4 ms·

The point isn't that you can use all of your desktop apps on a touchscreen, it's that the device can adapt to context. I'll never use Affinity Designer on my Su

The point isn't that you can use all of your desktop apps on a touchscreen, it's that the device can adapt to context. I'll never use Affinity Designer on my Surface without it either plugged in to my 34" display or, at a stretch, the Type Cover. The UI doesn't work for touch input. Doesn't matter. I likewise will probably never use Drawboard PDF with a keyboard and mouse. Again, doesn't matter. It's so quick to transition from touch/pen to keyboard/mouse that it's a nonissue. You can always use the input method most suited to the task at hand.

simonh 10y ago
The only world in which the 'device adapts to me' model works is where the software adapts as well. If I have software that only works well in tablet mode and other software that only works well in laptop mode, I'm the one who has to do all the adapting to switch between them. In all Honesty, I'd rather carry two different devices completely optimised for the different interaction models than deal with all the compromises of a toasterfridge solution.
- spronkey 10y ago
  Let's reset the expectations, and answer the question again. If you could buy an iPad Pro, that runs all the iPad apps, has a touchscreen with the awesome pen digitiser, that was also as fast as a Surface Pro, and could run all the desktop apps within the same OS as well (even though the desktop interactions might by in large require a keyboard and mouse/trackpad), would you do this in preference to either the current iPad Pro or the current Surface Pro? Yes, yes I think you would. Developers shouldn't be asked to build hybrid apps. They should be given the option to build hybrid apps, desktop apps, or tablet apps, and have all of those solutions deploy on the same hardware.
  - simonh 10y ago
    If it didn't compromise the device design, didn't compromise the OS design in either mode and also provided strong and clear incentives to app developers on both the desktop and tablet mode apps without tradeoffs, and also was crystal clear about app discovery and acquisition for each mode, sure maybe. I just don't think those are achievable goals in practice. So trying to achieve them is a fool's errand. On the hardware side compromise is inevitable. On the software side look at the problems Apple has with pushing forward both the Mac and the iOS platforms. They're actually doing a fairly decent job pushing forward the Mac with new hardware features, radical designs and annual OS updates. Even so there are cracks. The App Store model is a sore point, the pro desktops are woefully out of date and there are widely-voiced concerns over the general quality of their desktop software and tardiness with iWork and other app development. How would strapping iOS and MacOS together in one device help this? When one side of the system is lagging behind and suffering from issues, you still have the other side to prop it up, right? Actually that's a horrible pit trap. The more successful side of the system will suck user focus, developer attention and platform owner resources away from the side that's struggling. Why put resources there when the other side of the system is doing so well? Rather than prop up the weak side, it pretty much guarantees condemning it to a death spiral. So no, I would not like to both have my cake and eat it, because I know that is not possible without compromises and risks that I am not prepared to accept.
    - spronkey 10y ago
      I really disagree that it isn't possible without compromise. The Surface Pro, Surface Book, and iPad Pro all have hardware capable enough of providing both experiences for many users. If you, right now, built an iOS virtual machine into a touchscreen "hybrid" Mac/iPad, it would be a somewhat usable system. Focus some engineering efforts on combining system settings, some sort of filesystem/local iCloud integration, and it would be a very usable system. What compromises would have to be made that aren't already made worse by the fact that you have to have two separate devices? It could be argued that Apple have dropped the ball in software probably precisely because their platforms have diverged so much, and even more so with Swift, iOS moving away from older APIs. The argument that I'm trying to make is that if you treat "the system" as a continuum, there is no "side" that gets more attention. Some things will focus a little more on the touch side, other things will focus on the desktop side, and many will take advantage of the inbetween. There are little glimpses of this in Windows 10, and a few in Windows 8. Microsoft lacked the mobile ecosystem to pull it off, but I don't for one moment believe that it isn't possible.

simonh 10y ago

The only world in which the 'device adapts to me' model works is where the software adapts as well. If I have software that only works well in tablet mode and other software that only works well in laptop mode, I'm the one who has to do all the adapting to switch between them. In all Honesty, I'd rather carry two different devices completely optimised for the different interaction models than deal with all the compromises of a toasterfridge solution.

spronkey 10y ago
Let's reset the expectations, and answer the question again. If you could buy an iPad Pro, that runs all the iPad apps, has a touchscreen with the awesome pen digitiser, that was also as fast as a Surface Pro, and could run all the desktop apps within the same OS as well (even though the desktop interactions might by in large require a keyboard and mouse/trackpad), would you do this in preference to either the current iPad Pro or the current Surface Pro? Yes, yes I think you would. Developers shouldn't be asked to build hybrid apps. They should be given the option to build hybrid apps, desktop apps, or tablet apps, and have all of those solutions deploy on the same hardware.
- simonh 10y ago
  If it didn't compromise the device design, didn't compromise the OS design in either mode and also provided strong and clear incentives to app developers on both the desktop and tablet mode apps without tradeoffs, and also was crystal clear about app discovery and acquisition for each mode, sure maybe. I just don't think those are achievable goals in practice. So trying to achieve them is a fool's errand. On the hardware side compromise is inevitable. On the software side look at the problems Apple has with pushing forward both the Mac and the iOS platforms. They're actually doing a fairly decent job pushing forward the Mac with new hardware features, radical designs and annual OS updates. Even so there are cracks. The App Store model is a sore point, the pro desktops are woefully out of date and there are widely-voiced concerns over the general quality of their desktop software and tardiness with iWork and other app development. How would strapping iOS and MacOS together in one device help this? When one side of the system is lagging behind and suffering from issues, you still have the other side to prop it up, right? Actually that's a horrible pit trap. The more successful side of the system will suck user focus, developer attention and platform owner resources away from the side that's struggling. Why put resources there when the other side of the system is doing so well? Rather than prop up the weak side, it pretty much guarantees condemning it to a death spiral. So no, I would not like to both have my cake and eat it, because I know that is not possible without compromises and risks that I am not prepared to accept.
  - spronkey 10y ago
    I really disagree that it isn't possible without compromise. The Surface Pro, Surface Book, and iPad Pro all have hardware capable enough of providing both experiences for many users. If you, right now, built an iOS virtual machine into a touchscreen "hybrid" Mac/iPad, it would be a somewhat usable system. Focus some engineering efforts on combining system settings, some sort of filesystem/local iCloud integration, and it would be a very usable system. What compromises would have to be made that aren't already made worse by the fact that you have to have two separate devices? It could be argued that Apple have dropped the ball in software probably precisely because their platforms have diverged so much, and even more so with Swift, iOS moving away from older APIs. The argument that I'm trying to make is that if you treat "the system" as a continuum, there is no "side" that gets more attention. Some things will focus a little more on the touch side, other things will focus on the desktop side, and many will take advantage of the inbetween. There are little glimpses of this in Windows 10, and a few in Windows 8. Microsoft lacked the mobile ecosystem to pull it off, but I don't for one moment believe that it isn't possible.