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

Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

victorwynne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#21

Post by wpm »

Almondsetat wrote: post #4

From Apple's point of view, Apple Vision (Pro) is the ultimate platform. That's why I think they were so convinced in developing it. If VR/AR headsets follow the same transition we had between the first gigantic mobile phones of thw 80s and the pocketable ones of the 2000s, I could seriously see Apple throwing out all their consumer lineup (phone, watch, ipad, macbook) and only have a Vision device. This would solve…

You still could t ditch the Mac because it’s the only platform you can develop apps on due to its yucky, “legacy” feature of….letting you run software on it without Apples “approval”. I’m sure it’s true what they say and it’s really about “security” though, not their App Store monopoly.

Even Apple can’t get around that. The Mac sticks around for this very reason: as a dev platform

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#22

Post by skydhash »

cm277 wrote: post #16
skydhash wrote: post #7

It still remains a crippled user experience in many ways: - PDF reader: Preview would be a nice addition to the set of default app, but you have to choose between the very basic viewer tied to Files.app and various viewers with many schemes to get into your wallet. - Files: I know a lot of apps rely on databases, but we still have to use files every now and then. The Files.app is very clunky for what I consider a sol…

After years with a mini, I jumped to an Air just so I could finally get a proper 'netbook' experience. Don't like Chromebooks, Windows is too complex; there is room for a simplified laptop that is easy to use and update but let's you use proper apps without going all the way to a full laptop with pro tools. I've started to see this as a generational challenge. I am Gen X, I used to run FreeBSD and Linux, I don't mind…

The iPad can work wonder if your workflow suits it. But it's the antithesis of power users. It's very tied to a cloud approach, but when you don't control the cloud backend, nor the app, it's hard to customize your workflow. Which is kinda the first step to mastery.

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#23

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #15
skydhash wrote: post #7

It still remains a crippled user experience in many ways: - PDF reader: Preview would be a nice addition to the set of default app, but you have to choose between the very basic viewer tied to Files.app and various viewers with many schemes to get into your wallet. - Files: I know a lot of apps rely on databases, but we still have to use files every now and then. The Files.app is very clunky for what I consider a sol…

It’s not really a solved problem on any desktop platform. Once you download an app on a desktop, it has complete access to all of your files you have access to in user space. The Files app itself works just the same to manage files as Windows and Macs assuming you didn’t have multiple windows to work with. The Files app as method to open and save files with in an app, works like any other file picker with more granul…

> It’s not really a solved problem on any desktop platform. Once you download an app on a desktop, it has complete access to all of your files you have access to in user space.

Amusingly, Linux solved that with flatpack.

Applications are installed in their own sandboxed containers and you decide which files they can and can’t access.

The Linux desktop has some very interesting pieces of technology.

Apple could do the same on macOS but that would pierce the veil that their user hostile policies are actually motivated by greed and not security.

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#25

Post by throwfaraway4 »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #3

I broadly agree with this thesis - I don't think there's a "betrayal" of a vision (and even if there had been, who really cares?) - but I do think Apple's vision has got muddled. My problem is we're not all talking about the same thing when we talk about "The iPad". Right now, on sale today, there are four iPads to choose from. No, not different colours, or memory sizes - you need to make a choice between the Mini, t…

I don't see how this is any different from variation/choices in other lifestyle products. Many consumers are sophisticated and appreciate choice.

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#26

Post by hoherd »

gregoriol wrote: post #17
Almondsetat wrote: post #4

From Apple's point of view, Apple Vision (Pro) is the ultimate platform. That's why I think they were so convinced in developing it. If VR/AR headsets follow the same transition we had between the first gigantic mobile phones of thw 80s and the pocketable ones of the 2000s, I could seriously see Apple throwing out all their consumer lineup (phone, watch, ipad, macbook) and only have a Vision device. This would solve…

The Apple Vision solves no problems, like the Apple Watch, they are just toys.

I disagree that the watch is just a toy. If it were, I never would've bought one. The only reason I got an Apple Watch is because Fitbit stopped selling the pendant pedometer, and if I was going to have to wear a watch, it might as well be integrated tightly with my phone.

For me, the Apple Watch is primarily a fitness device. That's almost the only reason I have it. I don't want to wear a watch. I don't load any music, podcasts, or almost any apps on it. I use it to track my activity and compare my daily health with past trends. That's like 95% of what I use it for. I even keep theater mode turned on 24x7 because I almost never look at it to check the time.

I also use it to tell Siri "set a timer" and "turn of the bedroom light... turn off the BEDROOM LIGHT... TURN OFF THE BEDROOM LIGHT."

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#27

Post by skydhash »

speak_plainly wrote: post #20

Steve was aiming at creating “a single piece of glass you can use to read email on the toilet.” Obviously that goal was achieved but the direction the iPad went in was different than its minimalist and cheap original trajectory. Adding a stylus and all the ‘Pro’ stuff confused what the iPad originally was, and now it’s more closely aligned with a new form-factor MacBook with a limited OS. Maybe Steve would have gone…

IMO, the Air should be a touch MacBook (Interface kinda like GNOME, hardware like the surface). The iPad should only be the mini (more comfortable for reading and viewing). And then the laptops are the Pro MacBook and a cheaper Macbook (the current Air 14). Maybe that's where macOS is headed?

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#28

Post by icedchai »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #23
scarface_74 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really a solved problem on any desktop platform. Once you download an app on a desktop, it has complete access to all of your files you have access to in user space. The Files app itself works just the same to manage files as Windows and Macs assuming you didn’t have multiple windows to work with. The Files app as method to open and save files with in an app, works like any other file picker with more granul…

> It’s not really a solved problem on any desktop platform. Once you download an app on a desktop, it has complete access to all of your files you have access to in user space. Amusingly, Linux solved that with flatpack. Applications are installed in their own sandboxed containers and you decide which files they can and can’t access. The Linux desktop has some very interesting pieces of technology. Apple could do the…

Apple has "App Sandbox" and an entitlement system on the Mac: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/app-sandb... It's "baked in" and doesn't require containers.

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#29

Post by DanielHB »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #3

I broadly agree with this thesis - I don't think there's a "betrayal" of a vision (and even if there had been, who really cares?) - but I do think Apple's vision has got muddled. My problem is we're not all talking about the same thing when we talk about "The iPad". Right now, on sale today, there are four iPads to choose from. No, not different colours, or memory sizes - you need to make a choice between the Mini, t…

I don't understand why companies doing hardware do this, surely it is much more expensive to design so many different devices? It dilutes the brand and makes the supply chain more complicated.

Like how much extra market capture really gets from having 4/5 different versions of the same basic segment?

Like I can see a reason to create several different versions based on screen size and upcharge for memory because that is a rather minor change. But otherwise why make them different at all?

Like if they really wanted to make different screen sizes just iPad 16'', iPad 14'', etc. Why make such a fuss with extra design changes besides that.

Like you said, Apple was the one company that didn't (over)do this, but not anymore.

Re: Apple has not destroyed Steve Jobs' vision for iPad

#30

Post by crinkly »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #23
scarface_74 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really a solved problem on any desktop platform. Once you download an app on a desktop, it has complete access to all of your files you have access to in user space. The Files app itself works just the same to manage files as Windows and Macs assuming you didn’t have multiple windows to work with. The Files app as method to open and save files with in an app, works like any other file picker with more granul…

> It’s not really a solved problem on any desktop platform. Once you download an app on a desktop, it has complete access to all of your files you have access to in user space. Amusingly, Linux solved that with flatpack. Applications are installed in their own sandboxed containers and you decide which files they can and can’t access. The Linux desktop has some very interesting pieces of technology. Apple could do the…

Er that's exactly how macOS works already. The App Sandbox stuff bounces through the kernel if something asks for access and you can say "no thanks". It's basically a proper Mandatory Access Control framework.

And the apps themselves are shipped in isolated bundles containing all their resources, which may include other binaries/libraries etc.

Post reply on HN