But the iPad isn’t for me. I want the ability to run arbitrary programs without paying extra money or getting permission from the computer manufacturer... I think the world needs more makers, which is why I don’t intend to buy an iPad. That said, I think the typical consumer will love the iPad.
There's nothing about the hardware which is anti-maker, other than anything which specifically supports DRM, which I believe is minimal. It's almost all in the software.
What if Apple came out with the modern day version of Hypercard running in a sandbox, with capability-based gating of important facilities like dialing? HyperCard supported lots of do it yourself tinkering. For those makers who want to go to the next step, the App Store itself and the SDK are a worthwhile target.
It's hard to use the iPad for creation. Since I got mine, all I've done with it is read, watch videos and a little web surfing. It's just not made for typing. Sure, you can IM someone or reply to an email, but I couldn't write a blog entry (or even this comment) with it. You can use a wireless keyboard but it still doesn't feel right as you have to keep moving your hand to the screen to click on icons. It doesn't recognize Apple's Magic Mouse.
I will agree that the lack of cursor buttons is a pain for certain operations. (Like quoting HN posts with asterisks.) But I think this device is meant for it's chief input method to be something other than typing. That's a part of the revolution this thing is a part of. That's also what may make this device too early for the world.
Incidentally, it seems that I can type at full speed on this thing. (Posted from an iPad)
>You can use a wireless keyboard but it still doesn't feel right as you have to keep moving your hand to the screen to click on icons. It doesn't recognize Apple's Magic Mouse.
Sounds like you are starting to realize that the iPad is not a laptop...
I don't intend to be facetious. I think a lot of people genuinely think the iPad will revolutionize computing because it can actually serve as a replacement for the laptop (which, for many, replaced the desktop). But it's not a laptop replacement, it's just a big iPod Touch.
I bought it exactly for that reason. I'm very happy with my laptop for work, I wanted a "better Kindle" meaning a device I can take on a weekend retreat and not be tempted to do work. For that, it's awesome. It belongs next to my bed.
I think a lot of people genuinely think the iPad will revolutionize computing because it can actually serve as a replacement for the laptop (which, for many, replaced the desktop). But it's not a laptop replacement, it's just a big iPod Touch.
That's funny. I think it will revolutionize computing because it is a big iPod Touch.
The Touch is too small to be ideal for a lot of tasks. Yet a lot of use is made of the device's multi-touch interface. With a bigger screen, more mobile uses will reveal themselves.
I'm not quite sure what this whole openness hate is on the iPad.
Let's say google comes out with the heralded ChromeOS tablet, featuring a webkit browser that is really fast and can run all kinds of different HTML5 apps. Hooray for Openness!
...but doesn't the iPad have a very fast webkit browser that can run all kinds of different HTML5 apps too, plus this added feature called the "app store" that lets you make all kinds of other neat stuff. Isn't:
You're setting up an artificial comparison with ChromeOS. I think most people are comparing the iPad to a Mac or PC. There's no question that it's far less open than either.
And yet one can't help feeling there's a double standard here.
When Apple released the original iPhone and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser engine, there was outrage, and Apple's "culture of control" was blasted from all sides.
When Google announced Chrome OS and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser, there was joy, and Google's culture of openness was praised from all sides.
"Nobody expects a Chrome OS device to be a desktop/laptop" doesn't hold up, since there are going to be Chrome OS devices which have specs at least as good as and almost certainly better than the iPhone and probably the iPad as well; why do we rant and rage and demand that Apple devices have to be "real computers", then, while giving Google the free "oh, it's just a netbook/tablet/appliance" pass?
I would be surprised if Google doesn't make it possible to completely replace Chrome OS on any tablet device they sell. That would be a pretty big difference.
Good point. But the difference is that Google releasing a browser based platform where the only application is the browser forces them to use the same technology as everyone else to create applications, no one can create native applications for ChromeOS (or everyone can, since "native" means "web based") -- this is, in fact, good engineering because it means there are no secret APIs that give Google's apps an advantage so the Google employees writing apps are more likely to end up with a good API because they see exactly what non-google employees have to deal with. In fact, Google gives developers the same technology they use to develop apps, things like HTML5 and GoogleGears, etc. In contrast, Apple originally told people they couldn't develop native apps because only Apple could release native apps.
I was going to mention Microsoft, but I couldn't remember the specifics and didn't have time to track them down. But yeah, there were things like improperly emulating DOS in windows so only MS-DOS would run, secret APIs that Office used (for drawing?) that gave Office increased performance. The moving target that is SMB and NT domain services that has kept samba from being on-par.
Is a blender deliberately crippled if it can't microwave food? It helps Google, I guess, to be a company that releases web-based software, because then web browsers run their software, even a web browser that they release. "Our web based OS only runs web based software" is a pretty goofy definition of "crippled". Would Apple release a web-apps-only system? I doubt it, it wouldn't provide the level of interactivity and UI/UX that Apple wants to give their customers, and Apple wants to be both the the provider of the best experience and apps, and giving that ability to their developers is only secondary (even the guy who reimplemented coverflow from scratch and didn't use any secret Apple APIs was denied app inclusion initially).
Yes, which is why I wrote it that way. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike, I would bet money that the response, from all corners of the tech world, would be to denounce it as unnecessarily "crippled", invoking theories of Steve Jobs' pathological need to prevent anyone from ever learning how to write native applications ever again.
And that response would be about as stupid and misinformed as the attitudes consistently displayed toward Apple for, e.g., the iPhone/iPad.
Yeah, I got that. I disagree though. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike and Apple's provided Apps did not have a advantage, due to direct hardware access or via secret APIs, because Apple made them, then I don't think we'd see people crying "crippled". I don't think Apple could keep themselves from giving themselves and advantage, though, so this ends up just being a academic discussion. ;)
>When Google announced Chrome OS and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser, there was joy, and Google's culture of openness was praised from all sides.
I don't remember that at all. I seem to remember everyone agreeing that it was a stupid mistake and no one would ever want to use it, because why not just use a real OS and install Chrome?
He doesn't want an iPhone either. He's using Nexus One instead. What is he thinking?! It's almost like he was working for a competing phone/os manufacturer... oh wait.
I haven't read anything else from him, but at least that post didn't say anything about Nexus One. But it did say "I played with my wife’s iPhone for just a few minutes before I knew I had to have an iPhone".
That post didn't give any reason to believe that he doesn't want iPad because he works for Google. He said pretty clearly that he thinks it's awesome gadget, but doesn't suit his needs (tinkering, software...).
Yeah, read his other posts. Or do a search on his blog.
And come one... am I the only one paranoid enough to question people's "innocent" motives? I NEVER trust an employee to be impartial when it comes to his employer.
it's becoming a bit of a recurring theme it seems. not too hard to imagine a nearby future where consumers carry ipad (-like) devices and makers tote laptops running, say, ubuntu. it would be like the whole prosumer thing never happened.
I thought hacking was about taking things that are purposed for one thing and re-making/re-programming it to do what you want it to do.
If people feel that Apple has created a walled garden they should get one and show us their vision on how it should operate.
The hardware is second to none, you want a camera put one in it's possible. Don't like the operating system figure out how to change it.
But don't just sit back and complain, that's easy.
I want one just so I can watch my 4 year old use it. The other she got a hold of my touch and was tapping away at it, found some app that simulates a brook, so when you touch it it ripples. So she decides to try and blow on it and see if it did anything. I thought that was amazing.
For me I will happily play in Apples garden, pay the fees live with the limitations, because it not only just works it works well.
I guess I'm kind of in the middle on this one. I love the concept of the ipad, but hate the closed nature of the platform and am wary of Apple pushing yet another device that pimps the appstore.
However, I felt the same about the AppleTV and the iphone, but still ended up buying both once I knew they were hackable.
29 comments
[ 7.4 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadThere's nothing about the hardware which is anti-maker, other than anything which specifically supports DRM, which I believe is minimal. It's almost all in the software.
What if Apple came out with the modern day version of Hypercard running in a sandbox, with capability-based gating of important facilities like dialing? HyperCard supported lots of do it yourself tinkering. For those makers who want to go to the next step, the App Store itself and the SDK are a worthwhile target.
I will agree that the lack of cursor buttons is a pain for certain operations. (Like quoting HN posts with asterisks.) But I think this device is meant for it's chief input method to be something other than typing. That's a part of the revolution this thing is a part of. That's also what may make this device too early for the world.
Incidentally, it seems that I can type at full speed on this thing. (Posted from an iPad)
Sounds like you are starting to realize that the iPad is not a laptop...
I don't intend to be facetious. I think a lot of people genuinely think the iPad will revolutionize computing because it can actually serve as a replacement for the laptop (which, for many, replaced the desktop). But it's not a laptop replacement, it's just a big iPod Touch.
That's funny. I think it will revolutionize computing because it is a big iPod Touch.
The Touch is too small to be ideal for a lot of tasks. Yet a lot of use is made of the device's multi-touch interface. With a bigger screen, more mobile uses will reveal themselves.
Let's say google comes out with the heralded ChromeOS tablet, featuring a webkit browser that is really fast and can run all kinds of different HTML5 apps. Hooray for Openness!
...but doesn't the iPad have a very fast webkit browser that can run all kinds of different HTML5 apps too, plus this added feature called the "app store" that lets you make all kinds of other neat stuff. Isn't:
(web browser + app store) > web browser?
If not, how is it any less open than ChromeOS?
You're setting up an artificial comparison with ChromeOS. I think most people are comparing the iPad to a Mac or PC. There's no question that it's far less open than either.
When Apple released the original iPhone and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser engine, there was outrage, and Apple's "culture of control" was blasted from all sides.
When Google announced Chrome OS and told people they couldn't develop native applications but would get to write web applications for a great browser, there was joy, and Google's culture of openness was praised from all sides.
"Nobody expects a Chrome OS device to be a desktop/laptop" doesn't hold up, since there are going to be Chrome OS devices which have specs at least as good as and almost certainly better than the iPhone and probably the iPad as well; why do we rant and rage and demand that Apple devices have to be "real computers", then, while giving Google the free "oh, it's just a netbook/tablet/appliance" pass?
Good point. I still remember a lot of Microsoft shenanigans along these lines.
So it's deliberately even more crippled than iPhone/iPad ;)
(which is what people would say if Apple released a web-apps-only system, which is kinda my point)
Yes, which is why I wrote it that way. If Apple released a ChromeOS-alike, I would bet money that the response, from all corners of the tech world, would be to denounce it as unnecessarily "crippled", invoking theories of Steve Jobs' pathological need to prevent anyone from ever learning how to write native applications ever again.
And that response would be about as stupid and misinformed as the attitudes consistently displayed toward Apple for, e.g., the iPhone/iPad.
I don't remember that at all. I seem to remember everyone agreeing that it was a stupid mistake and no one would ever want to use it, because why not just use a real OS and install Chrome?
That post didn't give any reason to believe that he doesn't want iPad because he works for Google. He said pretty clearly that he thinks it's awesome gadget, but doesn't suit his needs (tinkering, software...).
And come one... am I the only one paranoid enough to question people's "innocent" motives? I NEVER trust an employee to be impartial when it comes to his employer.
Eh?
> I played with my wife’s iPhone for just a few minutes before I knew I had to have an iPhone.
If people feel that Apple has created a walled garden they should get one and show us their vision on how it should operate.
The hardware is second to none, you want a camera put one in it's possible. Don't like the operating system figure out how to change it.
But don't just sit back and complain, that's easy.
I want one just so I can watch my 4 year old use it. The other she got a hold of my touch and was tapping away at it, found some app that simulates a brook, so when you touch it it ripples. So she decides to try and blow on it and see if it did anything. I thought that was amazing.
For me I will happily play in Apples garden, pay the fees live with the limitations, because it not only just works it works well.
If something better comes along I will change.
Best iPad demo this week!
However, I felt the same about the AppleTV and the iphone, but still ended up buying both once I knew they were hackable.