Novell Bringing .Net Developers To Apple iPad
315
GMGruman writes "Paul Krill reports that Apple's new iPad could be easier to write apps for, thanks to Novell's MonoTouch development platform, which helps .Net developers create code for the iPad and fully comply with Apple's licensing requirements — without having to use Apple's preferred Objective-C. This news falls on the footsteps of news that Citrix will release an iPad app that lets users run Windows sessions on the iPad. These two developments bolster an argument that the iPad could eventually displace the netbook."
Easier? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a programmer myself so can someone tell me if C# really easier to use than C or Objective C as stated in TFA? Or is it just a matter of there being more people who are familiar with it?
Re:Easier? (Score:5, Interesting)
Objective C is not a hard language to learn: it's a sibling to C++ in that both tried to add OOP to C. ObjC as used on the Mac combines the best of both worlds -- you get pointers for low level control, *and* a nice OO framework/API and niceties like garbage collection. And of course OS X is beautifully designed, none of the back compat cruft that makes one want to stay away from Win32.
Where C# wins over ObjC though is its similarity to Java (which in turn is fairly comfortable to C++/C programmers).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is still no.
Re:Easier? (Score:4, Informative)
ObjC as used on the Mac combines the best of both worlds -- you get pointers for low level control, *and* a nice OO framework/API and niceties like garbage collection.
It should be noted that this is equally true for C# - it also has raw pointers [microsoft.com] and related stuff [microsoft.com] available for when you need it, but otherwise it's fully OO, runs under VM with GC, and so on.
Out of my head, I can think of a few advantages either one has over the other.
C# advantages: ...]", but much more extensive - covering sorting, grouping, joins etc.
- namespaces
- generics, so all collections can be statically typed
- first-class functions and lambdas (closures) with argument type inference
- LINQ query comprehensions (a la Python's "[x for x in
- portable code generation with JIT(System.Reflection.Emit & DynamicMethod)
- mark-compact generational GC (ObjC one is a conservative mark & sweep, which means that it's both slower and suffers more from heap fragmentation)
ObjC advantages: .NET JIT, much less Mono JIT
- truly dynamic dispatch, objects can intercept unknown messages sent to them, redirect them etc
- duck typing (C# is going to have it [microsoft.com] in 4.0, though, which is right around the corner)
- can avoid GC altogether even when using all OO-related language facilities, which can have some performance benefits
- can use C/C++ libraries directly, no wrapping or FFI declarations needed
- gcc generally produces better optimized code than
In general, I'd say that C# is a little bit more high-level, but overall the preference for one or another depends on whether you like static or dynamic typing more. ObjC provides more features to go with the latter, but can be type-unsafe at times (e.g. due to non-generic collections).
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
C# is easier to work with than C for many people, but not significantly easier than Objective C. C expects that you have some awareness of memory allocations and whatnot, but higher level languages insulate you from a lot of the details and let you worry more about your actual application.
The advantage that C# has ov
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Desire and impedance mismatch (Score:2)
I'm not a programmer myself so can someone tell me if C# really easier to use than C or Objective C as stated in TFA?
It is on Windows. But I don't think it is on the iPhone.
Even though MonoTouch has done an excellent job bridging over into the Apple frameworks, you can never get that kind of stuff a 100% match. The thing is that these days any modern language is actually a lot less important than the frameworks behind it - would Ruby have gained so much traction without Rails for instance? Similarly the
Re:Easier? (Score:4, Funny)
a pizza or a car analogy would work better. Nobody understood that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly it made sense to me.
Re:Easier? (Score:4, Informative)
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?
Objective-C is solid, only on its second release (2.0). It has a learning curve for most non-Apple devs. Based on Smalltalk, messages (methods) are bound at runtime. Garbage collection and properties were added in the latest version.
Java is very stable, but given the number of releases I would say less solid (it's on its seventh major release, with a beta for it's eighth). Based loosely on C++, but with garbage collection (no pointers), it is really the only system that produces true cross-platform binaries.
C# is on its third version (3), although the runtime is on its fifth (3.5). Most people agree that as a language, it is superior to Java due to support for events, functional/lambda-style programming, LINQ, generics (which are generally considered better than Java's), etc. C# is standardized, but open source/cross platform implementations (Mono) are behind those from Microsoft. Silverlight, however, is available cross-platform via Moonlight. The next version is in the works (C#/.NET 4.0).
I really don't get where you were saying "if you crash your data is gone". That doesn't even make sense, in the context of a computer programming language.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
C# is standardized, but open source/cross platform implementations (Mono) are behind those from Microsoft.
IIRC, in terms of language implementation, Mono is actually not beyond Visual C# - at least all C# 3.5 features seem to be fully supported. Where Mono lags behind is the libraries, and generally those which aren't covered by the Ecma CLI spec.
Java is very stable, but given the number of releases I would say less solid (it's on its seventh major release, with a beta for it's eighth). Based loosely on C++, but with garbage collection (no pointers), it is really the only system that produces true cross-platform binaries.
CLR (.NET) binaries are equally cross-platform, since a basic implementation of CLR VM is fairly trivial. Both Mono and Portable.NET are good enough to run the binaries on all platforms they themselves run on. The problem with portability is also due to libraries.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Objective-C is solid, only on its second release (2.0)
Categorically not true. What Apple calls Objective-C 1 is actually Objective-C 4, but they reset the versioning for the Apple version with the release of OS X 10.0. There was no version increment when they added @try/@catch/@finally/@synchronized to the language, but if there had been then what Apple calls Objective-C 2 would really have been Objective-C 6.
Re:Easier? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm, nope. That doesn't work either.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Given that nearly every Japanese sentence contains both hiragana and kanji, that analogy makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Old-school Objective-C supports a midway point between C++ memory allocations and garbage collection in reference counting. The newer runtimes in OS X support full-on garbage collection, although I'm not sure whether that version is in the iPod or not.
Objective-C and C# are easy to pick up if you know any object oriented language. Most competent programmers can run through a couple tutorials and be programming at close to full speed in a couple days. Learning which of the different support frameworks and li
Apple to Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then there's the whole issue with pricing, which was the whole reason the netbook movement caught on in the first place. $500 may be cheap for a tablet PC, but it's certainly not for a netbook replacement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everything revolves around English, you know? In its creator language, the name "Mono" doesn't have that bad connotation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has a double meaning.
"Un mono" means "a monkey", but "es un bebé muy mono" means "it's a very cute baby".
So mono, colloquially, means cute, adorable.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, "he's a very cute baby", not "it's" :|
iPad, Mono, Wang, GIMP, Ayds (Score:2)
iPad and Mono have to be two of the five worst product names in the industry. (I can only think of Wang as being worse.)
The other two must be GIMP (Free paint program) and Ayds (appetite suppressant candy).
Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus christ stop with the Apple spam.
There are already RDP clients for the iPhone and Mono Touch isn't freaking new.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the rest of his comment, instead immediately jumping on him for doing anything remotely resembling criticizing Apple, you would have read him explaining how this is not news, and thus is not technology related news.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they recompiled MonoTouch against the new SDK with minor changes for being aware of the resolution. Do we post a new article for any of the previous MonoTouch releases when new iPhone SDKs came out? No.
And DUH a screen bigger than a few inches is better for remote desktop support. Guess what, your PC is far better at a remote desktop client than a phone is. Surprise surprise surprise.
I don't bash Apple, I actually love their products, which is why I'm posting from my MacBook Pro, own an iPhone and
iCrap news overload (Score:4, Funny)
It's getting like Steve jobs twitter page around here.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I won't be interested until these stories link to Australian sites.
as someone who programmed for both (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, Objective-C isn't that hard; if you can't learn it in a day or two (or at most a week) then you are probably not a professional programmer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iPhone has no garbage collection, for one thing.
That's an iPhone thing, not an Objective-C thing. Apple has explicitly stated the iPhone won't support garbage collection for performance reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:as someone who programmed for both (Score:4, Informative)
Garbage collection doesn't save you from leaks. A developer still has to be conscious of memory usage even in systems with GC.
At the same time, Xcode offers static code analysis that tells you when you are leaking memory at compile time. There are a lot of language innovations in Objective-C that is noteworthy. As the iPhone's hardware capabilities catches up (that A4 chip sure is interesting), I'd expect to see GC and the introduction of blocks into the iPhone SDK.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody buy this man a beer. It's on me.
I just spent the last week cleaning up some Java code written in India. As you can imagine, it's pretty fucked up to begin with. It was even more fucked up when I saw them holding references to large objects (in one case, arrays with over 5 million items each) in private static member variables, and then in comments bragging about how the garbage collector will take care of them! The worst part, though, is that nothing even referenced these member variables. I couldn
Garbage collection is over rated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Eventually came to C++ and saw everyone using new and delete left right and center and I naturally assumed it would have trivial cost. Imagine my surprise when I actually ran the comparison benchmarks. With modern math coprocessors, a sqrt() is just three times mults, sin() is about 14, hyperbolic sine, logarithms are all about the same, inverse trig functions were around 25-30 times the cost of a mult. You know what? A simple push_back() or push_front() to an std::list is around 180 to 200 times as expensive as a mult. Throw in automatic garbage collection on top of this, you are looking at some serious performance degradation.
By the way, this is actually a very wrong way to go around this. Memory allocation in C and C++ (and other languages with memory allocation) is expensive precisely because they don't have compacting GCs - it means that allocation algorithm is that much more complex (and time-consuming), as it has to search for a fitting free block, and update the corresponding memory structures. And, as you keep the program running, and the heap gets fragmented more and more, allocation performance gets worse.
In comparison,
Not seeing any netbook displacement (Score:3, Interesting)
You can do pretty much all that (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't that developers can't develop well, the problem is that Apple doesn't let developers do much with iPhone OS.
I guess all 140K applications do the same exact thing? Since Apple "doesn't et you do much".
The reality is that Apple has a few areas they don't let you go, but everything else is wide open.
The nice thing about a netbook or a cheap laptop is I can run multiple things. I can keep my Facebook open, my IM open, play music on YouTube and type on a document all at the same time.
And on an iPad (or iPhone) you can play music while you type a document, and get a stream of notifications when there's some new twitter or facebook post you really care about. Or you can write and jump quickly into a twitter/facebook app to see what is going on and jump back - because the device has been optimized for that use, unlike a traditional PC where application startup is more expensive and lengthy.
These are basic things that people do daily, the lack of a major component of today's web (Flash)
What? Where is is major use? It's widespread to be sure, but I question that it is such an important aspect of using the web today. I installed ClickToFlash on Safari about a year ago, and the ONLY flash I have had occasion to click on to see have been videos - all on sites that simply feed the h.264 the flash video player is already using under the covers, directly to the device. In the meantime I have also been spared a horde of annoying, battery sucking ads - and I never did believe in adblock because I like supporting sites. It's just that the number of Flash elements per page was getting to be absurd, with a ton of Flash overhead consuming the CPU.
Other than video use, the other major use of Flash is web based gaming - are you really arguing the iPhone/iPad platform is hurting for free casual games? There are so many games out now you could probably play free trial or ad supported versions of games for a year straight before you ran out of things to try. There is no Flash based game so compelling it would make people choose a platform, EXCEPT possibly for Farmville due to the large number of players who would like constant access to it. But there I imagine we'll see an iPhone app at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess all 140K applications do the same exact thing? Since Apple "doesn't et you do much".
Just because you can build a lot of things with wooden building blocks doesn't mean you can build everything with them. While it is true that there are a lot of applications you simply can't -do- much. Lets see here, no multi-tasking, no "competing" with Apple's own offerings, creative freedoms are stiffed with censorship, little developer-Apple communications, etc. Even when you make an application who knows when it will be on the market or if it will ever be.
The reality is that Apple has a few areas they don't let you go, but everything else is wide open.
Missing Remoting (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm an Apple fan, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't we be waiting until, oh I don't know, the device actually is released and we can see how this whole thing plays out?
It's almost like Slashdot is perpetually trying to make up for that whole "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." thing.
I guess I sorta see the point (Score:4, Interesting)
Objective-C rocks, really. But! If you don't know it, and you have an existing code base in C#, maybe this would be useful. I guess. I think this is not aimed at making iPhone/iPad app development easier in general, but rather, specifically for people who are already using C#. In which case, it's not totally stupid. Just mostly stupid.
FWIW, I'm currently at the "okay, that's the basic functionality, now what do I do next?" phase of developing an iPhone app. From "never even looked at the docs" to "working multitouch and graphics" took me, oh, a good solid two evenings.
Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)
This is pathetic. Don't be afraid to learn. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to learn how to develop for the iPhone OS then you need to learn Objective-C.
I don't care if you have an existing codebase in C#. You are going to have to expose your code as generic webservices anyway since Mono for the iPhone does not support .NET remoting anyway. Once your "cloud" services are available as standard web services, they can be accessed by any language and it makes sense to learn the main native language of the iPhone OS platform.
Trying to use Mono Touch as a crutch smacks of laziness and fear of learning.
Re:This is pathetic. Don't be afraid to learn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, because the only type of applications is a thin client that connects to web services.
Maybe you have an existing codebase that you want to run on the iPhone.
No, it smacks of wanting to re-use code to deliver a solution at lower cost in less time and with fewer bugs compared with trying to rewrite things from scratch.
Displacing the netbook? (Score:5, Interesting)
How does being able use C# or run windows sessions on the iPad enable it to displace a netbook? About the only place they overlap in functionality that they are both really good for is that they are both good for browsing the web and interacting with web apps that don't require lots of text input.
Beyond that their functionality diverges. The iPad is a slightly better ebook reader, is better for certain types of applications (particularly, though not exclusively, those involving fairly passive media consumption.) A netbook is better for anything that requires lots of text input -- I wouldn't want to take notes in a meeting or class on an iPad, or write a substantial document on one, both things that netbooks are good for. Netboooks are also substantially cheaper -- the least expensive iPad model is at the high end of netbook prices, the 11.6" Atom Z520 powered netbook I got a couple days ago that I'm typing this on was half the price of an iPad. (And it has a SIM card slot and 3G capablity, which I'd have to pay another half the price of the netbook on top of the minimum price of an iPad to get on iPad.) Its also got much more storage than the high-end iPad. And you don't need another whole computer with iTunes just to be able to use it. Its perfectly possible for someone who doesn't have heavy computing needs to have a netbook as their only computer -- an iPad can't fill that role as long as it is dependent on a "real" computer with iTunes.
Certainly won't displace it in... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the next 60 days, amirite?
The iPad has been officially announced for all of two days, a vanishingly small portion of people have actually spent any time playing with one, and the world is already full of vociferous opinions about its prospects for (pick one) dismal failure/niche success/displacing netbooks/world domination. Like this one:
Because of its price and lack of perennial netbook features, such as a physical keyboard.
Looks to me like it doesn't lack for a physical keyboard, even if it's not permanently attached. Will that be a problem for literal laptop users? Maybe. If I were betting, though, I'd guess that it'll be good enough that Apple's sales will compare with the top 3 netbook manufacturers.
I'm not betting, however, because like most of the planet, I haven't had a chance to really play with one, and therefore don't have a very solid idea what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Certainly won't displace it in... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, iPhone OS. Sure, an iPad might be able to do a lot of the things that a regular tablet can, but can it, say, play a YouTube video in the background while working on something in the foreground? Nope. What about Flash? Nope.
Missing Flash hasn't killed the iPhone, and while there are setups in which it's a pretty big plus to have multiple apps open at the same time, it's an open question whether it's important to have multiple applications open at the same time in the market netbooks are filli
Re: (Score:2)
Missing Flash hasn't killed the iPhone,
Not yet, but you have to realize that the iPhone was ahead of its time. When it was introduced you couldn't find a captive touch screen phone with Wi-Fi and a decent browser. It didn't exist. Today? There are dozens of them. The iPhone though has an installed user-base, many, many, many applications at this point. Android is getting closer and closer but the number of apps just isn't close to the same and a lot of games are iPhone exclusives from large game studios. Mix this in with no Android phones on A
Re:Certainly won't displace it in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Has removing features ever been a good feature?
Er, yeah. The feature of fewer features generally gets described as "now even easier to use," and a lot of software would benefit from it. (Background apps might not be one of the features that is good to remove, but that is a different question.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Missing Flash hasn't killed the iPhone
Because it's a phone. People are used to downloading specialized, overpriced, horrible 'ports' of games for their phones already. Netbooks, however, are a whole different experience with whole different (and higher) expectations.
it's an open question whether it's important to have multiple applications open at the same time in the market netbooks are filling into right now.
Two words: music listening. If you had to close down your browser to listen to music on your netbook, the entire market would likely dissapear overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
can it, say, play a YouTube video in the background while working on something in the foreground?
Actually, I bet it can.
The only reason it doesn't, is because of the OS. It isn't a hardware limitation. Apple apps can background just fine: you can listen to your iTunes library while playing a game, or look up something on Google Maps while you're talking on the phone. Apple simply does not allow non-Apple apps to run in the background.
At least, it doesn't allow it yet. If it becomes an issue for market
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, iPhone OS
I never said anything about the hardware, only the OS powering it.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about the hardware, only the OS powering it.
Quite true. I shouldn't have inserted the hardware comment.
I still think the OS is perfectly capable of multitasking because it DOES multitask very nicely. I guess I was trying to differentiate between "The iPhone OS is incapable of multitasking" and "Apple has simply introduced an artificial limit on multitasking".
My apologies if I'm splitting hairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Certainly won't displace it in... (Score:4, Informative)
What the hell is it with you flash boys?
Flash would open up a -lot- of content. Things like Hulu, Homestar Runner and many, many Flash games. How many times have you run into sites that are Flash only? There are still a lot of them out there, or sites with HTML, but Flash navigation.
But really why the hell should most people care about flash? So I can't play Bloons Tower Defender 4, or some other stupid game. Give me a real reason to need flash. My guess is whatever your reason, there's already an app for that.
Hulu.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee. Hulu. A way to get TV shows that isn't the iTunes store. A way to get TV shows without paying Apple. I think I see why there is no Flash for the iDevice lineup.
Re:Certainly won't displace it in... (Score:4, Interesting)
You may not like/need Flash, but a lot of people like it, maybe most.
Why don't you check out the current Ars Technica poll on how many people would like to have Flash on the iPad:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/poll-technica-do-you-want-flash-on-the-ipad.ars [arstechnica.com]
And yes, Flash is a gaming platform unparalleled on the browser. You may not like Flash games, but a lot of people do. Flash has also ushered back the golden age of game development in the 80s where you could have just 1-3 people teams pumping out fun games, unlike in the late 90's to early 2000s before the explosion of casual gaming where to push out a game in the industry meant spending millions of dollars with tens to hundreds of developers per project, and it was all 3D, 3D, 3D and idea rehashes.
The ease with which authors can ties together together animation, illustration, design, sound & interaction on Flash is has no equal. Not everyone is a developer and that's why HTML5 will not kill Flash.
Coding slick GUIs and programmatic animation ain't an easy task and designers/animators/multimedia artists without programming backgrounds can't pull those off easily. Flash changed that.
H.264 video is also here now with YouTube, but Mozilla Foundation ain't willing to pony up for the proprietary codec so don't expect to see an H.264 bundled video player on Firefox soon. These HTML5 in-browser media players ain't as easy to reskin and meld with other interactive elements as Flash though so you can go stay in your bland Jakob Nielsen-esque [useit.com] world for all everyone else cares.
Btw, re: Flash's sub-par performance on the Mac, it's not all Adobe's fault. See this post from Lee Brimelow of Adobe (scroll down to comment #62):
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703 [theflashblog.com]
"Apple is not cooperating in our attempts to improve the performance of the Flash Player on the Mac. Microsoft is, and in FP 10.1 we cut the CPU utilization in half for watching video. Same with other mobile device manufactures. We would love to work with Apple to do the same but they are making a strategic decision not too so that they can increase their revenue. Hey thats business. Another thing to note is that the site you showed is filled with Flash and just because it takes up a lot of CPU doesnt mean that kids will not want to play with it. Give people the option is what Im saying."
It is a humorous world in how Microsoft is much more open than Apple. [technologizer.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't you check out the current Ars Technica poll on how many people would like to have Flash on the iPad:
Polls like this have the problem of people are just going to say yes, after all, why not? The proof is in the pudding, and the iPhone and iPod touch have done just fine without Flash.
I'm not saying that people don't actually want it, but it really doesn't matter all that much.
And yes, Flash is a gaming platform unparalleled on the browser. You may not like Flash games, but a lot of people do. Flash has also ushered back the golden age of game development in the 80s where you could have just 1-3 people teams pumping out fun games
The same is true for iPhone games. Further, the overwhelming majority of Flash games will be unplayable on a multitouch device. They just aren't designed to be played by nothing more than clicking the mouse.
Btw, re: Flash's sub-par performance on the Mac, it's not all Adobe's fault. See this post from Lee Brimelow of Adobe (scroll down to comment #62):
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703 [theflashblog.com] [theflashblog.com]
"Apple is not cooperating in our attempts to improve the performance of the Flash Player on the Mac. Microsoft is, and in FP 10.1 we cut the CPU utilization in half for watching video. Same with other mobile device manufactures. We would love to work with Apple to do the same but they are making a strategic decision not too so that they can increase their revenue. Hey thats business. Another thing to note is that the site you showed is filled with Flash and just because it takes up a lot of CPU doesnt mean that kids will not want to play with it. Give people the option is what Im saying."
That's absurd. Apple isn't k
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is it that VLC can play a FLW video fine with good (ie low) CPU usage but Adobe can't?
And it shows that Adobe is lying.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Btw, re: Flash's sub-par performance on the Mac, it's not all Adobe's fault. See this post from Lee Brimelow of Adobe (scroll down to comment #62):
Yes it is. There are two ways of playing H.264 video on OS X. You can roll your own CODEC, run it entirely in software (on the CPU or GPU with shaders), or you can use the one in QuickTime, which will use whatever hardware is available. VLC does the former, and still manages to get a pretty low CPU load. Flash ships its own CODEC which is slower than both QuickTime and VLC. I can play 720p content in VLC or QuickTime player on my 1.5GHz PowerBook, but flash stutters and displays about two frames per s
Raskin's Dream incarnate (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm getting a good laugh out of all the folks damning the iPhone for it's lack of explicit multi-tasking.
Sigh. If one wants to oversimplify there have been two great visions presented in computing. One was eberharts classic video showing off mouse and button based editing, along with cellular communications. If you've never watched it, you have no idea what you have missed. Prepare to crap your pants.
The other is Raskin's dream of the info appliance. A device that has no specific function but morphs itself into the perfect dedicated human interaction device for whatever task is needed. It does not multi task. It does not improve a perfectly weighted japanese sushi knife to attach car steering wheel and fire extinguisher to it just in case you need to multi-task. Each item itself has all the controls and human interface it needs for it's task and only that.
In raskin's vision, the appliance would never need instructions. it would be as obvious how to use it as a hammer is.
The ipad is the closest (practical sized) realization of that to date. it's 1.5 times the width of your fingers so it balances perfectly in one hand. when you have a task it dedicated it's surface to becoming the perfect human perceptual interface you need just for that task.
The key here is that Even a 1 year old understands the iphone interface. It's task specificity is intuitive.
Moreover you don't really want multi-taksing. You think you do but what you really mean is you want to beable to context swtich easily and for cases where apps need to interact that they do so in the way you want them to. Multi-tasking is a dumb way to do this. it puts the load for managing the interaction on the human not the device. The iphone os does most of the connections you want. The addressbook is ubiquitous, apps can send e-mail and get web pages. etc... In the future this conduit management will be handled more and more by the computer as it should be. Context switching will be transparent because the computer will anticipate your next move and have pre-warmed it. etc...
Multi-tasking is just the current way we approximate implement this metafore for the device that simply changes into what we need at that moment by itself. You don't really want multi-tasking you want that effect.
For example, people insisted background processing was needed to handle incoming e-mail or other daemon tasks for apps. But the vast majority of those needs (though definitiely not all) are now served much better by the push notification deamon that apple implemented. See background processing was just one way to solve that problem that you were used. You did not need it and you are now better off without it.
interestingly it's claimed that OSX was originally going to behave that way at Job's request. there's a hidden mode switch (in the defaults.write ) that will change the interface so only one app is visible at a time. the others snap to the dock at each context switch. I activated that for my mother and here ability to use the computer skyrocketed. I've tried it myself, and because I multi-task a lot I do find the transistions annoying. But I have to admit it really does de clutter and improve how you interface with an app. I just find the implementation to clunky to tolerate and I miss my multi-tasking view. The iphone OS enforces this work mode and anyone who has used one can see how well it works in the small format device.
It's raskin's dream incarnate. This is why other devices that don't get what's being created here are going to fail.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not definsible.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It does not improve a perfectly weighted japanese sushi knife to attach car steering wheel and fire extinguisher to it just in case you need to multi-task. Each item itself has all the controls and human interface it needs for it's task and only that.
That is a broken analogy. Each one of those devices has hard-set physical characteristics that inherently conflict with each other. The iPad can do multiple things, but not concurrently. Their UI is in no way hard set to preclude any of the functions people are asking about. A knife can never be a reasonable steering wheel ever, it isn't just that it can't cut and be a wheel at the same time.
In raskin's vision, the appliance would never need instructions. it would be as obvious how to use it as a hammer is.
And yet I see in hands on demos people trying various random gestures, and requiring the Apple rep to demonstrate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that you are okay with a full size device suffering from the same user input flaws as the iPhone.
Alright.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who owns an iPhone knows that the typing abilities of Steve Jobs during the 2007 conference are in no way an indication of what the software keyboard is capable of. This has nothing to do with whether I think the software keyboard on the iPad will be something I'm ok with.
Re:Pffff (Score:5, Funny)
Umm, Metaphorically or Inquisitively? and Umm, How often?
Re: (Score:2)
Merriam-Webster has 13 definitions for pad. None of them refer to feminine hygiene. While it's true that you have to know your customer, it's hopeless when your customer is so self-centered and fragile that such a common word is somehow offensive. As for the fight with Fujitsu, Apple has never been one to shy away from using whatever words it wants to use. [wikipedia.org] Personally, I think the iPad is a good idea. However, I also think that while the app store is a useful evil on the iPhone, it's going to be death
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps, but as a woman I can definitely tell you that all my women friends have agreed it's an unfortunate name because the first thing it makes us think of is feminine hygiene products.
What on earth are you going on about? It's not offensive, just awkward. It
Re:Pffff (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but as a woman I can definitely tell you that all my women friends have agreed it's an unfortunate name because the first thing it makes us think of is feminine hygiene products.
Sure, today. Give it some time and iPad will just be another word, like Wii. People made the same arguments against the Wii. This too shall pass.
Re:Pffff (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to say anything negative about Apple here, but to those of us not in the gamer community, Wii still sounds asinine.
You couldn't have that any more backwards. The Wii is the one console that appeals to non-gamers.
People may still snicker at the name, I'm not saying that's going away. People still make "iPood" jokes. But the name "Wii" is no longer seen as a liability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think the iPad is a good idea. However, I also think that while the app store is a useful evil on the iPhone, it's going to be death for the iPad.
Why? What apps are there really that are being blocked? Google Voice, SlingBox over 3G and...? Yawn. I know there's a list of interesting rejected apps, the losses are minimal, and while lamentable, a drop in the bucket compared with what software *is* available.
On the contrary, the App Store is one of the single most important factors in the success of the iPhone and now the iPad. Yes, the geek-types will lament the control imposed by the app store, and for myself, I'd prefer an official opt-in jailbreak m
Re: (Score:2)
...ambiguous vulgarity...
Then we have the Nintendo Wii (piss, pee, urinate, tinkle). No one made a big fuss when that was announced.
Re: (Score:2)
No one made a big fuss when that was announced.
They did, actually. Slashdot was full of comments about how "Revolution" was a much better name.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey guys! Let's make an iPhone, but bigger, and a gajillion times more expensive!
Say what? The iPad is about the same price as an iPhone, the difference is that you don't pay for it on a contract.
Re:Pffff (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh come on, the name jokes are a manufactured "controversy". Just like the name iPod, iPad will stop sounding like something else, and become a word of its own. But even without this, there are so many other "pads" out there, that this is silly. For example, where was this controversy over the Fujitsu iPAD? Or the various other pads. ThinkPad? Newton MessagePad? MS Notepad? Or simply a pad of paper?
I'm not complaining about the jokes per se. They're kinda funny for a second, but they do wear thin. But what I'm responding to is that this is treated as some sort of serious issue. "OMG, people are making jokes!" How many iPood, iPaid, etc. jokes were there?
In the long run, the name is going to be just fine.
Here's an idea - What Steve should have done was release a tablet version of the MacBook Air (with the exact same software compatibility, OS, etc.) and call it the MacBook Slate or MacBook Touch. I would have bought one of those, and I'm often the first to question the sexual orientation of male Mac users.
And it would have sold worse than the MacBook Air. People have shown they don't want tablets that are just their desktop OS in tablet form. To be sure, there are people who buy them, but they are almost exclusively sold to geeks, artists, and some vertical markets. But as a mass media product, it takes something that's already cumbersome for most people, and making it even more so.
The brilliance of the iPhone OS is that it's designed specifically for multitouch. You're not just using your finger (or stylus) as a mouse, with handwriting recognition thrown in for good measure. Mac OS X no only already supports this, but you can already have your Mac modded into a Mac tablet (or buy one pre-modded). And they're not selling well enough to warrant a separate Apple SKU.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
News Flash - You still need a Mac for installing [monotouch.net] the iPhone SDK and Mono.
You still pay the Apple hardware tax.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Unaffordable?
Hardly really, plus you can always just build a hackintosh, those are pretty cheap I hear.
Re: (Score:2)
- It's more portable.
- It lasts longer on a charge.
- It gets you to the point (i.e. web browsing) faster than a netbook does.
Plausible, but not guaranteed to succeed or fail.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if it is 1" smaller or larger than competing netbooks (of which there are many, of all sizes.) What matters is "does it do what I need it to do?" I think it doesn't. iPad is a pure consumption device; you can only consume services with it, but not create new stuff and not be creative generally. It doesn't even have a keyboard, which clearly shows that Apple doesn't intend you to type much (though you can buy an external kb.)
A netbook, on the other hand, is a complete small computer that
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was smaller, I said it was more portable. A netbook you have to unfold, set on a surface, then get the mouse out. "Deploy" is a better word. A tablet, in general I mean not just the iPad, has a better form factor for doing things like looking up information or doing small chunks of data entry. A netbook is lousy at this. When you do want to web browse or take notes or show a video to somebody, you take it out, hit the button, and you're already moving. Whether it satisfies you or not,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A tablet, in general I mean not just the iPad, has a better form factor for doing things like looking up information or doing small chunks of data entry.
I believe I mentioned that I have a tablet myself, and it has practically the same weight as the iPad. I can tell you, it is an awful fit for any computing "on the go". Too heavy to begin with, then iPad is hard to hold with one hand (my UMPC has grip space, thankfully). And it's just awkward all around to walk with the thing. I use my tablet for reading
Re: (Score:2)
You know I think my reply sounds snippier than I intended. My apologies, I'm not trying to antagonize you. I just wrote that in a little too much of a hurry.
If it helps to know, I'm mildly curious about the iPad, but I'm not chomping at the bit to buy one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not substantially. Sure, its about 60% of the weight of most 8.9"-11.6" netbooks I've seen -- all of which are around 2.5-2.75 lbs -- but that doesn't make much practical difference. Its esaier to use standing up, but no more so than tablet convertibles (most of which are now also styled as "netbooks") that are available at similar prices to the iPad.
Apple claims "up to 10 hours" active use, which is about the same as, or a little less than, I've seen claim
Re: (Score:2)
4 - No Flash
5 - No builtin USB port
It has many keyboards, and more options (Score:2)
1 - its far more expensive
$500 is not "far more" than many netbooks, and will probably last much longer than the cheapest.
2 - it has no keyboard
You went the wrong way. It actually has an infinite number of keyboards, with a number of physical options since it supports Bluetooth. What it has the Netbook lacks is the ability to go without a physical keyboard - web pages are easier to read on a sideways screen, but you are not going to be turning a Netbook sideways.
3 - did i mention it was expensive?
Repeated