3 ms·

I think this is an Apple me too moment that does not have the right stuff to succeed. Apple decided they needed a tablet that was geared for production versus

I think this is an Apple me too moment that does not have the right stuff to succeed. Apple decided they needed a tablet that was geared for production versus consumption. Unfortunately, the OS X is not optimized for touch interaction, so they are forced to go with iOS and ARM. Microsoft on the other hand went through the pain with Windows 8 of actually making their main OS touch friendly. They are now on their 4th generation of tablets that actually run a real desktop OS on Intel x86 processors. I think for the professional person that is wanting to work on a tablet, Microsoft Surface Pro is going to be a much better choice. You will have a real desktop operating system on x86 that actually runs the productivity/design/development software that is actually out there. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

nilkn 11y ago
Even with Windows 10 and the latest Surface Pro 4, I don't think they're very usable as actual tablets. Virtually every time I see a Surface Pro, either in real life or even advertisements, it's being used as a laptop with the kickstand and keyboard attachment. You almost never see anybody use it as a tablet. This happens so much that it's actually hard to find a review of the SP4 that even shows what it's like to use as a tablet. So while Windows 10 supports touch interaction, it's honestly not that great at it, and so far as I can tell nobody really uses it outside of content consumption. But by taking this approach, Microsoft skipped the massive step of needing to get new versions of all major software developed for a truly touch-centric interface. The SP4 is also not nearly as good as a family device. It's much harder to use and is far more susceptible to user error. Apple seems to be taking the opposite approach. They're taking a hit early on by building up everything from scratch for a touch interface, but their bet is that over the long-term the end result will be better. I don't know which approach will pan out, of course. I suspect to begin with the iPad Pro will simply serve a more affluent segment of exactly the same demographic that the iPad has always served, but over time it might expand to more professional users as its software develops and begins to rival desktop software.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  How often do you see people use a Surface in general? I see people using them as OneNote scratch pads regularly: in business meetings, at conferences, and for diagramming. > So while Windows 10 supports touch interaction, it's honestly not that great at it, and so far as I can tell nobody really uses it outside of content consumption. That's fine, that is what tablet mode is often for. You have the kickstand/keyboard/touchpad for actual productivity. You have the tablet for consumption, and you have the tablet + pen for productivity when the activity allows it (e.g. drawing, hand-written notes, etc). I haven't used a Surface Pro 4, but the Surface Pro 3 had issues: It was too heavy, and the touchpad on the keyboard cover was frankly terrible (and per this article nobody wants to sit there with their outstretched arm touching the screen). We'll see if the SP4 solves any of the above. > The SP4 is also not nearly as good as a family device. It's much harder to use and is far more susceptible to user error. Absolutely. Which is why it was never targeted at that demographic. It is a professional device, just like the iPad Pro.
kitsunesoba 11y ago
It’s worth noting that Microsoft’s approach doesn’t come without tradeoffs, however. The OS itself may be touch friendly, but the overwhelming majority of third-party Windows applications are not, and I sincerely believe that unless Microsoft does something to change this fact, it will have immense ramifications for the proliferation of production-focused touch-based Windows devices. In short, Microsoft has nailed the creation of a touch OS built for productivity, but those developing for the platform have yet to follow their lead, and it’s unclear what would need to happen to make that change. On the other hand, Apple already has an immense library of touch-first apps to draw from, meaning that all they have to do now is get the OS component right — something that’s entirely feasible since it’s under their direct control. Even if Apple decided to make future iPad Pro models run a touch-friendly OS X variant, they’d still be at an advantage here since iOS and OS X apps are extremely similar and easily ported back and forth.
oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
Time and time again I see people make this point about a "real desktop operating system" like that actually means anything. What is more "real" about Windows 10 or OSX than iOS or Android? The former OSes expose more of the lower level internals such as access to the filesystem, but I'd take some convincing that not having that access would be a barrier to a video producer or a graphic artist or pretty much anyone other than a hardcore superuser or developer. Right now, we have two highly contrasting approaches. Microsoft is championing one OS that attempts to do very different things on different hardware, alongside hardware that attempts to be relevant in many different contexts. And Apple is choosing to persist with two forks (I believe there is an amount of common code), each trying to do a smaller job, better. Plus hardware that is optimised for specific scenarios. I think the jury's still out on who's going to win this one; as a unix fan, though, I tend to favour the 'do less, better' approach.
- imaginenore 11y ago
  That's what desktop OS means to me (not a complete list): Mouse support File system access with permissions / access control Boot control Background non gui processes Custom Drivers Ability to change OS behavior given enough permissions Multiple display support Default tab-order behavior for the input boxes, and tons of other input box behaviors Apps that can be resized and can set their own size. Ability to mount drives, including remote SSH.
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    I can't really disagree with your list, but I feel most of it demonstrates power user features rather than typical needs of a professional. I repeat my earlier point: I don't see much there that, for example, a graphic artist would demand. Very few people in the wider populace use multiple displays. Most people wouldn't know what boot control, background processes, or even filesystems are. Tab-order is screwed even on a 'real' OS like OSX. My main gripe is this belief that the iPad is somehow less capable because it doesn't run a 'real' OS when, in fact, it is usable precisely because it runs an OS tailored towards its purpose as a device for consumption, primarily, but also for specialised professional niches that don't involve tinkering under the bonnet for the sake of it — not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Silhouette 11y ago
Apple decided they needed a tablet that was geared for production versus consumption. And don't seem to have noticed that this is a requirement that will be all but impossible to satisfy no matter what they do. Almost everything that has made tablets successful in recent years has been because they were devices all about casual consumption and trivial interactions, from the good quality screens and tidy form factors, to the simple interfaces and useful but usually extremely simple and limited apps, via the similarly useful but extremely simple and limited models for installing new software, storing data, and communicating externally. There is a way to convert from such a device to one more suitable for serious use but still very portable, and that is to add proper input devices, more flexible connectivity, and more powerful, more flexible, but inevitably also more complicated software. We call those alternative devices "laptops", and they are what the grown-ups use when they have real work to do. I'm genuinely not sure, based purely on the content of this article, whether Gruber actually understands the difference, but I'm fairly sure the people making purchasing decisions for hundred-person departments do. I think for the professional person that is wanting to work on a tablet I suspect I've never met that person. Certainly in my entire professional career I have never seen anyone using an iPad at work for the kind of task you would use a general purpose computer for, not even once. Handy touchscreen control panel? Sure. Quick reporting from staff in the field? Maybe. Serious logistics, marketing, accounts, R&D, customer support...? Never.

nilkn 11y ago

Even with Windows 10 and the latest Surface Pro 4, I don't think they're very usable as actual tablets. Virtually every time I see a Surface Pro, either in real life or even advertisements, it's being used as a laptop with the kickstand and keyboard attachment. You almost never see anybody use it as a tablet. This happens so much that it's actually hard to find a review of the SP4 that even shows what it's like to use as a tablet. So while Windows 10 supports touch interaction, it's honestly not that great at it, and so far as I can tell nobody really uses it outside of content consumption. But by taking this approach, Microsoft skipped the massive step of needing to get new versions of all major software developed for a truly touch-centric interface. The SP4 is also not nearly as good as a family device. It's much harder to use and is far more susceptible to user error. Apple seems to be taking the opposite approach. They're taking a hit early on by building up everything from scratch for a touch interface, but their bet is that over the long-term the end result will be better. I don't know which approach will pan out, of course. I suspect to begin with the iPad Pro will simply serve a more affluent segment of exactly the same demographic that the iPad has always served, but over time it might expand to more professional users as its software develops and begins to rival desktop software.

Someone1234 11y ago
How often do you see people use a Surface in general? I see people using them as OneNote scratch pads regularly: in business meetings, at conferences, and for diagramming. > So while Windows 10 supports touch interaction, it's honestly not that great at it, and so far as I can tell nobody really uses it outside of content consumption. That's fine, that is what tablet mode is often for. You have the kickstand/keyboard/touchpad for actual productivity. You have the tablet for consumption, and you have the tablet + pen for productivity when the activity allows it (e.g. drawing, hand-written notes, etc). I haven't used a Surface Pro 4, but the Surface Pro 3 had issues: It was too heavy, and the touchpad on the keyboard cover was frankly terrible (and per this article nobody wants to sit there with their outstretched arm touching the screen). We'll see if the SP4 solves any of the above. > The SP4 is also not nearly as good as a family device. It's much harder to use and is far more susceptible to user error. Absolutely. Which is why it was never targeted at that demographic. It is a professional device, just like the iPad Pro.

kitsunesoba 11y ago

It’s worth noting that Microsoft’s approach doesn’t come without tradeoffs, however. The OS itself may be touch friendly, but the overwhelming majority of third-party Windows applications are not, and I sincerely believe that unless Microsoft does something to change this fact, it will have immense ramifications for the proliferation of production-focused touch-based Windows devices. In short, Microsoft has nailed the creation of a touch OS built for productivity, but those developing for the platform have yet to follow their lead, and it’s unclear what would need to happen to make that change. On the other hand, Apple already has an immense library of touch-first apps to draw from, meaning that all they have to do now is get the OS component right — something that’s entirely feasible since it’s under their direct control. Even if Apple decided to make future iPad Pro models run a touch-friendly OS X variant, they’d still be at an advantage here since iOS and OS X apps are extremely similar and easily ported back and forth.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago

Time and time again I see people make this point about a "real desktop operating system" like that actually means anything. What is more "real" about Windows 10 or OSX than iOS or Android? The former OSes expose more of the lower level internals such as access to the filesystem, but I'd take some convincing that not having that access would be a barrier to a video producer or a graphic artist or pretty much anyone other than a hardcore superuser or developer. Right now, we have two highly contrasting approaches. Microsoft is championing one OS that attempts to do very different things on different hardware, alongside hardware that attempts to be relevant in many different contexts. And Apple is choosing to persist with two forks (I believe there is an amount of common code), each trying to do a smaller job, better. Plus hardware that is optimised for specific scenarios. I think the jury's still out on who's going to win this one; as a unix fan, though, I tend to favour the 'do less, better' approach.

imaginenore 11y ago
That's what desktop OS means to me (not a complete list): Mouse support File system access with permissions / access control Boot control Background non gui processes Custom Drivers Ability to change OS behavior given enough permissions Multiple display support Default tab-order behavior for the input boxes, and tons of other input box behaviors Apps that can be resized and can set their own size. Ability to mount drives, including remote SSH.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  I can't really disagree with your list, but I feel most of it demonstrates power user features rather than typical needs of a professional. I repeat my earlier point: I don't see much there that, for example, a graphic artist would demand. Very few people in the wider populace use multiple displays. Most people wouldn't know what boot control, background processes, or even filesystems are. Tab-order is screwed even on a 'real' OS like OSX. My main gripe is this belief that the iPad is somehow less capable because it doesn't run a 'real' OS when, in fact, it is usable precisely because it runs an OS tailored towards its purpose as a device for consumption, primarily, but also for specialised professional niches that don't involve tinkering under the bonnet for the sake of it — not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Silhouette 11y ago

Apple decided they needed a tablet that was geared for production versus consumption. And don't seem to have noticed that this is a requirement that will be all but impossible to satisfy no matter what they do. Almost everything that has made tablets successful in recent years has been because they were devices all about casual consumption and trivial interactions, from the good quality screens and tidy form factors, to the simple interfaces and useful but usually extremely simple and limited apps, via the similarly useful but extremely simple and limited models for installing new software, storing data, and communicating externally. There is a way to convert from such a device to one more suitable for serious use but still very portable, and that is to add proper input devices, more flexible connectivity, and more powerful, more flexible, but inevitably also more complicated software. We call those alternative devices "laptops", and they are what the grown-ups use when they have real work to do. I'm genuinely not sure, based purely on the content of this article, whether Gruber actually understands the difference, but I'm fairly sure the people making purchasing decisions for hundred-person departments do. I think for the professional person that is wanting to work on a tablet I suspect I've never met that person. Certainly in my entire professional career I have never seen anyone using an iPad at work for the kind of task you would use a general purpose computer for, not even once. Handy touchscreen control panel? Sure. Quick reporting from staff in the field? Maybe. Serious logistics, marketing, accounts, R&D, customer support...? Never.