3 ms·
There was plenty of progress in the laptop market before Apple became the power-player that it is today. Did Apple play a part? Yes. Did many of the other co
by rplst8 10y ago
There was plenty of progress in the laptop market before Apple became the power-player that it is today. Did Apple play a part? Yes. Did many of the other companies that have since gone out of business, merged, or still exist today? Yes.
Personally, I don't think touch interfaces are progress - for laptops (or desktops). There are many reasons this is true, but the biggest one for me is that your finger obscures things on the display when you use it, and there is often very poor or no tactile feedback. The touchbar idea is not entirely new. I think HP or Dell had some laptops years ago that used touch slider interfaces to adjust screen brightness or volume. Adding a display to that touchbar doesn't help that much as your finger just obscures whatever you are touching. Knobs, switches, and dials are better suited for this kind of work - which is why people complain about shallow keystroke movement on keyboards. The less and less key movement there is, the closer you are to a touch display.
The only reason that Apple is pushing touch interfaces like that is so they can reduce the unit cost and (maybe) improve the water/ingress resistance. It's the same reason they are removing ports. And yes, removing external physical interfaces may improve things like water resistance - but they make it harder for humans to use.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y agoOne thing I just couldn't relate to during last couple of weeks is how all these people are criticizing the touch bar and saying it's a gimmick when they have never used it. I am ready to listen to you if you come back after you use it for a month. But I think it's funny to make all these conclusions about something when you haven't touched it.
- dpark 10y ago> There are many reasons this is true, but the biggest one for me is that your finger obscures things on the display when you use it, and there is often very poor or no tactile feedback. This is a poor argument against touch interfaces on laptops/desktops. This argument applies 100% to every touch interface, and yet we use touch interfaces for phones, and tablets, and modern point-of-sale systems, and the decent car navigation systems, etc, etc. There are compelling arguments against touchscreens on laptops and desktops, but this doesn't seem to be one.
- khedoros1 10y agoTactile feedback isn't a compelling argument against touchscreens on laptops and desktops? The touch interface on my phone and tablet compromises some of the usability of the input to gain a ton of flexibility and portability. Laptops compromise some comfort and size to make it feasible to stick a keyboard and pointer device into a thin, portable computer. The various compromises are worth it in some situations and very out-of-place in others. I don't really see the point of a touch interface for general desktop/laptop use.
- dpark 10y agoNo, I don't think "lack of tactile feedback" is, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that touchscreens are a bad idea for laptops. There's nothing I can see about laptops that make the lack of tactile feedback a bigger concern than it is for other devices. Lack of tactile feedback might be a bigger problem on laptops, but the reason it's a bigger problem is not self evident.
- khedoros1 10y ago> here's nothing I can see about laptops that make the lack of tactile feedback a bigger concern than it is for other devices. Agreed, there's nothing about it that makes it a bigger concern for a laptop than other devices. Touchscreens as inputs are suboptimal on other devices too. They're uncomfortable, slow, and imprecise. I'm a huge fan of physical buttons. Sadly, it's impractical to have a phone with a screen large enough to be useful, thin enough to fit nicely in a pocket, and have it equipped with decent input.