4 ms·

Yes. iPad is for consumption not for production. Don't know when some of these guys will realize it and stop making a big fuzz. I don't see the point of it.

by kvs 17y ago

aaronbrethorst 17y ago
Don't get me wrong: it would be awesome if the iPad was just as good for production as consumption. My girlfriend (a university professor) is in the process of finishing her first book, and would love to do the rest of her writing and revising on the iPad in Pages, but she doesn't see it as being realistic. She's still really excited about being able to watch Battlestar Galactica on the iPad. (regarding BSG: yes, I am lucky.) I spend all of my time writing code in Ruby and Objective C. I'd love to be able to get access to MRI, the Rails gems, MySQL and TextMate on the iPad in order to do my work there, but it's just not realistic. And that's ok: because I am unbelievably excited about the web browsing experience and the games on the iPad. Edit: I amend my comments above with a Tweet from the author of The Ghost Map and The Invention of Air: http://twitter.com/stevenbjohnson/status/11564792495 http://twitter.com/stevenbjohnson/status/11564792495
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- xenophanes 17y ago
  They are barriers because if Apple added an "advanced" button somewhere that gives you root, then tons of ordinary users would press it (perhaps after being instructed to by an online tutorial, or by a scam), break things, and find that their iPod does not "just work" and be unhappy. Apple would be adding a button that you can press to enable your device to get malware, and that will confuse and harm lots of people. It's not obvious how to add an advanced button that the right people will press, and others won't. You can hide it, but it will get reported on websites that newbies see, with simple instructions. But that said, I'm sure there's a solution, and I hope Apple finds it. I think the development effort from Apple to enable stuff which would only be used by a fraction of the audience -- even done to Apple's high standards of polish -- is a secondary and more minor issue. Apple can afford it, and Apple knows that developers are worth the expense. However, in terms of development time rather than money (which aren't equivalent because finding, hiring, and training good programmers is hard), this has to be lower priority than enabling multiple programs to run at once and some other stuff, so maybe it'll be a while.
  - techiferous 17y ago
    I respectfully disagree. They should have an advanced button. Pressing it orders you a MacBook Pro. ;)
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    It would be rather simple to have a soft-root that allows root-like implementation without affecting the actual core files of the system. The iPod deploys with a ROM section for the core files to restore the system, truly this is all the iPhone or iPad need (and AFAIK both have). You would only require a more foolproof implementation to ensure even the gravest idiot would be able to save their device by plugging it into their PC. However, I believe your latter point is right. I won't dump any amount of money on an iPhone/iPad until it's able to run multiple programs, and until it is route access is likely pointless.
webwright 17y ago
Everyone realizes it. I think the contention is (right or wrong) that a pure-consumption device isn't what people want or need (given the other things that they have in their lives). It's redundant. It doesn't replace anything. I think if they had multi-tasking it'd go a long way to shutting up this criticism.
- aaronbrethorst 17y ago
  Hey Tony - Pity that seemingly everyone in Seattle is staying in tonight. Crappy weather... Two things: 1. You've probably forgotten more about this sort of data than I'll ever know, but I look around at folks on laptops in cafes and see nothing but Facebook or Gmail on Netbooks. I think we, as a class of users, are the exception: most people on computers spend the bulk of their time consuming information instead of producing it. 2. Rumor has it that iPhone OS 4 will be announced at WWDC 2010 (big shock) and will feature multi-tasking.
  - lotharbot 17y ago
    Facebook and Gmail both have production and consumption. A device that excels at consumption and is inadequate for production will not serve as a replacement for many people. It sounds like the iPad is adequate for at least some limited typing, but it remains to be seen whether it's adequate for what most users do. The bigger critique, though, is multi-tasking. I like to be able to consume music and webpages at the same time. A consumption device that won't let me multi-task is inherently unsuited for my normal day-to-day use.
    - Maktab 17y ago
      To be clear, both the iPad and iPhone do allow you to listen to music and surf the net or use other apps at the same time, but only if you use the iPod application. The problem has never been that the iPhone and iPad can't support multi-tasking, it's that Apple has only permitted some of its own apps to multi-task.
  - webwright 17y ago
    Heh-- yaw, I'm not certainly I AGREE with the contention. No one ever went broke overestimating the vapidity of consumers. Still, I wonder. IM Facebook, and email are content creation. Will the swoosh-factor of the iPad make up for inconvenience of an onscreen keyboard, no multi-tasking, etc?
mlinsey 17y ago
To me, the biggest surprise of iPad launch day was just how well the keyboard works. According to various (dubiously reliable) online typing tests, I range from 40-70 WPM on the iPad. Accuracy is acceptable; much better than the iPhone keyboard but of course not as good as full keyboard. It's perfectly fine for email, posting on message boards, etc. I also will probably use it to write documents when I'm out and about, and using it today I felt like I would like to be able to code on it (though ssh or jailbreaking are probably the only ways that will happen). 24 hours ago, I would have agreed 100% with you that "iPad is for consumption not for production". After a day of using one I have changed my mind entirely. The iPad can be an adequate device for production, and it has the potential to be a great one. Specifically, having a software keyboard has large and untapped potential advantages over a physical keyboard, once basic typing is acceptable. The buttons on a software keyboard can change to adapt to the situation. We already see see small examples of this with the built-in keyboard: when the address bar in safari is open, the space bar disappears and the forward slash and .com buttons take its place. Imagine alternate keyboards for things like LaTeX markup. Furthermore, your pointing device (finger) is much closer to the keyboard, so no moving your hand from your keyboard to your mouse. I think apps that really take advantage of the possibilities of the interface are yet to come. Once they arrive the "tablets will disrupt the laptop" argument sounds sounding really plausible.
jacquesm 17y ago
What a computer is used for should not be up to the manufacturer of the device.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

Yes. iPad is for consumption not for production. Don't know when some of these guys will realize it and stop making a big fuzz. I don't see the point of it.

by kvs 17y ago

Yes. iPad is for consumption not for production. Don't know when some of these guys will realize it and stop making a big fuzz. I don't see the point of it.

aaronbrethorst 17y ago

Don't get me wrong: it would be awesome if the iPad was just as good for production as consumption. My girlfriend (a university professor) is in the process of finishing her first book, and would love to do the rest of her writing and revising on the iPad in Pages, but she doesn't see it as being realistic. She's still really excited about being able to watch Battlestar Galactica on the iPad. (regarding BSG: yes, I am lucky.) I spend all of my time writing code in Ruby and Objective C. I'd love to be able to get access to MRI, the Rails gems, MySQL and TextMate on the iPad in order to do my work there, but it's just not realistic. And that's ok: because I am unbelievably excited about the web browsing experience and the games on the iPad. Edit: I amend my comments above with a Tweet from the author of The Ghost Map and The Invention of Air: http://twitter.com/stevenbjohnson/status/11564792495 http://twitter.com/stevenbjohnson/status/11564792495

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

xenophanes 17y ago
They are barriers because if Apple added an "advanced" button somewhere that gives you root, then tons of ordinary users would press it (perhaps after being instructed to by an online tutorial, or by a scam), break things, and find that their iPod does not "just work" and be unhappy. Apple would be adding a button that you can press to enable your device to get malware, and that will confuse and harm lots of people. It's not obvious how to add an advanced button that the right people will press, and others won't. You can hide it, but it will get reported on websites that newbies see, with simple instructions. But that said, I'm sure there's a solution, and I hope Apple finds it. I think the development effort from Apple to enable stuff which would only be used by a fraction of the audience -- even done to Apple's high standards of polish -- is a secondary and more minor issue. Apple can afford it, and Apple knows that developers are worth the expense. However, in terms of development time rather than money (which aren't equivalent because finding, hiring, and training good programmers is hard), this has to be lower priority than enabling multiple programs to run at once and some other stuff, so maybe it'll be a while.
- techiferous 17y ago
  I respectfully disagree. They should have an advanced button. Pressing it orders you a MacBook Pro. ;)
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  It would be rather simple to have a soft-root that allows root-like implementation without affecting the actual core files of the system. The iPod deploys with a ROM section for the core files to restore the system, truly this is all the iPhone or iPad need (and AFAIK both have). You would only require a more foolproof implementation to ensure even the gravest idiot would be able to save their device by plugging it into their PC. However, I believe your latter point is right. I won't dump any amount of money on an iPhone/iPad until it's able to run multiple programs, and until it is route access is likely pointless.

webwright 17y ago

Everyone realizes it. I think the contention is (right or wrong) that a pure-consumption device isn't what people want or need (given the other things that they have in their lives). It's redundant. It doesn't replace anything. I think if they had multi-tasking it'd go a long way to shutting up this criticism.

aaronbrethorst 17y ago
Hey Tony - Pity that seemingly everyone in Seattle is staying in tonight. Crappy weather... Two things: 1. You've probably forgotten more about this sort of data than I'll ever know, but I look around at folks on laptops in cafes and see nothing but Facebook or Gmail on Netbooks. I think we, as a class of users, are the exception: most people on computers spend the bulk of their time consuming information instead of producing it. 2. Rumor has it that iPhone OS 4 will be announced at WWDC 2010 (big shock) and will feature multi-tasking.
- lotharbot 17y ago
  Facebook and Gmail both have production and consumption. A device that excels at consumption and is inadequate for production will not serve as a replacement for many people. It sounds like the iPad is adequate for at least some limited typing, but it remains to be seen whether it's adequate for what most users do. The bigger critique, though, is multi-tasking. I like to be able to consume music and webpages at the same time. A consumption device that won't let me multi-task is inherently unsuited for my normal day-to-day use.
  - Maktab 17y ago
    To be clear, both the iPad and iPhone do allow you to listen to music and surf the net or use other apps at the same time, but only if you use the iPod application. The problem has never been that the iPhone and iPad can't support multi-tasking, it's that Apple has only permitted some of its own apps to multi-task.
- webwright 17y ago
  Heh-- yaw, I'm not certainly I AGREE with the contention. No one ever went broke overestimating the vapidity of consumers. Still, I wonder. IM Facebook, and email are content creation. Will the swoosh-factor of the iPad make up for inconvenience of an onscreen keyboard, no multi-tasking, etc?

mlinsey 17y ago

To me, the biggest surprise of iPad launch day was just how well the keyboard works. According to various (dubiously reliable) online typing tests, I range from 40-70 WPM on the iPad. Accuracy is acceptable; much better than the iPhone keyboard but of course not as good as full keyboard. It's perfectly fine for email, posting on message boards, etc. I also will probably use it to write documents when I'm out and about, and using it today I felt like I would like to be able to code on it (though ssh or jailbreaking are probably the only ways that will happen). 24 hours ago, I would have agreed 100% with you that "iPad is for consumption not for production". After a day of using one I have changed my mind entirely. The iPad can be an adequate device for production, and it has the potential to be a great one. Specifically, having a software keyboard has large and untapped potential advantages over a physical keyboard, once basic typing is acceptable. The buttons on a software keyboard can change to adapt to the situation. We already see see small examples of this with the built-in keyboard: when the address bar in safari is open, the space bar disappears and the forward slash and .com buttons take its place. Imagine alternate keyboards for things like LaTeX markup. Furthermore, your pointing device (finger) is much closer to the keyboard, so no moving your hand from your keyboard to your mouse. I think apps that really take advantage of the possibilities of the interface are yet to come. Once they arrive the "tablets will disrupt the laptop" argument sounds sounding really plausible.

jacquesm 17y ago

What a computer is used for should not be up to the manufacturer of the device.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]