Microsoft Surface

[wasp_f15ting]

I got rid of my ipad3 after the announcement. I can't wait for this.. seriously awesome :D

Displayport out.. fuck yes!

Pirate all your films, go around your friends house and enjoy.. fucking ace portable PC.

[wasp_f15ting]

x86 architecture means on the winpro version you'll be able to run many windows programmes (apps) in simulation mode... the HD4000 IGPU will mean you can run stuff like N64 EMU and you can hook up and configure a xbox 360 controller. There are infinite possibilities with this, and it won't be bloated to fuck as it is not third party.

[mobias]

This was the same argument used in the 80s - that users (and equally importantly, distributors) want a unified product experience, and therefore proprietary-everything is the way to go. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. The walled garden is Apple's biggest weakness; it's the reason why Android is kicking the iPhone all round the playground right now, and it'll be the reason the iPad dies on its arse.

I'm totally open to the argument that Apple's walled garden approach is a weakness but its only a weakness for some. A fair percentage of the many millions who have run out and bought an iPad couldn't give a toss I don't think. They just want something that's easy to use and works relatively well, the simplicity of the walled garden approach allows that. I'm not sure many people care for what it doesn't allow for, they're probably just not aware of it. I'm not entirely sure why my user experience of my iPad would be hugely better if it was out with Apple's walled garden. I'm not saying that because I'm a huge Apple apologist or anything I'm just genuinely not aware why my iPad would be way better. A larger diversity of apps I suppose but I've already got more apps than I ever use anyway. 

[Zetetic]

Apple's still holding on to close to 40% of new smartphone sales, right?

[Still Not George]

I'm totally open to the argument that Apple's walled garden approach is a weakness but its only a weakness for some. A fair percentage of the many millions who have run out and bought an iPad couldn't give a toss I don't think. They just want something that's easy to use and works relatively well, the simplicity of the walled garden approach allows that.

I feel fairly safe in saying that most of the people who ran out and bought an iPad don't know what the hell they want, other than "that iPad thing off the telly." Zeitgeist products are like that.

I'm not sure many people care for what it doesn't allow for, they're probably just not aware of it. I'm not entirely sure why my user experience of my iPad would be hugely better if it was out with Apple's walled garden. I'm not saying that because I'm a huge Apple apologist or anything I'm just genuinely not aware why my iPad would be way better. A larger diversity of apps I suppose but I've already got more apps than I ever use anyway.

It's not just the App Store, although that's a big part of it. Other manufacturers can make iPads better than them. Other software people can make the UI elements better than them. They've ran back to the 1980s model of computing; one company controls the hardware, the OS, the platform in general, and the software market. It's a huge step backwards, and they're mainly getting away with it because most of their current target audience have no idea that any alternative is possible.

Releasing office computing from the tyranny of Microsoft and IBM was the best thing to happen in tech in the 1980s. Running away from that because some people dislike "things wot dont have an apple on em" is a Bad Thing for technology to do.

Apple's still holding on to close to 40% of new smartphone sales, right?

Possibly in the US, although there've not been reliable stats in a while. In the rest of the world, not even close. Apple has 24% of world smartphone sales.

[Pseudopath]

I got rid of my ipad3 after the announcement. I can't wait for this.. seriously awesome :D

Displayport out.. fuck yes!

Pirate all your films, go around your friends house and enjoy.. fucking ace portable PC.

You do realise that Windows-based tablets are actually available today? Of course, at the moment they all run the not-so-finger-friendly Windows 7 and manufacturers have to chuck in their own (often woeful) frontends, but they'd do everything you describe with the benefit of not being locked into the whole App Store 'paradigm'.

You can get a fairly tasty Acer Iconia for under £400 (http://www.ebuyer.com/259179-acer-iconia-w500-tablet-pc-le-rhc02-045).

[Blumf]

Releasing office computing from the tyranny of Microsoft and IBM was the best thing to happen in tech in the 1980s.

Erm... IBM maybe, but Microsoft? If only!

[Still Not George]

Erm... IBM maybe, but Microsoft? If only!

Did you have to apply to Microsoft to get an official licensing agreement to allow you to release software for DOS or Windows?

[mcbpete]

And for those that think the 'closed wall' approach that Apple uses ensures safety, check out what arrived on the market this week:



How quickly can you page numbering ?

[Zetetic]

Apple has 24% of world smartphone sales.

Ah.

[Blumf]

Did you have to apply to Microsoft to get an official licensing agreement to allow you to release software for DOS or Windows?

You said "the tyranny of Microsoft and IBM" which implies that people did have to with MS-DOS. That was, in part, what I was highlighting as wrong, MS never had much control of anything in the 80s to be tyrannical with.

[jutl]

It's not just the App Store, although that's a big part of it. Other manufacturers can make iPads better than them. Other software people can make the UI elements better than them. They've ran back to the 1980s model of computing; one company controls the hardware, the OS, the platform in general, and the software market. It's a huge step backwards, and they're mainly getting away with it because most of their current target audience have no idea that any alternative is possible.

I'm not sure that's true. Apple have responded to a desire for a more controlled computing environment from non-technical users. They've had huge success with this. It's hard for technologists to grasp this, because the idea of functional limitation being a feature is alien to their thinking. However for many, the inability to get lost in menu options, slow their device to a crawl by installing cruft and lose files or graphical references to their programs are positive things.

Releasing office computing from the tyranny of Microsoft and IBM was the best thing to happen in tech in the 1980s. Running away from that because some people dislike "things wot dont have an apple on em" is a Bad Thing for technology to do.

That is not the reason though, as you must realise. iOS devices present a preferable experience to some classes of user. Also, the only really viable alternative - Android - is simply a tyranny further up the stack. While it's possible to create devices without Google account tie-in, it's not done by any mass-market device. So while we try to make outdated analogies to the 80s hardware market, we are missing the fact that Google is using commodotised software to build an information monopoly. Looked at that way, Apple's recent announcement of its removal of the last mandatory Google service elements from iOS could be seen as a monopoly-busting opportunity. The point is that this is not a black and white situation. Apple has its failings, as does Android.

[jutl]

In a semi-on-topic development, Windows Phone 8 has been announced and there is no upgrade path from 7 devices. People are miffed. What I don't really understand is why they are not calling the 'everything we can fit on old devices' 7.8 update 'Version 8' too. That's standard practice for iOS and Android...

[mobias]

I feel fairly safe in saying that most of the people who ran out and bought an iPad don't know what the hell they want,

Oh come on, condescending much? They basically want something to surf the Internet with , watch YouTube, use Facebook and have fun mucking around with apps occassionally. All of which the iPad works pretty well for with crucially little fuss. It's not really designed for anything else so I don't see what the problem with it is? There's a sort of presumption going on that just because a small minority of users can't do exactly what they want on something everyone else must have the same problem.

[Replies From View]

...and to be honest it's also a perfectly good word processor too if you use a wireless keyboard and the Pages application.

[Still Not George]

That is not the reason though, as you must realise. iOS devices present a preferable experience to some classes of user.

The class in question being "marketing-compliant idiots". The problem is that particular class have a habit of haring off after the next piece of heavily-marketed zeitgeist after a while, leaving everyone looking a bit silly holding their "New Paradigm" placards and wearing their "the <x> is dead!" T-shirts.

Also, the only really viable alternative - Android - is simply a tyranny further up the stack. While it's possible to create devices without Google account tie-in, it's not done by any mass-market device. So while we try to make outdated analogies to the 80s hardware market, we are missing the fact that Google is using commodotised software to build an information monopoly. Looked at that way, Apple's recent announcement of its removal of the last mandatory Google service elements from iOS could be seen as a monopoly-busting opportunity. The point is that this is not a black and white situation. Apple has its failings, as does Android.

This isn't an Android vs iOS thing - Android represents Google following Apple into the woodshed.

Oh come on, condescending much? They basically want something to surf the Internet with , watch YouTube, use Facebook and have fun mucking around with apps occassionally. All of which the iPad works pretty well for with crucially little fuss. It's not really designed for anything else so I don't see what the problem with it is? There's a sort of presumption going on that just because a small minority of users can't do exactly what they want on something everyone else must have the same problem.

Bought an iPad, did you? Or did one of your friends? (You can imagine a smiley here if you'd like.)

The problem is you just leapt into the same trap jutl and everyone else does - you defined an imaginary class named "technologists", likely picturing rimmed glasses and ink-stained shirts and difficulty communicating with women. You imagined that because that's what people with Journalism degrees have been telling you for the last 3 decades, Meanwhile you (along with everyone else) are ignoring that increasingly everyone is a technologist.

See, pretty much everything these days can browse the web, watch YouTube and generally half-ass the computing experience to keep the data addiction topped up. I've never actually seen someone reading PDFs on an iPad. Kindles, yeah, but never an iPad. Most of the time tablet users browse the internet and play shitty, shitty games... the same thing they've done on PCs forever, in other words. They're effectively reduced to fancy laptops with an Apple logo on the back. Tablet computing has functions that other kinds of computing cannot match, but here's the kicker - most tablet users don't use it for those functions.

Hence my statement - most iPad users have no fucking clue why they want an iPad, except that they want an iPad. "Oh, but the user interface" is a canard; every iPad user already knows how to get a PC to do what they want to do on their tablet. People want an iPad because iPads are cool, just like fezzes. Sooner or later that wave will roll back, just like they all do.

Meanwhile, decades of improvement in the structure of the computing industry is being rolled back in favour of proprietary models in order to chase the idiot dollar.

Frankly, no-one wins.

[Replies From View]

I've never actually seen someone reading PDFs on an iPad. Kindles, yeah, but never an iPad. Most of the time tablet users browse the internet and play shitty, shitty games... the same thing they've done on PCs forever, in other words. They're effectively reduced to fancy laptops with an Apple logo on the back. Tablet computing has functions that other kinds of computing cannot match, but here's the kicker - most tablet users don't use it for those functions.

I use mine as a PDF reader.  The Kindle is great for Amazon-bought ebooks that have been formatted especially for that device.  The problem is that PDFs are often photocopied books, and these end up far too small to be seen when shrunk down for viewing on a Kindle screen.  Some are even two pages, side-by-side.  The zooming-in and limited navigation functions on the Kindle really don't make for productive PDF reading.  The iPad is a better PDF reader, can access and update things like comments and highlighted text to my Dropbox, and it has a better battery life than my laptop (which currently manages about an hour or two when it isn't plugged in).

I also hide the Apple logo on the back with a case.  I don't know why anyone would want to "show off" their iPad, really.  If I need to take mine out in a corner of a pub to do some writing, I'll try to shelter it behind a menu or something similar, because otherwise people often "take an interest", ask a bunch of stupid questions while I'm trying to work, and then I'll overhear them with their friends saying things like "I have two blackberry phones, a new Samsung laptop and a widescreen telly in my lounge - but I don't feel the need to show off about it".

[Still Not George]

I use mine as a PDF reader.  The Kindle is great for Amazon-bought ebooks that have been formatted especially for that device. 

I know - I brought that up specifically because I remembered you mentioning that on the other thread. Reading PDFs and other documents is an ideal use of an iPad, that's why it's in the bit about "things tablets can actually do". But other than you mentioning it, I have NEVER seen anyone reading PDFs on an iPad. Ever. Hell, I've only ever seen one person use them to read ebooks.

[Replies From View]

It's very easy to procrastinate on an iPad, to be fair!

I think if you only ever saw normal laptops in pubs, parks or on public transport rather than in offices you'd probably have much the same impression of those.

[jutl]

The class in question being "marketing-compliant idiots". The problem is that particular class have a habit of haring off after the next piece of heavily-marketed zeitgeist after a while, leaving everyone looking a bit silly holding their "New Paradigm" placards and wearing their "the <x> is dead!" T-shirts.

This is so obviously reductive that I assume you are just joking. I'll respond in more detail if you are not and want me to.

The problem is you just leapt into the same trap everyone else does - you defined an imaginary class named "technologists", likely picturing rimmed glasses and ink-stained shirts and difficulty communicating with women. You imagined that because that's what people with Journalism degrees have been telling you for the last 3 decades, Meanwhile you (along with everyone else) are ignoring that increasingly everyone is a technologist.

Again, hugely, comically reductive. You don't know what I mean by technologists, clearly. I can explain, but if you prefer your version I don't see much point.

See, pretty much everything these days can browse the web, watch YouTube and generally half-ass the computing experience to keep the data addiction topped up. I've never actually seen someone reading PDFs on an iPad. Kindles, yeah, but never an iPad. Most of the time tablet users browse the internet and play shitty, shitty games... the same thing they've done on PCs forever, in other words. They're effectively reduced to fancy laptops with an Apple logo on the back. Tablet computing has functions that other kinds of computing cannot match, but here's the kicker - most tablet users don't use it for those functions.

This all seems to be predicated on your own experiences. For myself, I know many people who produce documents professionally who use iPads in their workflow. Similarly with interface prototyping - there are good tools available on the platform if you can put your prejudices aside for a second.

Hence my statement - most iPad users have no fucking clue why they want an iPad, except that they want an iPad. "Oh, but the user interface" is a canard; every iPad user already knows how to get a PC to do what they want to do on their tablet. People want an iPad because iPads are cool, just like fezzes. Sooner or later that wave will roll back, just like they all do.

If a device makes a task easier, it provides value. Do you just not believe that anything is easier in a tablet paradigm?

Meanwhile, decades of improvement in the structure of the computing industry is being rolled back in favour of proprietary models in order to chase the idiot dollar.

Frankly, no-one wins.

The fencing-in aspect is deeply worrying, yes. However the only prospect of effectively pushing back against it is to understand why it has become popular and to incorporate as much of the additional value it provides as possible into open models. Just getting grumpy about it and saying that it is buoyed up by braindead cunts (which is my understanding of your argument) is short-sighted. People do understand what they want generally, although you seem to doubt that for some reason. How is it that you have evolved beyond these others?

[Still Not George]

If a device makes a task easier, it provides value. Do you just not believe that anything is easier in a tablet paradigm?

Tablet computing has functions that other kinds of computing cannot match, but here's the kicker - most tablet users don't use it for those functions.

I do occasionally wonder why I actually bother to explain my positions on things.

The fencing-in aspect is deeply worrying, yes. However the only prospect of effectively pushing back against it is to understand why it has become popular and to incorporate as much of the additional value it provides as possible into open models.

It doesn't provide additional models. Apple and their fanboy press are very good at pretending it does, that's all. The fact that virtually the entire journalistic industry were Apple shops even before the iPhone has nothing to do with this, of course...

Just getting grumpy about it and saying that it is buoyed up by braindead cunts (which is my understanding of your argument) is short-sighted. People do understand what they want generally, although you seem to doubt that for some reason.

Because in many sectors, demand is manufactured. People are typically happy to accept that shitty pop acts get to Number 1 because they're bought by idiots via overwhelming marketing. Why is it so amazingly difficult to accept that the same thing applies to consumer devices?

One of the strengths of open models, in fact, is that they bypass the ability of brandholders to manufacture demand by promoting competition. Given an identical iPad with interchangeable software, Apple's market would die tomorrow, and they know this. They rely on having a captive market, and this is amongst other things the primary reason why they're the most egregious patent troll in the technology market right now.

[jutl]

I do occasionally wonder why I actually bother to explain my positions on things.

Me too, given that you contradicted that point in the text I was replying to. Also, where are you getting your information about what most tablet users do?

It doesn't provide additional models. Apple and their fanboy press are very good at pretending it does, that's all. The fact that virtually the entire journalistic industry were Apple shops even before the iPhone has nothing to do with this, of course...

App stores organise an aspect of computer maintenance that users tend to hate - updating and security patching. They were doing this long before the Apple App Store, even in mobile. The Maemo Garage was a good earlier example. So it's just not correct to say that they provide nothing. They also enable the promotion of software that might be of interest to a user based on their previous usage. This need not be the privacy nightmare it is now. Both these functions are real reasons people put up with walled gardens.

Because in many sectors, demand is manufactured. People are typically happy to accept that shitty pop acts get to Number 1 because they're bought by idiots via overwhelming marketing. Why is it so amazingly difficult to accept that the same thing applies to consumer devices?

I don't agree that it happens in pop either. Demand can be stimulated and steered, but I don't believe it can be manufactured. I believe that there has to be a core of need or desire there first, even if it is ill-formed. This is an abstract argument, but maybe explains why I disagree so strongly with your 'sheeple' theorising.

One of the strengths of open models, in fact, is that they bypass the ability of brandholders to manufacture demand by promoting competition. Given an identical iPad with interchangeable software, Apple's market would die tomorrow, and they know this.

I strongly disagree. You and I might want a device like that, and many others, but there would remain a market of those who - even given the free choice - prefer a managed environment with limited freedom to fuck things up. I don't understand why you can't see this. Have you never met anyone's parents?

They rely on having a captive market, and this is amongst other things the primary reason why they're the most egregious patent troll in the technology market right now.

This is just inaccurate. Trolls are non-practitioners. Whatever you think of their policy, Apple risk infringing others' patents just as they enforce their own because they actually make technology.

[Replies From View]

"limited freedom to fuck things up" - I think it's easier than ever before to accidentally delete something you didn't mean to.  Accidentally touch the X and you're screwed.  Stupid lazy fingers and all that.

It's true though that the days of accidentally deleting autoexec.bat because some fucker at your workplace said it might help seem a lifetime ago.

[jutl]

"limited freedom to fuck things up" - I think it's easier than ever before to accidentally delete something you didn't mean to.  Accidentally touch the X and you're screwed.  Stupid lazy fingers and all that.

Surely it's actually

Accidental long press -> Accidental touch the (x) -> Accidentally touch the 'Delete' button in the confirmation dialog?

[Replies From View]

Depends what it is, I guess.  The only things I've shown my parents on my iPad have been some photos, and they've managed to accidentally delete one or two.

[jutl]

Depends what it is, I guess.  The only things I've shown my parents on my iPad have been some photos, and they've managed to accidentally delete one or two.

Then they must have hit the trashcan then the big red button that says 'Delete?', I think. It's pretty much the same interaction as in Windows (Delete -> 'Yes')

[Replies From View]

Panicky fingers or something I guess.  You're right anyway; I didn't mean to suggest it's worse on the iPad that anything else.

[Famous Mortimer]

The class in question being "marketing-compliant idiots". .Hence my statement - most iPad users have no fucking clue why they want an iPad, except that they want an iPad. ...

God forbid anyone else should make a sweeping generalisation in an area of which you have some knowledge, eh?

[Entropy Balsmalch]

SNG - your position on Apple seems to be the same as your position on the Wii.

Both have grabbed a huge share of market because they do what that market want them to do - be simple and easy to interface with. Functionality is a key design ethic for them. Not functionality as in "How many polygons can this shift and will it run Linux?" but "If someone wants to watch a Youtube video and email it to their friends, how fewer buttons can we make that happen with?"

There are tablets out there no doubt that do things better, cheaper and faster - but most people 1) Can't be arsed going through endless spec comparisons 2) Don't even understand them when they see them 3) Aren't actually arsed about having something that's "The Best"

The one thing Apple do is make sure it does everything fresh out of the box and without the user really having to think about it.

Same as the Wii. It's not for hardcore gamers, but it wasn't designed for hardcore gamers. And both hit their market perfectly. And also seem to satisfy them enough for them to come back - certainly in the case of Apple.

Saying "But I know what's good and that's not good casue they are shitter than something that I like" is idiocy. They're not shit. They're brilliantly designed from paper to shelf and perfectly marketed at the audiences who appreciate them.

That's all you can ask of an object really.

Also to say they're heading back to a hardware proprietors' model of the 80s is cock rot. Look how much trouble Nokia are in for trying to do just that. Apple create the perfect UI for their audience too.

[falafel]

Wii's gone to shit though hasn't it.