Every time I read one of the sycophantic articles predicting OS X is going to become like IOS, I have to laugh. That’s not going to happen, at least, not in the long term. So in the spirit of the new year, when every fool (I’m speaking most definitely of myself here) proceeds to stuff foot deep into mouth, I offer the following IOS, OS X, iPad and iPod predictions:
First, IOS needs to move towards OS X as the devices get more memory, CPU power, and resolution. The iPad/iPhone OS needs to add a real filesystem with nested folders, powerful shells (yes, just like OS X’s), full bore printing, real multitasking, etc. The further IOS moves towards OS X, the more useful it will become.
The IOS devices themselves need lots of hardware improvements, and I’m sure we will see them as Apple realizes the actual way people want to use the iPad / i Pod, although it may take a few years yet before the simpleminded “dumb-it-down” attitude now infecting Apple decays in the face of reality. Right now, competing devices can’t offer these things, so there’s no pressure on Apple to do so either. But that competition is coming, absolutely guaranteed, and then I expect to see, in no particular order:
o more CPU power / cores
o higher resolution, pseudo 3d (stereo-vision), then finally volumetric 3D
o (much!) more high speed RAM
o (much!) more storage
o standard memory card interface(s)
o integrated tuners (hopefully a full bore SDR… can’t beat that!)
o better batteries, then fuel cells, then ultracaps for extreme high speed charging
o slow self-charging when off (solar, ambient light, heat, kinetics, etc.)
o wireless charging (via pads, initially.)
o IR and RF control outputs for use with entertainment systems as remotes
o removal of the ridiculous bezel and replacement with rear fold-out handholder
o integrated stand(s)
o more sensors (air pressure, EM pulse and field, FLIR cameras, chemical, “smell”, etc.)
o wireless instrumentation APIs for front ends like voltmeters, scopes, medical instruments, etc.
o Robot control APIs
o Home control APIs
o USB, then Thunderbolt, then… something even better, most likely wireless
o wireless HD output to media centers
o near field tech for credit card replacement
o integrated keyboard(s)
On the other hand, OS X needs to be more like itself, not like IOS — that’s entirely the wrong direction. OS X needs its warts fixed (like, when will we be able to refresh a changed network share, Apple? How about a decent file open dialog? When can we have menus on application windows instead of six monitors distant in multi-monitor systems?) and then it needs new features like automatically gathering in other Macs on the network and sharing computation loads, 3D support (not 2-view stereo-vision, which is lame, but actual 3D volumetric displays and i/o APIs), considerable improvement on speech input capability, etc.
Going towards IOS, sandboxes… all of these are crippling paths that will only hurt the OS, even in the short term. Just watch as competing tablets arise with more powerful capabilities… how long do you think Apple users will put up with Apple being the vendor of the least powerful machine out there?
I flat-out promise you that simplifying OS X towards IOS is exactly the wrong direction to go; and that the iPad and its brethren will “power-up” as the years go by, if for no other reason than market pressure.
We may have to endure a few years of mistakes like cloud storage (just wait till the first major failure for people to realize what a bad idea that is! I can imagine the screaming already…) but the path before us cannot stay locked to simplification.
Most competent people want power; they always have. The lower functioning will be dragged along, kicking and screaming, and so will designers who wrongly think everyone should be forced to use an interface designed for a 3 year old: pretty as hell, and limited to “safe and easy” things.
I look forward to being able to hold a computer that outperforms my Mac Pro in my hand, and which interacts ever more powerfully with the environment, both natural and technological. I’m sure you do, too… even if Apple is telling you that you really ought to be satisfied right now.
#1 by Piper on January 3, 2012 - 6:53 pm
Quote
Yes, apple should do exactly the opposite of what they’ve been doing the last couple of years, because it’s worked out so badly for them (?!)
The OSes WILL meet. And it won’t be in the middle as you fear, or nearer to Linux as you seem to wish. It will be much closer to iOS and the world will thank them for it.
The techies’ constant pleading to have “folders” in iOS speaks to their shortsightedness, stuck in the past. Hierarchical directories of files is an arcane concept, created just so people could move around the bits inside their machines. It’s not the best or most natural way to store knowledge and when Apple puts some sort of document management solution in iOS, I hope you understand how awesome it could all really be.
#2 by Piper on January 3, 2012 - 7:01 pm
Quote
Also, how would an electromagnetism sensor in an iDevice EVER translate into a useful application for consumers? I can see Fluke selling a dock connector dongle that does this, but to ask for it to be part of every iPhone makes as much sense as wanting every PC sold to control water valves so I can sprinkle my lawn remotely.
I agree with you about cloud storage and network-based apps in general tough– if we have such powerful processors and large storage nearby and cheaply why do I have to suffer roundtrips to compute? But most of your desires for changing the OSes clearly stems from your VERY niche usage patterns. How many people in the world run their computers on 2 monitors? Let alone six! The screen-anchored menu bar has been scientifically proven to be more efficient for mouse users — the only reason windows doesnt have it is that it was very specifically patented by Apple and defended. I hope you can look past your geek-centric snap judgements and come to appreciate those nuances.
#3 by admin on January 3, 2012 - 7:36 pm
Quote
You (and Apple) are confused about why it has worked out. It’s not because IOS is simple; it’s because IOS is adequate, and this is definitely the first time anything adequate has landed on a tablet or a phone.
But in fact, the simplicity of the current IOS isn’t due to design as much as it is the tiny amount of system RAM, the slow processor core(s), and the consequent inability to multitask.
You, and Apple, have mistaken this barely adequate, though first-to-ship, minimal platform as having succeeded because it is simple — but that’s not it at all. The success is coming because it is adequate, and because no one else can do any better. So far.
For instance, ever try to use Android’s multitasking? It’s horrible. The phones and tablets lag, battery consumption goes out the window, the OS misses texts and phone calls (I see this constantly. (we own several Androids, including a recent Droid… it’s terrible.)
Apple made exactly the right decision: IOS can’t multitask either, but instead of inflicting such a horrible fail on the users, they just said, never mind, we won’t do that at all, we’ll put a couple cheats in there so it kinda-sorta looks like multitasking, but isn’t… And IOS runs like a champ as a result. And we buy it. Of course. But not because IOS is simple…. rather because it kicks Android’s butt. They’re literally no competition, much as the Android fans desperately try to fool everyone into thinking otherwise.
But down the road a little ways, when multitasking *is* possible, and Android pulls it off (or whatever platform does it), then Apple will have to do so too, or they’re going to be left in the dust. That goes for every other feature as well, such as having a real file system, tuners, sensors, printing, etc.
Well, I’ll just say this: If that actually happens, the other companies will plow Apple under by jumping ahead of them, and probably very quickly, too. At which point you will most likely scream like a scalded cat.
But I don’t think it will happen. The whole IOS-ward trend thing isn’t happening because Apple is stupid and the fanboys/girls are stupid, it’s just because they’ve both misinterpreted what’s actually happening.
Apple will figure it out, and when they do, you’ll likely be one of the first in line praising them, I think.
If not… well, you’ll own an Android or other brand — because everyone else will, too. Who wants to play with the has-been, crippled technology? Not me. And not you, either — that’s actually most likely why you’re an Apple user. They’re way out in front right now. You’re just misinterpreting that to mean that they’re on the perfect path. It’s just not true.
No, hierarchical directories are a natural and efficient way to organize things the way the USER wants to organize them, not to mention also a good way to organize permissions by grouping and projects by relevance. Organization is one of those key concepts that promotes efficiency and productivity.
Try putting all the lines in a program in random order, and then tell me that organization is “arcane” or outdated. Or, try mixing all your taxable purchases with your tax-free purchases and explain to the IRS guy that “organization is irrelevant.”
Another thing: Internal to IOS, you know what’s in there? That’s right: folders. Hierarchical folders. And inside apps, too. Those are exactly the same kind of folders. Funny thing, eh? I guess Apple is having a little trouble drinking their own kool-aid, aren’t they?
Actually, heirarchical organization is indeed the most natural way to store knowledge. That’s why libraries have organized collections, alphabetic within categories; That’s why taxonomy has organized branches on trees; that’s why digits and numeric places aren’t in random order; that’s why programming is almost always linear and procedural; that’s why we only recite and learn the alphabet in one orderly sequence and order things in our language that way all our lives; that’s why spoken and written languages have formal grammars; that’s why horses pull carriages in teams up front instead of being randomly tied to geometrically unrelated points on the vehicle; that’s why genes produce orderly groups of cells; I could go on all day, really.
Let’s look at another attempt at a solution – Google’s search for mail instead of letting the user put it in folders – this only works if you (a) already know what you’re searching for and (b) there’s enough horsepower and data access to search *everything* for this, as well as any alternate spellings, etc. Whereas if I put my emails from my sister in the “Beth” folder, well, there they are, no search required. The larger the data set, the more organization will benefit it.
Search within a folder like “Beth” is much more likely to get me exactly what I’m looking for without dumping a bunch of irrelevant stuff than a general search of everything I’ve done, ever. Who says the only “Beth” in my life is my sister? But when I store her emails in there, I’m not going to put in one from Beth, the tech support chick at Apple, or my Beth Israel temple correspondence. Plus, my Beth folder will be within my Family folder… which further helps things go quickly, easily, intuitively. Not only that, such a search will execute far faster and will consume (waste, actually) far less energy in doing so.
Oh, I get it, all right. A tool 5 year olds can use. That’s the vision. Let’s dumb down everything until there is no effort required. Pick up your iPlod, it’ll stick a pacifier in your mouth and *tell* you what to do. No more asking, that’s hard stuff, after all!
Ok, that was just mean, but I’m sure you get my point. Let’s not go dumbing everything down just to appease the simpleminded and/or lazy.
#4 by admin on January 3, 2012 - 7:52 pm
Quote
Well, let’s see. Having radio/tv/wifi/phone reception troubles? First, such a sensor would allow you to locate and characterize EM leakage, such as RF noise coming from a device — and that would allow you to get rid of said noise much more easily. Want to shoot some great rainstorm photos? An EM sensor would allow your camera to trigger at just the right time so it precisely exposes those lightning bolts. For that matter, it could warn you if a lightning bolt was likely to hit you in the next minute or two, and you would almost certainly have time to do something about it, even if it is simply to duck so it isn’t *you* that gets hit. Interested in radio? A generalized EM sensor, say a 24-bit/90 MHz one, allows for SDR (software defined radio) such that you could listen to anything on the AM or shortwave bands, and in ultra high quality. Believe me, I know – I own one. Interested to see what the power consumption of a particular device is in order to economize or simply be green? An EM sensor allows you to measure current, because the magnetic field is directly related to current flow. Want to know if you’ve been bugged or low-jacked? An EM sensor can tell you. Or, you could hook up a high frequency microphone (or even just a super-tweeter from a hi-fi speaker) and you could literally see and hear what bats are having to say above your head or in your attic, or even determine if they are in your attic. Mice too. Such a sensor would also excel at capturing sonar returns for audio ranging, so you could measure all kinds of distances with it.
And so on. There are lots of uses for consumers. Tech types like me would have to write the software, but believe me, there are plenty of interesting applications out there, and we’re *really* talking about pennies for the sensor itself, just as we are for an IR sensor or a humidity sensor.
Wait a sec… aren’t you the guy that was cheering on Apple’s decisions? Are you saying they were wrong when they decided to support more than one monitor, and that it should therefore never be improved? You’re a funny person, you are.
Uh, no. Just no. The mousing distance from the window in use to the menu is shortest when the menu is on the window. That means that the time it takes to *get* to the menu is shortest when it’s on the window. It also means that you can’t get the wrong menu, because the only menu on your window is the one for the app in the window, whereas with the menu on the top of the display, it is painfully easy to have the wrong menu respond, all it takes is another application to be active, either because you activated it accidentally or on purpose, or because the other app just finished doing something and became the active application naturally. Display-locked menus are bad. You can’t defend them rationally, because they’re worse in every single way. We’re not talking about docks or menu bar apps by the way, just menus.
And all those problems exist on a single-screen computer; I didn’t even have to bring up how stupid display-top menus are on a multiple display computer, see?
#5 by Jonathan on January 3, 2012 - 11:00 pm
Quote
Actually, the top docked menu is more efficient, at least when working for a time in one app. Because the menu always resides against a “hard” screen edge the users mouse has an infinage area for over shoot. With cursor acceleration, the user can quickly “throw” the mouse at the correct menu and reliably hit it while at full clip. (IIRC) people have better x/y accuracy(aim at the direction of a target) than they have decelerating and stopping on a small target. The edge gives the menu an infinite depth to stop on.(because you can’t actually overshoot)
Now I can see issues on multi monitor systems she the menu is too far fro
The app requiring a visual search or if it doesn’t reside against a hard edge
#6 by quasimodo on January 4, 2012 - 2:09 pm
Quote
Apple started changing (and for the worse) in January last year. As SJ got sicker the beancounters and marketing bozos had opportunities to strut their stuff and came up with a multitude of badly thought out strategies, decisions and products.
They embarked on a path of alienating and jettisoning their pro market and power users. They decided that dumbing down to the “i” market was the way to go because of higher margin and that the rest were too much trouble (too many complaints, too much criticism, too many demands). Far easier to pander to consumers than having to put up with creators. Short range and stupid thinking.
The complaints and demands of expert users are invaluable. They are doing the necessary product testing in real life (remember real life?) situations, and what’s more, paying for the privilege! Only the technologically illiterate (beancounters and marketing bozos) see that as an annoyance.
Apple is now a classic case of huge company hubris.
Btw mega kudos for your comprehensive demonstration of the beauty and elegance of reasoned analysis in your refutation of piper’s comment.
#7 by admin on January 4, 2012 - 2:35 pm
Quote
You know what’s wrong with this idea? Getting back to the app you just came from. You whip your madly-accelerated mouse back down along the XY vector you’re presumably good at, but since, according to your thesis, the user is no good at stopping and requires an edge, the location you end up in your is random along an XY path — it may not even be on your app.
Pretty annoying conditions for working, I have to say.
Whereas, on the other hand, if the menu was close by, you’d drop it nearby, select the item right there on top of your app, and when the menu closed, you’d still be right on top of your app — and still in control of your mouse.
So, no. But it was really a good try, I have to say.
Anyone else?
#8 by Luke on January 6, 2012 - 6:38 pm
Quote
Are you shooting in the dark for things to make Apple sound bad? I mean come on, some things you are asking for are quite outrageous aren’t they? You wouldn’t be able to fit so many sensors and gadgets into a tablet and still create a handheld (comfortable to hold at least) device. And 6 monitors certainly is a fairly niche set up for the average user to behold. Especially with iMac sized monitors. The iPad is mainly designed as a device that is always available to you because of its portability, to allow you to stil be productive wherever you are. Not to be able to launch nuclear missiles from Russian subs, or to control the Hubble telescope. Taking the os too close to os x will make it much more difficult for intuitive touch screen input for the majority of users to bother choosing a tablet over a notebook or pc. Apple is trying to achieve an immersive experience rather than an all encompassing and do EVERYTHING device. Apple would be silly doing this anyway as it would make there higher end (and priced) products, unnecessary to a lot of users; thus depleting their market share in the computing industry (not a smart move by any business plan). I don’t think other tablet manufacturers (especially mobile phone manufacturers) have a strong chance of hurting the iPad. Apple creates the iPad using a dumbed down version of a very advanced computer operating system, where the majority of others are using an over clocked version of a fairly basic linux mobile phone os. They are instantly at a disadvantage with the potential of android, so apple doesnt need to worry too much about them. And if they do suddenly feel threatened, they just need to tweak a bit here and there and bring more and more power and functionality through the software rather than too much with the hardware. As it is this that makes the iPad great, the software rather than the hardware.
#9 by admin on January 6, 2012 - 11:45 pm
Quote
No. I’m quite a fan of my Apple hardware and software (and I own a lot of it.) I am simply observing that, in my opinion, they’re off track at the moment.
No. They’re coming; probably all of them, in time.
Certainly you can. Trust me on this, I’m an engineer. FYI, the iPad is mostly battery inside there; as battery performance increases, the required space for the same duration will drop, and even more space will become available. And that’s assuming that they keep using batteries, which is also not a certainty by any means.
Well, so what? Apple advertises the machines and the OS as being useful in that configuration; why am I off-base in any way for wanting it to work well, and/or expecting them to make good on their promises?
Disagree completely. The availability of a command shell doesn’t mean you have to use it. The availability of a robust printing system makes the unit more friendly, not less. Additional sensors make it more capable, but just like bluetooth or GPS, if you don’t need the feature, it’s certainly not in your way. Etc. Your point fails before it even gets out of the gate. Sorry.
My current iPad directly controls my stereo via WiFi, my thermostat, and my home’s lights, as well as keeps me up to date on the power flux in the auroral polar regions, it even send me an SMS message when there is an aurora. I sometimes work on remote servers using my iPad and an SSH shell app. My iPad can control my DSLR camera, and in fact, it can control telescopes as well.
Your idea that the iPad is (or should be) limited in how it can address the outside world is, in a word, weird. The more a handheld pad can do, the better. There’s no reason – at all – for those additional things to get in your way, or anyone else’s, if they are not things of interest to you.
Did you know there’s an app on the app store for the iPad to completely monitor and to some extent control a large yacht? Motors, environment… everything.
Did you know there’s a software defined radio application? Did you know there are apps that do Morse code, radioteletype, packet, and more for ham radio operators?
These are just the sort of things you think it shouldn’t do, yet there it is, doing them anyway. Right now. Why should the iPad of the future be limited to the things you can imagine?
I don’t see why it would change the touch screen input at all. You’ll have to explain that one. It’s a touch screen device. And the touch works, really, really well. Why change that at all?
No. They’d be creating a device that was “the” device to carry; and they could make the desktop the companion that was “the” device to have on your desk. Interface matters, and a touchpad can’t compete with a desktop for many kinds of work. In fact, this is where they are today: leading both categories in performance.
But here’s the thing: Whatever touchpads can be, they will be, because if Apple doesn’t make them that way, the competition will, and then Apple would be left behind in the market in the most obvious and troublesome manner. For this reason alone, I guarantee you that Apple will walk this path. Either by choice or by necessity, but they’ll walk it.
Not today. Tomorrow, when CPUs are faster, graphics are faster, memory is less expensive and takes up less space… then they will need to worry or they will be left behind. That, perhaps, is what you’re missing here: a sense of perspective that goes beyond today.
No. If an Android (or other) manufacturer offers a tablet that also does tv, radio, IR control of your stereo, etc., then a software tweak from Apple won’t fix the problem. Contrariwise, if Windows gets in there first with a powerful enough tablet that it canactually run what amounts to a full bore Windows OS…. either Apple needs to be right there with equal functionality, albeit better because OS X really is a lot better, or people will go with the more powerful choice.
It’s not about dumb tablets for dummies, even if some number of users fit into that category. It’s about a flexible tablet that can be as much as possible to as wide an audience as possible, and things like lacking multitasking, inability to interface with memory sticks, no local communications (radio, tv, etc.), incompatibility with the vast majority of home entertainment gear (no IR)… these things can in no way work in Apple’s favor — especially since they’re all a matter of adding a few pennies cost to a device that presently has a more than ample profit margin.
Apple’s going to do it my way. Just watch. Why? Simple: Because there is no other way that makes business sense.