3 ms·

It just occurred to me that the situation with the Touch Bar is similar to what Apple has done with 3D Touch... it seems like Apple is making a bet that more co

It just occurred to me that the situation with the Touch Bar is similar to what Apple has done with 3D Touch... it seems like Apple is making a bet that more complicated input devices are better, which is a total about face from their past positions. Notably the 1-button mouse, and the original buttonless iPhone. I think it's a bad call. To me, these input devices create a lot of confusion for very little benefit. I think it's a sign Apple has given up on the philosophy of trying to make everything accessible to the average user. They have gone over to Microsoft's philosophy, which was that UIs should be like an iceberg, with a deep well of hidden functionality for advanced users to discover, and then a separate "normal people" UI layered on top of that. I think there's a MASSIVE opportunity right now for someone to build a new OS, designed around a very limited set of inputs, and a highly constrained widget library. With an emphasis on speed, putting as little as possible on the screen, and like Apple of old, having simple apps that let people do things pros typically do. For example, you could design a UI that would allow you to easily cut together clips from multiple videos. This was hard, and then iMovie made it easy, but now it is hard again. Those kinds of features make good ads, and lead to good word of mouth. Basically, take Steve Jobs' original strategy with the iMac/iPhone and do it over again. Apple has totally departed that path.

snowwrestler 7y ago
> it seems like Apple is making a bet that more complicated input devices are better, which is a total about face from their past positions. Swapping hardware buttons for touchscreen controls has been a huge success for Apple for over a decade, with the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, even the Apple Watch. The Touchbar is just another step down that path. It's arguable whether a fixed set of hardware "F" buttons are more usable, or well-labeled touchscreen buttons. Again, a decade of evidence suggests that software-defined touchscreen buttons are more usable. An iPad is much easier to use than a Mac. You can hand an iPad to a 5-year-old and they get it right away. > They have gone over to Microsoft's philosophy, which was that UIs should be like an iceberg, with a deep well of hidden functionality for advanced users to discover, and then a separate "normal people" UI layered on top of that. Apple invented that paradigm by adding keyboard shortcuts to a GUI. They have continued it by adding a command line interface and multitouch gestures to Mac OS. The Touchbar is similar. If you take it out of the box it is simple and easy to use. But if you are an advanced user, there are all sorts of options to customize it.
- 0xd171 7y ago
  > Swapping hardware buttons for touchscreen controls has been a huge success for Apple for over a decade, with the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, even the Apple Watch. The Touchbar is just another step down that path. It isn't a step down that path though. With the iPhone/iPod/iPad the new interface completely changes how you use the device (moving to a phone without physical keys for example). The Macbook touchbar doesn't do that, it just makes things a bit awkward by adding an additional way to interface with your device.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  > Swapping hardware buttons for touchscreen controls has been a huge success for Apple for over a decade, with the iPhone They didn't swap in this case though, they added. Equivalent to the touchscreen + keyboard phones of yore. In terms of degrees of freedom, the touchbar adds a lot. It's not a simple swap. The iPhone input system has fewer degrees of freedom than a blackberry did.

snowwrestler 7y ago

> it seems like Apple is making a bet that more complicated input devices are better, which is a total about face from their past positions. Swapping hardware buttons for touchscreen controls has been a huge success for Apple for over a decade, with the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, even the Apple Watch. The Touchbar is just another step down that path. It's arguable whether a fixed set of hardware "F" buttons are more usable, or well-labeled touchscreen buttons. Again, a decade of evidence suggests that software-defined touchscreen buttons are more usable. An iPad is much easier to use than a Mac. You can hand an iPad to a 5-year-old and they get it right away. > They have gone over to Microsoft's philosophy, which was that UIs should be like an iceberg, with a deep well of hidden functionality for advanced users to discover, and then a separate "normal people" UI layered on top of that. Apple invented that paradigm by adding keyboard shortcuts to a GUI. They have continued it by adding a command line interface and multitouch gestures to Mac OS. The Touchbar is similar. If you take it out of the box it is simple and easy to use. But if you are an advanced user, there are all sorts of options to customize it.

0xd171 7y ago
> Swapping hardware buttons for touchscreen controls has been a huge success for Apple for over a decade, with the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, even the Apple Watch. The Touchbar is just another step down that path. It isn't a step down that path though. With the iPhone/iPod/iPad the new interface completely changes how you use the device (moving to a phone without physical keys for example). The Macbook touchbar doesn't do that, it just makes things a bit awkward by adding an additional way to interface with your device.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
> Swapping hardware buttons for touchscreen controls has been a huge success for Apple for over a decade, with the iPhone They didn't swap in this case though, they added. Equivalent to the touchscreen + keyboard phones of yore. In terms of degrees of freedom, the touchbar adds a lot. It's not a simple swap. The iPhone input system has fewer degrees of freedom than a blackberry did.