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

71–80 of 94 posts

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

#71

Post by hbn »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #38
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…

iPad OS has a split keyboard you can access by grabbing it with both thumbs and pulling it in half.

But I think I've heard the iPad Pro doesn't have it for some reason?

It seems kinda neglected as a feature anyway cause I've found it frequently covers the input field you're typing in, even in Apple's own apps.

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

#72

Post by giancarlostoro »

hbn wrote: post #71
giancarlostoro wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

iPad OS has a split keyboard you can access by grabbing it with both thumbs and pulling it in half. But I think I've heard the iPad Pro doesn't have it for some reason? It seems kinda neglected as a feature anyway cause I've found it frequently covers the input field you're typing in, even in Apple's own apps.

I think the thinking there is they want you to buy the physical Keyboard.

The Pro is Apple's Answer to the Microsoft Surface is how I always saw it.

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

#73

Post by robenkleene »

JustExAWS wrote: post #60
robenkleene wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yes and they are only as far as I know enforced for Mac App Store apps. But once an app has free reign to read and write anywhere on a shared folder, it defeats the purpose as opposed to being able to read and write to the apps own folder and the user can choose a file from another folder explicitly. But what do sandboxes have to do with greed?

I comment on the Mac App Store part here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44952088

> But once an app has free reign to read and write anywhere on a shared folder, it defeats the purpose as opposed to being able to read and write to the apps own folder and the user can choose a file from another folder explicitly.

Not sure I'm following this statement, isn't just being able to read/write to a shared folder a large improvement over an app being able to write to the entire file system (user-permissions allowing, granted)? I.e., "it defeats the purpose" seems like an odd phrase to use there? (For the record, I wish all this sandboxing/entitlement-based security stuff didn't exist on desktop computers [my priorities are clearer from my linked to comment], so I'm probably wrong person to ask anyway, but I was missing what you meant there.)

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

#74

Post by duxup »

There's a whole series of Apple panic articles out there that I just don't get. I feel like there's these tech news fads and once they start they just have to keep going. Most of them seem to ask wildly empty questions / problems.

I don't think even Steve would expect that after he was gone anyone would do exactly what he wanted many years ago.

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

#75

Post by hbn »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #72
hbn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPad OS has a split keyboard you can access by grabbing it with both thumbs and pulling it in half. But I think I've heard the iPad Pro doesn't have it for some reason? It seems kinda neglected as a feature anyway cause I've found it frequently covers the input field you're typing in, even in Apple's own apps.

I think the thinking there is they want you to buy the physical Keyboard. The Pro is Apple's Answer to the Microsoft Surface is how I always saw it.

I'm not sure the iPad Pro would be a response to the Surface as much as the keyboards are, which are available on all iPads, including the ones that let you split the software keyboard.

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

#76

Post by JustExAWS »

robenkleene wrote: post #73
JustExAWS wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and they are only as far as I know enforced for Mac App Store apps. But once an app has free reign to read and write anywhere on a shared folder, it defeats the purpose as opposed to being able to read and write to the apps own folder and the user can choose a file from another folder explicitly. But what do sandboxes have to do with greed?

I comment on the Mac App Store part here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44952088 > But once an app has free reign to read and write anywhere on a shared folder, it defeats the purpose as opposed to being able to read and write to the apps own folder and the user can choose a file from another folder explicitly. Not sure I'm following this statement, isn't just being able to read/write to a shared folder a large…

The only part of my computer I care about are my own files and of course things like passwords in the Secure Enclave. If the operating system gets hosed (see the former Chrome bug where if you turned System Integrity Protection off and installed Chrome it hosed your entire OS), that’s an annoyance. But recoverable.

It’s actually the concept of an old XKCD

https://xkcd.com/1200/

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

#77

Post by robenkleene »

JustExAWS wrote: post #76
robenkleene wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I comment on the Mac App Store part here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44952088 > But once an app has free reign to read and write anywhere on a shared folder, it defeats the purpose as opposed to being able to read and write to the apps own folder and the user can choose a file from another folder explicitly. Not sure I'm following this statement, isn't just being able to read/write to a shared folder a large…

The only part of my computer I care about are my own files and of course things like passwords in the Secure Enclave. If the operating system gets hosed (see the former Chrome bug where if you turned System Integrity Protection off and installed Chrome it hosed your entire OS), that’s an annoyance. But recoverable. It’s actually the concept of an old XKCD https://xkcd.com/1200/

It sounds like you're treating "a shared folder" as a synonym to "all user files"? Those aren't the same thing? E.g., a shared folder can be a far smaller subset of all a user's files?

(Also, Apple's sandboxing supports access to a single files, reference https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/accessing... so not sure if any of this is important anyway.)

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

#78

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

robenkleene wrote: post #46
StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #23

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. 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).

Apple likes to present the AppStore as the only thing protecting its users from the Wild West.

Admitting their sandbox could be turned on by default and give the same protection without having to go through their vetting system and giving them their cut would be counterproductive. How would they justify it makes sense on the phones and iPads then?

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

#79

Post by benoau »

wpm wrote: post #21
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

I think they're well on the path of replacing the "legacy" development structure with entirely closed, iOS-only app development since Swift Playgrounds 4:

https://screenrant.com/publish-ios-apps-ipad-swift-playgroun...

To me it feels like a waiting game - most people under 20 have lived their entire lives within "walled gardens" aka "what's a computer". The EU has already failed to break this cycle, if the DOJ can't do better and Apple can derail smaller countries efforts then this restrictive model will become entrenched as normal over the next two decades.

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

#80

Post by robenkleene »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #78
robenkleene wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Apple likes to present the AppStore as the only thing protecting its users from the Wild West. Admitting their sandbox could be turned on by default and give the same protection without having to go through their vetting system and giving them their cut would be counterproductive. How would they justify it makes sense on the phones and iPads then?

There are a couple of problems with the argument you're making:

1. Any app can be sandboxed, not just Mac App Store apps (the only link is that Mac App Store apps require sandboxing).

2. Enforcing sandboxing on macOS would hinder industries Mac users value, per my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44952088 Apple would love to enforce sandboxing by default, because it would serve their long-term strategic goals (moving computing towards devices that benefit from integrated software/hardware), but it hurts their short-term goals (maintaining Apple's [somewhat tenuous these days] penetration across a variety of particularly creative industries) too much to do so.

Post reply on HN