3 ms·

This isn't "another perspective". It's the exact perspective the GP is addressing. You're looking at the iPad product family and saying "I want to use this for

by ysavir 6y ago

This isn't "another perspective". It's the exact perspective the GP is addressing. You're looking at the iPad product family and saying "I want to use this for things other than the intended purposes." Yes, the hardware is there. But that's not relevant. Apple wanted a product that provides users with a mobile display--that's all iPads really are. > In fact, I'm using an iPad air right now and feel held back by the limitations of iOS imposed on me as a developer. There are no limitations imposed on you "as a developer". Apple didn't build a full-featured computer in iPad form and then said "Okay, now let's remove functionality to make it harder to code". Apple defined the needs of the product--a big screen and an easy touch-based interface--and built it. Sure, the hardware might able to do more, but it was never the intention for it to do more. It does exactly what it was designed to do. The only limit imposed on you is the tools you're allowing yourself to use.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 6y ago
>Apple wanted a product that provides users with a mobile display--that's all iPads really are. Or that they can interface with primarily with touch/a pencil. The iPad arguably started out as you described (plus some gaming). But it definitely can be used by creatives who don't primarily input using a keyboard. (And I know writers who use iPads on the go; I've never been able to make it work for me that way.)
- ysavir 6y ago
  > But it definitely can be used by creatives who don't primarily input using a keyboard. (And I know writers who use iPads on the go; I've never been able to make it work for me that way.) It can be used by them, sure. But the matter is whether they are the intended audience, and whether their needs are a target for the iPad teams at Apple. For a comparison, I can use my typical-sized Nikon camera to record videos, but I shouldn't expect Nikon to make a headband mount for it so I can record while I'm biking. I'd buy a GoPro for that. And similarly, I won't expect GoPro to include the same levels of customization and settings as a traditional camera.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Look at iPad ads or just Apple's website. It's pretty obvious it's aimed at people using them for creating art, photo editing, etc. In fact, I'd say that Apple does not especially emphasize using them for passive content consumption. I'm not much of an artist but apps like Procreate and GarageBand are very clearly in the iPad's sweet spot.
    - eru 6y ago
      > In fact, I'd say that Apple does not especially emphasize using them for passive content consumption. Though that might just be social desirability bias: they know damn well that people are going to watch netflix all day, and only a few people will create. But you make customers feel better when you appeal to the latter.
maxsilver 6y ago
> Apple didn't build a full-featured computer in iPad form and then said "Okay, now let's remove functionality to make it harder to code". But that is exactly what they did. (And they didn't even remove the functionality, they just outlawed it by policy.) They explicitly built a computer, marketed it and sold it as a laptop-replacing computer and then got all upset when people tried to use it like a real computer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0P0FQ770dE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0P0FQ770dE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI-iJcC9JUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI-iJcC9JUc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09_QxCcBEyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09_QxCcBEyU as examples
neya 6y ago
> Apple didn't build a full-featured computer That's exactly opposite of what they did. Go watch the iPad announcement videos again. They're pitched as computer replacements. Especially the iPad pro. Hence the parent comment and hence the OP's post.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  It’s a computer replacement for millions of people — just not people like you. That isn’t a bad thing. Apple has methodically added features to move it up the stack in terms of complexity. It takes time to do that without sacrificing what makes an iPad an iPad.

by ysavir 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ghaff 6y ago

>Apple wanted a product that provides users with a mobile display--that's all iPads really are. Or that they can interface with primarily with touch/a pencil. The iPad arguably started out as you described (plus some gaming). But it definitely can be used by creatives who don't primarily input using a keyboard. (And I know writers who use iPads on the go; I've never been able to make it work for me that way.)

ysavir 6y ago
> But it definitely can be used by creatives who don't primarily input using a keyboard. (And I know writers who use iPads on the go; I've never been able to make it work for me that way.) It can be used by them, sure. But the matter is whether they are the intended audience, and whether their needs are a target for the iPad teams at Apple. For a comparison, I can use my typical-sized Nikon camera to record videos, but I shouldn't expect Nikon to make a headband mount for it so I can record while I'm biking. I'd buy a GoPro for that. And similarly, I won't expect GoPro to include the same levels of customization and settings as a traditional camera.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Look at iPad ads or just Apple's website. It's pretty obvious it's aimed at people using them for creating art, photo editing, etc. In fact, I'd say that Apple does not especially emphasize using them for passive content consumption. I'm not much of an artist but apps like Procreate and GarageBand are very clearly in the iPad's sweet spot.
  - eru 6y ago
    > In fact, I'd say that Apple does not especially emphasize using them for passive content consumption. Though that might just be social desirability bias: they know damn well that people are going to watch netflix all day, and only a few people will create. But you make customers feel better when you appeal to the latter.

maxsilver 6y ago

> Apple didn't build a full-featured computer in iPad form and then said "Okay, now let's remove functionality to make it harder to code". But that is exactly what they did. (And they didn't even remove the functionality, they just outlawed it by policy.) They explicitly built a computer, marketed it and sold it as a laptop-replacing computer and then got all upset when people tried to use it like a real computer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0P0FQ770dE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0P0FQ770dE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI-iJcC9JUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI-iJcC9JUc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09_QxCcBEyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09_QxCcBEyU as examples

neya 6y ago

> Apple didn't build a full-featured computer That's exactly opposite of what they did. Go watch the iPad announcement videos again. They're pitched as computer replacements. Especially the iPad pro. Hence the parent comment and hence the OP's post.

Spooky23 6y ago
It’s a computer replacement for millions of people — just not people like you. That isn’t a bad thing. Apple has methodically added features to move it up the stack in terms of complexity. It takes time to do that without sacrificing what makes an iPad an iPad.