Live data from Hacker News

The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

layeredbyte.com

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#31
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? What the fuck was it supposed to be really good at doing? Running the iphone OS?

I'm sure Steve wasn't an idiot. He definitely designed this product for a specific type of user and it's probably really good at doing that. I just don't know what that is. But I'm certain he didn't slap on a bunch of random features that didn't go well together.

I've seen plenty of smart people make dumb decisions. It's about time he made a dumb one. Kind of like the phrase "We're due for another volcano eruption," I'm not trying to say it's about time we see him as an idiot

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#32

No tabbed browsing in Safari . I'm guessing dozens of tabbed browsers will pop up in the App store almost immediately. Unless Apple rejects them of course.

Last I checked, Apple rejects anything that duplicates the core functions included on the device. Those include web browsing, media playing and email.

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#33
post #9

"Even past the fact that the iPad does not have a camera, it cannot run two applications at the same time. Meaning: talking to my girlfriend, I could not look up a train time while we talked. Result: have to use my iPhone while we video chat. All that in a device that commands a price premium." How do you video chat using an iPhone, which has a camera on the back? "Again, we run into a software problem. From what I h…

> There are many casual games in the App Store, including many tower defence games (my favourite is Star Defence, but there are plenty of good free ones, if 99c is too dear). This is only going to increase with Flash CS5. Why make people pay when there's FREE games out there online if only flash were supported. Flash support means opening up to a whole world of preexisting games, rich internet applications, and porn…

The argument against using Flash is that it's not suitable for a low-powered, long battery-life hand held device. My guess is that Jobs is worried that if Flash were enabled, the average consumer would notice a much shorter battery life. The consumer won't understand that Flash is to blame, and will end up blaming the iPad instead.

>Why make people pay when there's FREE games out there online if only flash were supported.

There are also many free games on the App store. Also, with the new version of Adobe Flash, it's a relatively trivial process to turn a Flash game into a native iPhone app.

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#34
post #17

iPad is really good at doing what it's designed to do, and really bad otherwise. It's not a satisfy all device, as we've seen in the response to it so far.

Really? What the fuck was it supposed to be really good at doing? Running the iphone OS?

At the risk of repeating myself: Apple has apparently sold 35 million iPod Touches in a little over two years:

http://theappleblog.com/2010/01/28/ipod-touch-now-outselling....

Sales are apparently up 55% year-over-year.

These devices do exactly what the iPad does, only with a much smaller screen, far fewer networking options, and (if rumors are to be believed) slower performance.

These numbers are trying to tell us something. Perhaps we should listen?

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#35
post #32

No tabbed browsing in Safari . I'm guessing dozens of tabbed browsers will pop up in the App store almost immediately. Unless Apple rejects them of course.

Last I checked, Apple rejects anything that duplicates the core functions included on the device. Those include web browsing, media playing and email.

There are many web browsers and email clients available in the app store today, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that Apple blocks them. This doesn't solve the background apps problem, but there are also many apps that play media.

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#36
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't understand his objection here. Is it the inconvenience of hitting the "windows" button? With the iphone's touch interface this is painless and I can't imagine it'll be any worse for the ipad.

Well, for starters, any inconvenience sucks. Glad I got that out of the way =] His example of having (AT LEAST) 8 tabs open is not the same as eight windows. Searching through all of them can be quite the inconvenience. I, for example, currently have 14 tabs open, and six applications running. I do not want to search through all of those to get to what should be "another tab." I understand what he's talking about...

Well, I don't think we've seen yet how the iPad will manage browser windows. Perhaps when you click on windows, it will be be able to display all of the open windows at the same time in a grid view.

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#37
I read the article and it seems like flamebait to me.

The iPhone has what is essentially 8 tabs for browsing. Music is able to be played in the background. Gmail will have push email so how is that different than running in the background from a use-case perspective?

This post does not deserve to make it such a high spot on HN. Not even on the weekend.

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#38
post #19

I was looking forward to a humorous example of even a single use case being literally broken, since I don't know how to literally break a use case. Alas, it's just a list of use cases the iPad doesn't meet.

...and use cases the iPad DOES meet, but which the poster doesn't realize it meets. Like "tabbed" browsing, listening to music while running another app, and playing free casual games.

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#39
Well, the browser has tabs (at least, the iPhone Mobile Safari does, so it's no stretch to think this does as well). The lack of a camera is, I agree, silly.

Rather than rebut the rest of his "points" directly, I'll focus on "multitasking". Frankly, the iPhone and iPad do multitask, in the ways that are important to (most) people. Multitasking in an end user product really means "I can do more than one thing at once", not "The computer runs many processes". The iPhone OS currently accomplishes exactly this, via saved state.

In any well behaved iPhone app, if you quit, the state of the UI and your data is persisted, so that when you return, it's like you never left. The UI for this multitasking is a bit clunky - hit "Home" then pick the app - but for most people, this works fine. There are only two situations when this doesn't - when the app does something interesting in the background, and when the "stack" of application interactions collapses - if I click a mailto: link to open Mail, quitting that doesn't return me to Safari - I have to go there again manually.

The two cases of "Does something interesting in the background" that really people want are audio streaming and notification of some event, and they're real problems. However, Apple's persistently said they're trying to protect the user experience (stability, battery life etc) by denying background apps. I've no reason to believe this isn't the case (I'm mean really, what are they gaining except geek ire by restricting this?). The audio case is annoying and needs a solution - the notification case is slightly better since push was rolled out.

Outside of these cases, the iPhone multitasks well enough for 99% of the world. His reading case, catching up on the news etc all are handled - you just have a slightly painful app switch process (i.e. you press two buttons rather than just one). The only case that isn't is background movies/music from 3rd party apps - and really, the only sensible case out of that is music (Do you really watch a movie and browse at the same time on a 10" screen?). Regardless, I suspect the point will be moot soon enough - OS 4.0 seems very likely to bring some notion of background processes.

The geek anti-iPad ire really confuses me. What did we expect, other than what we got? It was never going to run OS X - the user experience would have been awful without major changes that broke all 3rd party OS X apps (and then, what's the point?). The hardware, modulo camera, seems entirely reasonable at a price that's damn good - who realistically expected anything more from an affordable tablet machine at this point in technology? The "walled garden" is a real issue, but I think we have, as a group, gained far more than we've lost with the App store. All these people saying "I could never have been a tinkerer with an iPad" - poppycock. Download the SDK for free, develop all you want. Pay a nominal fee to deploy to 100 other devices without ever giving Apple a look at your app. Or hell, just jailbreak it if the limits of the SDK are so onerous.

Alternatively, just don't buy it. Having chosen this please, stop filling up HN/Reddit/The Internet with "The iPad doesn't raise the dead, make me a billionaire and cure cancer, so all my dreams are shattered and Apple is awful".

Re: The iPad Literally Breaks Every Use Case I Had For It

#40
I don't understand why this individual is so angry. If it doesn't meet your needs don't buy it. What's the problem? I always feel like people who write this type of stuff just have a really bad attitude because they get so upset over something so unimportant. It's like they're just trying to find things to be upset about.
Post reply on HN