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

41–50 of 94 posts

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

#41

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> it changed them in my eyes from a revolutionary tech company into one that just wanted to appear revolutionary

Doesn't your story imply the opposite? The blown-up keyboard works. It's not revolutionary. But it's also not performatively different in the way those bloggers' keyboard proposals were.

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

#42

Post by jitl »

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…

And yet is there a device maker with a smaller lineup than Apple’s? Samsung seems to have like a bazillion models in circulation at any given time. Large laptop makers like Lenovo or Dell have a flabbergasting lineup of very overlapping products. At least Microsoft’s lineup is comprehensible.

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

#43

Post by zerkten »

throwfaraway4 wrote: post #25
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.

A problem is that these device variations now overlap. Originally when Apple was selling a lifestyle there was a clear choice between available options. The current options often force you into a decision about buying up which affects typical consumers the most.

I have a 2018 iPad Pro which I use for Lightroom amongst other things. I'd like to replace it with something new as I need OS support long term and it'll be a fine device to use with our bike trainer. The current iPad Air blows it out of the water, except for the screen downgrade.

Do I suck it up and save some money, or go with the latest iPad Pro? There is a lot more thinking involved than there used to be. It's much more challenging for regular consumers because the iPad pricing ceiling has been pushed higher on top of accessory considerations. This pattern repeats across the lines because it's known to generate more revenue.

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

#45

Post by massysett »

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…

Even though you can now make the keyboard a small floating one and use swipe typing?

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

#46

Post by robenkleene »

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…

macOS and iOS have sandboxed containers too, and regardless I don't understand your last statement about motivations (i.e., whether Apple platforms have sandboxes relating to greed isn't a clear connection).

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

#47

Post by mcphage »

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…

> 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.

Would a company that merely wanted to appear revolutionary have released some novel (but probably pointless) keyboard design?

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

#48

Post by notfromhere »

kibwen wrote: post #37
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Its also high quality and their products last a long time

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

#49

Post by yunwal »

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…

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

I would argue that this is due to a lack of intention, and that the endless upgrade possibilities actually exhaust potential buyers into opting for cheaper options. I have no way to prove it, but it's quite obvious to me that part of Apple's market power is due to their historically simple and intuitive product lineup, and they were able to get away with being the most expensive, high margin products on the market. The more options they give, the more it starts to feel like a commodity product.

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

#50

Post by epistasis »

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…

Could be. But a messy lineup of a bewildering array of products is the result of lazy management, too.

It's far easier to accumulate a wide range of products, without much thought, than it is to accumulate that mess with intention!

Post reply on HN