The iPhone was a very useful device for me for a very long time. I used the iPhone, and then the iPhone 3G, for almost 3 years. It was a solid upgrade from my Palm Treo, and it did everything I ever wanted it to. Eventually, I switched to T-Mobile, and being a nerd, I wanted the freedoms that Android provided, and that Apple refused me. So now I use a Garminfone. But I still honor what the iPhone brought me and I appreciate it's innovations.
I will not be owning another handheld Apple device. The innovations that they bring are no longer relevant to me. However, being a college student, I do resent certain historically accepted truths: I hate expensive text books, I hate taking notes on paper, I hate teachers that don't let me use a laptop in class... The iPad seems to be attempting to change some of these things.
The iBookstore is seeking to bring textbooks to a mobile platform. This should make buying books CHEAPER, not to mention quite a bit lighter. What student DOESN'T look forward to dumping their heavy backpacks? It also opens the door to interactive learning techniques that are not currently available. The iBookstore doesn't currently have ANY of the text books I needed this semester, but Apple stands to profit form this, and they know it. Knowing their history with iTunes, I have no doubt that I will be saving more than the cost of an iPad before I graduate in 3 years.
Once I have my text books on my iPad, there will be no excuse for my teachers to not let me take notes on my iPad as well. The fantastic interface and apps available on the iPad will make scribbling all over my books, on "Note pads" next to it, and linking in web sites far easier than anything before... Imagine what Microsoft Office OneNote could have been if it was integrated with your text books? If these abilities are not already in the iPad, shame on Apple, and shame on the third party developers. I am confident that the open ecosystem of the App store will provide SOMETHING that gets these things done. Additionally, the iPad gets far better battery life than my laptop, and it is simply better suited for my needs anyway, given the proper software.
I was initially concerned about taking notes on the device, and not being able to print. I thought I would use Google Docs as a replacement, but alas, they did not support editing on the iPad. However, Apple has now announced that they are bringing printing support to the device, eliminated one of my biggest detraction. And as if that isn't enough, Google has announced that they are allowing the iPad to edit Google Documents. Even if no one develops a OneNote-for-your-textbooks type app, Google Wave and Google Docs will find a feasible solution. And since Google owns me anyway, this can only be a good thing. I welcome Google's cloud into my learning experience, and I am confident they will keep the innovations coming.
But I don't think I can justify buying a device for school that doesn't provide something for me for entertainment and after college as well. Being able to watch movies is great, and the iPad has plenty of options built in to that end. Additionally, VLC has developed an iPad version, bringing the many media formats that Apple doesn't endorse to the device. Gaming is always a fun distraction too, and the iPad is certainly strong in that as well.
But the iPad is lacking in one glaring way, and this is the culmination of this blog post: The lack of FaceTime.
There is a Camera Connection Kit for the iPad. It is used to connect your camera or your SD card, or by some innovative people to attach a hard drive, to your iPad, and it lets you copy videos and images from your camera. It even supports USB headphones, microphones, and MIDI devices. It is everything you expect from a USB port on your computer, simply missing drivers for certain devices. And one such device I miss is a webcam driver.
Apple is playing up Facetime, bringing it to the iPhone, the iPod touch, and probably to PCs and Macs in the near future. They bill it as an open standard (Although I havn't seen any competing apps yet), and that will surely mean it comes to Linux and Windows soon enough, not to mention the eventual entry into Android and other mobile platforms as well. With all of these devices running FaceTime, it would be a shame to not have it on an iPad, especially when the interface is already available.
I wouldn't mind having a built in camera in my iPad, possibly both a front facing and a rear facing one. But what would REALLY excite me is being able to plug my Logitech Pro 9000 into that bad boy, and have it load into Facetime. My webcam is better than any built-in cameras, it's microphone kicks ass, and I can place it and point it anywhere, regardless of how I hold the device. Additionally, they already know that taking pictures on a REAL digital camera is better than doing it on a built in sensor, hence why they built this adaptor in the first place.
I call to apple, PLEASE provide us with FaceTime's wonder, but PLEASE don't make us suffer with sub-par hardware... let us choose our hardware, and let us use Facetime on all of our devices. That is my one and only bar on getting the iPad.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Removing software features, feature clutter, and what to do about it
The other day, Google Reader did some spring cleaning. They removed a couple features, added some new ones, and generally did things that make me happy. However, they admit that it's not going to make everyone happy, and linked to a couple articles on the subject. One such article is the Adobe one referenced to in this blog.
Now, first off, it DOES hurt to lose features. It is NICE to know that when you rely on a feature, it might stick around for a while, and when it doesn't, it hurts. But in my life, there has never been a time where it hurt me in the long run. I have had friends who stuck with older versions of Firefox to keep particular features, but even they have all now upgraded. I guess the biggest victims are those who use websites (Facebook has had this problem on several occasions), and iPhone apps, where you don't have the OPTION to switch back to an older version. For them, there may not be a true alternitive, but this blog intends to give some options.
Feature clutter is a big problem. I use some VERY high end products in my career, namely ArcGIS and AutoCAD Map 3D, which have more features than any one person will ever use in their entire career. In fact, my GIS teacher said once that every task you will ever do can be done equally well with no less than 3 different tools, and no one of those is any better than the other, you must simply know which works best for you. AutoCAD has a similar problem. This is the kind of thing that I would like to see removed from those apps... However, they have a creative solution, one that Adobe does in their latest versions of Photoshop.
In that Adobe article, they describe a tool called Configurator. I have not used Adobe's particular tool, but AutoCAD has something that matches that explanation almost to the T. What it does, is allow you to pick and choose which tools you want displayed, and where you want them. AutoCAD goes so far as to ask you on first-start which default settings you want to use, giving options for several past versions. Once done, you can then mix-and-match which new features you want in your menus, toolbars, and keyboard shortcuts. It is an extreme example of giving the users every feature that has ever existed in AutoCAD, and allowing them to make it their own. ArcGIS isn't as customizable, giving only the option to create custom "Toolboxes" to store your most common tools, but it really is nice to have every tool that ever existed at my finger tips, just in case I need the features of one, that arn't met by another. Both allow you to stick toolbars anywhere on the screen, either as a stand alone box, or they can snap to any of the 4 sides of the screen, or the 4 corners; The options are endless in that regard. Photoshop, I'm sure, lies somewhere between the two, and other examples may exist.
Now, these are EXTREMELY complex apps, used by proffessionals who know what they want and will work to get it. They also cost a small fortune (ArcGIS will run $3-4 thousand just to get started, significantly more if you want some of the bigger extensions), so losing a feature might cost a user a lot of money. So what about the normal, every day user apps?
Having options on the DVD that don't install by default is nice. Being able to customize your toolbars and menus to fit your needs is really handy. Having a deprecated feature find it's way into the Extras folder on the DVD is probably the best option of all, then if you can track witch extras are being added, you can get a feel for what direction you need to go in for future releases. Firefox does this with it's extensions and toolbars, and we are beginning to see it gain traction in other web browsers as well. On the iPhone, this could be done through the "In-App purchases" feature of the app store, even as free "Purchases".
It IS hard to remove features, but as Adobe has demonstrated, it's really not the end of the world. In my experience, customization is the answer... Maybe others can offer other suggestions in the comments section here ;)
Now, first off, it DOES hurt to lose features. It is NICE to know that when you rely on a feature, it might stick around for a while, and when it doesn't, it hurts. But in my life, there has never been a time where it hurt me in the long run. I have had friends who stuck with older versions of Firefox to keep particular features, but even they have all now upgraded. I guess the biggest victims are those who use websites (Facebook has had this problem on several occasions), and iPhone apps, where you don't have the OPTION to switch back to an older version. For them, there may not be a true alternitive, but this blog intends to give some options.
Feature clutter is a big problem. I use some VERY high end products in my career, namely ArcGIS and AutoCAD Map 3D, which have more features than any one person will ever use in their entire career. In fact, my GIS teacher said once that every task you will ever do can be done equally well with no less than 3 different tools, and no one of those is any better than the other, you must simply know which works best for you. AutoCAD has a similar problem. This is the kind of thing that I would like to see removed from those apps... However, they have a creative solution, one that Adobe does in their latest versions of Photoshop.
In that Adobe article, they describe a tool called Configurator. I have not used Adobe's particular tool, but AutoCAD has something that matches that explanation almost to the T. What it does, is allow you to pick and choose which tools you want displayed, and where you want them. AutoCAD goes so far as to ask you on first-start which default settings you want to use, giving options for several past versions. Once done, you can then mix-and-match which new features you want in your menus, toolbars, and keyboard shortcuts. It is an extreme example of giving the users every feature that has ever existed in AutoCAD, and allowing them to make it their own. ArcGIS isn't as customizable, giving only the option to create custom "Toolboxes" to store your most common tools, but it really is nice to have every tool that ever existed at my finger tips, just in case I need the features of one, that arn't met by another. Both allow you to stick toolbars anywhere on the screen, either as a stand alone box, or they can snap to any of the 4 sides of the screen, or the 4 corners; The options are endless in that regard. Photoshop, I'm sure, lies somewhere between the two, and other examples may exist.
Now, these are EXTREMELY complex apps, used by proffessionals who know what they want and will work to get it. They also cost a small fortune (ArcGIS will run $3-4 thousand just to get started, significantly more if you want some of the bigger extensions), so losing a feature might cost a user a lot of money. So what about the normal, every day user apps?
Having options on the DVD that don't install by default is nice. Being able to customize your toolbars and menus to fit your needs is really handy. Having a deprecated feature find it's way into the Extras folder on the DVD is probably the best option of all, then if you can track witch extras are being added, you can get a feel for what direction you need to go in for future releases. Firefox does this with it's extensions and toolbars, and we are beginning to see it gain traction in other web browsers as well. On the iPhone, this could be done through the "In-App purchases" feature of the app store, even as free "Purchases".
It IS hard to remove features, but as Adobe has demonstrated, it's really not the end of the world. In my experience, customization is the answer... Maybe others can offer other suggestions in the comments section here ;)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Apple might be on to something...
Before I get to the link, let me get into a debate I have been having with myself, often at the expense of those around me...
Apple has done an amazing thing with the iPhone/iPod touch, by making a device that is just amazingly intuitive, with amazing hardware, software, and a fan base that will never let it fail. They continued that success with a great app store, which allows a person to expand the functionality of their already amazing phone. They then carried those inovations, and many others into the iPad.
Poor naming aside, I think the iPad is an amazing product for a select group of people. Finally, students and profesionals can find a home in the Apple sub-notebook environment (I am including handhelds in that catagory for the purposes of this discussion). The iPad trully is better than a netbook in every way that it was designed.
My conclusion here is that Apple has built a device that is trully amazing. It seems to be the perfect combination of software and hardware. Finally, what makes it such is the wild success of the app store.
However, Apple is very tyranical in how they run the app store. Sure, they want to make sure all the software in their store works to their standards and maintains their philosophies. To that end, they are entitled. On the other hand, there are those of us that want to be able to install anything we want, and Apple won't allow us to. We must resort to jailbreaking to get back the control Apple has taken.
This brings me to the article. Steve Jobs is right, Apple has the right to make any mandates on their store that they feel is correct. Ryan Tate is ALSO correct in that users deserve the right to run software they want, weather it meets Apple's standards or not; Further, developers deserve the right to market to those who do not share Apple's beliefs. And thus is the debate...
The debate might be a small one on a device like the iPhone or iPad. They are, afterall, merely advanced handheld devices. No one expects anything more than what's in Apple's walled garden. However, rumor has it that some future version of Mac OS will have a similar App Store. And I have to say that I agree such a move is likely.
The App store is brilliant for most of the people out there. It provides easy, one stop access to all the available software titles, and it keeps them up to date easily, forever. Linux distrobutions have software management systems that are similar to that end, and I defend them tooth and nail. The entire system is simply brilliant.
However, where Apple's app store diverges from the software management systems on Linux is simple, but vitally important: Even though a linux distribution has it's own repositories, with the software they have tested and recommend, it is still possible to add OTHER software sources. Apple has their source, and that is it.
I can't morally suggest that Apple should release the control they have over the app store. It provides a great solution for the mass majority of the people who use their devices, and it keeps all software on the device up to date. But before I can endorse further advancement of the App store into the mac world, I have to see the ability to add other sources. I would be happy if it was hidden, difficult to enable, and came with a warning that says "Adding other sources is not recommended, and may give you access to software that may void your warranty, please proceed at your own risk"... As long as it IS there, and it is official.
This is the solution I envision to the debate that Mr Jobs and Mr Tate had in that email thread, and if they hope to release the app store to full sized computers, I suggest that it is the ONLY solution that will save Apple.
I only hope that if ANY system gets an app store with third party repositories, that they ALL do.
Apple has done an amazing thing with the iPhone/iPod touch, by making a device that is just amazingly intuitive, with amazing hardware, software, and a fan base that will never let it fail. They continued that success with a great app store, which allows a person to expand the functionality of their already amazing phone. They then carried those inovations, and many others into the iPad.
Poor naming aside, I think the iPad is an amazing product for a select group of people. Finally, students and profesionals can find a home in the Apple sub-notebook environment (I am including handhelds in that catagory for the purposes of this discussion). The iPad trully is better than a netbook in every way that it was designed.
My conclusion here is that Apple has built a device that is trully amazing. It seems to be the perfect combination of software and hardware. Finally, what makes it such is the wild success of the app store.
However, Apple is very tyranical in how they run the app store. Sure, they want to make sure all the software in their store works to their standards and maintains their philosophies. To that end, they are entitled. On the other hand, there are those of us that want to be able to install anything we want, and Apple won't allow us to. We must resort to jailbreaking to get back the control Apple has taken.
This brings me to the article. Steve Jobs is right, Apple has the right to make any mandates on their store that they feel is correct. Ryan Tate is ALSO correct in that users deserve the right to run software they want, weather it meets Apple's standards or not; Further, developers deserve the right to market to those who do not share Apple's beliefs. And thus is the debate...
The debate might be a small one on a device like the iPhone or iPad. They are, afterall, merely advanced handheld devices. No one expects anything more than what's in Apple's walled garden. However, rumor has it that some future version of Mac OS will have a similar App Store. And I have to say that I agree such a move is likely.
The App store is brilliant for most of the people out there. It provides easy, one stop access to all the available software titles, and it keeps them up to date easily, forever. Linux distrobutions have software management systems that are similar to that end, and I defend them tooth and nail. The entire system is simply brilliant.
However, where Apple's app store diverges from the software management systems on Linux is simple, but vitally important: Even though a linux distribution has it's own repositories, with the software they have tested and recommend, it is still possible to add OTHER software sources. Apple has their source, and that is it.
I can't morally suggest that Apple should release the control they have over the app store. It provides a great solution for the mass majority of the people who use their devices, and it keeps all software on the device up to date. But before I can endorse further advancement of the App store into the mac world, I have to see the ability to add other sources. I would be happy if it was hidden, difficult to enable, and came with a warning that says "Adding other sources is not recommended, and may give you access to software that may void your warranty, please proceed at your own risk"... As long as it IS there, and it is official.
This is the solution I envision to the debate that Mr Jobs and Mr Tate had in that email thread, and if they hope to release the app store to full sized computers, I suggest that it is the ONLY solution that will save Apple.
I only hope that if ANY system gets an app store with third party repositories, that they ALL do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)