3 ms·

> aimed squarely at artists, writers, designers, and musicians Do you really think writers are going to get any real work done on an iPad? Because if so, I re

by adriand 17y ago

> aimed squarely at artists, writers, designers, and musicians Do you really think writers are going to get any real work done on an iPad? Because if so, I really disagree. The touch screen simply doesn't lend itself to quick typing and rapid text editing. Ignoring artists, designers and musicians - since, after all, most people are none of those - and focusing on writing, I think the iPad has a chilling effect. Writing is perhaps the most important activity the average citizen conducts online, so that matters. People kept writing that the iPad is a computer for mothers - my mother, like many others from her generation, was taught to type, a skill that served her well as a legal secretary. She types very well now. Given an iPad, I expect that although some tasks may be easier for her to accomplish, her lengthy email missives to her children, and her letters to the editor, are going to be much briefer. That's a loss to her family and a loss to civic society. Of course, none of that matters if you look at the iPad as a toy, a sketchpad, or a device mainly intended to consume media than produce it. But if you believe that it is the "future of computing", as many call it, then this is a problem. The iPad may well be - and probably is - the future of content consumption, web browsing, gaming, and perhaps television viewing. There's a difference between that though, and the future of computing.

Psyonic 17y ago
gaming? perhaps mobile gaming, but definitely not gaming in general. Touch screens are horrible for a large chunk of games. I can't even imagine how you'd play an FPS, but maybe that's my limited imagination. And television viewing? Why? Who wants to hold a tv while they watch it? And if you're not holding it, why not watch an actual tv? I guess for watching on the go... but who does that? Kids in the backseat I guess
swannodette 17y ago
Doesn't sound like you've spent much time with the software keyboard. It's quite good. Also there's a reason why Apple makes a keyboard dock and added bluetooth keyboard support. Not sure if your argument really holds up in the face of these facts. One of my favorite iPad features is that Pages goes into WriteRoom mode in the landscape orientation.
swernli 17y ago
I think it's possible people will get real work done on an iPad, but it just requires that they change some or many of their paradigms of production. Like any new tool, it may enable new forms of creation at the expense of some older ones, but that doesn't mean the older ones disappear. > The iPad may well be - and probably is - the future of content consumption, web browsing, gaming, and perhaps television viewing. There's a difference between that though, and the future of computing. I think this is a great point, and couldn't agree with you more. In the midst of media frenzies, where the echo chamber (including company marketting departments) starts throwing around terms without regard to the deeper implications of them, it can be easy to forget that "computing" is a lot of things. When someone is writing a novel in a nice word processor or emailing photos to a friend, that's part of computing. So is designing a video game, programming a utility software, and editting music. "Computing" is a lot of things, and it certainly doesn't just mean crunching numbers in a programmable calculator, as it used to way back in the day. I think that's a part of what's bothering people when the iPad is referred to as the future of computing: it implies that all the other stuff that the iPad omits isn't computing. But to say that the iPad has no place in the future of computing is to make the same mistake in reverse (you didn't say that, but a lot of people have made comments in that vein). From my perspective, saying the iPad is the future of computing is no worse than saying that some new octo-core, power-guzzling chip is the future of computing, or that voice interface is the future of computing. That chip won't be so nice in a low-power netbook, and I wouldn't want to dictate my code to the computer when I could just type it. But all these technological innovations and products have a place in the ever-changing landscape that is computing. And by providing more devices that sit in different niches and excel at different things, with either broad capabilities or limited ones, we are succeeding in the goal of expanding what is possible within the sum total of activities that is "computing." As long as we keep doing that, we keep adding to that nebulous idea that is the future of computing.

by adriand 17y ago

Psyonic 17y ago

gaming? perhaps mobile gaming, but definitely not gaming in general. Touch screens are horrible for a large chunk of games. I can't even imagine how you'd play an FPS, but maybe that's my limited imagination. And television viewing? Why? Who wants to hold a tv while they watch it? And if you're not holding it, why not watch an actual tv? I guess for watching on the go... but who does that? Kids in the backseat I guess

swannodette 17y ago

Doesn't sound like you've spent much time with the software keyboard. It's quite good. Also there's a reason why Apple makes a keyboard dock and added bluetooth keyboard support. Not sure if your argument really holds up in the face of these facts. One of my favorite iPad features is that Pages goes into WriteRoom mode in the landscape orientation.

swernli 17y ago

I think it's possible people will get real work done on an iPad, but it just requires that they change some or many of their paradigms of production. Like any new tool, it may enable new forms of creation at the expense of some older ones, but that doesn't mean the older ones disappear. > The iPad may well be - and probably is - the future of content consumption, web browsing, gaming, and perhaps television viewing. There's a difference between that though, and the future of computing. I think this is a great point, and couldn't agree with you more. In the midst of media frenzies, where the echo chamber (including company marketting departments) starts throwing around terms without regard to the deeper implications of them, it can be easy to forget that "computing" is a lot of things. When someone is writing a novel in a nice word processor or emailing photos to a friend, that's part of computing. So is designing a video game, programming a utility software, and editting music. "Computing" is a lot of things, and it certainly doesn't just mean crunching numbers in a programmable calculator, as it used to way back in the day. I think that's a part of what's bothering people when the iPad is referred to as the future of computing: it implies that all the other stuff that the iPad omits isn't computing. But to say that the iPad has no place in the future of computing is to make the same mistake in reverse (you didn't say that, but a lot of people have made comments in that vein). From my perspective, saying the iPad is the future of computing is no worse than saying that some new octo-core, power-guzzling chip is the future of computing, or that voice interface is the future of computing. That chip won't be so nice in a low-power netbook, and I wouldn't want to dictate my code to the computer when I could just type it. But all these technological innovations and products have a place in the ever-changing landscape that is computing. And by providing more devices that sit in different niches and excel at different things, with either broad capabilities or limited ones, we are succeeding in the goal of expanding what is possible within the sum total of activities that is "computing." As long as we keep doing that, we keep adding to that nebulous idea that is the future of computing.