Is iOS 8 bad coding or planned obsolescence?

[I7guy]

If those people who experience it interact with their phone and their interaction isn't registered, what would one call that? Seems like a very straightforward and simple concept. Discussing semantics of what the meaning of "is" is (referencing the famous Clinton ordeals) doesn't really change what it is, it's just running circles around what's there nonetheless.

Semantics is the key here; nothing straight forward as there is a paradigm shift. In the same way you don't shift your tranny into reverse whilst moving forward, (why don't you do this and is the car less responsive?), the new paradigm is that you cannot interact with the phone on the opening screen whilst the icons are moving. Different than previous gens, less responsive, no...because the phone is faster and apps like safari work faster with intensive websites. (I like the reference to "is", and yes I got it without explanation#)

 

[C DM]

Semantics is the key here; nothing straight forward as there is a paradigm shift. In the same way you don't shift your tranny into reverse whilst moving forward, (why don't you do this and is the car less responsive?), the new paradigm is that you cannot interact with the phone on the opening screen whilst the icons are moving. Different than previous gens, less responsive, no...because the phone is faster and apps like safari work faster with intensive websites. (I like the reference to "is", and yes I got it without explanation#)

Well, like I said, it's that way perhaps by design (and not due to some performance issue or something like that). But the fact that there is a time when user input is now ignored is still a fact, whatever the reason is behind it.

 

[I7guy]

Well, like I said, it's that way perhaps by design (and not due to some performance issue or something like that). But the fact that there is a time when user input is now ignored is still a facet, whatever the reason is behind it.

Have to be careful here as the phone is responsive. Unlock the phone and immediately hit the power button and the phone will happily lock in mid-animation. So it can't really be said user input is ignored. Since the phone accepted the button press.

Things not being so black and white not splitting neutrinos and trying to time it on an atomic clock. That said I fully agree with this statement: "some people have reported that on occasion an inability to use the touchscreen instantly after the device is unlocked." That statement is the iOS equivalent of the pin question.

 

[dannyyankou]

I like the design actually. I always felt like there was too much going on with iOS 6. iOS 7/8 feels like a more simple, pure experience.

 

[C DM]

Have to be careful here as the phone is responsive. Unlock the phone and immediately hit the power button and the phone will happily lock in mid-animation. So it can't really be said user input is ignored. Since the phone accepted the button press.

Things not being so black and white not splitting neutrinos and trying to time it on an atomic clock. That said I fully agree with this statement: "some people have reported that on occasion an inability to use the touchscreen instantly after the device is unlocked." That statement is the iOS equivalent of the pin question.

Clearly the user screen interaction is ignored in those occasions (and wasn't before), as has been pointed out quite a few times. That's not in question, nor is it something that somehow only applies to just some (even if only some might actually notice it and even fewer might actually care about it).

It seems like we are somewhere between beating around the bush and beating a dead horse at this point (and really even earlier). Suffice it to say what needed to be pointed out and said about it has been done more than a few times and going in semantical circles around it all isn't going to be useful.

 

[I7guy]

Clearly the user screen interaction is ignored in those occasions (and wasn't before), as has been pointed out quite a few times. That's not in question, nor is it something that somehow only applies to just some (even if only some might actually notice it and even fewer might actually care about it).

It seems like we are somewhere between beating around the bush and beating a dead horse at this point (and really even earlier). Suffice it to say what needed to be pointed out and said about it has been done more than a few times and going in semantical circles around it all isn't going to be useful.

Right the horse is really, really, really dead, but that is the point, where out of 10 million+ users this behavior while extremely narrow in scope seems to be irrelevant to the majority of users. I say seems because nobody knows.

 

[C DM]

Right the horse is really, really, really dead, but that is the point, where out of 10 million+ users this behavior while extremely narrow in scope seems to be irrelevant to the majority of users. I say seems because nobody knows.

That may very well be the case, and that's fine, since, as I kept on pointing out, that part of it all wasn't the point that was being addessed anyway.

 

[I7guy]

That may very well be the case, and that's fine, since, as I kept on pointing out, that part of it all wasn't the point that was being addessed anyway.

But the original premise of the discussion was false, which is "ios 8 is less responsive". That is blatantly incorrect as response is perfect when using the lock button. So I agree that Apple now requires the screen to stop moving before allowing interactions on said screen. How that changed from prior versions I honestly don't know.

 

[C DM]

But the original premise of the discussion was false, which is "ios 8 is less responsive". That is blatantly incorrect as response is perfect when using the lock button. So I agree that Apple now requires the screen to stop moving before allowing interactions on said screen. How that changed from prior versions I honestly don't know.

Well, since that was also addrssed a few times already, it'd just more beating around the bush and beating a dead horse to keep circling around it all, which I don't think is really useful. I think it's fair to say that that particular discussion has been exhausted (and has been for a little while now it seems) and at best can only simply continue going in circles.

 

[MaciMac100]

If you didn't know, that iOS 8 vs iOS 3 comparision Youtube video is made by William Van Hecke, and if that doesn't ring a bell, he's the User Experience Lead for The Omni Group.

Visible UI better respond to input right away.

http://heta.metalbat.com/visible-ui-had-better-respond-to-input-right-away/

"Maybe the most remarkable thing about the original iPhone to me, and the subsequent evolution of iOS, was how every single gesture you made was reflected instantaneously and realistically on the screen. There was no lagging, no obvious dropped frames, no hanging."

"You can look at these as performance bugs, or say that the animations are just too long. But what was so brilliant about early iOS was that it enforced UI design that made the system feel faster, even when it wasn’t actually fast. It never threw away your input. It waited to show you stuff until it could fulfill the promise of that stuff. So even when performance was slow, at least you could trust the system to let you know when it was ready, and to try to accept your input while it was working on something else."

Bad design? Bad coding? Something else? I just want iOS to feel responsive, waiting for my inputs, instead of throwing them away.

----------

iOS 8 is less responsive.

 

[I7guy]

Prove iOS 8 is less responsive overall than iOS 3. You made a statement as a fact, so you should be able to prove it.

 

[Narcaz]

If you didn't know, that iOS 8 vs iOS 3 comparision Youtube video is made by William Van Hecke, and if that doesn't ring a bell, he's the User Experience Lead for The Omni Group.

Visible UI better respond to input right away.

http://heta.metalbat.com/visible-ui-had-better-respond-to-input-right-away/

"Maybe the most remarkable thing about the original iPhone to me, and the subsequent evolution of iOS, was how every single gesture you made was reflected instantaneously and realistically on the screen. There was no lagging, no obvious dropped frames, no hanging."

"You can look at these as performance bugs, or say that the animations are just too long. But what was so brilliant about early iOS was that it enforced UI design that made the system feel faster, even when it wasn’t actually fast. It never threw away your input. It waited to show you stuff until it could fulfill the promise of that stuff. So even when performance was slow, at least you could trust the system to let you know when it was ready, and to try to accept your input while it was working on something else."

Bad design? Bad coding? Something else? I just want iOS to feel responsive, waiting for my inputs, instead of throwing them away.

----------

iOS 8 is less responsive.

William who? Who is this guy and why is he allowed to complain about the flawless iOS8? He only earned a masters degree in something lame like Human-Centered Design & Engineering and studied useless things like humane interface guidelines, which include scientific concepts of responsiveness. Ridiculous. Everbody knows that macrumors forum members invented these concepts to complain about Apple....

 

[MaciMac100]

Prove iOS 8 is less responsive overall than iOS 3. You made a statement as a fact, so you should be able to prove it.

You're right;

This is my personal opinion: In some areas original iPhone running iOS 3 could be more responsive than iPhone 6 (marketed by Apple as 50x more cpu power) running iOS 8.

I don't have original iPhone myself. The video can be fake.

 

[I7guy]

You're right;

This is my personal opinion: In some areas original iPhone running iOS 3 could be more responsive than iPhone 6 (marketed by Apple as 50x more cpu power) running iOS 8.

I don't have original iPhone myself. The video can be fake.

The video may not be fake, but i think responsive is not a synonym of faster; and it seems the two are being confused.

Responsive is the ability of the screen to accept input; compared to what we typically think of faster. For example try to virtually load or imagine loading nin.com from both devices; and note which is more responsive and which is faster. I think you can imagine the outcome. The less "responsive" device probably will finish first by a large margin.

 

[MaciMac100]

Of course Apple A8 cpu is miles faster at loading web pages. We are comparing here two device which aren't even in same league in benchmarks, but if you read that blog post there's something interesting about responsiveness;

"Maybe the most iconic example of this dedication to responsiveness was the way Safari and Maps drew placeholder patterns when you scrolled beyond what had been loaded — rather than slowing down, the system would always go exactly where you wanted and then catch up."

Now only if they could also finally fix this bugged copy paste in iOS 8...

 

[I7guy]

Maps can go as fast as I can scroll and draws placeholder patterns so not really sure about that quote. To me that's uber responsive.

 

[MaciMac100]

Check that video; iOS 8 is not responding during animations unlike iOS 3. So yeah, it's less responsive and downgrade in that area.

 

[I7guy]

it helps to quantify this aspect of overall performance; (time spent waiting for animations / total time spent on phone) = teeny tiny percentage.

The amount of time debating this is so overblown to the actual behavior. If time was money, people would have lost their shirts.

 

[C DM]

Check that video; iOS 8 is not responding during animations unlike iOS 3. So yeah, it's less responsive and downgrade in that area.

That is definitely a loss of responsiveness when it comes to that aspect of usability.

Nevertheless, it seems like people sometimes attribute different things to responsiveness and as to what it means (at least to them) and what effect it has (again, at least on them). That said, it doesn't change the fact that there's definitely a loss of responsiveness there (given that to what degree and what effect it might have isn't relevant in establishing that).

 

[I7guy]

That is definitely a loss of responsiveness when it comes to that aspect of usability.

Nevertheless, it seems like people sometimes attribute different things to responsiveness and as to what it means (at least to them) and what effect it has (again, at least on them). That said, it doesn't change the fact that there's definitely a loss of responsiveness there (given that to what degree and what effect it might have isn't relevant in establishing that).

This poor ol' dead horse. Degree is very relevant. If you spent a chunk of time touching the screen and having nothing happen more often than not it would be an issue. Sure you could be black and white with everything in life but life is rarely black and white except for two times (and this isn't a court of law it's an internet discussion); this is a murky grey area (even taking into consideration if the video represents reality)

 

[C DM]

This poor ol' dead horse. Degree is very relevant. If you spent a chunk of time touching the screen and having nothing happen more often than not it would be an issue. Sure you could be black and white with everything in life, but this is a murky grey area (even taking into consideration if the video represents reality)

It's not relevant to establishing whether or not it's there--which is what most of that "dead horse beating" has been about surprisingly, not about something else. If your car could get up to 100 MPH and then could only get up to 95 MPH, sure, the difference isn't a big one and for the vast majority won't really matter, let alone come up, but the fact that there is now a reduction in top speed is still a fact nonetheless.

 

[I7guy]

It's not relevant to establishing whether or not it's there--which is what most of that "dead horse beating" has been about surprisingly, not about something else. If your car could get up to 100 MPH and then could only get up to 95 MPH, sure, the difference isn't a big one and for the vast majority won't really matter, let alone come up, but the fact that there is now a reduction in top speed is still a fact nonetheless.

What I disagree with is the on or off assessment without context. Sure you could look at your life as a series of absolutes, but nobody does that.

In the context of software and what is being discussed this amounts to usability that is not diminished by the alleged information in the video.
So what the dead horse beating is about, is your view is an absolute, which is not very useful in this context.

It's akin to saying windows 3.1 boots up much faster than windows 8.1 on the same hardware; and then stop. Okay that may be the fact but the context is, so what and what is diminished by windows 8.1 taking longer to boot?

 

[C DM]

What I disagree with is the on or off assessment without context. Sure you could look at your life as a series of absolutes, but nobody does that.

In the context of software and what is being discussed this amounts to usability that is not diminished by the alleged information in the video.
So what the dead horse beating is about, is your view is an absolute, which is not very useful in this context.

It's akin to saying windows 3.1 boots up much faster than windows 8.1 on the same hardware; and then stop. Okay that may be the fact but the context is, so what and what is diminished by windows 8.1 taking longer to boot?

So when simply asked if 95 is a decrease from 100 we still can't agree on the basic reality that it is (and instead try to talk about something else that isn't part of the question). Thus the seemingly neverending "beating of the dead horse"--although "beating around the bush" seems to be even more appropriate--just to avoid facing a simple reality.

 

[I7guy]

So when simply asked if 95 is a decrease from 100 we still can't agree on the basic reality that it is (and instead try to talk about something else that isn't part of the question). Thus the seemingly neverending "beating of the dead horse"--although "beating around the bush" seems to be even more appropriate--just to avoid facing a simple reality.

My weeks average speed, about 300 miles per week is 24. So what does it matter if my car does 95 or 195? Facts in and of themselves might not be useful and this is not a court of law as I said previously. There is no simple reality here it's a complex discussion of cause and effect. The defense rests.

 

[C DM]

My weeks average speed, about 300 miles per week is 24. So what does it matter if my car does 95 or 195? Facts in and of themselves might not be useful and this is not a court of law as I said previously. There is no simple reality here it's a complex discussion of cause and effect. The defense rests.

The question wasn't why it matters, or how much it might matter, but simply if it's a decrease or not. Continued avoidance and deflection of the simple question speaks louder than an actual answer would. That certainly puts it to rest indeed.