It's quite ironic because as far as I remember, Apple used to have a strong stance against that, showing e.g. by the fact that Macbooks never come with touch screens.
Also, there was a loud opposition at least by power users who didn't like that change (sometimes just for the sake of hating change or hating MS IMO). Let's see if it will be different in this case.
For instance PDAs and 'smartphones' where tried and got mild commercial viability way ahead of time with Windows Pocket, but they couldn't push it to the point it could be mainstream. Tablets were also tried first. Netbooks. Motion tracking in games. ARM base laptops (we're not there yet, but that should be coming ?)
I almost prefer Google's attitude of just launching and roughlessly killing new products, the stigma left is smaller.
I think it also had to do with their sheer size. Researching stuff is fine, but in many cases they were pushing out half-baked solution with the force of the herd of elephants that Microsoft is. Had a company 1/100th their size tried the same thing, no big deal, just ignore it.
But when a company worth $1tn these days does the same thing, whatever they're promoting is seen everywhere.
They really needed something in-between Microsoft Research (research almost nobody sees) and full blown Microsoft. Maybe a Microsoft Skunkworks Startup? :)
The iPod, Zune, and Creative Nomad existed for something like 7 or more years before smartphones came around.
It's great that you could subscribe to a music service and sync with whatever songs you wanted, but that doesn't seem terribly useful compared to purchasing albums if you have no ability to queue up any song on demand.
Spotify feels more like unlimited access than those subscription services ever did.
As for Jobs' opinion, I think he mostly just held very personal feelings toward albums as a dude who grew up in the classic rock era. Plus, at the time, subscription services existed and just weren't very popular (see above).
Combine that with the launch of the ipad and the future of ARM based laptops was delayed over a decade. Netbook makers were poised to release Arm netbooks only to get scared when the ipad was announced.
I'm not so sure about netbooks though: I remember that being something the played "catchup or kill" on. Any links to refresh my history?
Interestingly Apple said they had no interest in the Netbook market. They released the MacBook Air which had a roughly equivolent form factor but at a wildly different price point.
Not just that: they effectively had to extend its life as there was no way Vista was going to run well on those small devices and 7 wasn't ready for roll-out.
PDAs and 'smartphones' didn't become mainstream pre-Apple, but their design was also more productive. Were it to catch on, we'd have better tools. Microsoft still makes superior tablets, and the only OS for tablets that's usable for productive work.
I only wish they didn't rush to market with Windows phones. Their UI language was a breath of fresh air, and they had a chance to make good smartphones for pro users and professionals. People usually blame the app store, but based on my brother's experience with an early Windows Phone, IMO they released the OS with way too little built-in features compared to contemporary Android systems. It could have survived longer were it more functional out of the box.
More productive than your current iPhone or Android phone?
That's some seriously rose colored glasses.
And I had $800 "smartphones" pre iPhone, and they were all crap...
I know a sizeable number of people were extremely productive on their PDAs. Yet I think there was heavy downsides that were only overcome by sheer dedication from super users:
- laughable battery time, difficult to extend compared to other portable devices
- cell connectivity was just not a thing, or it would half the already thin battery time (tried with a compact flash modem)
- carrier support was super limited where I was, I had to get a new contract from a geeky carrier just for the device.
- downloading and running software from the device itself was possible yet there was very few stuff that could be downloaded, making the device mostly a side companion to a computer
I used a Toshiba PDA on and off for a year, tried a Compaq one as there seem to be more enthusiast on it, it still felt like it wasn't going anywhere with really little to no engagement from Microsoft from a standard user perspective.
Disclaimer: it was in Japan, but comparing PDAs to feature phones, phones had:
- a workable camera very early on
- a decent ecosystem of Java apps downloadable from the phone without any computer reliance (and they were fairly easy to code)
- decent battery life, easy to extend
- fast and efficient mailers (though lack of attachment support and alternative accounts was a pain)
- very good connectivity, of course
- decent calendar/reminder/contacts features (not auto synced though, which was a PITA)
Genuinely, in a lot of aspects, feature phones were more 'professional' and productive than PDAs for anyone in the go or heavily relying on a mobile device. Just like the iPhone is now, really.
The windows CE phones were a step in the right direction, but they still didn't get major carrier buyin, and battery life was still way lower than their generation's feature phone who were starting to get GPS, MP3 players, payment apps etc.
Pieces of a perfect productivity tool are, or were, all there, scattered across time and devices. PDAs, feature phones, modern smartphones. For some reason, they were not put in a single package so far.
I personally think it's because they just weren't worth it for the general public (including pros). Keyboards on android devices didn't convince, interestingly stylus and heavy multitasking are kicking and alive on the Samsung Note series, but only on the iPad for iOS.
'PDA's for specific, dedicated use cases are still a ton in the wild, just as custom android devices also flourish in the manufacture, retail or goods management world (basically "true" productivity-oriented worlds). They found their niche in that respect, the same way Google Glass also went to the business world in face of customer resistance. I see it as a natural evolution in that respect.
Mostly API convergence. Which they have been doing for years now (adding UIKit parity to OS X), Marzipan is just the latest and more encompassing version.
>It's quite ironic because as far as I remember, Apple used to have a strong stance against that, showing e.g. by the fact that Macbooks never come with touch screens.
And they still consider those two as different use cases, better served with different UIs.
Marzipan is not about sharing the UI paradigms -- its about making it easier to port common code.
Making platforms more similar so it easier to target that platform is very nice for developers. If you can do it without losing what makes users want the different devices then there's no downside.
How well they can pull that off is a different question altogether.
Mac users feel neglected anyway, so I’m very willing to let them try.
To get an idea, the developer has been playing with a tool he wrote that lets him take an x86 build of an iOS app - when you run any iOS app in the simulator it creates an x86 build - and “marzanipies” it.
For instance he took a binary build of Marco’s Overcast app (with permission) and turned it into a Mac app.
I wouldn't read too much else into the project otherwise. Running iOS apps on a Mac may be useful for apps that are not much more than a glorified webpage (so... hmm, most apps?), but it won't be the way to "unify" the mobile and desktop worlds (which still doesn't make sense anyway).
What other platforms did Microsoft have? I can only remember windows phone, but that never seemed that popular.
And all their 5 users?
It's a comment to put into perspective the relative insignificance of the platform -- and thus that the statement of the parent that it supported that too doesn't amount to much.
It also shows how MS effort was either badly thought out from the start, or at least failed -- and all those cross-platform touch-first changes of Windows UI where later toned down.
I've always been a Windows dev, and I've never seen a compelling reason to take up UWP.
In addition, UWP and Fluent Design System had a hard time coming back from "these are the constraints in all situations" to "here's how you flex when these are the constraints of the current system versus when they are merely guidelines that you can break if your user accepts it". That became a focus in Fluent Design System 2.0, but it certainly does feel like it may have been too late avoid the "worst common denominator" branding that Fluent and UWP got painted with early on.
UWP/Fluent did a lot of things right technically that Apple should apply to efforts like Marzipan, they just might not realize it based on the tarnished brand.
UIKit may be more modern in some specific aspects, but it’s also far more limited. Here’s a good post highlighting some of the most obvious differences: https://pilky.me/appreciating-appkit-part-1/