Apple's iPad is the future. This is why | Hacker News Reader

Apple's iPad is the future. This is why

msnbc.msn.com

9 pointsedw5198 comments

"The incumbents said the personal computer was inadequate and underpowered. It couldn't even multitask, unlike their glorious, room-filling computers. The personal computer would never catch on, they cried. They were wrong."

Notice how the modern personal computer eventually grew features that made it a more attractive proposition for people who were addicted to the power of the previous model. A modern personal computer offers all of the power and flexibility of an early vacuum tube computer, and much much more, without needing to deal with burned-out vacuum tubes (suck on that, people who think the command line is a big deal!). A quick perusal of the iPad programming guide reveals that there are now rudimentary features for sharing data between applications. That said...

My worry is that with the New World computing model (locked down by default, with the inviolability of the locks arguably backed by the DMCA) this process will be significantly slower and less pleasant if the mothership (whoever 'owns' the platform) has that kind of leverage over people who would otherwise give it a well-deserved kick in the pants. Here is a well-known app for the early Macintosh, well into 'jailbreaking' territory:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...

It is interesting to compare the difference between then and now in what kind of experience the guy who develops Switcher ends up having.

This is actually a Gizmodo article which MSN is reposting.

I will not give my opinion on the article being right or wrong. However, the CLI and maybe the current GUI will survive, even if they become a minority. The joy of computers today is that people suddently have access to an amazing, powerful and versatile tool, which is the programmable computer.

Our computers are not designed to do one thing, they are designed to be flexible and allow lots of things to be done. That's why you can read a DVD, transcode its contents, take screen captures and send them by email or serve the whole movie, maybe even edited, to the whole world using a peer to peer application. Obviously this flexibility is not seen as a good thing by some industries, but that's a different matter.

Now, to interact and program this flexible machine you can do two things, or a mix of them: on the one hand, you can give the user a powerful language to express their ideas and make the computer ask only a single question ("Huh?"), and that would be a CLI and its prompt; or you can give the user a simple language of pointing and "Huh!" and make the computer ask the right questions to them in the hope you offer them enough options.

The first way is usually more powerful and flexible, easier to implement but harder to use, and the second option is way easier to use but much more difficult to implement, and there are a lot of books with dissertations about how to ask the right questions and how to choose which questions to ask, because you cannot give every option.

Probably, the majority of people using computers in the world today only need to be asked simple and very direct questions and a simple computer that doesn't really get in the way and uses a different metaphore could be the solution, but I challenge that the number of computer experts and power users is in the millions anyway and they need a CLI or a slightly more complex GUI to express what they want to do, so I don't think those interfaces are going to die, even if they do "lose the battle", if we such a battle exists. As a programmer and power user, I turn to the CLI many times a day simply because the GUI isn't asking the right questions, and I hope it remains an option in future computers.

With the amount of people making comments on anti-iPad posts to the tune of "don't turn OpenSource/anti-DRM/technology into a religion," I feel obligated to point out that all of these "iPad is the future" posts are in the process of turning the iPad into a 'religion' as well.

The iPad will only get so far if Apple is the only manufacturer/distributor. That being said it would probably be more accurate to say:

  Apple's iPad will take the computer world by storm.

(as in: will be a huge success, selling many units), or

  Devices like Apple's iPad are the future.

To say "Apple's iPad is the future" paints of a picture of the future where Apple has replaced Microsoft as the 800lb. gorilla of the software industry, and all software that can be run on devices has to be approved by Apple.

[ Note: if you want to respond to this post with "if you don't like it don't buy it," please indicate whether or not you are in the "iPad will be the only device in the future" camp. If you are, you are effectively telling me to choose not to use computers if I don't like the iPad (since you feel that the iPad will be the only computer device in the future). ]

"X" is the future is a common figure of speech. It's not necessarily implying what you describe as "paints of a picture of the future where Apple has replaced Microsoft as the 800lb. gorilla of the software industry" -- it simply means that "X" has some quality that signifies a particular future.

I don't think it's that the iPad will be the future as much as it is the form factor and simplicity of the ipad will be the future. Apple is paving the way in this case because they focus more on polish and e "average consumer" than they do features and geeks. The rest of the industry will be caught with their pants down just like they were with the iPhone, but they will quickly catch up and all the gripes us geeks have about openness and lack of features will be addressed. Say what you will about Apple, but they certainly shake things up and inspire competition, and that's a good thing. Oh, and I'm posting this from my new iPad :)

What's an ipad? :p

no one outside the tech bubble knows/cares.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com