3 ms·

> Well, Ford's customers couldn't conceive of a future where the eventual upshot wouldn't be ...faster horses either. I don't agree that these are valid compar

by exergy 8y ago

> Well, Ford's customers couldn't conceive of a future where the eventual upshot wouldn't be ...faster horses either. I don't agree that these are valid comparisons. An iPad is a computer. It has a CPU, and a screen, and an OS, and is therefore rather similar to a PC, barring UI lipstick. A car and a horse are way different. If you are suggesting that there may be a next-big-thing invented that supplants PCs AND iPads entirely (neural interface thingy), then maybe we are in agreement. An iPad is most definitely NOT to a PC what the automobile was to the horse buggy. > Because we have exhausted UI paradigms and interaction design? You wouldn't agree with this? In the context of computers (once again, neural stuff/VR notwithstanding) I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than the keyboard and mouse. And I think 'faster' is a good metric for 'better'. Touch, in that regard, is woefully off the mark. Clicking a menu item, or even better, knowing the keyboard shortcut, is the most superior method of getting shit done. Touch is fine for convenience, but convenience is a rather limiting goal. If the goal is to extract every last ounce of usefulness out of our devices (paired with a desire to own as few devices as posible), a mere touchscreen isn't enough.

coldtea 8y ago
>I don't agree that these are valid comparisons. An iPad is a computer. It has a CPU, and a screen, and an OS, and is therefore rather similar to a PC, barring UI lipstick. That would entail that anything with "a CPU, and a screen, and an OS" should offer the exact same experience as a desktop/laptop computer. (Not to mention that ATM machines, kiosks, and cars also have one or more cpus, screens, and OSes). The whole idea of the iPad as Apple (and I) see it, is that something with a "CPU, an OS, and a screen" can have widely different interaction design, and that the "PC" experience is far from the optimal for all uses. For those other users, the iPad experience (or some other) can be greater. And those that really need a PC, can always just ...get a PC! (That's also how the smartphone, which also has a CPU, a screen, and an OS) surpassed the PC in time spent/internet use) with a different interaction design. >You wouldn't agree with this? In the context of computers (once again, neural stuff/VR notwithstanding) I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than the keyboard and mouse. Faster at what? When using visual apps like Procreate or Photoshop for example, I find that touch is faster than "keyboard and mouse". For reading (Kindle, iBooks, etc) touch is faster than keyboard and mouse. For certain music apps, touch is faster than keyboard and mouse (most of the work is manipulating filter and automation envelopes and rectangles on a grid). The main things keyboards are faster are writing and programming.
toyg 8y ago
I think you guys are arguing on whether a spoon is superior to a fork. They are both made of metal and are used to eat, but they serve different purposes and require different modes of operation. Give a fork to somebody who only eats soup, and he’ll curse you; give a spoon to a steak lover, and he’ll respond in the same way. It took a bit to click for me, but I understand now that the mobile/touch approach serves a segment of the population with different approaches to computational needs. It doesn’t mean it’s a superior approach, even if it sold more devices; it’s just another approach. You can argue that it isn’t the case until you’re blue in the face, because “underneath it’s all the same”, but it’s the reality. It’s like saying a Ferrari and a Fiat 500 both have engines and gearbox, so they serve the same transportation needs and you can determine an objectively superior car - it’s false and you can’t. Doing the weekly grocery shopping with a Ferrari is as hellish as trying to race with a 500. Computational devices will become more different in shape and uses, not less. Convergence is a production-driven myth that will never fully materialize. We never really reached convergence even when the operational modes were just two (desktop and server), it certainly won’t happen now that you can put computers in glasses and watches.
- exergy 8y ago
  Excellent comparison, and no arguments from me. My central interest, however, is in owning the least number of things that need to be charged. In that context, I cannot justify having an iPad over my Surface.
- snazz 8y ago
  And for Apple, it just so happens that the market segment that likes touch-driven UI as their primary interface is as large or larger than those who like keyboard/mouse. Making mobile devices the computer for the masses widens the divide between users and developers.
jakobegger 8y ago
> Clicking a menu item, or even better, knowing the keyboard shortcut, is the most superior method of getting shit done That is certainly true on general purpose computers (those running a standard Windows, macOS or Desktop Linux distro). But most special purpose computers do not have a keyboard and a mouse. For example: - a hospital sonography station has a screen, a lot of quick access function keys, a trackball for moving a crosshair, lots of sliders for adjusting things, etc. - a cashier desk has a barcode scanner with a trigger and a num pad for manually entering codes - a musician might use a (musical) keyboard, and a mixing board with lots of knobs and sliders There are a lot of input devices that are a lot better for special purposes like a mouse and keyboard. The magic of touch is that you can simulate specialized user interfaces for a lot of things. Just look at those DJ apps for the iPad! They have a pretty sweet interface that would be really hard to implement with mouse and keyboard. So I don't think that mouse/keyboard is the ultimate input device combo. I haven't seen anything better for programming yet, but who knows, maybe some day someone comes up with an idea that works better than traditional windows + menus + buttons.
- exergy 8y ago
  I think calling a sonography station a 'personal computer' is a bit of a reach. The discussion here, at least from my end, is firmly whether the iPad is enough of a computer to justify owning it to the exclusion of other computers.
askafriend 8y ago
> I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than the keyboard and mouse. Easy counter example: "I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than a touch interface while working as warehouse manager who's constantly on-the-go." See how you're pigeonholing the whole concept of what a computer is or should be?
- exergy 8y ago
  You misunderstand me. I LOVE touchscreens. I will never buy a laptop without one. But I think a full OS is so much more useful than JUST a gimped mobile OS. Hence my preference for the Surface over the iPad.

by exergy 8y ago

coldtea 8y ago

>I don't agree that these are valid comparisons. An iPad is a computer. It has a CPU, and a screen, and an OS, and is therefore rather similar to a PC, barring UI lipstick. That would entail that anything with "a CPU, and a screen, and an OS" should offer the exact same experience as a desktop/laptop computer. (Not to mention that ATM machines, kiosks, and cars also have one or more cpus, screens, and OSes). The whole idea of the iPad as Apple (and I) see it, is that something with a "CPU, an OS, and a screen" can have widely different interaction design, and that the "PC" experience is far from the optimal for all uses. For those other users, the iPad experience (or some other) can be greater. And those that really need a PC, can always just ...get a PC! (That's also how the smartphone, which also has a CPU, a screen, and an OS) surpassed the PC in time spent/internet use) with a different interaction design. >You wouldn't agree with this? In the context of computers (once again, neural stuff/VR notwithstanding) I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than the keyboard and mouse. Faster at what? When using visual apps like Procreate or Photoshop for example, I find that touch is faster than "keyboard and mouse". For reading (Kindle, iBooks, etc) touch is faster than keyboard and mouse. For certain music apps, touch is faster than keyboard and mouse (most of the work is manipulating filter and automation envelopes and rectangles on a grid). The main things keyboards are faster are writing and programming.

toyg 8y ago

I think you guys are arguing on whether a spoon is superior to a fork. They are both made of metal and are used to eat, but they serve different purposes and require different modes of operation. Give a fork to somebody who only eats soup, and he’ll curse you; give a spoon to a steak lover, and he’ll respond in the same way. It took a bit to click for me, but I understand now that the mobile/touch approach serves a segment of the population with different approaches to computational needs. It doesn’t mean it’s a superior approach, even if it sold more devices; it’s just another approach. You can argue that it isn’t the case until you’re blue in the face, because “underneath it’s all the same”, but it’s the reality. It’s like saying a Ferrari and a Fiat 500 both have engines and gearbox, so they serve the same transportation needs and you can determine an objectively superior car - it’s false and you can’t. Doing the weekly grocery shopping with a Ferrari is as hellish as trying to race with a 500. Computational devices will become more different in shape and uses, not less. Convergence is a production-driven myth that will never fully materialize. We never really reached convergence even when the operational modes were just two (desktop and server), it certainly won’t happen now that you can put computers in glasses and watches.

exergy 8y ago
Excellent comparison, and no arguments from me. My central interest, however, is in owning the least number of things that need to be charged. In that context, I cannot justify having an iPad over my Surface.
snazz 8y ago
And for Apple, it just so happens that the market segment that likes touch-driven UI as their primary interface is as large or larger than those who like keyboard/mouse. Making mobile devices the computer for the masses widens the divide between users and developers.

jakobegger 8y ago

> Clicking a menu item, or even better, knowing the keyboard shortcut, is the most superior method of getting shit done That is certainly true on general purpose computers (those running a standard Windows, macOS or Desktop Linux distro). But most special purpose computers do not have a keyboard and a mouse. For example: - a hospital sonography station has a screen, a lot of quick access function keys, a trackball for moving a crosshair, lots of sliders for adjusting things, etc. - a cashier desk has a barcode scanner with a trigger and a num pad for manually entering codes - a musician might use a (musical) keyboard, and a mixing board with lots of knobs and sliders There are a lot of input devices that are a lot better for special purposes like a mouse and keyboard. The magic of touch is that you can simulate specialized user interfaces for a lot of things. Just look at those DJ apps for the iPad! They have a pretty sweet interface that would be really hard to implement with mouse and keyboard. So I don't think that mouse/keyboard is the ultimate input device combo. I haven't seen anything better for programming yet, but who knows, maybe some day someone comes up with an idea that works better than traditional windows + menus + buttons.

exergy 8y ago
I think calling a sonography station a 'personal computer' is a bit of a reach. The discussion here, at least from my end, is firmly whether the iPad is enough of a computer to justify owning it to the exclusion of other computers.

askafriend 8y ago

> I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than the keyboard and mouse. Easy counter example: "I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than a touch interface while working as warehouse manager who's constantly on-the-go." See how you're pigeonholing the whole concept of what a computer is or should be?

exergy 8y ago
You misunderstand me. I LOVE touchscreens. I will never buy a laptop without one. But I think a full OS is so much more useful than JUST a gimped mobile OS. Hence my preference for the Surface over the iPad.