compared to what we could get for the same money and a more complex device (ie a PC)
though price is still obviously going to be a major factor.

-

 

[grunion]

I think this is a very important point. Many people still just want to get from A to B (browse web/email/etc as easily as possible and often underestimate how daunting and that can be for some. And many (the question is how many) computer illiterates may be prepared to pay (more) for simplicity, which for many of us , translates as lack of functionality/customisation/tweakability, compared to what we could get for the same money and a more complex device (ie a PC)
though price is still obviously going to be a major factor.

-

Precisely. And for these users, factors like fun, style, trendiness are very important (though they may not admit it it is the major reason they purchase these devices), as well as compatibility with the existing "digital lifestyle" accessories they already own. So you may belittle it as less of a "computer," but that is not a factor at all for many of the iPad target market.

 

[quadraginta]

Precisely. And for these users, factors like fun, style, trendiness are very important (though they may not admit it it is the major reason they purchase these devices), as well as compatibility with the existing "digital lifestyle" accessories they already own. So you may belittle it as less of a "computer," but that is not a factor at all for many of the iPad target market.

You say this as if there is some great dispute about that aspect of the discussion. I don't think there is.

 

[Darat]

I think this is a very important point. Many people still just want to get from A to B (browse web/email/etc as easily as possible and often underestimate how daunting and that can be for some. And many (the question is how many) computer illiterates may be prepared to pay (more) for simplicity, which for many of us , translates as lack of functionality/customisation/tweakability, compared to what we could get for the same money and a more complex device (ie a PC)
though price is still obviously going to be a major factor.

-

But is that now a significant market - in other words since there have been devices that have been marketed just like Apple are now promoting the iPad has for many a year, - see Apple's adverts for their previous hardware for examples, have not the folk who wish to do this not already paid out money for hardware that can do this?

 

[PhreePhly]

You have no idea what I think, and obviously read way more into my point than was written.

Tablet interfaces do suck because of OS's that were not designed for them. My comment was to point out to someone who had commented OS X doesn't do touch interfaces that it was patently untrue.

But thanks for the speech, it looked great on the soapbox.

Where in my reply did I indicate how you thought? Chill dude. I was just pointing out the difference between touch-capable and touch-centric. You obviously did not clarify, therefore I expanded on the discussion.

Thanks for showing you have a stick up your ***, it adds amusement to the discussion.

PhreePhly

 

[Rrose Selavy]

But is that now a significant market - in other words since there have been devices that have been marketed just like Apple are now promoting the iPad has for many a year, - see Apple's adverts for their previous hardware for examples, have not the folk who wish to do this not already paid out money for hardware that can do this?

Many have, but not all, yes, the question is how many, and for those who already have , every few years, like most other consumer durables, they do eventually need to get replaced.
Also, someone who had an iMac might realise they only really use and need email or internet so the price of the new device is a factor in replacing older devices.
Or they want youtube/iplayer so that might determine the success or not.

-

(I can't believe I seem to be defending Apple here but I'm just trying to find some possible business sense. I won't even have Quicktime on my PC!)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Precisely. And for these users, factors like fun, style, trendiness are very important (though they may not admit it it is the major reason they purchase these devices), as well as compatibility with the existing "digital lifestyle" accessories they already own. So you may belittle it as less of a "computer," but that is not a factor at all for many of the iPad target market.

So it is for the computer using non computer users?

Can you use this device if you don't have a computer? I know that the early Iphones you needed a computer to make them work.