I've experienced RAM issues on my iPad mini that I use for work. I'd say that there are four to six apps that I use regularly throughout the day, two or three of which I may frequently go between, and it seems as if shifting to the third forces one (or both) of the earlier apps to reload. If I were at home enjoying myself I'd say that it was acceptable, but when I'm trying to get work done the seconds spent waiting on a reload feel excruciating.
So it's not that I feel that 1 GB is enough. My earlier statement about how I'd love 16 GB might have been a bit facetious (I really think that would be overkill), but I don't understand the calls for Apple to put everything to 2 GB. Go to 4 GB and then I'd probably be 100% content on the RAM front.
Yet I also recognize that people like you and me probably don't represent the average iPhone or iPad user. If Apple designed for people like us, my guess is that they would either have smaller profits or need to charge more, and they probably wouldn't be able to maintain a yearly release cycle. My work needs aren't fully met by the current hardware, but my home needs are almost entirely met. It'd be nice if Apple opened the floodgates and totally blew everyone away, but if this is what they have to do in order to keep advancing and developing, then I support that. It's not like their products are inferior to the competition - we can pick and choose small points here and there where they're subjectively behind, but by many metrics (benchmarks, satisfaction surveys, etc.) they are far ahead.
I suppose I missed most of the discussion about innovation, but for the record I'd agree that no matter the strict wording of the definition, whether something is innovative or not is subjective. I also tend to think that's why people's pessimism (which may have always existed, but which greatly magnified after Steve Jobs' death) clouds this perception.
I disagree with this statement, as it pertained to the valid complaint about user-serviceable parts. Have you ever opened up a PPC-era desktop Mac? I've worked with a G3, G4, and G5. The case and hardware layout was thoughtfully laid out, making it very easy to get into and out of the system. I'm comparing this experience to standard store-bought PCs in my history as well, which were a rather different experience. Apple's cases were clearly designed with an aesthetic goal, yet they were also very functional.
While it's understandable that a device like an iPhone or iPad isn't user-serviceable (few to none of the competition offers products in these categories that are user-serviceable, either, and there's a functional reason why), what Apple has been doing with their desktops and laptops makes less sense. Why does an iMac need to be razor-thin? Did the laptop line really need to switch over to soldered components, even when the overall hardware layout and casing was hardly changed? Why did the 2014 Mac Mini - which had no casing design changes - receive modifications that made getting into the system much more difficult?
Apple once designed desktop systems that were pleasing to look at and very easy to get into. Now it seems as if the design decisions are around looks and making it difficult for people to get in, while removing the reasons why they would want to. It doesn't seem as if we're gaining anything for the trade-off, either.
He's in charge of iOS right now.
