4 ms·
> The iPad has been a spectacular success, and to tens of millions it is a beloved part of their daily lives, but it has, to date, fallen short of revolutionary
by w-m 7y ago
> The iPad has been a spectacular success, and to tens of millions it is a beloved part of their daily lives, but it has, to date, fallen short of revolutionary.
Why does everything have to be revolutionary? Pretty much everybody I know who has an iPad love using their device. It's a wonderful tool for media and web consumption, it just works for that use case very, very well. It can be used effortlessly, for multiple hours a day. Does it really have to do more?
Personally I just don't use split-screen apps on the iPad, but I'm not the least inconvenienced by the feature being around, behind some strange gestures I don't really bothered to learn.
- Brave-Steak 7y ago> Personally I just don't use split-screen apps on the iPad I think that's the problem. As somebody who uses splitscreen all the time, it's utterly painful. It's a great feature, but whoever designed it from a usability-standpoint was, quite frankly, retarded. The problem is that it could be so much better, even revolutionary, but it stumbles on the implementation of features like this.
- leadingthenet 7y ago> Does it really have to do more? It should do more to justify the price tag of the Pro model. It should also do more simply because Apple's advertising for the product attempts very hard to push it into a productivity device angle, not a consumption one. Hence the "what is a computer?" debacle.