The PC has been diagnosed as dying yet again.
Steve Jobs predicts tablets to replace personal computers - Times Online
Printable View
The PC has been diagnosed as dying yet again.
Steve Jobs predicts tablets to replace personal computers - Times Online
Steve forgot to take his tablets this morning...
Maybe give him an iPhonecall, and remind him to do that. :D
Aspirin sells more than 2 million, probably in every single day. I think Aspirin will replace surgery.
He's got a point though, most people are not more interested in programming their computer than their VCR. An easy interface that hides anything but the users content is probably not a bad idea for most users.
Well y'all may enjoy this recent event:
YouTube - iPad smashed by MeetUp.com at NY Tech Meetup
That's the founder/CEO of MeetUp.com. It's a little hard to tell in the video, but according to an independent report he really did put an ipad in the bag.
I did not mean literarily only programming, but say other closely related activities, system administration etc. For the so called "power users" I believe there will still be workstation type boxes but, IMO the majority of the market for "personal" computing will go towards simpler interfaces that let the user focus on their vacation pictures, posting on facebook etc.
and gaming, and managing their bills with a tactile keyboard, and studying, and listening to music on the tablet formidable sound output, and burning CDs, and doing that cool thing you see on pictures everywhere: hold it with one hand, make a flashy smile while they oh-so-efficiently type with just the other hand
And all the while sitting on a couch with no real comfortable position to use the tablet... or lying it on a table and forgetting everything they have been taught about correct sitting positions.
Have you ever tried to type on the thing? What a nightmare.Quote:
For the so called "power users" I believe there will still be workstation type boxes but, IMO the majority of the market for "personal" computing will go towards simpler interfaces that let the user focus on their vacation pictures, posting on facebook etc.
Ok, you both got valid points but I did not really refer to the ipad per se but more to the concept and the future of PC's. I believe it's apples take on the netbook segment, let's say recreational mobile computing. But expanding the concept to something more business or work related would obviously require a keyboard.
The sound of the thing would depend on if you connect it to an amplifier, it's no different than any pc, you can do that wirelessly BTW.
I think people will go back to PCs once the hype (newness) ends.
I've used a tablet for a year. The first few months are fun, but later I rarely use the touch screen.
The Mighty Mouse is better in almost all aspects - price, efficiency (moving fingers 2cm is faster than swinging a whole arm across the screen to press the 'x'), effortlessness (if you've used a tablet for any extended amount of time, you'll see what I mean - arms get VERY sore), and accuracy.
I see it as an example for a change for the sake of change. There really is nothing wrong with the mouse. It has been there for decades and even now all computers still have one. That's because it's a terribly good design.
Maybe tablets have its use for graphics designers and people that have to use a computer without a desk.
But for when there is a desk, the mouse is vastly superior.
I don't agree, I get pain in my hand from mouse use. Doing things directly with our hands and arms is far more natural to our anatomy. The desktop metaphor with a mouse is already ~25 years old, IMO it will go the same way as the command line interface.
Also, I think that a touch screen itself is useless unless, the interface is changed to make the most of it. I mean using a regular UI meant for mouse use, is not ideal.
Have you tried a tablet?
25 years old is not a reason for it to go away. If something has been here for this long, it's usually a very good design.
We have been using forks for centuries.
Sure, alot of information kiosks and so on use this type of interface. I'll repeat this though, the interface needs to change to accommodate that way of interaction. Copying an interface meant for mouse to a touch screen is bad. But, I don't have crystal ball anymore than you do, we'll see.
Kiosks are a good place for tablets (touch screens) because there is usually no desk, they are not typically used for extended periods of time (tireness), and many people that don't know how to use computers use them.*
So are phones (due to the form factor, and people don't usually use a phone on a desk).
But for a desktop? Most/all of the benefits of touchscreen don't apply. It just looks silly.
If it's a desktop for toddlers or old people, I can understand. But if you are going to use it for longer periods of time, might as well learn to use the mouse.
*I agree touchscreens can be more intuitive and easy to learn, but with some training, the mouse is much more effective.
I don't get your point here, I would prefer to be able to directly manipulate the content on my screen than indirectly. Your last point is valid even if you make the comparison between a command line interface and a mouse driven GUI. A command line interface can often be more effective, it doesn't mean that it has gained popularity for mainstream computing.
But to be able to evaluate this you would need to do extensive usability tests, both of us are merely speculating.
That is true, but the mouse is much easier to learn and offers great reward.
I think people will still learn to use it, until something better comes along (touch screens won't cut it).
Taking 30 minutes to learn to use a mouse so you can use computers much more effectively for 40-50 years sounds like a very good deal.
For people already using the mouse, there's no reason to switch to tablets.
In your opinion.
Of course :)
And usually people say that when they disagree.
Just to clarify, I am making 2 points here.
1.) If proficient at both, the mouse is much more effective than a touchscreen for a desktop computer.
2.) People in the future won't mind taking the time to learn to use the mouse because of 1).
Follows logically from 1.Quote:
For people already using the mouse, there's no reason to switch to tablets.
Which point (or both) are you disagreeing on?
I disagree. :) But the reason I said in your opinion is that it's kind of pointless to discuss. I don't think a mouse is more effective if the UI is adopted to fit touch interaction. It's not that it's hard to learn to use a mouse but you can do more than merely point and click with your hands.
Typing, not clicking is really the big issue with touchscreens. Tablets are too small in order to acommodate a on-screen keyboard that offers good performance. It's definitely twitter-message friendly. But not email, forum, word processor, or anything else friendly.
But the real downer to me is the tablets completely throwing away all that we have been so hard studying through the years and trying to apply in terms of Accessibility. Anyone with even a mild motor disability, will not be able to use a tablet, ever. And I don't see how the human interface offered by touchscreens can be improved in this regard.
In any case, we've all heard it before. When laptops where hailed as the end of desktops. And what happened? Really, not even PCs could kill PCs. It's not tablets that will.
The more the iPad offers the more it becomes a PC. Since we all know it will eventually be a 'tablet' PC I think I'll just stick to my PC now b/c it already knows it's a PC and doesn't try to pretend to be something else. Everyone knows iPad is essentially a PC and the more Jobs tries to prevent it from becoming one the more he will push himself out of the market. Flash anyone?
Flash allows you to choose what you want to run on your machine without Apple censorship. That is Very Bad(TM).
But I thought Apple was Mr. Open Source. Ha. Now we find that Jobs and Apple are no different than Microsoft and that perhaps Microsoft has not been wrong for simply trying to protect their market. There is nothing different between what Apple is attempting to do right now and what Microsoft has done and continues to do to protect their interests. Apple's true colors have finally shown through. They are just jealous of Microsoft and have been the entire time.
There is a difference between protecting the OS itself and requiring all programs must go through Apple Store (or whatever they call it). IIRC, a developer need to get a developer account for $99, before s/he can even submit programs for evaluation. And Apple is known for rejecting apps with no apparent reason, and taking a long while for the rest.
That is very draconian IMNSHO.
At least Windows allow you to run anything people write.
Off topic -
Open source sure can make money. I'm just about to throw $500 at Google for a Nexus One phone mainly for the Android OS, which is open source.
Was considering Android and Nokia's Symbian (both are open source).
Wouldn't really mind Windows Mobile either.
iPhone was eliminated at round -1.
Not to mention their "you're not allowed to use Object-C as an intermediate language" policy. Smashing portability, WHY!?
Apple are very good at marketing, good enough to convince to majority that their devices are original and their idea. Of course, history repeats itself :).
Haha that is ridiculous. Microsoft can do it because they have 90% market share (smashing portability hurts others). But Apple?!
Smashing portability would hurt themselves.
Can't believe this turns into a mac vs pc thread. My interest was to discuss the future of personal computing, it's moving on and evolving, and will not look the same for all eternity, it's also what makes it interesting.
Now cyberfish, that market share is valid for the desktop segment, for handheld devices where this policy you are referring to is relevant, i.e for iOS. Apple have a far larger market share, MS is in the minority and there is also far more players, thankfully. At least hopefully future discussions like this can be less polarized, lol.
Ah sorry I thought we've moved on to desktops (just like in every other thread...)
Portability doesn't really matter for phones. Apple is 100% not portable (not just the library, but also the language), Symbian and S40 (Nokia) run J2ME, which is somewhat portable. Android also uses Java, but sadly doesn't support J2ME libraries, so not portable. Windows Mobile uses their dumbed down version of Windows SDK, so not portable.
Pretty much nothing is portable for handheld devices, which is unfortunate.
Dear Steve (may I call you Stevie?),
your phone is cool. And partially useful. I can make calls and surf the net to find out what that stuff on my pizza actually is before ordering it and before looking like an idiot for asking the waiter. I like it. It shines, it has power, it's the sports car of computers.
But Stevie, have you had a look at the size of the thing... err... price of the thing? It's huge. It's not a moon, it's a whole fscking space station! The only retailer in Germany wants ~550$ for the phone if (and only if) you pay ~70$ monthly fees for 24 months straight. That's about 2.000$. For a freaking phone with an internet flatrate. I can get the same internet flatrate fixed at my home for 15$/month, which would leave about 1600$ for the biggest, baddest gaming machine I ever owned. Or I could pay 5$ a month and 50$ for a new phone that can just make calls and play mp3s and spend the other 1800$ on something worthwhile. Like a used car. Or a badass TV. Or anything else, that is not just a phone, "i" or not.
My PC might be a truck. But then, it didn't cost a fortune like sport cars do. Should I ever have "too much money", I will buy a real sports car. Not a phone.
Best regards
Your Ex-Future-Customer that had a look at the price...
Yes, but attention. Android wants itself to be portable. It's a crucial difference from all the others which actually don't.
Anyways, IPads. It's just another concept, cool as it may be. And even cooler when other players start entering the market with their own Tablet PCs and we get some competition going. It's however just a concept. Just another way to serve generations of computer and internet users. Not a killer device in any possible way. People will still need phones because they are smaller, and desktops because they offer the best productivity across the whole spectrum of possible uses we give to a computer.
I personally don't see me ever owning a table PC, however. The other reason why this isn't a killer device is because, for the largest majority of people, this is an entirely useless device. Naturally I'd expect Steve Jobs to do his marketing fanfare and to extrapolate from the initial sales a world revolution. After all we live in a world where commercials try to convince you will lead a happier life if you wash your dishes with X.
But reality is far more stringent. The iPad benefits from an early launch, without alternatives and from a new device concept. And that's that. It's however very flawed both in concept and performance. The biggest problems are that it's unwieldy and it suffers from a rabid closed architecture; the Apple staple, and why this company always plummets to the second division of hardware manufacturers once the market shapes up itself and offers alternatives to Apple products.
But, more importantly, iPad sales do tell the truth about this device. They say, for instance, that more people bought Netbooks in these months than they did iPads. That more people bought laptops in these months than they did iPads. That more people bought desktop PCs than they did iPads. So... yeah. No revolution. Not even a hiccup.
Have you actually sent this to Steve? You could. I think his email is [email protected], right?
Yeah, the only thing I have a problem with is being told we all MUST do everything one way. If some/most people find a mouse or touchpad more effective than a keyboard for what they are doing on a computer, that's great. Vive la differance.
You know, I agree. But the choice is still there.
I agree. Just a little disappointed that they decided to adopt Dalvik (subset of Apache's implementation of Java) instead of the more established J2ME, which is also an open standard with an open source reference implementation (Sun's JVM).Quote:
Yes, but attention. Android wants itself to be portable. It's a crucial difference from all the others which actually don't.
J2ME may not be "as" open, but I thought it would be worth it for the portability with existing devices and programs.
Is there no C or C++ on the droid? iOS got Obj-C, C/C++.
There is, it can run code natively on the ARM CPU. However, I don't think it has a UI library, so it's mostly for java programs to offload heavy calculations to C/C++. There is a supposedly easy way to interface java and C++.
I may very well be wrong.
EDIT: and there is an "Android Scripting Environment (ASE) which allows third-party developers to build simple Android applications with Python and Lua."
Ouch, check this out:
Privacy Change: Apple Knows Where Your Phone Is And Is Telling People - The Consumerist
The fact that they can get away with this is evidence of just how stupid and complacent your average consumer is.Quote:
Apple updated its privacy policy today, with an important, and dare we say creepy new paragraph about location information. If you agree to the changes, (which you must do in order to download anything via the iTunes store) you agree to let Apple collect store and share "precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device."
People not being able to opt-out without that affecting their decision to buy from Apple store is what makes this policy the more invasive. It's not clear if this affects just the iTunes store or the whole gatekeeper. But regardless, for a consumer that isn't interested in using location-based services and products, they apparently will still be forced to agree to those terms.
Yeah. The whole of Apple existence, starting around the mid 90s, has been essentially based on consumer illiteracy and consumer greed. And it has never been so strong since Apple started the smart phone business. There will always be a market -- a big market -- for useless devices and terms of service meant to circumvent consumer loyalty and go after a much quicker and more effective consumer slavery. And especially since gadgets became the equivalent of a social penis.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
That is not the quote from the agreement! This is it:
So, as you see, a device that have geo location capability can do this, it goes for all phones that have gps, obviously. If you think that this is proof of the stupidity of the average consumer, id say the stupidity is not recognizing that using geo-location software shares your location, that's the point, duh!Quote:
To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
No, the difference is, location based programs used to need your explicit permission to use your location data. This clause is saying now they don't, because by accepting the agreement, you are granting all such requests to all programs. Do you really see no problem in that?
You are actually wrong. It's still needed as noted in the last sentence. I refer to this blog post that should clear it up.
Daring Fireball Linked List: Creepy?
Then for completeness I supply another fud article to keep things balanced. ;)
Report says be aware of what your Android app does | InSecurity Complex - CNET News
Huh? Which last sentence are you referring to?
And in android you need to grant explicit permissions for apps to do just about anythinng. What's wrong with that?
The last sentence of the tos. Nothing is wrong with it, that is exactly how it works on iOS as well.
Well I don't have the TOS since I don't have any Apple product.
Can you quote it please?
WTF, it's not important, it's the last sentence in the quote I posted (from the TOS). You need to opt-in to grant permission explicitly for any application including system apps to share your location. It's also in the link I posted on the last page..
Note the "For example". Very nice misleading wording trick IMHO.Quote:
For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
For another example, we may also share your geographic location with application providers to give you targeted ads, send you pictures of your supposedly local girls, or send flyers to your house, without your permission.
Subsonics, this text refers to the Apple's privacy policy. The question I put is this: Does this change permit Apple to collect user location data by default, even for users that don't use services or products that require localized-based features?
The text is very explicit that Apple itself or its partners will collect this data for the benefit of location-based services. But is this an iOS4 feature? And will it send data by default even if the user doesn't have, or doesn't want to use, location-based services? Does the user need to explicitly turn it off on that case?
@cyberfish
It's to clarify what may happen if you do opt-in on an app, including system apps that use geo-location data. The variety of what can happen depends on the amount of apps available. If you use applications that share your location, it's shared. It's the same for any gps app of course. Use some common sense here.
I have used quite a few GPS based apps on my new Nexus One, and I don't need to check the Android TOS to tell you it doesn't include that line.
There is nothing in the TOS that says you need to opt-in at all. The last line is an example. An example does NOT add anything to the agreement. It's usually used to clarify. It gives you a SUBSET of possibilities.
"I like all fruits. For example, oranges."
Does that mean I only like oranges?
"We can collect share, and use location data. For example, with your permission."
Does that mean they can't do it without your permission?
I said an example is USUALLY used to clarify, because in this case it's clearly used to mislead, because
1) It doesn't clarify anything ("we may share geographic location with application providers" is not any clearer than "Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data").
2) If they meant they still require your permission, they would put the opt-in part as rest of the statement, NOT part of the example.
Very shady in my opinion.
Ok, so we are discussing privacy and personal integrity here and Google is the good guy? I don't wan't to be the defender of Apple here, I just tell you how I interpret this. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out over the next months or so. IMO, it's added by Apple to cover their asses in the event that someone experience something unexpected as a result of using a geo-location aware application. But that is my interpretation.
No, this has nothing to do with Google.
It's about Apple and their TOS.
You can interpret it as they will send you a turkey every week for free, too.
But the terms clearly say they will NOT require your permission, because you are ALREADY giving your permission.
NOTHING in the text says you have to opt-in. The example is a trick to lead you to imply that, and has no legal significance.
I only talked about Android because you linked to the unrelated page about Android. This is about Apple.Quote:
Yes it does since you are contrasting it with android.
For example?Quote:
That is how the operating system works. Look at any legal texts and you will find this sort ambiguity.
Legal texts should NOT be ambiguous. And in this case, it is not even ambiguous at all. You are implying exactly what they want you to imply by providing that example.
If I can show you that this happens on other platforms and articles that are basically fud exists there as well, it give a valuable balance in the discussion IMO.
"Whenever location data is being accessed, you get an indicator in the status bar. And in Settings → General → Location Services you get a listing of every app with location privileges, the ability to turn it off, and an indicator for each app that has accessed your location within the last 24 hours."
It's ambiguous since it have offered you some wild interpretations.
Look, it's not possible to "win" this discussion. It's only going to be your point of view against mine, so let's stop here.
I agree, and you haven't.Quote:
If I can show you that this happens on other platforms and articles that are basically fud exists there as well, it give a valuable balance in the discussion IMO.
Yes, that means you will be notified after the fact.Quote:
"Whenever location data is being accessed, you get an indicator in the status bar. And in Settings → General → Location Services you get a listing of every app with location privileges, the ability to turn it off, and an indicator for each app that has accessed your location within the last 24 hours."
I disagree. In this case, I am clearly right :p. Let's argue about it some more, since that's the point of forums.Quote:
It's ambiguous since it have offered you some wild interpretations.
Look, it's not possible to "win" this discussion. It's only going to be your point of view against mine, so let's stop here.
There is only one difference in our "interpretations."
The text says,
We can collect and share your location data. For example, we can do it with your permission.
First of all, do you agree with this simplification?
If not, what part of the original text do you think I over-simplified, and should be added in?
If you have turned it on.
No, I don't agree. The text gives one example of sharing geographic location when you have opt in. They can not guarantee what privacy policy an individual app provider has, of course and that is exactly the TOS Google have. I'm just stating this since IMO it's normal and obvious.
Yes, I have added that example, too. Or is there a part of the example that you think is relevant to the discussion that I missed? What part?
It has nothing to do with app providers' privacy policy. This has to do with how Apple can get your location, and share it with other people they choose.
You have made the "with your permission" part optional, which it isn't in the original text. Frankly it's hard to come up with another example since the general case "share geographic location" is used, and that is exactly what we are discussing.
vsQuote:
For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
I have colour coded the parts I believe are equivalent.Quote:
For example, we can do it with your permission.
Which part(s) do you think aren't?
In other words, what makes their version legally binding, and mine not?
Well are you a lawyer? I'm not. It's provided as an example of a general case, to clarify. At least that is how I see it's purpose. "Do it" is a much worse example since it's much less descriptive.
No I'm not.
That's why I am trying to simplify it down to make it easier to understand.
Let's put it this way.
What makes YOU believe, or feel, their version is legally binding (meaning has any significance) and mine isn't?
Well it's kind of a pointless exercise if the rules you apply when you are simplifying is not grounded in any real knowledge of the law.
To your last sentence let's just say that I'm confident that their legal department is more competent in the area than you.
They are not grounded in real knowledge of the law, but in English and logic.
Yes, I'm confident their legal department is more competent than me, too. Too bad they are working to screw us over (just like the legal department of any other company), not for us.
If you are now saying since we aren't lawyers and shouldn't care about what legal documents say and should just click "agree" all the way, that fits exactly in the profile of MK27's
I, on the other hand, think we should try our best to understand it.Quote:
The fact that they can get away with this is evidence of just how stupid and complacent your average consumer is.
By the way, there is really nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. If you look at my post history, about half of my 2000 posts are me admitting I am wrong and apologizing. No need to drag it on and on. It really makes life a lot easier to know you don't have to always be right.
WTF are you talking about, where am I wrong exactly? The idea that this is some background tracking going on is completely wrong since you have to opt-in and agree on each application that uses geo-location i.e like all other devices with this capability.
I have not said that I think you should just click "Agree" on any eulas or tos or real documents for that matter. But when it comes to changing the text and determine what is legally binding or not, let's just say I don't think there is much point in that.
Let's not simplify then.
The original text -
You are saying that means, they cannot share geographic location with application providers IF YOU DON'T OPT IN?Quote:
For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
Exactly, since the condition "when you opt in" is there. But also because that is how iOS works, just like Android (sorry) but it's relevant.
"I can eat the icecream in your fridge. For example, I may eat the icecream in your fridge when it's hot outside."
Does that mean I cannot eat your icecream if it's not hot outside?
Ok this is from Googles TOS where does it say that you have to opt in?Quote:
Gadgets – Google may make available third party applications through its services. The information collected by Google when you enable a gadget or other application is processed under this Privacy Policy. Information collected by the application or gadget provider is governed by their privacy policies.
Location data – Google offers location-enabled services, such as Google Maps for mobile. If you use those services, Google may receive information about your actual location (such as GPS signals sent by a mobile device) or information that can be used to approximate a location (such as a cell ID).
There is the opt in part. If you use Google Maps, Google may receive information about your location.Quote:
If you use those services, Google may receive information about your actual location
Nothing ambiguous about it. If you don't use "those services" (Google's location-enabled services), this clause doesn't apply.
Apple is saying, as long as you want to use the iPhone, Apple can get your location without further approval from you, AND they can share it with anyone they choose. And that's what most people have problems with.
Would you care to clarify what you meant?Quote:
Hey, legal genius I'm pretty sure it's an example.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's an example, too. I came up with that example.
So do you think I can eat your icecream in the winter or not?
Exactly.Quote:
it privacy policy only apply to Googles own services not a 3rd party.
That's why we are trying to sort it out.Quote:
That is not what they are saying that is what you are reading into it.
There is nothing legal about this. Both the original line and my example are plain good old English without any legal mumbo jumbo.Quote:
No, I think you should be careful when you are trying to make "equivalent" parallels that is still legally binding. As we discussed not to many posts back.
It's a simple exercise in English, and has nothing to do with legality.
What do you think would be a better parallel, then?
Or can you suggest another way to understand the original without trying to come up with a simple parallel?