Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

jwz.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#51

Post by [deleted] »

saurik wrote: post #37
cletus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of a front facing camera is a common complaint but honestly (owning an iPad that I love and use all the time) I don't think the use case is as cut and dried as that. Video calls are most often made with a desktop computer or laptop. Laptops have a camera at the top of the screen. Most Webcams are attached to the top of monitors. So you are typically eye level with a desktop webcam or just above with a laptop…

I'd love to know what you actually do with yours. Every single use case I could come up with for the iPad was totally destroyed by the iPhone 4, which has 80% the resolution but fits in my pocket. If a new iPad came out with a reasonable screen I could totally see it being an awesome device, but at 1024x768 people really just need to learn to hold their iPhone 4 closer to their face.

[deleted]

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#52

Post by cstross »

saurik wrote: post #37
cletus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of a front facing camera is a common complaint but honestly (owning an iPad that I love and use all the time) I don't think the use case is as cut and dried as that. Video calls are most often made with a desktop computer or laptop. Laptops have a camera at the top of the screen. Most Webcams are attached to the top of monitors. So you are typically eye level with a desktop webcam or just above with a laptop…

I'd love to know what you actually do with yours. Every single use case I could come up with for the iPad was totally destroyed by the iPhone 4, which has 80% the resolution but fits in my pocket. If a new iPad came out with a reasonable screen I could totally see it being an awesome device, but at 1024x768 people really just need to learn to hold their iPhone 4 closer to their face.

You don't have presbyopia, do you?

I'll grant that the iPhone 4 is a lovely piece of kit, but if you have 45-year-old (or older) eyeballs, you will probably need the bigger screen. Our eyes become somewhat less flexible with age, and our lenses lose the capability to focus well on small, nearby objects: the result is reading glasses (and a lot of grumbling). I can still read ebooks on the iPhone ... for about 10 minutes; then I begin to get a headache. Movies are right out, as are games. The iPad is a lot more old-fart eyeball-friendly.

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#53

Post by josefresco »

jwr wrote: post #41
yanowitz wrote: post #2

Dammit. I keep resisting the lure of the iPad, but when jwz weighs in... Must. Wait. For. Next. Version. You know, the smaller one with the front facing camera. So my kids can do FaceTime with their grandparents. Or the one with a (dare I hope) retina display. I guess that's probably a few versions out.

No user that owns an iPad complains about the lack of a front-facing camera. Also, no user that has used an iPad for a week or so considers it to be equivalent to an iPhone. Those aren't things you can explain — you have to experience using the iPad for several days to understand. It really is a different device from everything we are used to.

I have an iPad but have never had an iPhone or even Android device. Not having a camera sucks as it completely rules out many apps that both myself and my kids would enjoy thoroughly. So I guess there's one iPad user that is complaining; me.

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#54

Post by josefresco »

qwzybug wrote: post #50
cletus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email, Web browsing, reading technical books, games, photo storage, photo editing, slideshows, watching TV, Twitter, Facebook (even though theres no native iPad app annoyingly), reading (particular technical books where the extra screen real estate really shines), reading my RSS feeds, etc. I have n iPhone 4 too and will certainly pull that out of my pocket and use it but at home I just prefer the larger screen.

Composing presentations, preparing invoices, sketching, Monkey Island, writing. The retina display makes a huge difference for reading, so I tend to use the iPhone for feeds and things, but for anything creative the iPad is the clear winner.

The bigger screen also makes it a great trip/car browsing device. It's sinmply not comfortable to do extensive browsing on a phone. The iPad's niche is the middle-ground between a phone and latptop (between walking mobile and mobile office)

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#55

Post by simonsarris »

statictype wrote: post #3

It's an instant-on appliance with a real web browser and real mail reader on a real screen. I guess that's the selling point right there. It's not a computer that requires booting and starting up system services and logging in. It's an appliance you can immediately turn on and start using.

How is that a selling point versus all of the other laptops and netbooks that can do the same? Almost all modern netbooks are like that now. Even my large HP Envy can do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_on

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#56

Post by cletus »

jwr wrote: post #41
yanowitz wrote: post #2

Dammit. I keep resisting the lure of the iPad, but when jwz weighs in... Must. Wait. For. Next. Version. You know, the smaller one with the front facing camera. So my kids can do FaceTime with their grandparents. Or the one with a (dare I hope) retina display. I guess that's probably a few versions out.

No user that owns an iPad complains about the lack of a front-facing camera. Also, no user that has used an iPad for a week or so considers it to be equivalent to an iPhone. Those aren't things you can explain — you have to experience using the iPad for several days to understand. It really is a different device from everything we are used to.

You saw this a lot in the early days of the iPad: there were opinions from those who had used the device and opinions from those who hadn't.

A lot of the second group didn't "get it". Once they used it many of them were convinced. Basically, those that haven't tried it tend to be more negative about it as a whole.

There is something about the experience that is hard to articulate. The feel of it, the convenience of it, the fact that's instant on, the UI... just the whole package really.

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#57

Post by daladd »

famousactress wrote: post #7

I'd add.. I was surprised how quickly touch typing came. I'm not nearly as fast as I am on a normal keyboard, but still much faster than my thumbs on an iPhone. Certainly fast enough to write chunky emails or blog posts.. if anything, the minor slowdown is an encouragement to write more vigorously.

I'm of two minds re: jwz's comments on the modifier key handling: (1) Yes! Absolutely! iSSH would be so much better if I could control my emacs with it (2) Why? that's not what it's for.

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#58

Post by glhaynes »

arethuza wrote: post #47
ido wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPad is more like the original PC - superficially similar to its predecessors, but used quite differently. A bit OT, but how was using the original PC categorically different than using an apple2/atari 800/trs-80/etc?

I think IBM branding had a lot to do with it - as it was made by IBM it was a serious business tool whereas other devices were merely "toys". Of course this had nothing to do with the capabilities of the technologies but everything to do with positioning.

I expect the original poster doesn't mean the IBM PC specifically, but personal computers in general.

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#59

Post by arebop »

loewenskind wrote: post #33
arebop wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haven't they used a digital picture frame and though "Gosh, wouldn't it be cool if this could show the weather...and had a web browser...and let me play movies from my server..." Yes, I have had those thoughts. I also thought "I'd be willing to pay $5 for that. Oh well." So sure I understand that these things are appealing for coffee tables or salesmen, but I (still) don't see myself using one very much.

Is there anything you would pay a realistic price for? You seem to vastly undervalue what things are worth. Of course you'll probably say "that's what it's worth to me", but is that correct? Is the time saving and convenience really only bringing $5 worth of value to your life? That would mean it saves you about an hour of time across the entire lifetime of the product (assuming a very low value for what your time is…

Yes, I do buy other things.

As for time savings and convenience, even having used the iPad for a few minutes one day, I don't think it would save me any time at all compared to using my laptop. iPad is less convenient for carrying around than my Android phone, and its software keyboard makes it less convenient for programming than my MacBook Pro. Yes I know I could add an external keyboard, but then I would have to haul around two pieces instead of one, and I'd still be stuck programming on a 9.7" display.

Re: Zawinski: iPad just-slightly insufficiently futurey

#60

Post by gamble »

ido wrote: post #45
gamble wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a $500+ device. At that point most people are looking for some guarantee that it's going to be useful. The iPad is an unusual product, because doesn't address an obvious need. Laptops were just portable desktops. mp3 players were digital Walkmans. Smartphones are a combination of PDA, mp3 player, and phones. Most new classes of electronics are just an extension of an existing product in an obvious but technical…

The iPad is more like the original PC - superficially similar to its predecessors, but used quite differently. A bit OT, but how was using the original PC categorically different than using an apple2/atari 800/trs-80/etc?

I meant the personal computer in general, not just IBM's model.
Post reply on HN