I find this interesting from a historical perspective. You can really see the thought process that led to the design decisions on the iPhone and iPad: Get desktop sync right, optimize for user consumption of data, avoid handwriting recognition (since it's inefficient anyway), the PDA is dead (instead, a phone has to have PDA features).
I also like the subtle way Jobs deflects the issue of whether or not tablet devices would be great for reading. He cracks a little joke and redirects the discussion.
It's funny because the desktop syncing is probably the worst part of the ecosystem. They didn't even attempt to make it work on Linux (fine, its a niche, but they also actively made it more difficult for open source software to work with newer models) and iTunes for Windows is one of the crappiest pieces of software on Windows, and that's saying something.
I'd say desktop syncing is a really great part of the ecosystem, since it means that I can buy a new iPhone and be completely up and running again in less than an hour. Upgrading the software is a breeze, which is something you can't say about Nokia phones (last time I tried). I'd agree that iTunes on Windows sucks, but that's not too surprising given that they are running it inside of their cross-platform Objective C/Cocoa thingy.
I hate, I hate, I hate iPod/iPhone syncing. It's intrusive, annoying, and constantly get's in my way.
First, it interrupts whatever I'm doing. I like to listen to audiobooks, and if I'm at my desk, I might plug my iPod in so I can charge it up, but I don't want to stop listening to what I'm listening to. But no, it stops everything and starts syncing.
Next, I need to jump through hoops to stop the syncing. iTunes starts up, and has to do it's thing. I can't just cancel the sync, I have to click through popups coming from iTunes to cancel the stupid sync before I can shut it down again.
And god forbid iTunes actually SYNC what you mark to sync! I hate installing it simply because if I do, I have to go find the place that says "Yes, when I tell you to sync an audiobook, you should, you know, actually sync the audiobook."
And then, after you are done syncing, I can't just jump back into listening to what I was listening to before.
Yes, this happens, it happens often. Really, the entire iPod/iTunes environment makes me regret getting the iPod.
Next, I need to jump through hoops to stop the syncing. iTunes starts up, and has to do it's thing. I can't just cancel the sync, I have to click through popups coming from iTunes to cancel the stupid sync before I can shut it down again.
No you don’t. There is probably one of those annoying “Check if you never want to appear this dialog again” checkboxes (which are for some reason all too common in iTunes), but that’s a one time thing, after that you only ever have to click once to cancel.
Or you could just slide to cancel the sync on your iPhone or iPod touch. That’s actually the easiest way to do it. Then you are immediately back to where you were and can continue listening. It’s instantaneous and I do it all the time when I plug in my iPod touch for charging and not syncing.
Why? I want it to sync automatically when I plug it in. Just not when I'm using it.
Edit: Why is wanting this wrong? I have podcasts downloaded, and just plug my iPod in while I get ready in the morning, and it updates without me having to sit down and dick around with the computer. I really don't think this is unreasonable, and these problems occur every day.
Not only is it not unreasonable, it's a subtle design touch that you would almost expect Apple to think of. Similar to how yanking the headphones out of an iPod or iPhone pauses the music.
I wouldn't even call it subtle. It's an obvious one. Since I got the thing, I've had to deal with it. The worst part is when I forget. I get into work, sit down, and plug the iPod in, and BAM, whatever I was listening to stops, thing start to run on my computer, asking me to update QuickTime, before I can cancel out,...
Exactly. Plugging in the iPod should not interrupt iTunes. Sync in the background, display a notification if you must, but don't interrupt what the software on the desktop is currently doing.
I don't think it should even interrupt what the iPod is doing, but I can understand that technically that could be more difficult.
First of all you have to define what "using it" means. I would define it as a program is running and/or music is playing. So in those cases automated syncing wouldn't start, such that you can continue to do whatever you were doing and the device just charges.
With such a system you would add a lot of complexity to the system. How many people will be frustrated to see their devices not automatically syncing because the wouldn't know about all this technical nuances or they forgot that they still had an app running.
Another option would be to continue the audio process after syncing the device. Since syncing can take quite a lot of time. Users would be annoyed to see their devices start playing music without apparent reason. I mean how many would sit there with their earbuds, waiting for sound to continue. Admittedly audiobook/podcast listeners would more likely do so than music listeners.
So what are your current options without requesting those cans of worms? Canceling the sync on the device, which would still stop the audio process or disabling auto sync to not be bothered by it while listening to audiobooks, but be bothered to hit sync while updating podcasts.
"How many people will be frustrated to see their devices not automatically syncing because the wouldn't know about all this technical nuances or they forgot that they still had an app running."
Not as many as you think. I imagine most people aren't doing something on their iPod when they plug it in. Either way, Apple likely has stats on this. I understand your point, but then, how many people sync via iTunes? I mean, the actual Sync button in iTunes. How often does syncing actually need to take place?
And, the same question could be asked of the interruption. How man people plug their iPod in while using it and suddenly find that it takes over whatever they were doing. It takes over, without even asking.
"Another option would be to continue the audio process after syncing the device."
That defeats the purpose. And it's bad design. Why interrupt what the user is doing? Mac users love to comment on having to restart Windows for updates. No.
"Canceling the sync on the device, which would still stop the audio process or disabling auto sync to not be bothered by it while listening to audiobooks, but be bothered to hit sync while updating podcasts."
It's funny that you mention this because desktop syncing is where Android really got it wrong. Try buying a droid/htc/etc and try using the manufacturer's software for upgrading the firmware -- basically impossible for the average user. Jobs is trying to make devices easy for the average joe, not the power user who runs linux. Macs have always been in a niche market and quite happy with where it is.
One of the better comments by Jobs, "It’s really true, if you’ve got a bunch of rich guys who can afford their third computer — you know, they’ve got a desktop, they’ve got a portable and now they’re gonna have one of these to read with… that’s your market!"
I've got my iPhone, I've got my Macbook Pro, I've got my gaming systems (and we have a few Kindles floating around the house)... I need the iPad because?
A Macbook Pro equivalent back then was a lot more than $1800.
An iPhone equivalent would have been really expensive and it would have had a 10 minute battery life. Combined WiFi+GSM chip sets were still new back then. Wireless data plans were running at around £2 per megabyte (packet) or a max of ~50kbps (channel at 1.5c/min+).
Trying to build a useful tablet, with wireless capability, with the money left over in the electronics budget of the average consumer, after paying for a MBP and an iPhone? Not possible.
There would have been too many compromises for Apple at the time, whereas in 2010 they can do a pretty good job at it.
Compare a Macbook Pro to another laptop that is $500 cheaper. I'd argue there is $500 worth of value there. Is there $500 worth of value for the iPad over the Macbook Pro? I can think of a lot of things to do with $500 that would be better for me than buying an iPad.
I looked at all the things that a desktop is bad at, that the iPad is good at. Like reading on the couch, occupying the kids in the car, annotation and note-taking away from a traditional desk, reviewing a load of pictures in the field, diagramming or sketching.
I've spent more than $500 on an assortment of devices to meet those needs and none of them have been half as good as the iPad. So for me, it's absolutely worth it.
But my finding value in it certainly doesn't speak to whether you will or should. Maybe you don't have any of those needs.
A 700$ dell laptop + 500$ iPad costs less than a Apple's cheapest 15" laptop 1799$ (MacBook Pro) and Apple's 17" laptop is even more overpriced.
IMO, the best option for most people is to buy a cheap 17" laptop and an iPad. And for gamers a desktop + iPad is much more reasonable than a "gaming" laptop.
PS: When you consider how often the average users system is down (software/hardware/virus etc) having a simple independent device that lets them use email and most webpages is a huge advantage relative to spending 500$ for a better version on the same basic HW.
>Is there $500 worth of value for the iPad over the Macbook Pro?
If you're not working while you're on vacation, yet need to stay connected, that $500 will make you feel like a million dollars.
I took my iPad on our vacation in Vancouver late April. It was the only electronic device aside from my cell phone that we took. Rocking that thing loaded with movies and TV episodes on a plane was unbelievably convenient (and try getting a netbook with an IPS screen at that price point). At the condo after walking around the city or hiking in the North, I'd shoot off some emails or map out where we wanted to go next and enter it into Navigon app for the next day.
Not lugging a $2000 MBP around on a vacation is reason enough to celebrate :)
For me, no question. I spent over $1000 to upgrade to a newer MBP just a few weeks before the iPad was announced. Beautiful machine, does just what I wanted; I still regret it. Since getting my iPad, most evenings it doesn't even get opened.
You may not need or want one. I think the bigger point is our ideas about portability are evolving. In the late 80s people who wanted a portable computer were happy with 10-15lbs machines that were basically portable desktops. Throughout the 90s we started to get something that looked like a modern laptop but still too heavy an expensive for most people to carry around. In the mid-00s we get the modern version of a laptop. ~5-8lbs, wireless connectivity, fairly inexpensive. In the last few years we're seeing the shift towards even smaller machines. Inexpensive <5lbs net books with wireless connectivity standard. So maybe the next step is <2lbs tablets. The trend of evolution is pretty clear: Smaller, more connected, lighter, cheaper, better battery life. For lots of people a MacBook Pro is no longer the ideal of portability. It's a heavy integrated desktop that has to be plugged in every 3 or 4 hours to keep working.
Agreed. In the late 90's I thought a laptop could never replace my dual processor monster of the time in a workstation/server case (which I still happily carried to LAN parties and friends houses with a 19" CRT monitor)
In my case, I was caught in the flood of Nashville and lost all my electronics. The next day I bought an ipad to do email, get on the internet, play a few games and read whatever books I had saved in dropbox or my work computer. I even was able to find some youtube videos on how to (try) and repair some of my stuff. Still couldn't save my motorcycle, though. The ipad has been fantastic and only $500.
There is the argument of "Why not just buy a netbook for $200?" To that question, I suggest you go try out an ipad and remember that you aren't going to do any coding on it. It's a pretty fantastic machine.
That being said, I am a computer programmer in a Vanderbilt research department. At some point I will have to pick up a laptop just to do some real coding work (and SC2 when it drops). For everything else, I love my ipad.
If you were married to someone who read a lot then I think you'd understand. At night you just can't share the same Kindle to read 2 different books at the same time:)
I don't think the stylus was the biggest problem with the $2-3k tablet computers running a generic OS with applications that were mostly optimized for desktop use.
did you ever use a stylus? painfully unsexy in a pocket protector kind of way.
the stylus was a big reason why app interfaces were so terrible. it allowed lazy manufacturers to strap a pressure-sensitive screen onto a notebook and call it a tablet pc. crappy hardware disinterests great software developers.
Yep, I actually owned a few tablet PCs. A stylus is a fantastic interface for entering unstructured information, one handed input, or drawing. It's not great for navigating.
The biggest flaw of the Tablet PCs was that no one really committed to the interface. This was surely a result of the expense and not having much traction. And a giant failure on Microsoft's part.
However, the "keep handwriting around" thing was (and is) a good idea. People like to decry handwriting recognition, but the idea was really "use digital ink, don't convert".
--EDIT--
Also, the screens weren't pressure sensitive. They were capacitive, it only worked with the stylus.
I think we might see a stylus from Apple at some point in the future. They are unsexy and probably not generally something you want to construct your whole UI around. But they are clearly useful in some cases.
It’s just that, as with the missing arrow keys (also clearly sometimes useful) on the original Macintosh, Apple doesn’t want anyone to get into bad habits. You can call that paternalism but that’s just how Apple rolls :)
Stylus is not more at fault of terrible UI than anything else. Designers simply did not design for the fingers in the first place. If they were told to design the other way, they would do it. The mere presence of the stylus did not have to change anything. I actually like using stylus and don't see anything unsexy about it.
True, it didn't _have_ to change anything, but since it was there, there was no pressure to make dedicated applications and user interfaces that worked well with touch. With a stylus, you can use normal desktop applications even though it's sub-obtimal.
Handwriting has at least one advantage over a full qwerty keyboard: It's easier for one-handed text input. I remember taking notes on a small (almost netbook small) laptop years ago during a serious of walking tours of Rome and elsewhere in Italy. I ended up turning my backpack around and placing the laptop on it so that I could type. An actual pen and paper notebook would have been easier to use, but I wanted my notes on my computer. A tablet with good handwriting recognition would have been exactly what I needed then, and I can think of other instances where people might prefer it to a keyboard. It's exactly what would be useful for taking notes while standing or walking.
Fully agree with Jobs. Hand writing recognization may have sounded fine idea, and is rather easy to properly implement, but the thing is that hand-writing is dying skill. Although I learnt to hand-write in childhood and did it for 15 years, nowdays I absolutely prefer typewriting (keyboard). My one-yeard-old daughter will be native typewriter. Speed recognization doesn't currently work (good enough), and if it did, speaking cannot fully replace typing because of privacy issues etc.
There's one reason I'd want a stylus on the iPad (or any other tablet device), and it's not for handwriting.
It's for sketching. Diagrams, wireframes, or just a squirrel in the park. Give me a simple sketching program - think Painter Light. Let it synch to a repository on my desktop. Let me use the tablet as an actual tablet via bluetooth when I'm actually at my desk.
You can get stylus' for apple's touch devices, I recently ordered one for my iPad.
It's called a Pogo Sketch
I plan to use my iPad for doodling and whatnot of a night time in bed, aswell as reading and general media consumption - its really my "bed time" screen device.
I have the Pogo stylus. The problem with it, or rather with ArtStudio, Sketchpad, Brushes and all the stylus note-taking apps is the same: you cannot rest your hand on the screen. It registers touches from the hand instead of the stylus. That makes all of these apps pretty much useless as far as I am concerned: it is quite inconvenient to draw or write using these applications, even though some of them are extremely impressive otherwise. This, frankly, boggles my mind - granted the screen sensor API is closed, but is it not possible to do velocity distribution thresholding on different touch events, or maybe something more sophisticated, a Kalman filter or something, to distinguish these touches and ignore the 'stationary' ones?
cheap way to solve that problem is just to wear one of those gloves with holes cut out for the fingers... I use my bicycling gloves and they work great. I don't think we need to use fancy technology to solve this simple problem :-)
Thanks, I will try it.
Application-level solution would still be preferable, I think,
and is an interesting problem, aside from the immediate usability benefits.
The Pogo sketch works pretty well with the ArtStudio app. I can even get some "brush" effect. (No pressure sensitivity. I think it's all a software trick.)
Art Studio tapers from the start and to the end of a stroke over time of the stroke. So a faster stroke looks thinner, as more of it is drawn within the tapered times. Quite a few line strokes look quite pleasing due the effect. It's very neat.
I would love it if it had digital ink. Handwriting recognition means nothing to me but the ability to digitally add handwritten notes would make me buy the iPad. I was disappointed with the cancellation of the Courier.
If the iPad had digital ink and the ability to digitally markup documents with ink it would be the killer educational device.
I block print, and carry a notebook everywhere. So, having something that I can use in my "accustomed fashion" that would also be searchable via handwriting recognition would be a big win.
I also work in an industry where drawing geometric shapes are commonplace (chemical modeling). Yeah, you can do it with your finger, but sometimes the detail work is important and one's finger is a bit broad. Thus, working with a fine point/stylus would be an application win.
Is this a big enough market segment to matter? Not at this instant, because they're selling every one they make with NO difficulty. Would be nice to see something once the sales ramp down a bit, though.
You can do handwritten notes on the iPad, I've seen it done. A coworker uses iAnnotate and a stylus to make handwritten annotations in pdf files. Looks like it works pretty well.
The thing is that typing works fine for text. But as soon as you want to draw a diagram or a formula or whatever, you're way better off freehand.
I'll have to check this out. My first reaction is that since it isn't part of the operating system like digital ink is with Windows Tablet PC Edition then it's not as flexible or as usable as I'd like. Thanks for letting me know about this app.
Another concurrence, also about the Courier. I don't like typing on a touchscreen, and I actually enjoy handwriting - I think people underrate the degree to which it aids information retention and clear writing.
I've noticed that a number of personal translator devices (still a popular category of device, despite the capabilities of cell phones) have handwriting interfaces.
(The "in Korea, handwriting interfaces are for old people" meme is struggling to escape, but I need to keep telling myself this isn't slashdot. People are actually intelligent here)
I would think that a stylus would be awesome on the iPad for drawing applications (or even prototyping apps such as Omnigraffle). I haven't used an iPad yet but I imagine drawing with my index finger to be a little clumsy.
"We’re not the greatest to sell to the Fortune 500 and there’s 500 of them, 500 CIOs that are orifices that you have to go through to get to the Fortune 500."
Writing normal letters is very slow, sure. And making the system recognize ugly handwriting like mine is a torture for me and for the developers.
But, there's this thing called shorthand, used by secretaries who needed to write faster than her boss could speak.
It is still amazingly fast. The lack of proof of concept implementations of shorthand recognition is to me a failure in tablet user interface history.
You can't say it is not a good method without having tried it, and a computerized interface would convert the symbols to normal words in a second, providing instant feedback.
This is something I've considered before as well; in fact, I wonder why we aren't forced to learn it in school, considering we spend years in school, going to lectures and taking down notes of people talking as quickly as we can write.
In terms of computing, though, I think it would suffer many of the problems of handwriting recognition - wobbly lines, different sizes of people's writings, pens lifting off the page at different times - and some more of it's own.
For instance, Pitman shorthand comes in different versions - every few years they change the standard to try to make it more concise. Many of the shapes are in relative positions so the same thing above/on/below the line have different meanings, and the extra informational signals such as dots and dashes can be left off by more advanced people without changing the meaning.
Worse than that is that it's short because it's phonetic - so not only does the computer trying to recognise it have to do everything it does for handwriting recognition, but it also has another layer to do first - what sounds are you using and what words are you trying to write from them?
Instead of (pen strokes -> words), you get (pen strokes -> phonetic sounds -> words). Also, Pitman shorthand is pressure sensitive - light strokes for unvoiced sounds and heavy strokes for voiced sounds, IIRC.
Worse even than that, it's short because it allows you to leave information out where you know what it will be and to develop your own shortcuts where useful to you. You might abbreviate your name to "Sh" with {name indicating symbol}, or use "em eff ing" for manufacturing, or have a symbol for "Our newest product" or write "would like know b prices" for "we would like to know your best prices".
So now you have pen strokes -> sounds -> filling in missing sounds -> words -> filling in missing words -> text.
Seems useful for taking notes in a hurry and then writing them up in full yourself the same day or week, less useful for writing for other people or future reference, and even less useful for computer recognition.
"...for the universe of people using a PDA, 90% of them just want to get the information out. Only 10% want to do major input on this thing."
I love his line of thinking here. He really does have a knack for breaking things down to their simplest components and extracting useful information from that perspective.
The interesting takeaway for me is that Steve recognizes Apple's weaknesses (not being able to sell into the "enterprise") and is laser-focused on the consumer market. Seems to have paid off.
I also like the subtle way Jobs deflects the issue of whether or not tablet devices would be great for reading. He cracks a little joke and redirects the discussion.