the kid 05
Individuals play the game, but teams beat the odds
- Messages
- 9,543
- Reaction score
- 3
Oldschool7;3260327 said:
Multitasking has been disabled thus far due to Apple "not being able to get the battery life right" which i find obserd.
Apple iPad
- Thread starter TheCount
- Start date
Multitasking has been disabled thus far due to Apple "not being able to get the battery life right" which i find obserd.
the kid 05
Individuals play the game, but teams beat the odds
- Messages
- 9,543
- Reaction score
- 3
Hoofbite;3260656 said:
my Storm has the same issue to. But youd think by now theyd have that figured out by now. If rumors hold true this summer will be their 4th gen iphone they should have it fixed.
Oldschool7
Benched
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 0
Maikeru-sama;3260527 said:
Yes. Apple seems to be engaging on a full-court war against Flash. It ticks me off.
Apple's Flash attitude may ultimately sour me on my iPhone and dissuade me from buying an iPad.
Maikeru-sama
Mick Green 58
- Messages
- 14,548
- Reaction score
- 6
Oldschool7;3261180 said:
Agreed.
I wish I could listen to Grooveshark and the now defunct Imeem on my iPhone every now and then but those are Flash Sites.
However, Apples' lack of Flash support isn't a dealbreaker because there are substitutes and the iPhone does so many other useful things.
Oldschool7
Benched
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 0
Maikeru-sama;3261278 said:
Maybe so with the iPhone. I don't browse much with that...I mostly use apps. I love the MLB gameday app and some games. Pandora is available.
But I expect-----demand more--with a product like an iPad. My longtime Apple loyalty is for the first time ever starting to soften.
I'm curious what Google might release in this space.
YosemiteSam
Unfriendly and Aloof!
- Messages
- 45,858
- Reaction score
- 22,189
Encore;3260455 said:
+10
Maikeru-sama
Mick Green 58
- Messages
- 14,548
- Reaction score
- 6
Oldschool7;3262721 said:
I think Google will definitely make a product similar to this that runs its Chrome OS Operating System.
the kid 05
Individuals play the game, but teams beat the odds
- Messages
- 9,543
- Reaction score
- 3
Oldschool7;3262721 said:
Look at the Dell mini 5, its Android based (googles phone OS) it looks neater then the maxIpad
- Messages
- 79,281
- Reaction score
- 45,652
Apple iPad Shortcomings Spark Questions About Updates
By STEVEN JOHNSON Steven Johnson – Tue Feb 2, 4:40 am ET
If you time-traveled back to 1995, and asked the leading futurists of that time where our machines were soon to take us, you might well have heard just as much rhapsodizing about document-centric interfaces as that about hypertext and the World Wide Web. The first generation of software interfaces forced the user to think too much about the tools, the story went, and too little about the task. If you wanted to write a memo, you had to think, "First I must launch Microsoft Word, my tool, and then create a new document." If you wanted to embed some piece of information that Microsoft Word wasn't optimized for, you had to launch another application, create and modify a new element there, and then move back to your original application environment, where you could deposit the alien data object. A number of proposed interfaces - most famously, Apple's failed OpenDoc initiative, shut down shortly after the company acquired NeXT - promised to reverse the priorities: our desktops would prioritize the tasks over the tools, the documents over the applications. The user wouldn't launch documents inside an application. They'd just create a document on its own, which would lie there like a surgical patient, and if you needed a specific tool - a little word-processing here, or some video-editing there - you just grabbed that tool and started working on the patient in front of you. In the application-centric model, you were constantly lugging organs into other operating rooms and then dragging them back.
The weird thing about the iPad is that it has landed us 180 degrees from where we thought we were heading. The iPad interface - like the iPhone's - tries to do everything in its power to do away with documents and files. There is no Finder or root-level file navigation. It's apps, apps, apps, as far as the eye can see. According to the demo last week, the main way to launch iWork documents is by an internal document-selection process after launch, where your files are presented to you in a gallery format. (See pictures of the iPad's unveiling.)
I truly don't know how I feel about this. It might be genius. Maybe most users are more confused by Finders and File Explorers than I've realized. But I can't help thinking that if the iPad really wants to be a device that you might take on a business trip instead of the laptop, it's going to need a little more document-centrism. By a wide margin, the most disappointing element of the user interface, or UI, is the home screen, which is virtually unchanged from the original iPhone UI. (The iPad is far, far more than a blown-up iPod Touch, but you can't tell from the home screen.) Surely there's a better way to exploit multitouch and that extra screen real estate for navigating all the information that will be stored on these machines. I have no inside information on this, but given the inventiveness of the iWork user experience, I can't help thinking that an iPad-native home environment was a project that didn't make the ship dates, and that they slapped on the old iPhone screen for continuity at the last minute. But time will tell.
And letting time tell is what we need to do. This is the most ambitious thing Steve Jobs has attempted since the original Mac. The iPhone revolutionized smartphones, but I think we all accept that smartphones were in our future. There is no equivalent consensus that tablets or couch computers or casual computers are inevitably on the road ahead. We don't even agree on the aims here: Is the iPad replacing the laptop or supplementing it? The scale of the wager means that - unlike Jobs' self-professed hobby, the Apple TV - the iPad will be a site of rapid innovation over the next 24 months. Making broad statements about Apple's long-term intentions based on features that didn't ship with version one is a fool's errand. We spent six months hyperventilating about how Apple was screwing over small developers by forcing everyone to develop Web apps, and then they launched the software-development kit and the App Store, and the iPhone turned into the biggest gold rush for small developers in the history of computing. (See 19 rejected names for the iPad.)
I suspect the folks complaining about the iPad's alleged read-only bias will look exactly like the folks who argued that Apple was screwing over developers in the spring of 2007. To argue in good faith that Jobs and Apple are not committed to user-created media is to ignore the entire first wave of Jobs' reinvention of Apple: the iPod may have turned Apple into a Wall Street icon, but it was the iMac and the whole iLife digital-hub positioning that brought the company back from the dead. During the iPad keynote, four of the most impressive (and in-depth) demos were content-creation apps: Brushes and the iWork trio. There is no doubt in my mind that some rendition of iLife will launch within a year on the iPad platform, most likely exactly one year from now, within a few minutes of Jobs showing off iPad2's mesmerizing new built-in camera.
Speaking of said camera - yes, I was disappointed that the iPad did not launch with one. But I think there's a very good case that it was worth it to ditch the camera to get to the $499 price point. The value of that number shouldn't be underestimated; everyone loves to bash Apple for its pricing hubris (particularly on hyped products like the iPad where you know they could effectively price it like an Aston Martin for the first month and still have lines at the Apple Store). But among all the complaints about the iPad launch, you didn't hear much griping about the price. (See a gallery of Apple's hits and misses.)
Overhyped products are going to disappoint. That's the Faustian bargain of overhyping in the first place. What I object to is the prognosticating: because Apple didn't include some crucial feature, the future of computing may well be threatened by some ominous trend. At least when you base those prophesies on a shipping product, you have an anchor to ground your speculations. But when you point out that Apple didn't include olfactory sensors in the initial iPad, and thus has fatally condemned us to a future of smell-impaired computing, you run the very real risk that Apple will launch a Sniffer app the next week and render all your theories obsolete.
I do not intend this as a critique of squeaky wheels. If there's something you think the iPad needs, by all means ask for it in public. I would like a redesigned home screen, and a video camera, thank you very much. But there's a difference between feature requests and trend-forecasting. Maybe, somehow, it hadn't occurred to Apple that the iPhone would be a generative and lucrative developer platform, and all those outraged blog posts convinced them that it was worth doing. But I doubt it.
Ironically, this is one of those areas where Apple's legendary secrecy, which is largely responsible for the iPad hype in the first place, ends up hurting the company. A normal tech company would be trotting out advanced prototypes of the 2014 iPad, featuring its 3-D video camera, and thus silencing all the critics who might otherwise claim that the company just doesn't get video, or the 3-D revolution. But Apple doesn't talk very much about the future. Presumably, this is because it's too busy inventing it.
But Apple doesn't get a pass when it comes to Flash support, multitasking and the App Store itself. Apple now has three years of history with the iPhone platform ignoring Flash, forcing users to do one thing at a time and channeling all their developers through a single cash register. These do not seem like decisions that happen because you've got to announce a product next week at a certain price point and thus some things have to be cut. They seem like a long-term strategy, like they have principles behind them. (Watch "The Apple iPad and You: An Odd Todd Cartoon.")
The problem is the principles that Apple has formally announced make no sense on the iPad platform. You could at least make a plausible case that Flash and multitasking were too resource-intensive (and thus battery-draining) for mobile-phone usage, just as you could make the case that a phone operating system needed more security scrutiny for third-party apps. But these arguments no longer make sense when you're talking about a computing platform with 10 hours of battery life, a blisteringly fast CPU and ambitions to replace your laptop. It's fine for Apple to be secretive when it talks about the future of its products. But when Apple talks about the present this way, it just sounds like Pravda.
Fanboy that I am, I am genuinely interested to hear Apple's actual arguments on these issues. Maybe they truly believe multitasking has been a 15-year wrong turn, and that user interfaces need to revert back to one app at a time now that the apps load instantaneously. Maybe they think closed distribution environments generate more innovation in the long run than open ones. (They have two years of data on their side on that one, thanks to the incredible run the App Store has been on.) I'm not sure I agree with those arguments, but I'd be fascinated to hear more about them.
Several times in recent years, Jobs has published an open letter explaining some increasingly controversial part of Apple's business or his personal life. He wrote notes explaining Apple's environmental policies, revealing their plans for a native SDK for the iPhone and addressing the concerns about his health. Each note led, directly or indirectly, to a major, and positive, shift in the public perception of the issue in question. Maybe it's time for another letter.
Steven Johnson is the author of six books, most recently The Invention of Air, and the co-founder of the hyper-local news platform outside.in. He's @stevenbjohnson on Twitter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100202/us_time/08599195821700
By STEVEN JOHNSON Steven Johnson – Tue Feb 2, 4:40 am ET
If you time-traveled back to 1995, and asked the leading futurists of that time where our machines were soon to take us, you might well have heard just as much rhapsodizing about document-centric interfaces as that about hypertext and the World Wide Web. The first generation of software interfaces forced the user to think too much about the tools, the story went, and too little about the task. If you wanted to write a memo, you had to think, "First I must launch Microsoft Word, my tool, and then create a new document." If you wanted to embed some piece of information that Microsoft Word wasn't optimized for, you had to launch another application, create and modify a new element there, and then move back to your original application environment, where you could deposit the alien data object. A number of proposed interfaces - most famously, Apple's failed OpenDoc initiative, shut down shortly after the company acquired NeXT - promised to reverse the priorities: our desktops would prioritize the tasks over the tools, the documents over the applications. The user wouldn't launch documents inside an application. They'd just create a document on its own, which would lie there like a surgical patient, and if you needed a specific tool - a little word-processing here, or some video-editing there - you just grabbed that tool and started working on the patient in front of you. In the application-centric model, you were constantly lugging organs into other operating rooms and then dragging them back.
The weird thing about the iPad is that it has landed us 180 degrees from where we thought we were heading. The iPad interface - like the iPhone's - tries to do everything in its power to do away with documents and files. There is no Finder or root-level file navigation. It's apps, apps, apps, as far as the eye can see. According to the demo last week, the main way to launch iWork documents is by an internal document-selection process after launch, where your files are presented to you in a gallery format. (See pictures of the iPad's unveiling.)
I truly don't know how I feel about this. It might be genius. Maybe most users are more confused by Finders and File Explorers than I've realized. But I can't help thinking that if the iPad really wants to be a device that you might take on a business trip instead of the laptop, it's going to need a little more document-centrism. By a wide margin, the most disappointing element of the user interface, or UI, is the home screen, which is virtually unchanged from the original iPhone UI. (The iPad is far, far more than a blown-up iPod Touch, but you can't tell from the home screen.) Surely there's a better way to exploit multitouch and that extra screen real estate for navigating all the information that will be stored on these machines. I have no inside information on this, but given the inventiveness of the iWork user experience, I can't help thinking that an iPad-native home environment was a project that didn't make the ship dates, and that they slapped on the old iPhone screen for continuity at the last minute. But time will tell.
And letting time tell is what we need to do. This is the most ambitious thing Steve Jobs has attempted since the original Mac. The iPhone revolutionized smartphones, but I think we all accept that smartphones were in our future. There is no equivalent consensus that tablets or couch computers or casual computers are inevitably on the road ahead. We don't even agree on the aims here: Is the iPad replacing the laptop or supplementing it? The scale of the wager means that - unlike Jobs' self-professed hobby, the Apple TV - the iPad will be a site of rapid innovation over the next 24 months. Making broad statements about Apple's long-term intentions based on features that didn't ship with version one is a fool's errand. We spent six months hyperventilating about how Apple was screwing over small developers by forcing everyone to develop Web apps, and then they launched the software-development kit and the App Store, and the iPhone turned into the biggest gold rush for small developers in the history of computing. (See 19 rejected names for the iPad.)
I suspect the folks complaining about the iPad's alleged read-only bias will look exactly like the folks who argued that Apple was screwing over developers in the spring of 2007. To argue in good faith that Jobs and Apple are not committed to user-created media is to ignore the entire first wave of Jobs' reinvention of Apple: the iPod may have turned Apple into a Wall Street icon, but it was the iMac and the whole iLife digital-hub positioning that brought the company back from the dead. During the iPad keynote, four of the most impressive (and in-depth) demos were content-creation apps: Brushes and the iWork trio. There is no doubt in my mind that some rendition of iLife will launch within a year on the iPad platform, most likely exactly one year from now, within a few minutes of Jobs showing off iPad2's mesmerizing new built-in camera.
Speaking of said camera - yes, I was disappointed that the iPad did not launch with one. But I think there's a very good case that it was worth it to ditch the camera to get to the $499 price point. The value of that number shouldn't be underestimated; everyone loves to bash Apple for its pricing hubris (particularly on hyped products like the iPad where you know they could effectively price it like an Aston Martin for the first month and still have lines at the Apple Store). But among all the complaints about the iPad launch, you didn't hear much griping about the price. (See a gallery of Apple's hits and misses.)
Overhyped products are going to disappoint. That's the Faustian bargain of overhyping in the first place. What I object to is the prognosticating: because Apple didn't include some crucial feature, the future of computing may well be threatened by some ominous trend. At least when you base those prophesies on a shipping product, you have an anchor to ground your speculations. But when you point out that Apple didn't include olfactory sensors in the initial iPad, and thus has fatally condemned us to a future of smell-impaired computing, you run the very real risk that Apple will launch a Sniffer app the next week and render all your theories obsolete.
I do not intend this as a critique of squeaky wheels. If there's something you think the iPad needs, by all means ask for it in public. I would like a redesigned home screen, and a video camera, thank you very much. But there's a difference between feature requests and trend-forecasting. Maybe, somehow, it hadn't occurred to Apple that the iPhone would be a generative and lucrative developer platform, and all those outraged blog posts convinced them that it was worth doing. But I doubt it.
Ironically, this is one of those areas where Apple's legendary secrecy, which is largely responsible for the iPad hype in the first place, ends up hurting the company. A normal tech company would be trotting out advanced prototypes of the 2014 iPad, featuring its 3-D video camera, and thus silencing all the critics who might otherwise claim that the company just doesn't get video, or the 3-D revolution. But Apple doesn't talk very much about the future. Presumably, this is because it's too busy inventing it.
But Apple doesn't get a pass when it comes to Flash support, multitasking and the App Store itself. Apple now has three years of history with the iPhone platform ignoring Flash, forcing users to do one thing at a time and channeling all their developers through a single cash register. These do not seem like decisions that happen because you've got to announce a product next week at a certain price point and thus some things have to be cut. They seem like a long-term strategy, like they have principles behind them. (Watch "The Apple iPad and You: An Odd Todd Cartoon.")
The problem is the principles that Apple has formally announced make no sense on the iPad platform. You could at least make a plausible case that Flash and multitasking were too resource-intensive (and thus battery-draining) for mobile-phone usage, just as you could make the case that a phone operating system needed more security scrutiny for third-party apps. But these arguments no longer make sense when you're talking about a computing platform with 10 hours of battery life, a blisteringly fast CPU and ambitions to replace your laptop. It's fine for Apple to be secretive when it talks about the future of its products. But when Apple talks about the present this way, it just sounds like Pravda.
Fanboy that I am, I am genuinely interested to hear Apple's actual arguments on these issues. Maybe they truly believe multitasking has been a 15-year wrong turn, and that user interfaces need to revert back to one app at a time now that the apps load instantaneously. Maybe they think closed distribution environments generate more innovation in the long run than open ones. (They have two years of data on their side on that one, thanks to the incredible run the App Store has been on.) I'm not sure I agree with those arguments, but I'd be fascinated to hear more about them.
Several times in recent years, Jobs has published an open letter explaining some increasingly controversial part of Apple's business or his personal life. He wrote notes explaining Apple's environmental policies, revealing their plans for a native SDK for the iPhone and addressing the concerns about his health. Each note led, directly or indirectly, to a major, and positive, shift in the public perception of the issue in question. Maybe it's time for another letter.
Steven Johnson is the author of six books, most recently The Invention of Air, and the co-founder of the hyper-local news platform outside.in. He's @stevenbjohnson on Twitter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100202/us_time/08599195821700
