Why does his discussion of automatic transmissions sound like he hasn't actually driven a car with an automatic in twenty years or so? His comments, compared to my actual experience of driving various automatics over the past decade, feel like someone who says cars must not be so great because of how you have to turn the hand crank on the front to start the engine, not realizing that this is a solved problem now.
I think the comparison between automatic transmissions from 20 years ago and modern ones is a good way to see why the iPad will work well for most people. Old automatic transmissions did have problems when you wanted to accelerate quickly and at certain speeds they couldn't decide what gear to be in so they'd keep shifting. Modern transmissions are so good that only a few people notice that things aren't quite how they would like them to be and there are a lot of people who can't drive a car with a manual transmission. The iPad takes away a lot of control, but it makes choices that most people will like. Not everyone wants or needs to have more control.
did have problems when you wanted to accelerate quickly and at certain speeds they couldn't decide what gear to be in
I've noticed the first one on pretty much every automatic I've ever driven, but mostly that's a "doctor, it hurts when I do this" sort of thing. If I turn from a residential side street (20mph) onto a larger four-lane road (45-50mph) and pound the gas pedal into the floor to speed up, then yeah, it's going to be jerky. If instead I just gently give it more gas and let it speed up a bit more gradually, it's nice and smooth. So the solution to that appears to be simply "don't drive like you're on a racetrack".
Indecisive gears are a problem I haven't seen on at least the last couple cars I've owned (both Ford); they've been just fine at picking a good gear for the speed and sticking with it.
I'm not the author, but over the last one year I've driven 20 different cars with automatic transmissions (made by Chevy, Ford, Toyota, Pontiac, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Volkswagen and Subaru). For most of them, what the author says holds. The VW Jetta & Hyundai Elantra had good gear systems. The Chevy Cobalt was fairly good. All of the others had problems with fast acceleration and going slow downhill.
He may be exaggerating for effect but I don't think his assessment is wrong. I drove a fairly new automatic recently and it wasn't fun. Better than 18 years ago when I last owned an automatic, but still not nearly as smoothly integrated as my Japanese five-speed subcompact.
Something that I think gets overlooked as a reason why people choose automatic is that they're much nicer to drive in heavy stop-and-go traffic. Accelerate to 5 MPH for a few seconds, then stop. Repeat ad nauseum for 1.5 hours. Do it again for another 1.5 hours going home. Having to constantly go in and out of gear stinks in this scenario.
With the ridiculous commuting times people have in the US, it's no wonder many drivers don't want manual. On top of it, many people do not drive 2.5 hours daily due to sheer distance; it's because of traffic causing the pattern I listed above.
(Of course, the heavy traffic and long commuting time begs the question of why we don't invest more into public transportation. But, that's another clouded issue.)
I've driven manual for 22 years. Even a half an hour in heavy traffic makes me wish for automatic.
I've driven manual for 15 years, but conceded to the wife asking (nay, demanded!) for an automatic on the last automobile purchase. It frees up one hand majority of the time and she doesn't have to think about it through turns.
For me, the benefits of an automatic are trivial compared to the joy of driving a manual transmission, with one great exception: stop-and-go traffic.
The process of driving a manual usually boils down to engaging the clutch partially, briefly, so that not too much fuel is wasted for each acceleration. My shins get tired after at least 20 minutes of this. You would think doing this routine every day would make it more tolerable. Surprisingly, it does not.
Now that I do not have to freeway commute to work, considering a manual for the next purchase. As already stated, they are more fun to drive.
On topic, I'd say this is why I do not prefer Apple's walled garden of simplicity. I don't want these choices made for me, necessarily. I like the fact that I can install any software I wish, at any time. As has been said uncountable times, the iPad is directed at certain types of users. I am not one of those types, and I doubt I would ever be. If I had disposable income (where I could afford to throw away $500 on an entertainment device), I'd buy one. My wife would love it, and I'd use it for idle surfing now and again. I might even make some interesting apps for Safari. Wouldn't want to learn Objective-C though, because what good is writing a program if your own computer won't even allow you to run it?
This is so true. I firmly believe that the reason automatics are so popular in the US is because of the traffic situation.
Edit: And driving a manual in SF certainly tests your clutch skills...
Of course, it doesn't get any easier driving a manual in stop-and-go traffic when everyone driving automatics are so much more prone to accelerate violently when traffic starts moving and then brake abruptly when it stops. And then they get annoyed when people with manuals are content to idle along in second which keeps the same average speed but periodically opens up large holes in front.
> they get annoyed when people with manuals are content to idle along in second which keeps the same average speed but periodically opens up large holes in front.
I do this (I have a game I play in highway traffic called Avoid Using the Brake), but I don't find that other motorists get annoyed. In fact I rarely even find that people cut into the big gaps - and if they do, it's usually just passing through en route to another lane.
The transmission he's describing is the one that came with my 2007 Camry. (We were later able to get a firmware update that made it reasonably safe to drive.)
As someone who only knows how to drive an automatic (never had access to a manual to learn), some of the problems he's describing sound like he hasn't made the necessary adjustments in driving style that an automatic apparently requires (at least for the acceleration--I'm willing to concede that he has a point for the engine braking). This gets a bit into "intelligent" user interfaces, but I feel like I have a pretty good model of how the automatic gearbox responds to increased foot pressure, so I don't have any problem getting up to speed when changing lanes.
This is a good article, but clearly written by someone who is a manual transmission fanboy. I drive a manual, too, but I recently switched from an automatic and I know why automatics are more popular - they're easier to use, and you don't have to learn or think as much as with a manual, to get where you're going. I would say his conclusion is wrong - that the iPad/PC distinction is actually very similar to the automatic/manual distinction.
Don't know about the States, but where I'm from they're known as 'petrolheads' (i.e. those who truly appreciate driving only drive petrol (gasoline!!) cars and wouldn't be caught dead driving a diesel, or god forbid, a hybrid). I'm a petrolhead myself naturally. As regards manual transmission, I couldn't bear the thought of not being able to engine-brake in icy condiditons, slipping the engine into neutral and freewheeling down steep hills, dropping into 3rd and gunning past those annoying 'Sunday-afternoon' type drivers and articulated trucks. An a car's ECU will never outsmart the greatest computer in the world, the iPad. I mean, human brain.
I bought a new car a couple years ago, and was ridiculed by friends who considers themselves "serious drivers"... because I bought an automatic. Which, I guess, makes it a decent iPhone/iPad analogy since to them the important thing is to master every aspect of the car and know how to get every last bit of performance out of it, while to me the important thing is that it lets me cover longer distances easily.
You drive cars with a manual transmission. You AIM cars with an automatic transmission.
Think about it this way, there are some people out there who have no good reason to really drive a car. They'd rather just aim. Perhaps it's the same with the IPad. Some people don't want to know how everything works, or how it's done. So long as it works and they can accomplish their goals, they'll be happy.
Disappointing but unsurprising that people are focusing on the car details in an article about the irrelevancy of car analogies.
The meat is at the end:
I’m not going to say that Apple are right to lock others out of defining how touch computing is going to work, but they can, and I think their belief is that they can do it better if they don’t have fight off contradictory ideas in the meantime.
Preceded by a lot of car talk, which you focus on. Put the meat up front. Besides, the meat of the article is about the irrelevancy of car analogies, but if people don't agree, they will discuss that portion. You can't discuss it and not expect people to respond.
Computers and cars have different usages in different situations. The iPad is clearly not developed for development work or tinkering, it is a step above a smart phone and intended to be used in a similar way. Just like the Toyota Camry is clearly not built for racing, it is made for transportation and intended to be used for people that will never open the hood.
Both have a target audience that really doesn't need to be confused with extra bells and whistles that are going to add complexity for the average person that does not want to use the device for more than the intended purpose.
I really don't understand why everyone is angry that the iPad takes another step away from tradition of computing to help make computers more accessible to a broader audience, and requires less knowledge of how the computer works (which many people would be happy about, maybe not you or I, but people that do not have careers or hobbies tinkering with computers)
>I really don't understand why everyone is angry that the iPad takes another step away from tradition of computing to help make computers more accessible to a broader audience,...
Because we think it means that an even larger% of users of our software will understand even less about "how computers work"™ and their expectations will be based on even shittier "apps" => will be even more unrealistic & difficult to "work around".
The car analogy is cute, but the "afterward" at the end of the article is the most relevant part. I think he's dead on with his analysis of what Apple is doing in that regard. I give Apple points for taking a bold step, although in my opinion it's in the wrong direction. But we do need more boldness in the realm of computer user interfaces, the standard mac/win/*nix interface (and let's face it they're really all the same), is a relic of the last millennium and needs a reboot.
