Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPad' started by Codeseven, Nov 17, 2015.
It is the start of accepting that the surface pro and future computers are not hybrids. They are just the new thing, because a computer with a kickstand and pen is better than a laptop with folding mechanism, and a tablet with kickstand and pen is better than a laptop.
It is not about getting a full old os. Apps could do, but not for now. You will need a mouse/trackpad though. That is also why every student will buy a surface now.
"Is it the Future of Computing?"
If I were spending that amount of money I'd be going for the surface. I don't need a bigger ipad just to check emails and websites.
I think it's a step in the future of computing, as the updated models come out each year pushing the previous versions down the line and making them cheaper will put them in more people's hands (mainly younger people, kids) who couldn't afford them new or parents couldn't buy it for them. This will make these types of laptop/tablet hybrids so to say more and more mainstream and more importantly the type that future generations will know from start therefore making the, the future buyers of the improved variations of tomorrow. Are laptops going away tomorrow or 2-5 years from now no, but 6-10 years from now a very strong maybe.
Yes. Not necessarily the iPad/iOS, but appliance-like computers that rely less on traditional computing experiences like internal file storage, desktops, and things like that are quickly becoming mainstream. Virtualization and the cloud will grow in parallel with access to broadband. I think that Chrome OS, actually, is probably the best example of where computing is headed in the future, where your computer is largely just a window into web applications and you really don't install or run much code locally. Eventually, I don't even think that there will be a lot of local data processing happening on our personal computers; powerful data centers will handle a lot of the data and graphics processing that we're used to buying hardware to manage today and we'll stream most of our content from there.
A lot of people aren't ready for that kind of computing world today, but our kids are getting accustomed to working this way so it'll come more naturally to them. Anyone who has worked in IT and knows about data center virtualization can also extrapolate how this will eventually impact our home computing paradigm.
EDIT: This thread quickly got the MS fans going. If anything, I think it's the Google die hards who ought to be coming in here and expanding on the future of computing, and that's the cloud.
I think the confusion is that everyone expects that there will be a single device that serves every need, and this is insane. For example some work will ALWAYS need a desktop because it requires the most power possible (never enough), or because you need a 30" screen, etc.
I was a SP early adopter and I still believe that MS did something huge by introducing that product. I don't use it the way MS advertised it though: I don't own a keyboard for it and 95% of my interaction involves the pen. Sketching, notes, math, all that stuff that used to only be possible on paper (which is easily lost/damaged and requires physical storage).
So for me the iPP is a potentially hugely useful device, but only because I don't expect it to do what a laptop or a desktop does. I won't likely ever buy a keyboard and will spend 95% of my time in Notes, OneNote, Procreate, etc. Apple's pen input is better than MS's N-trig solution which makes it my choice this year, but things could change next year (SP5 will obviously have to respond to Pencil).
This is one future of computing. It doesn't have to be everyone's. The future of computing is hopefully lots of options that fit different needs. I think the Surface Book is an excellent piece of hardware for an audience that wants laptop first, tablet optional, for example.
*Edit: I sure hope that cloud storage isn't the ONLY future, because I hate sending my data to a remote server that I can't control/secure, requiring an internet connection to share files between computers in the same room, etc. I like the idea of cloud syncing, but I want the option to have the actual server on my local network.
"Is it the Future of Most Computing?"
Potentially but until it gets the same level of professional software that's available on Windows and OS X the answer is no.
As long as the demand for local computing exists, there will be people who will accommodate it. My guess, though, is that as internet access becomes more ubiquitous and users become less attached to physically holding on to their data, cloud computing will become the mainstream and most hardware will be reduced to terminals that access one company or another's solution.
You're probably right, I just am not impressed with the whole concept. It's a nightmare from a security perspective, and it imagines an unrealistic world where everyone has high speed internet access (we're not even close, not even in the US). Everything you put on a cloud service might as well be freely released onto the internet. Don't put your groundbreaking application code or private photos on Dropbox, that's all I'm saying.
What I want is the same cloud architecture with the option to run my own server instance at home. Like, my own iCloud storage hub on my LAN. It functionally works the same way, but instead of paying a monthly fee and trusting someone else to protect my data I buy the hardware and pay for my network access.
Maybe there is a way to create a personal cloud?
Jobs' "truck" analogy seems to cover everything I could add. Once, pro video editors used a room full of special high-end filmstrips or VCRs for what had to be linear editing, and eventually had supercomputers or dedicated systems for simple wipe transitions, let alone 3D effects, while everyone else had computers and could only do less amazing stuff.
In the future, it could become the case that only pros will have what we think of as "consumer" Macs, and most people, including some semi-pros, will only use iPads and stuff, as the software gets more excellent. (The software getting more excellent is something that hasn't fulfilled its potential, but with the iPad Pro, the path looks well-laid.)
Sure; you already can for a lot of stuff. You can host your own email/file server right now, for example. Where you're going to eventually get stuck is for proprietary stuff, like video game consoles. Eventually I can foresee a future where the Xbox is just a terminal that connects you to an Azure data center where game data is processed and streamed to the gamer; not unlike playing Xbox games on a Surface tablet at home works right now, for example. You won't be able to host the games at home, so you'll either be using the proprietary cloud system or you won't be playing.
Think about how that would impact gaming piracy; if the code never leaves the data center and can only be played on authenticated terminals that have no processing power on their own, piracy would be all but eliminated. I guarantee that license holders are clamoring to get us to this future.
An honest future? You say that like something is wrong with that.
I'm not sure why you took it that way. I'm just pointing out why companies would be very interested in adopting this model when broadband is ubiquitous and reliable enough to support it.
Maybe. Only problem is pro apps and usability isn't there. If I could have Xcode on my iPad and easy access to everything I would need to code, sure. Maybe with the introduction of the pro, we will see something like that. Can you imagine iPad apps being created and uploaded for submission...from an iPad? That would be amazing
yeah that's true. I thought it was a very good point quite frankly.
That's basically my problem. I need a way to build apps on the iPad but I don't have a clue as to how Apple would add such a feature as app creation. Usually apps have a web component to them.
I think this'll happen eventually, but it won't be something we see become commonplace within the next 5 years. Ubiquity and reliability aren't exactly two words I'd use to describe broadband internet outside of cities.
And one thing you're disregarding that's the true lynchpin of a successful terminal based internet future: it needs to also be inexpensive. As long as people have to pay considerably more to get a more decentralized version of what we're enjoying now, it'll need to cost, at the very most, equally as much. If people have to pay more, it won't happen.
I agree; I believe in an earlier post I mentioned that this will likely be a generational change, as there are more than just technical barriers to making this kind of thing commonplace. The first step is basic computing needs, and we're seeing that transition happen now with devices like Chromebooks and iPad Pros.
I'm not disregarding it; I never brought it up at all.
That's not necessarily true either. iPads outsell any single computing tablet or laptop. Secondly, cheaper in initial price doesn't necessarily mean cheaper.
Considering you're talking about an initial payment, vs. a series of ever ongoing ones to access your media (internet access + cloud storage/subscription service, etc.), the chances of it being more expensive over the long term are pretty great.
Though the one advantage of sub services is that you do have a much wider access to a larger catalog than you otherwise would. But I doubt any of the big media companies are going to rid themselves of selling music, movies, and games individually, and go entirely to a Netflix/Spotify business model. For now anyway, they make far more money doing the former than they do the latter.
That's not true either especially if maintenance is cheaper and can somewhat be shifted to Apple at no to low cost.
"Is it the Future of Digital Writing?"