I don't agree that these are valid comparisons. An iPad is a computer. It has a CPU, and a screen, and an OS, and is therefore rather similar to a PC, barring UI lipstick. A car and a horse are way different. If you are suggesting that there may be a next-big-thing invented that supplants PCs AND iPads entirely (neural interface thingy), then maybe we are in agreement. An iPad is most definitely NOT to a PC what the automobile was to the horse buggy.
> Because we have exhausted UI paradigms and interaction design?
You wouldn't agree with this? In the context of computers (once again, neural stuff/VR notwithstanding) I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than the keyboard and mouse. And I think 'faster' is a good metric for 'better'. Touch, in that regard, is woefully off the mark. Clicking a menu item, or even better, knowing the keyboard shortcut, is the most superior method of getting shit done.
Touch is fine for convenience, but convenience is a rather limiting goal. If the goal is to extract every last ounce of usefulness out of our devices (paired with a desire to own as few devices as posible), a mere touchscreen isn't enough.
It took a bit to click for me, but I understand now that the mobile/touch approach serves a segment of the population with different approaches to computational needs. It doesn’t mean it’s a superior approach, even if it sold more devices; it’s just another approach. You can argue that it isn’t the case until you’re blue in the face, because “underneath it’s all the same”, but it’s the reality. It’s like saying a Ferrari and a Fiat 500 both have engines and gearbox, so they serve the same transportation needs and you can determine an objectively superior car - it’s false and you can’t. Doing the weekly grocery shopping with a Ferrari is as hellish as trying to race with a 500.
Computational devices will become more different in shape and uses, not less. Convergence is a production-driven myth that will never fully materialize. We never really reached convergence even when the operational modes were just two (desktop and server), it certainly won’t happen now that you can put computers in glasses and watches.
That is certainly true on general purpose computers (those running a standard Windows, macOS or Desktop Linux distro).
But most special purpose computers do not have a keyboard and a mouse. For example:
- a hospital sonography station has a screen, a lot of quick access function keys, a trackball for moving a crosshair, lots of sliders for adjusting things, etc.
- a cashier desk has a barcode scanner with a trigger and a num pad for manually entering codes
- a musician might use a (musical) keyboard, and a mixing board with lots of knobs and sliders
There are a lot of input devices that are a lot better for special purposes like a mouse and keyboard.
The magic of touch is that you can simulate specialized user interfaces for a lot of things. Just look at those DJ apps for the iPad! They have a pretty sweet interface that would be really hard to implement with mouse and keyboard.
So I don't think that mouse/keyboard is the ultimate input device combo. I haven't seen anything better for programming yet, but who knows, maybe some day someone comes up with an idea that works better than traditional windows + menus + buttons.
That would entail that anything with "a CPU, and a screen, and an OS" should offer the exact same experience as a desktop/laptop computer.
(Not to mention that ATM machines, kiosks, and cars also have one or more cpus, screens, and OSes).
The whole idea of the iPad as Apple (and I) see it, is that something with a "CPU, an OS, and a screen" can have widely different interaction design, and that the "PC" experience is far from the optimal for all uses. For those other users, the iPad experience (or some other) can be greater.
And those that really need a PC, can always just ...get a PC!
(That's also how the smartphone, which also has a CPU, a screen, and an OS) surpassed the PC in time spent/internet use) with a different interaction design.
>You wouldn't agree with this? In the context of computers (once again, neural stuff/VR notwithstanding) I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than the keyboard and mouse.
Faster at what?
When using visual apps like Procreate or Photoshop for example, I find that touch is faster than "keyboard and mouse".
For reading (Kindle, iBooks, etc) touch is faster than keyboard and mouse.
For certain music apps, touch is faster than keyboard and mouse (most of the work is manipulating filter and automation envelopes and rectangles on a grid).
The main things keyboards are faster are writing and programming.
Easy counter example: "I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than a touch interface while working as warehouse manager who's constantly on-the-go."
See how you're pigeonholing the whole concept of what a computer is or should be?
I solely blame this on the software.
Wanna mimic pen-and-paper? There's a few apps for that.
Wanna use something that's actually better than pen-and-paper? There's OneNote, which gives you a finite but big enough canvas. You can fit everything on one "page", zoom in and out to a certain level, use different pens, and draw some basic shapes like straight lines, ellipses, and rectangles which are more than useful (think: diagrams or sketching out layouts).
That's it. There's absolutely no alternative to it. Not on Windows and certainly not on Ubuntu. I've tried dozens of them, and OneNote is the only one that offers even remotely more functionality than pen-and-paper does. The rest just try to mimic the pen-and-paper feeling on a screen. Microsoft Whiteboard got 90% there, but it doesn't offer a way of easily drawing basic shapes.
If I knew that the software side would be this bad a year after I bought the device, I would think twice before getting a pen-supported two-in-one and got myself an iPad. Touchscreen itself is insanely useful for recreation, but the pen is next-to-useless with just one app even worth mentioning.
That's such BS. Maybe Ford said that. That doesn't mean its true, and that doesn't mean it applies here.
Moreover, trying to compare the revolution of the automobile to something as trite as a touch-friendly interface is laughable. The iPad isn't a revolution. It didn't do anything which Android tablets didn't already do before it came out. It just did everything better, and that's the reason its achieved what marginal success it has.
Well, Ford's customers couldn't conceive of a future where the eventual upshot wouldn't be ...faster horses either.
>The thing is, there is nowhere left for Apple to go
Because we have exhausted UI paradigms and interaction design?
>and that MUST include things like proper file management, multiple windows, displays, mouse support etc...aka a Surface Pro.
The "aka a Surface Pro" is where you're wrong though.
All of what you ask for can be answered by "just buy a Mac laptop" today. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to want an iPad that does all that -- except to get a laptop with touchscreen hybrid. But those are not exactly some wide success in the PC world either.
The iPad serves a need without desktop-features. And it sells 10s of millions of units (10x or more than the Surface) every year without these features. The ability to get a desktop OS-X experience is not why iPads are bought.
Here's how it can play out:
E.g.:
- "Proper file management" can be abstracted totally from storage as far as the apps are concerned, like iOS already does, and have powerful metadata properties and searchability (the way Microsoft tried and failed with their WinFS project). So not like Surface of today, or regular Finder-like file management.
- Multiple windows can be non-overlapping, and develop into a tiling/snapping mechanism. OSes have already disfavored the once dominant MDI windows (and even third party apps have, e.g. Photoshop of yore with Photoshop of today). This can be a next step.
- displays, the iPad Pro already supports external displays.
- mouse support, this can or cannot be added, but if the table factor has to have any meaning it has to be secondary to the touch experience (so apps should be prepared to work in 100% touch mode).
More importantly, the main premise of the iPad is the hassle free device management. Apps are all sandboxed, the OS is dead simple to configure, zero viruses, everything backed to the cloud, etc. Those are the avenues that will be enhanced and expanded, not how to run IDEs.
It's not 'full customizability and power to run any niche pro app', it's 'it just works'. Pro apps will came (and in several sectors have come), but only by respecting the "it just works" part.