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

Tablets

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 262 posts

Re: Tablets

#171

Post by tapiwa »

blahedo wrote: post #81

Here's the thing: people who aren't geeks often like and even prefer single-purpose devices. There is, as has been noted (see http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/DICE-2010-Design-Outside-the-Bo... ), a "pocket exception", but for larger devices, people who aren't us are often intimidated or confused by devices that do many things. And of course there are dangers in making a machine more general-purpose than it needs to be.…

The thing is, a lot of people will use them as single use devices. They will just have very different 'single' uses for them.

Let's start with the iPod. Everyone uses it to listen to stuff. My brother listens to rap music, almost exclusively. My niece listens to whatever boy band is en vogue today. Very different genres of music. I love audiobooks on mine. Along with music. I have an aunt that has church sermons on hers.

Move to computers. I have not used a word processor in months. I spend a helluva lot of time in spreadsheets though. My niece, with her school reports, is the opposite. My nephew is almost exlusively a gamer on his computer.

Even the web. Most people have a dozen or so sites that account for 90% (made up stat) of their browsing time. It is a different dozen for all users though.

So yes, the vast majority of users will use their devices for only a handful of purposes. It will be a different handful for each user though.

Re: Tablets

#172

Post by natep »

mortenjorck wrote: post #97
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #40

Worth noting here that most analysts feel that the reason the original iPod was successful was that it only did one thing in an extremely friendly format. I think the key question here is whether or not the app-universe grows in size until consumers desire separation of widgets again. I know from my own experience that I found I maximize productivity by having separate devices responsible for separate things. For ins…

This, in my opinion, is the genius of Apple's choice of form factor. By omitting any physical buttons apart from meta-functionality, and allowing only full-screen applications, an iOS device essentially becomes dedicated hardware for whatever it happens to be running. I remember marveling at the YouTube app the first time I picked up an iPad. It was the best YouTube experience I'd seen; it felt like I was holding a p…

The one major improvement I can think of would be if the screen could deform itself and make actual, raised buttons. Then it would be even more of a dedicated device towards whatever application you were running.

Re: Tablets

#173

Post by ph0rque »

brc wrote: post #112
drcode wrote: post #35

> I wouldn't be surprised if by playing some clever tricks with the accelerometer you could even replace the bathroom scale. Galileo might take issue with that: http://www.jimloy.com/physics/galileo.htm

I'm glad there aren't too many dumb readers of HN. Otherwise we'd see a post 'I just stood on my iPad and now the screen is cracked'.

Well, the length of the crack would be proportional to the weight, and you could calculate the number from that :~)

Re: Tablets

#174

Post by alextgordon »

lukeschlather wrote: post #102
alanthonyc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the fact that the iPad is itself a closed...errr, integrated...system counter your argument? I'm all for open standards, API's and community cooperation of course. I just don't think that Apple is necessarily the antithesis. The fundamental difference between Apple's position today to Microsoft's monoculture of the previous decade lies in their motivations. Apple wants to make great stuff. Microsoft wanted to…

Microsoft's control was superficial, and that's how they like it. They don't want to control what you put on your computer, they just want you to pay them the same reasonable price. Apple on the other hand clearly does care what you put on your iOS device, and in ways that go beyond a desire for good UX to a desire to control what is acceptable for society: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/apple-finds-christianity-offe…

To be fair, gay marriage is one of the only political issues Apple has taken a stance on. See their opposition to proposition 8:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_i...

Aside from that, Apple can certainly be prudish, but that's more out of a desire to remain unobjectionable rather than a desire to control what is acceptable for society. They don't care if you play controversial games, they just don't want to be associated with such games.

Re: Tablets

#175

Post by jodrellblank »

natep wrote: post #170
jodrellblank wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One that includes why "ways could never have imagined" is desirable so it would convince people who don't already believe it to be the case? If they used the accelerometer to measure how hard they hit people over the head with iPad when mugging them, and triggered a string of copycat attacks, that wouldn't be desirable for Apple or society. It's almost arguing against firewalls - why restrict computer access when dev…

Yes, and the "X can be used for bad" argument you put forward is one that could be used against any advance in technology, with or without open standards or APIs. And your firewall example is not relevant. Hackers aren't using firewalls against the companies that employ them, they are circumventing the firewalls. What you said is more like "people can climb over fences easily, so we should stop building them around o…

Yes, and "X can be used for bad" would be as weak as "X can be used for good" is weak in favour of something.

My example is relevant because it directly counters edw519's implicit claim that "if an idea can be used in surprising ways, that is good" by citing open network connections as an example of something used in surprising ways which are bad, and our opposition to that by using a "not open" stance as the agreed best position.

To be convincing that openness is good, it would need to be established that significant good comes from it, or that more good than bad comes from it, or that at least serious bad cannot come from it or similar.

Saying that X can be used in previously unexpected ways is neither here nor there as an argument for open APIs or collaboration, whether or not I like open APIs and collaboration.

Re: Tablets

#176

Post by pinko »

Am I the only person who thinks the iOS usability is declining as its feature set and resulting complexity grows? It's still simple for me, but while my mother could handle the original iPhone, I think she'd get a little confused by the current one. (Double and triple clicks on the home button, cut and paste UI popping up unexpectedly, etc.)

Re: Tablets

#177

Post by sunbash »

dnsworks wrote: post #31
alanthonyc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the fact that the iPad is itself a closed...errr, integrated...system counter your argument? I'm all for open standards, API's and community cooperation of course. I just don't think that Apple is necessarily the antithesis. The fundamental difference between Apple's position today to Microsoft's monoculture of the previous decade lies in their motivations. Apple wants to make great stuff. Microsoft wanted to…

Right, Apple's shareholders are out there saying "I'm so glad we're making great stuff". Apple wants to make money, no matter how much fandom we bestow upon Apple for having a great design aesthetic, Apple is a corporation whose aim is to make money. Apple is a golden boy because they aren't Microsoft, and if we keep comparing the two, we never give Apple an honest shake.

I agree - Apple is a business, and it strives to make money - should it not??? The fact that they have realized that great user experience (which MS is also now making a priority-office 2007-10 is a perfect example)is a form of added value that consumers will pay heavily for is simply a testament to Apple's leadership (NOT just jobs!). Having an unbelievably talented marketing team doesn't hurt either.

My question is: what has Apple done to directly propel the world (particularly the 3+ billion people in the "third world" - impoverished and middle class) towards globalization? Microsoft (perhaps in their bid for control) has donated & sold (or subsidized) millions of products to this group of people. In some countries, apple hasn't even attempted to sell their products at reasonable prices despite the opportunity. Isn't ushering all parts of the world into the next decade as important as creating the next great iOS?

Re: Tablets

#178

Post by pclark »

tomjen3 wrote: post #16

Replacing keys sounds like an interesting idea, but on one hand you have the problem that the tech needs to be rock-solid (if github is down I get mildly annoyed. If I can't get my door to open, I freeze to death) and you are competing against an already established technology that works really well (rfid tags) and isn't very expensive. That said, I would love to hear more about your idea, if possible.

You can still use a key with the YC startup replacing keys.

Re: Tablets

#179

Post by sunbash »

Chris_Newton wrote: post #154

> Many if not most of the special-purpose objects around us are going to be replaced by apps running on tablets. I respectfully disagree. The trend for specialised vs. generalised devices seems to go in cycles over a period of a few years, in a similar way to the classic thick vs. thin client cycle. Consider games consoles vs. gaming on PCs, the iPod vs. mobile phones with media storage, etc. Neither extreme is ever…

I think in slightly simpler times. Value isn't only about function, its about form and also timely availability. Some devices are required at a certain point in time and although an application could replace them it most certainly will not. For instance the simple mirror, you can use an app on a camera enabled tablet (which might even allow some cool things like virtually trying different looks etc) but the simplicity of our current solution is very comfortable.

The same argument can be applied to the scale example pg gives. Sometimes when you are dripping wet, in the privacy of your bathroom, a scale is just perfect. That doesn't mean your scale will never talk to an app that let's you track your weigh-ins, it just means a scale is a dedicated device that people will likely want to keep for the foreseeable future.

But pg is dead-on on many items, as are you. There will be, as has been, a migration of specialized devices to software solutions.

Where the line will be drawn (due to consumer preference i.e. value creation) is up for debate though!

Re: Tablets

#180

Post by DougBTX »

rbarooah wrote: post #151
pyrhho wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever people drop accolades upon historical figures (Fuller included) I always have to wonder if there is a bit of survivorship bias at play. I'm not saying that Fuller wasn't a complete genius (he definitely was), but I wonder how many other incorrect predictions, and other "geniuses", have been forgotten because they were incorrect.

How is this a bias? What value would it be to pay attention to all incorrect statements people have made over the years except to understand why they were wrong? People like fuller who had insight that seems to have lasted over time are interesting because we can learn something not just from the statements they made, but from how they thought that gave them insight.

Imagine you have a set of people over history, all thinking in different ways, all making statements about the future. There's a good chance that some of those statements will be true, just by chance. If you don't account for that, you will be biased towards people who just got lucky (the survivors).
Post reply on HN