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

31–40 of 94 posts

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

#31

Post by saynay »

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…

The confusing choices are deliberate way to exploit psychology of potential buyers into up-selling themselves. The idea is to entice them by the more reasonable base price, but use the uncertainty on if it will really meet their needs to push them up a ladder of upgrades.

Maybe the 16e sounds good at $599. But, it might be a bit underpowered, so maybe you should just upgrade to the 15 at $699. Then it is only $100 more to just go for the 16 (or 15 Plus), so might as well right? But maybe you want a bigger screen or twice the storage, which are both another $100. Then for another $100, you can get the nicer materials or the extra camera, etc for the 16 Pro...

This is a marketing strategy you see in a lot of the phone market, and has proven to be successful at pushing customers into the higher-margin devices.

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

#32

Post by JumpCrisscross »

saynay wrote: post #31
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…

The confusing choices are deliberate way to exploit psychology of potential buyers into up-selling themselves. The idea is to entice them by the more reasonable base price, but use the uncertainty on if it will really meet their needs to push them up a ladder of upgrades. Maybe the 16e sounds good at $599. But, it might be a bit underpowered, so maybe you should just upgrade to the 15 at $699. Then it is only $100 mo…

> confusing choices are deliberate way to exploit psychology of potential buyers into up-selling themselves

There is a lot of consumer research that suggests the opposite: analysis paralysis delays a purchase past the point where impulsivity might have pushed a customer over the line.

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

#33

Post by JumpCrisscross »

DanielHB wrote: post #29
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…

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

Enough, at Apple's scale. The harmonic seems to be upstarts target a niche with a specialised offering and then scale until they can target other niches, perhaps one bigger than the one they initially went after, but all of which muddles the product focus until a paradigm shifts and someone simplifies again.

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

#34

Post by mitkebes »

I remember when the first iPad was in development, there was a lot of speculation about how Apple would solve the "large touchscreen keyboard" problem. Typing on a large touchscreen was hard, just blowing up a iphone keyboard wouldn't cut it. It'd be too large for thumb typing, but you also couldn't type on it like a physical keyboard, it would be awkward hovering over the touchscreen and you couldn't hold it while you typed.

Tech sites and bloggers talked about how Apple cared too much about the user experience to just release a big keyboard, and how we were about to see a revolutionary new keyboard design. There was speculation about split keyboards, radial keyboards, and more. People weren't sure how Apple was going to fix the keyboard issue, but it was going to be magical.

Finally the actual iPad reveal came, and it was just literally a giant iphone keyboard. Jobs showed how to type on it by balancing the ipad on his knees, and hover hand typing onto it.

Honestly that was the point where my opinion of Apple started to decline, it honestly wasn't even that big of a deal, but it changed them in my eyes from a revolutionary tech company into one that just wanted to appear revolutionary. I've never quite been able to separate that initial disappointment from the iPads, and that disappointment is still the first thing that comes to mind whenever I see one or read an article about them.

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

#35

Post by moduspol »

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…

Apple added functionality to macOS a few years ago that requires a separate pop-up / permissions dialog when apps try to access various directories the user can otherwise access (like Documents, Downloads, Desktop, other apps' files, etc.).

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

#36

Post by dogleash »

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…

> Gen Z who are used to simple, powerful technology with simplified apps and UIs? why would they/should they put up with legacy UX and ways of working?

I disagree with the premise. The modern UIs are rife with more special cases, hidden gestures and non-transferable knowledge than the old “one mouse button is enough” or even early windows’ ugly but constant model. Gen Z has harder UI, over a superficial simplicity that is really just a constrained interaction space.

The problem for zoomers is now when they use a deep interaction model, the new complexity of UI becomes a frustration multiplier rather than fixed cost.

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

#37

Post by kibwen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32
saynay wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The confusing choices are deliberate way to exploit psychology of potential buyers into up-selling themselves. The idea is to entice them by the more reasonable base price, but use the uncertainty on if it will really meet their needs to push them up a ladder of upgrades. Maybe the 16e sounds good at $599. But, it might be a bit underpowered, so maybe you should just upgrade to the 15 at $699. Then it is only $100 mo…

> confusing choices are deliberate way to exploit psychology of potential buyers into up-selling themselves There is a lot of consumer research that suggests the opposite: analysis paralysis delays a purchase past the point where impulsivity might have pushed a customer over the line.

Apple is a luxury fashion brand, its sales are predicated on people who want to confer social status upon themselves by being seen with something that signals wealth. Apple doesn't care about impulse purchases, because the pressure to purchase comes from marketing and society.

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

#38

Post by giancarlostoro »

mitkebes wrote: post #34

I remember when the first iPad was in development, there was a lot of speculation about how Apple would solve the "large touchscreen keyboard" problem. Typing on a large touchscreen was hard, just blowing up a iphone keyboard wouldn't cut it. It'd be too large for thumb typing, but you also couldn't type on it like a physical keyboard, it would be awkward hovering over the touchscreen and you couldn't hold it while y…

> I remember when the first iPad was in development, there was a lot of speculation about how Apple would solve the "large touchscreen keyboard" problem. Typing on a large touchscreen was hard, just blowing up a iphone keyboard wouldn't cut it. It'd be too large for thumb typing, but you also couldn't type on it like a physical keyboard, it would be awkward hovering over the touchscreen and you couldn't hold it while you typed.

I liked how Windows 8 did it on one of my laptops / touch devices, the keyboard would split in half and be on each edge of the screen, so if you truly wanted to type with your thumb, you could.

A lot of people did not like Windows 8, but I had fun with it on devices designed for it.

I do prefer whenever I find my Apple Pen (I have a knock off one from Logitech) that I can just write text over a text field, and the iPad will happily fill it in for me.

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

#39

Post by PunchyHamster »

alberth wrote: post #24

I’m probably alone in this feeling but I don’t see the need to have overlapping windows on such a small device. https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2025/06/With-...

I rarely see the need on big stationary PC side, aside from "show the setting window/tool palette"

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

#40

Post by endemic »

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…

Yeah, I really loved the clarity of the 2x2 product matrix Apple had immediately after Jobs' return: 2 desktops, 2 laptops, one "consumer" and one "pro." Of course there were configuration variations within those broad categories as well. I realize we don't live in that world anymore, though.
Post reply on HN