[besson3c]

I sort of started this line of questioning, but I thought I would start a new thread on this as to not hijack the iPad 2 thread.

If Steve Jobs/Apple envisions the iPad as the face of computing to come (or at least portable computing to come), what sort of changes and additions do you envision in order for Apple to realize this potential?

There are obviously several areas that might warrant some attention, but what I'm interested in is software distribution...

I wonder if the current system of going through the iTunes Store for everything is sort of a transitional thing? For starters, it is definitely becoming rather strange that we rely on iTunes on managing the iPad, but what about developers that want to release private betas, applications internal to a company, applications that download themselves (e.g. Starcraft 2), weaning off of iTunes and being able to download and apply updates directly on the iPad, etc.? There are definitely strengths to having a single source and such a user friendly distribution system, but is this going to be suitable to completely replace the ability to install applications on your own through a website?

I'm wondering if it might make sense at some point to do what is common in Debian or Redhat based OSes, and that is to have sanctioned, cryptographically signed software channels that users can add on their own in addition to the ones provided by the OS vendor? Apple could include a big fat warning when entering these channels telling the user they are download stuff at their own risk. I realize that Apple would be giving up control, but the question is, if the iPad hypothetically becomes the next laptop that is independent and does not depend on another computer, is the current model something they can or should keep up?

[Phileas]

The iPad is Apple's testbed for gesture based computing. The launch of the independent trackpad signals the beginning of the end for mice in Apple's lineup.

[downinflames68]

Apple's mice always sucked, so good riddance.

[Spheric Harlot]

No they dint.

I read it in a book.

In fact, I WROTE the book.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wonder if the current system of going through the iTunes Store for everything is sort of a transitional thing? For starters, it is definitely becoming rather strange that we rely on iTunes on managing the iPad, but what about developers that want to release private betas, applications internal to a company, applications that download themselves (e.g. Starcraft 2), weaning off of iTunes and being able to download and apply updates directly on the iPad, etc.? There are definitely strengths to having a single source and such a user friendly distribution system, but is this going to be suitable to completely replace the ability to install applications on your own through a website?

I'm wondering if it might make sense at some point to do what is common in Debian or Redhat based OSes, and that is to have sanctioned, cryptographically signed software channels that users can add on their own in addition to the ones provided by the OS vendor? Apple could include a big fat warning when entering these channels telling the user they are download stuff at their own risk. I realize that Apple would be giving up control, but the question is, if the iPad hypothetically becomes the next laptop that is independent and does not depend on another computer, is the current model something they can or should keep up?

Doesn't jailbreaking take care of all that and make this thread moot? I read that it's legal now

[besson3c]

Yeah, but legal doesn't mean that Apple won't work to prevent this or make it very difficult, right? It just means that if you do it, you aren't a criminal... Besides, I'm thinking a feature like this wouldn't be reserved for uber hackers, but for advanced users or for IT guys to do for distributing software internal to companies, etc.

[subego]

I think Apple would rather leave the App Store issues you bring up to competitors rather than cannibalize a giant revenue stream.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think Apple would rather leave the App Store issues you bring up to competitors rather than cannibalize a giant revenue stream.

Would Apple permit this, or work against this from happening?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, but legal doesn't mean that Apple won't work to prevent this or make it very difficult, right? It just means that if you do it, you aren't a criminal... Besides, I'm thinking a feature like this wouldn't be reserved for uber hackers, but for advanced users or for IT guys to do for distributing software internal to companies, etc.

Um, besson, Apple introduced limited-distribution models (such as for corporate in-house apps) over two years ago, with OS 2.0.

[Dork.]

Let's hear it for the old Norm!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Um, besson, Apple introduced limited-distribution models (such as for corporate in-house apps) over two years ago, with OS 2.0.

Okay, no need to be snarky, this rings bells, but doesn't this just allow preloaded software? How are further updates applied once on the phone? Doesn't this require an admin with know-how to do so, as opposed to a user being able to browse and install themselves?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

user being able to browse and install themselves

is the last thing you want happening in a corporate environment.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

is the last thing you want happening in a corporate environment.

Which is exactly the challenge I'm speaking to, corporate environments are only a part of it. What about private betas? Should Apple worry about software downloads in non-corporate environments? What about software updates?

I'm thinking about the long view here. Surely there will be a day when the iPad will be completely independent and not tethered to iTunes. What needs to happen, if any, in both home and corporate environments as far as getting software onto the device?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I don't see apple breaking the itunes tether. You'd just have to replace it with something that does exactly the same thing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, no need to be snarky, this rings bells, but doesn't this just allow preloaded software? How are further updates applied once on the phone? Doesn't this require an admin with know-how to do so, as opposed to a user being able to browse and install themselves?

Well, according to Apple's own big feature page on the iPhone site, apps and updates can be distributed over WiFi or 3G.

Honestly, if you're interested enough to start a whole thread on what you think are major shortcomings of the software but fail to do even the most basic research like reading the dumbed-down sales blurbs on Apple' own site:

What reason could there possibly be NOT to be snarky?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The iPad is Apple's testbed for gesture based computing. The launch of the independent trackpad signals the beginning of the end for mice in Apple's lineup.

False. Fact: The iPhone was Apple's testbed for gesture based computing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

False. Fact: The iPhone was Apple's testbed for gesture based computing.

False.

Fact: The iPhone and iPad are not the same class of device.

[Spheric Harlot]

Also, for besson:

Apple - iPhone - iPhone in Business

and

Apple - iPhone in Business - Integration

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I don't see apple breaking the itunes tether. You'd just have to replace it with something that does exactly the same thing.

I seem to recall them having solved this issue with their Macintosh product line…

I'm sure they'll figure out a way to apply self-updates and external backup strategies to another *nix-based computing platform.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Doesn't jailbreaking take care of all that and make this thread moot? I read that it's legal now

The problem is that, legal or not, jailbreaking can only work by exploiting security loopholes in the software, which Apple must try to squash as best possible.

So it's not something that's dependable or plannable to anyone who's not just a tinkering geek hacking a new toy.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

False.

Fact: The iPhone and iPad are not the same class of device.

Was I saying they were? The iPhone got people ready for touch-based and gesture-based usage of a device. If Apple would have just let the iPad out with all the stuff you can do with it without releasing the iPad, it'd have been a bit of a faff.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Well, according to Apple's own big feature page on the iPhone site, apps and updates can be distributed over WiFi or 3G.

Honestly, if you're interested enough to start a whole thread on what you think are major shortcomings of the software but fail to do even the most basic research like reading the dumbed-down sales blurbs on Apple' own site:

What reason could there possibly be NOT to be snarky?

What is the URL for that page?

There is no reason to be snarky over what most people would probably think is subject matter not worth getting confrontational about. Because I overlooked something that you haven't or you know something that I don't is no grounds to act like a dick, there are plenty of things I know that you don't, but so what?

I'm also not asserting that there are major shortcomings with the current system, there aren't, it works fine. What I'm asking about is tomorrow's system for when the iPad becomes the new norm of computing, not today's system, and even then, I'm just interested in exploring ideas, I'm not really pushing any particular viewpoint strongly. I'm just trying to envision how all of this would work once iTunes on another computer is no longer depended upon, and what might need changing, if any.

Chill.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also, for besson:

Apple - iPhone - iPhone in Business

and

Apple - iPhone in Business - Integration

I think you need to take a few deep breaths and reread the stuff I've written. For starters, I'm asking about both business and home users, and I used the private beta example several times which is just one of what I'm sure could be multiple scenarios where it wouldn't be practical to go through the public iTunes store, if one were to sit down and think about this. If you think that enterprise deployment solutions will suffice, fine, I know very little about them. Why not explain how the current solutions will work in a world where there are no laptops (or it isn't expected that an iPad owner also own a Mac/desktop/laptop) and the iPad is the new norm of all computing? That is what I'm interested in, I'm not at all interested in having a little pissing contest with you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Would Apple permit this, or work against this from happening?

It's not their choice. If you do too much to stifle competition, then the DoJ comes sniffing around.

Apple's quite content to have something like Android exist.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's not their choice. If you do too much to stifle competition, then the DoJ comes sniffing around.

Apple's quite content to have something like Android exist.

Well, wouldn't Apple still have to either provide some sort of API to allow software to be registered on the iPad without being loaded via the iTunes Store, or people will have to reverse engineer this somehow? I mean, transferring data over USB is easy, but what is involved to get the app to be recognized, and for iTunes to recognize that the software has been installed so that it can be updated later?

[subego]

I meant competitors providing these things on their own platforms.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I meant competitors providing these things on their own platforms.

Maybe that will happen, but I think it's a given that iTunes is a transitory thing, and that in a world of iPads and competition another computer won't be needed to manage your device, right?

What will the successor to iTunes look like in terms of how software is installed?

[subego]

I'm not sure what you mean. The whole point of the App Store app is to install software without using an intermediary computer.

Since I don't have mp3s or photos on mine, the only reason I ever plug it into iTunes is for an OS update or to transfer a universal app I bought (on the iPad itself) to my iPhone.

[besson3c]

Ahhh, maybe that's the crucial piece I'm not getting... Does the app store app allow you to purchase and install apps, and also apply iPod/iPad updates, or just the former?

[subego]

Just the former.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

is the last thing you want happening in a corporate environment.

Well, it's the last thing IT departments want happening in a corporate environment. For too many corporations, IT departments' goals are control and empire building. Worker productivity is a low priority for them, if they even consider it at all.

[Stogieman]

This looks interesting. Could they be using the newly licensed Liquidmetal Alloy tech in the stand?



Patent depicts multiple modes for touchscreen iMac | MacNN

[Spheric Harlot]

That makes sense and it pretty much what I figured they'd do with the iMac.

And, developing upwards from the other end:
MIDI gear makers embracing new iOS SDK terms | Electronista

The Line6 MIDI Mobilizer makes the iPad a viable, hardware-integratable controller with no more of the Wi-Fi latency.

Logic controller, here we come.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Logic controller, here we come.

No.

[Phileas]

Why not?

[Doofy]

Because music tech is my specialist subject and I'm saying "no".

Touch screens might work in the bedroom geek market, but for real work you need buttons with positive feedback. When Spher trades his B3 in for an iPad with B3 plug-in (with on-screen keyboard and drawbars) on it, I'll change my mind.

[torsoboy]

I agree that the iTunes link must go away. If it is going to become the next version of computing, you should be able to download and install an application straight off the web, like you would do on a normal stand-alone computer.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I agree that the iTunes link must go away. If it is going to become the next version of computing, you should be able to download and install an application straight off the web, like you would do on a normal stand-alone computer.

And you can do that already via the App Store app. The only things you can't do, as others have mentioned, are updating the operating system (which Apple insists on doing monolithically) or backing up the device. Oh, and activating the device with iTunes.

If you didn't have to hook up the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad to a computer to sync with iTunes out of the box, you could buy and install apps, buy and download music, TV shows and movies, and buy and download books to the device, all without hooking it to the computer even once. Even so, after doing the initial iTunes sync, you can do all those things already.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

...Even so, after doing the initial iTunes sync, you can do all those things already.

Torsoboy didn't say the "iMac link," he said the "iTunes" link. The iTunes store is not the web, and I think what he's getting at is that people will want to use their computers without feeling like Apple is looking over their shoulder with every click tap.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Torsoboy didn't say the "iMac link," he said the "iTunes" link. The iTunes store is not the web, and I think what he's getting at is that people will want to use their computers without feeling like Apple is looking over their shoulder with every click tap.

As much as I'd like to see Apple give up control and let anyone install anything on their iDevices any time without Apple knowing about it, I don't see it happening unless Steve Jobs leaves/dies and his successor decides to be less control freak about it.

And you can find out about iOS apps on the web. Clicking on a link in Safari will take you to the iTunes store (and launch iTunes) so you can buy it. Tapping on a link within MobileSafari will open the App Store app and do the same thing.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Torsoboy didn't say the "iMac link," he said the "iTunes" link. The iTunes store is not the web, and I think what he's getting at is that people will want to use their computers without feeling like Apple is looking over their shoulder with every click tap.

This is *exactly* what I am saying. I hate Apple's software policies so much that my next device will not be an Apple device because of it. Their software development and purchasing policies drive me insane. I hate Apple because of it (seriously). I love the hardware (iPad, iPod Touch, iPhone), but hate their software policies.

Originally Posted by Person Man 

And you can find out about iOS apps on the web. Clicking on a link in Safari will take you to the iTunes store (and launch iTunes) so you can buy it. Tapping on a link within MobileSafari will open the App Store app and do the same thing.

Clicking on a link that has been pre-approved by Apple does not resolve the issue. I am talking about an open environment, much like a standard laptop/desktop machine. And I don't want to hear about viruses and other scare-tactic garbage... I have been using a computer for quite some time now, and I am fully aware of those issues. There are remedies for them, and I haven't had a malicious virus on any of my machines for many years.

If the HP Slate turns out to be any good, I will most likely go with that for my next purchase. I am *really* tired of Apple's "walled garden" approach.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

This is *exactly* what I am saying. I hate Apple's software policies so much that my next device will not be an Apple device because of it.

Yeah,good luck with that. Keep us posted. Or maybe not.

-t

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah,good luck with that. Keep us posted. Or maybe not.

-t

Thanks, turtle. I'll be sure to keep you informed.

[downinflames68]

Yeah I'm sure that open stuff will result in fantastic products. I mean, the Droid is pretty incredible.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

let anyone install anything on their iDevices any time

And that's pretty much the quintessential difference between "iDevices" and "computers." If they don't relinquish this control, then you won't be seeing the... title of this thread. It doesn't mean that iThings won't be successful, but it does mean they won't cannibalize/become the personal computer market.

[Spheric Harlot]

Most people don't care about any of those things at all.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Yeah I'm sure that open stuff will result in fantastic products. I mean, the Droid is pretty incredible.

Considering that more people are now purchasing Android phones than iPhones, I'd say a lot of people would say that it IS pretty incredible. You're opinion is as good as the next guy's, but it is still just your opinion and shouldn't be thought of as a "fact."

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Most people don't care about any of those things at all.

I don't believe this. A lot of people do care about these things, and that is most likely why the Android OS is gaining in popularity, and that is why so many people are excited for the HP Slate and other possible iPad competitors. Maybe *you* don't care about those things (though I have no idea why anyone would defend Apple's thuggish policies), but many people do care about them and are sick of Apple's attitude towards it all.

Anyway, back on topic... I think portable computers like the iPad are going to be the new norm of casual computing, but I also think that the overall winning devices won't be limited to one specific "store" where they sell of their software out of.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Anyway, back on topic... I think portable computers like the iPad are going to be the new norm of casual computing, but I also think that the overall winning devices won't be limited to one specific "store" where they sell of their software out of.

I agree. I think Apple will probably end up continuing to do what they have done for years in focusing on those who are willing to pay a premium for arguably a better product just as people do now for Macs, and some other player will end up being what Dell and Microsoft are now. You can't be Dell and Microsoft while doing what Apple has done, as Dell and Microsoft's game is very high volume, low cost, which means making money from this volume rather than profits from that premium. Apple arguably *could* play the game a different way, but they aren't particularly setup as a company to get into this sort of business.

The interesting exception is the iPod though...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I don't believe this. A lot of people do care about these things, and that is most likely why the Android OS is gaining in popularity

I think you're *completely* misjudging the market.

I believe Android phones are selling because they're what's next (iPhone-class), and because people get them on cheap plans on a carrier of their choice, making them "good enough".

People just want a phone that works, that does what they've seen an iPhone do, and with minimum hassle. Facebook, browsing, e-mail, and the odd game.


Supposed "openness" is important to a tiny minority, and those are realizing FAST that there is nothing idealistic whatsoever left about Google - the rest being put off by massive privacy transgressions and the recent heavy discussion about Street View, in which Google's statements speak for themselves.

Then there's this:
The dirty little secret about Google Android | Tech Sanity Check | TechRepublic.com

Here’s the dirty little secret about Android: After all the work Apple did to get AT&T to relinquish device control for the iPhone and all the great efforts Google made to get the FCC and the U.S. telecoms to agree to open access rules as part of the 700 MHz auction, Android is taking all of those gains and handing the power back to the telecoms.

That is likely to be the most important and far-reaching development in the U.S. mobile market in 2010. In light of the high ideals that the Android OS was founded upon and the positive movement toward openness that was happening back in 2007-2008, it is an extremely disappointing turn of events.

Android's open-SOURCE is already harming it, as device manufacturers branch off crippled versions (Hah! "open", indeed) custom-tailored to their machines and carriers.

Explain to somebody that the Twitter client they're trying to install won't run on their Android phone.

Google will have to remedy this by reigning in hardware developers with clear-cut hardware requirements - again, "open", indeed.


In short, those that care about "openness" for ideological reasons need to re-assess Google, because they're not, and those that care about "openness" from a technological standpoint will increasingly be bitterly disappointed by the vast majority of devices.

and that is why so many people are excited for the HP Slate and other possible iPad competitors. Maybe *you* don't care about those things (though I have no idea why anyone would defend Apple's thuggish policies), but many people do care about them and are sick of Apple's attitude towards it all.

At the moment, most people seem to be excited about the iPad.

I haven't seen ANYTHING from a "competitor" that's worth getting excited about - sadly. I have high hopes for a webOS tablet (Apple could do with actual competition), but I severely doubt that HP, of all companies, should actually understand why the iPad is so good, and so successful.

Incidentally, Apple's "thuggish" policies - or rather, their "walled garden" - are a BIG part of why their iProducts are so successful.

Consumers don't care for open, flexible, and thus inherently complex. They don't care for closed, inflexible, and stupid, either. In fact, they don't care at all. They want "oh this works".

[besson3c]

I agree with you, Spheric.

I would also add that most people are probably not terribly passionate about their phones or really feel like they need a whole lot from their phone, and while you can definitely entice many people with the capabilities of an iPhone or Android, for many people these enticements are only going to go so far so long as the price doesn't also entice them, as well as the availability of the phone on their existing carrier, like you said.

If Apple is not willing to price the iPhone competitively with their low cost/high volume competitors, they are going to stay being Apple and not dominate the market like Microsoft and the major PC vendors have. Maybe this wouldn't be a bad thing, but then again, there might be some serious technological perks for us customers if they continued to have the clout to get their way and have both a carrot and a stick.

Apple needs to get the iPhone on Verizon and the other carriers as soon as they can, and go from there.