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

81–90 of 94 posts

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

#81

Post by ProfessorLayton »

hbn wrote: post #66
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird way of saying that Apple offers a phone at every price point. How is it consumer-hostile to offer upgrades at an increased cost?

I think the only one I could agree with exists for upselling is the 16e. I really don't know who that phone is for, it's missing some of the most basic features like MagSafe that will probably disappoint customers who bought it not knowing their iPhone won't work with accessories that previously you could trust work with every iPhone. I guess maybe a grandparent who barely uses their phone it would be fine, but other…

My dad uses his phone to answer phone calls, texts, maps to travel to job sites, and play music in his work truck. He might also open a link someone texts him.

And that's it. Literally no 3rd party apps on his phone.

Once his 11 finally goes, I'm getting him an E.

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

#82

Post by anonymousiam »

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…

Additional crippled features:

- Requirement to use ONLY the Apple web renderer (WebKit)

- Why does my iPad Pro take minutes to refresh my email boxes and show new messages, when it's not doing anything else at all? Email on all my other devices is snappy.

- Little or no support for emulation of other platforms.

- No way to turn off participation in the "Find My" BLE mesh network. I'd rather have a choice about whether or not I want to use my battery/network to support their mesh network.

With Apple's announcement about incorporating AI into all their future products, I'm not certain that I will not be buying anything else from them.

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

#83

Post by surgical_fire »

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 always hope that Apple someday locks down their computers like that.

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

#84

Post by JustExAWS »

crinkly wrote: post #30
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…

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.

It’s only how App Store apps work.

There is nothing stopping a popular video conferencing app that you install from the web from surreptitiously installing a web server on your computer leading to a security vulnerability.

https://michael.team/zoom/

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

#85

Post by gt0 »

I find it strange how we talk about "visions" for companies like they are real things. Like when a company has a "mission" or a "vision", do people actually think that's real?

There is no vision other than making money, and I don't mean that as a rail against capitalism, it's just simply how it is. Steve Jobs didn't even let his own kids use iPads, I don't think Steve Jobs felt the iPad had any value other than monetary.

I like the iPad as a device, but there is no "vision" there, there is no overriding view of the future of computing or anything like that. It's a product. A nice product, but there is no vision, from Jobs or anybody else.

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

#86

Post by Lammy »

hbn wrote: post #66
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird way of saying that Apple offers a phone at every price point. How is it consumer-hostile to offer upgrades at an increased cost?

I think the only one I could agree with exists for upselling is the 16e. I really don't know who that phone is for, it's missing some of the most basic features like MagSafe that will probably disappoint customers who bought it not knowing their iPhone won't work with accessories that previously you could trust work with every iPhone. I guess maybe a grandparent who barely uses their phone it would be fine, but other…

> I really don't know who that phone is for

That phone isn't “for” any customer, it's for Apple to be able to real-world test their homegrown C1 cellular modem on a non-flagship product.

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

#87

Post by crinkly »

JustExAWS wrote: post #84
crinkly wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s only how App Store apps work. There is nothing stopping a popular video conferencing app that you install from the web from surreptitiously installing a web server on your computer leading to a security vulnerability. https://michael.team/zoom/

It’s not. They changed a lot of stuff in Sequoia. I know this because it broke something I rely on and I had to go fix it. It can’t even open a file without the correct entitlements and code signing done and permission granted by the end user.

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

#88

Post by kalleboo »

anonymousiam wrote: post #82
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…

Additional crippled features: - Requirement to use ONLY the Apple web renderer (WebKit) - Why does my iPad Pro take minutes to refresh my email boxes and show new messages, when it's not doing anything else at all? Email on all my other devices is snappy. - Little or no support for emulation of other platforms. - No way to turn off participation in the "Find My" BLE mesh network. I'd rather have a choice about whethe…

> No way to turn off participation in the "Find My" BLE mesh network

There is a setting to disable participation in the "Find My network" under "Settings > [your name] > Find My > Find My iPhone/iPad > Find My network"

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

#89

Post by bigyabai »

Almondsetat wrote: post #54
gregoriol wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Whatever you posted this reply with is just a silly worthless toy. No, I will not elaborate

Silly and worthless is your own editorializing. And unlike Vision Pro or Apple Watch, the toy I posted this comment with can write and publish software. Or host a website. Gasp, install real browser engines!

Calling the Vision Pro a "toy" is a generosity for something that isn't fun or seriously intended for use by children. The Quest is a toy, the Vision Pro is a black eye for moneyed adults that lack responsible impulse control when they're marketed something shiny.

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

#90

Post by Almondsetat »

bigyabai wrote: post #89
Almondsetat wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever you posted this reply with is just a silly worthless toy. No, I will not elaborate

Silly and worthless is your own editorializing. And unlike Vision Pro or Apple Watch, the toy I posted this comment with can write and publish software. Or host a website. Gasp, install real browser engines! Calling the Vision Pro a "toy" is a generosity for something that isn't fun or seriously intended for use by children. The Quest is a toy, the Vision Pro is a black eye for moneyed adults that lack responsible im…

You call the Vision Pro "not fun", as if your own personal opinion constituted fact. You also characterize the buyers of the Vision Pro as "lacking impulse control when they're marketed something funny", which is not only belittling and condescending, but also an utterly unwarranted generalization.
Post reply on HN