[besson3c]

Happy new year and stuff.

I'm not going to predict this as happening this year, but I'm feeling confident that the following will eventually come to fruition:

It seems inevitable that eventually there will be binary compatibility between OS X and iOS where apps written for one will run on the other. Apple, unlike Microsoft, hedged their bets on OS X and iOS needing to be separate animals because of the major differences in interaction with these devices, but clearly it is in Apple's best business interest to consolidate the two systems as best as they can to minimize their overhead, and to make switching between these devices as effortless as possible for the user, and clearly there has been a significant effort made to date to consolidate as much as they can. Binary compatibility seems to be one of the last bridges to cross, and I can see it happening as soon as the next OS X version.

I'm undecided on how this implementation would work - whether this would be a single OS with multiple modes, or two separate OSes as they are today but with iOS apps running in the iOS Simulator similar to how classic ran OS 9 apps, or by expecting a little extra development effort to support both touch and mouse input in their apps, but ultimately this will enable entire business workflows based around single applications that will be able to run on all devices, which has to be the golden egg at least as far as Apple is interested in business.

Google surely will do this. If Google were to do this, it would make sense for them to release a Desktop Android version that would work on at least a subset of PC hardware. Google getting into this would be one of the most impactful moves we've seen in the computing industry to date, as it would mean that business would be able to replace silly point-of-sale workstations, accounting PCs, and other mundane PC computing tasks with $100 mobile devices running Android, and PCs/servers running Android doing the heavier lifting in some sort of business environment (e.g. Quickbooks Enterprise) running the same apps on all devices.

If Google moves in this direction, unless Microsoft is able to differentiate their products from Google's, I predict that Microsoft will continue on their path to irrelevance, and Google will become the next Microsoft, ironically making Linux the "victor" (in terms of eventual marketshare) after all of these years of promise and mockery. I'm not sure if games or business apps will be the first to make the jump, but surely Microsoft is quite concerned. Perhaps Microsoft will ultimately fall back to where they started from in focusing on software such as Office, or else their XBox business.

Apple will continue to cater to the high end of these markets, eventually settling into a similar niché they hold now in the Desktop space once Android is deemed as "good enough" for the masses, if not so already. To me, Google definitely holds the cards over Microsoft since the prospects of a business having to support one version of one app that will run on all devices is pretty great, and even with a good port to a different OS, this would at least likely mean fewer licenses needed and therefore lower cost of business.

Before the Apple fanatics construe this as an anti-Apple post, I don't think that Apple being relegated to the high end will be the same sort of niché that it has been with their Macs, as the costs of getting an iPhone, especially subsidized ones, or an iPad are far less than the costs of investing in a Mac and Mac software. So, I don't think "round 2" of Apple vs. market-share-leader will be quite the same, Apple will fare far better, but to me the eventual marketshare leader/victor (and I'm assuming most people define the victor as the marketshare leader) will be Google/Android.

I'm not suggesting that this will be a good or bad thing, or that Apple needs to go after this title. Like I said, Apple is in a good place, but besson3c's official prediction is that our next overlords will be Google.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not suggesting that this will be a good or bad thing, or that Apple needs to go after this title. Like I said, Apple is in a good place, but besson3c's official prediction is that our next overlords will be Google.

A bit off-topic, but why do you feel like Apple is our current overlord ?

I never felt that way.

I feel like Google is picking up the overlord "status" from Microsoft.

I never felt that way with Apple, because there have always been alternatives out there, and Apple (until the success with the iPad) has never had the "market power" to push out competitors. And even in the case of the iPad, it''s debatable if Apple really has the power to squash competition.

At any rate, personally, I never felt like Apple used any of their power to make my life miserable, severely limiting my options or push me into a corner. The benefits from their ecosystem where always greater for me than the disadvantages (like strict rules in app store).

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

A bit off-topic, but why do you feel like Apple is our current overlord ?
I never felt that way.
I feel like Google is picking up the overlord "status" from Microsoft.
I never felt that way with Apple, because there have always been alternatives out there, and Apple (until the success with the iPad) has never had the "market power" to push out competitors. And even in the case of the iPad, it''s debatable if Apple really has the power to squash competition.
At any rate, personally, I never felt like Apple used any of their power to make my life miserable, severely limiting my options or push me into a corner. The benefits from their ecosystem where always greater for me than the disadvantages (like strict rules in app store).
-t

I feel like our current overlord is still Microsoft.

The mobile device success has been huge, but I don't think it has tipped the scales yet enough to replace your typical PC. For starters, content creation apps have been lacking, and not every content creation app is suited for touch. Therefore, it's still a Microsoft world.

However, once there is a Desktop version of Android, we'll see PC apps being written for PC Android, and if Google is smart these same apps will also work on mobile Android devices. Apple might be the first player to get there though, and surely it wouldn't hurt Apple to also have iOS and OS X binary compatibility to have some presence in this space, especially content creation.

Otherwise, I feel the same way you do about Apple. I'm happy with my Apple gear, although at times the hacker in me resents having to combat Apple as far as jailbreaking goes and stuff. Still, that is a relatively minor quibble of mine right now, hacking is more of a hobby for me, and for heavy computing tasks I see neither Google nor Apple has the eventual leader, but Amazon. It would be foolish to under-estimate them, their AWS environment is astonishing.

[turtle777]

Hurrah. We agree. The end is nigh.

-t

[besson3c]

If any of you guys want to make predictions about Apple's TV efforts and where they will lead us, that would be really interesting. I see a tremendous amount of technical potential there, but I'm not completely confident with making predictions as to how things will shake out.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Hurrah. We agree. The end is nigh.
-t

Of course we agree, all of my sock-puppets agree with me, because, well, they're my sock-puppets... Duh?

[besson3c]

Besson3c's stock recommendations: buy Amazon and Google.

[turtle777]

AMZN - no way.

P/E is currently at 3,353. That's absolutely ridiculous. Their margins are razor thin (typical for retailers).

The stock will lose 90 to 95% of its value in the next years just to catch up with fair value.
Both GOOG and AAPL are a steal compared to AMZN.

-t

[mduell]

Google is going to win by doing something Microsoft has already done?

Please explain Google's advantage here.

Touch and non-touch require completely different interfaces. W8 on a non-touch device is maddening from the start (screen unlock).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Google is going to win by doing something Microsoft has already done?
Please explain Google's advantage here.
Touch and non-touch require completely different interfaces. W8 on a non-touch device is maddening from the start (screen unlock).

I thought I did explain Google's advantage?

Google's advantage is that if it were to make a Desktop OS with binary compatibility to Android, businesses could write software that would work on everything from cheap tablets and other mobile devices up to the Desktop OS, and only one OS would have to be supported for end users and developers.

Because Microsoft tried and failed to amalgamate touch and point+click doesn't mean that it is impossible, it just means that they failed at it.

You could do it by having two totally separate OSes like we have today with iOS and OS X while having binary compatibility between the two and provide developers with hooks to support touch and point and click as they see fit, you could do it with a compatibility layer ala Classic + OS 9 or OS X + iOS Simulator, or you could try to merge the two OSes and have two totally separate computing modes, like Microsoft attempted (I'm presuming, I haven't actually used Windows 8).

To be sure, it will probably be a challenging bridge to cross, but as long as something adequate can be built, this will save businesses significant amounts of money and provide something to build on. Apple has clearly already been working on this with trackpad gestures and trying to consolidate the experiences as best they can.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

AMZN - no way.
P/E is currently at 3,353. That's absolutely ridiculous. Their margins are razor thin (typical for retailers).
The stock will lose 90 to 95% of its value in the next years just to catch up with fair value.
Both GOOG and AAPL are a steal compared to AMZN.
-t

That is the short-term reality, I'm talking long-term here. Cloud computing is in its infancy.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I thought I did explain Google's advantage?

Google's advantage is that if it were to make a Desktop OS with binary compatibility to Android, businesses could write software that would work on everything from cheap tablets and other mobile devices up to the Desktop OS, and only one OS would have to be supported for end users and developers.

Microsoft already has this from phone to tablet to desktop. How is Google moving up to desktop going to make them dominant?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Microsoft already has this from phone to tablet to desktop. How is Google moving up to desktop going to make them dominant?

Because Microsoft has no infrastructure, user base, and developers to build on outside of the Windows Desktop world. Google/Android does.

[mattyb]

I just wonder when the mobile platform of today is going to learn from the PC platform of the 90s and get rid of the fat client architecture. We were doing so well with app servers and web based applications in business and then everyone starts making fat clients again. I have no idea why it went this way since an application for a mobile platform could simply use a different URL than for your PC based application - the basic infrastructure was already there. I have a feeling that it was easier to get devs into the fat client model than 'use-existing-infra' model, particularly in terms of financial reward.

Maybe I just don't get the dev mindset having never been a developer.

I also wonder what the development of the TV as the home PC replacement will bring. As someone posted in the Gaming forum, I think that the network infrastructure isn't quite there yet (outside of large US cities), so that may hold back any App Service Provider type of functionality.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If any of you guys want to make predictions about Apple's TV efforts and where they will lead us, that would be really interesting. I see a tremendous amount of technical potential there, but I'm not completely confident with making predictions as to how things will shake out.

I've been unloading my frustrations on this matter all over the place and ad naseum - but I see it as inevitable that TVs turn into multimedia hubs based on an iOS-type interface - possibly with a slightly more powerful remote or iProduct integration to control text input. (I keep imagining something like a Mac Mini but with a more powerful AppleTV interface.) For the average household, there will not be a traditional desktop computer - tablet devices will be used for internet browsing and the AppleTV device to control multimedia content such as movies, music, games, and so on. Storage will be via cloud or a headless server/storage box (NAS-type) for those needing more options (or the storage could be the AppleTV itself I suppose).

Basically, I see this device integrating all of the current devices run on a TV - Cable TV, PVR, DVD/BR, computer, XBox/etc. It only makes sense that these disparate devices eventually be combined into one box. If that happened I think it would be incredibly popular and an instant-buy for almost every household.

The issue is of course that these devices are currently made by very different and competing manufacturers. But if a couple giants like Apple/Google start really getting innovative, I think they could pull it off.

[TETENAL]

1.) You are aware that Macs and iOS devices run on completely different processor architectures? Binary compatibility is impossible.

2.) You are aware that Macs and iOS devices, one being mouse based and the other being touch based, require a totally different user interaction model? Running the same application on both would suck on at least one of these architectures. Most likely it would become sub optimal on both. See Office on Windows RT.

3.) If you give developers the APIs to optimally support both mouse and touch based interfaces, where do they save in development, assuming they are going to do it properly for both?

4.) Developers are lazy. If even Microsoft goes the easy route and can't provide a proper touch based Office, what makes you think other developers would do more than double the button size on touch based devices and call it a day?

5.) Google can't even make Android a success on tablets. Why should it suddenly pull off when also ported to desktops?

[Uncle Skeleton]

@Shortcut:

I think that would be a good bet, except for the part about cable and DVD/BR and Apple's past phobia of those things. My bet is they'll wow us with some sort of screenless 3d projection, like the gadget at the beginning of Paycheck, seen also in Minority Report and of course "Help me Obi-Wan, you're my only hope." At first it will be pretty weak, like how the first apple-tv, but eventually it will grow into it's own. I think it's coming, but maybe not in 2013

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

@Shortcut:

I think that would be a good bet, except for the part about cable and DVD/BR and Apple's past phobia of those things. My bet is they'll wow us with some sort of screenless 3d projection, like the gadget at the beginning of Paycheck, seen also in Minority Report and of course "Help me Obi-Wan, you're my only hope." At first it will be pretty weak, like how the first apple-tv, but eventually it will grow into it's own. I think it's coming, but maybe not in 2013

Sorry - I meant that currently we use DVD/BR, but now this box will replace that hard media with software files (a la iTunes, and being able to play downloaded or ripped content, which the current AppleTV has not been designed to do, unfortunately).

As for cable - you're right, that will be the hardest nut to crack. But cable integration would also mean that you would not be doing what the AppleTV currently does - circumvent the cable companies via internet-only content. Cable companies could still keep supplying cable TV and internet packages to their customers, and thus it would be a little easier for them to swallow. (At least in the short run....eventually I see internet-based selective TV taking over.)

I don't see your fancy 3D screen coming to fruition within the next decade or so, sorry. (Also like the one in Prometheus, and how about the last Mission Impossible movie?) Although, if the interface was responsive to touch commands, a la Minority Report, that WOULD solve the problem of having to control an iOS interface with a remote - a touchscreen TV isn't practical for obvious reasons.

[Uncle Skeleton]

But that's Apple's gimmick, doing the infeasible, especially if it's flashy

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hah - I suppose that's true. I think their gimmick is simplification and integration of independent third-party systems. To that end, I think my prediction makes a lot of sense, as TVs today seem to require a whole wack of third-party boxes and associated cables to be connected to them - and I don't see any real reason those items could not be integrated (other than each is currently made/designed/marketed by companies that do not engage in the others' products). Of course, "Smart TVs" have been slowly doing this very thing, but I think TVs are a poor design for integration (the trend is to make them virtually paper thin), and a single set-top box makes more sense IMO.


I'm just not sure I see the need for a virtual screen. Screens by definition require a space designed to watch them - hence why we all designate at least one spot in our homes in which the entire room is focused on the "screen space" (furniture, wall layout, etc.). Wouldn't you still need that layout if you were to have a virtual screen? After all, we need a comfortable place to watch. And if that's the case, then you'd still have a "screen space" that's the focus of the room - in which case, who cares if it's a virtual or fixed screen?

(IOW I think it's somewhat solving a problem I'm not sure exists. Unless an easily moveable screen is a real feature for someone, other than the novelty factor?)

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because Microsoft has no infrastructure, user base, and developers to build on outside of the Windows Desktop world. Google/Android does.

Bing, Windows Phone, Xbox... any of which are much more successful than Google's chromebooks.

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

1.) You are aware that Macs and iOS devices run on completely different processor architectures? Binary compatibility is impossible.

Fat binaries.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I just wonder when the mobile platform of today is going to learn from the PC platform of the 90s and get rid of the fat client architecture. We were doing so well with app servers and web based applications in business and then everyone starts making fat clients again. I have no idea why it went this way since an application for a mobile platform could simply use a different URL than for your PC based application - the basic infrastructure was already there. I have a feeling that it was easier to get devs into the fat client model than 'use-existing-infra' model, particularly in terms of financial reward.
Maybe I just don't get the dev mindset having never been a developer.
I also wonder what the development of the TV as the home PC replacement will bring. As someone posted in the Gaming forum, I think that the network infrastructure isn't quite there yet (outside of large US cities), so that may hold back any App Service Provider type of functionality.

Many fat client iOS/Android apps are just wrappers around websites or web services. I don't think that we should go back to making fat clients (except for things like some games and stuff that obviously makes no sense to do otherwise), but a rich API is still needed for these clients to hold a network connection, handle dropped connections gracefully, interact with the local device (e.g. being able to upload photos taken on that phone), cache stuff, etc.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I've been unloading my frustrations on this matter all over the place and ad naseum - but I see it as inevitable that TVs turn into multimedia hubs based on an iOS-type interface - possibly with a slightly more powerful remote or iProduct integration to control text input. (I keep imagining something like a Mac Mini but with a more powerful AppleTV interface.) For the average household, there will not be a traditional desktop computer - tablet devices will be used for internet browsing and the AppleTV device to control multimedia content such as movies, music, games, and so on. Storage will be via cloud or a headless server/storage box (NAS-type) for those needing more options (or the storage could be the AppleTV itself I suppose).
Basically, I see this device integrating all of the current devices run on a TV - Cable TV, PVR, DVD/BR, computer, XBox/etc. It only makes sense that these disparate devices eventually be combined into one box. If that happened I think it would be incredibly popular and an instant-buy for almost every household.
The issue is of course that these devices are currently made by very different and competing manufacturers. But if a couple giants like Apple/Google start really getting innovative, I think they could pull it off.

I agree! I guess the key part of this will be whether content moves to being delivered over the internet, who controls this, what sort of locks and keys will exist, and what this will mean to cable and satellite providers that want to run stuff into your house.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hah - I suppose that's true. I think their gimmick is simplification and integration of independent third-party systems. To that end, I think my prediction makes a lot of sense, as TVs today seem to require a whole wack of third-party boxes and associated cables to be connected to them - and I don't see any real reason those items could not be integrated (other than each is currently made/designed/marketed by companies that do not engage in the others' products). Of course, "Smart TVs" have been slowly doing this very thing, but I think TVs are a poor design for integration (the trend is to make them virtually paper thin), and a single set-top box makes more sense IMO.

True enough, except that there's still a rat's nest of wires for video, sound, power, and usually a few other things I never understood the use of, though I do get your point that eliminating that last item is exactly what you're trying to do; there's still going to be speakers invading the rest of the room in a lot of cases. And the increasing (and very Apple-like) trend of mounting the TV up on the wall, making a "set top box" a real problem.

I'm just not sure I see the need for a virtual screen. Screens by definition require a space designed to watch them - hence why we all designate at least one spot in our homes in which the entire room is focused on the "screen space" (furniture, wall layout, etc.). Wouldn't you still need that layout if you were to have a virtual screen? After all, we need a comfortable place to watch. And if that's the case, then you'd still have a "screen space" that's the focus of the room - in which case, who cares if it's a virtual or fixed screen?

(IOW I think it's somewhat solving a problem I'm not sure exists. Unless an easily moveable screen is a real feature for someone, other than the novelty factor?)

Yeah but still, that's Apple's gimmick. The first iMac solved a problem that didn't exist, the lack of simplicity (again, considering the original mac's AIO form factor). Lots of Apple's iconic products have been like that, removing parts that people didn't realize were unnecessary and didn't care until they saw the alternative. Even the products that didn't catch on. No, I don't think that 3d projection will be any more utilitarian than 3d (glasses style) has been, and I'm not on board. But it would still be totally "cool" and that's why I think it's on the super secret roadmap.

I am on board with some of the things you mentioned though, like the "screen space" and portability, with my projector. When the power's off, the "screen" is nothing but a whiter-than-average wall, and people usually don't even realize there is a screen there. I like that about it, even though I'm not afraid to admit there's not much utility in the feature. It is my version of the iPod ad where the room full to the ceiling of albums gets transformed into an empty space with an iPod on a stool; the difference is purely psychological. Moving was a lot easier, but hopefully I won't be doing that very often. Robbing me would be easier too, though the unit is also a ton cheaper than a TV of comparable screen size would be.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

and what this will mean to cable and satellite providers that want to run stuff into your house.

How do most people get their home internet anyway? Mine is cable, so I don't see the loss of cable TV to be eating anyone else's lunch.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

1.) You are aware that Macs and iOS devices run on completely different processor architectures? Binary compatibility is impossible.
2.) You are aware that Macs and iOS devices, one being mouse based and the other being touch based, require a totally different user interaction model? Running the same application on both would suck on at least one of these architectures. Most likely it would become sub optimal on both. See Office on Windows RT.
3.) If you give developers the APIs to optimally support both mouse and touch based interfaces, where do they save in development, assuming they are going to do it properly for both?
4.) Developers are lazy. If even Microsoft goes the easy route and can't provide a proper touch based Office, what makes you think other developers would do more than double the button size on touch based devices and call it a day?
5.) Google can't even make Android a success on tablets. Why should it suddenly pull off when also ported to desktops?

1) Why would you say that? Apple did it with fat binaries with the move to Intel. Modern apps are architecture independent, they just need low level hooks to support that processor, and proper API calls/abstractions. This is also being done today with the iOS Simulator.

2) I'm aware of this, but in some cases if you are talking about the workflow of a large business it will be appropriate to design a separate app for a server anyway, but this binary compatibility would at least make recycling a lot of code between these apps easier. Besides, not all apps will have these same UI hurdles, it just depends on the nature of the app.

3) It depends on the nature of the app. If the app is, say, a touch screen menu for a restaurant, you might be able to handle this same interface on a desktop with clickable icons or keyboard commands. It all depends.

4) There will be many first generation failures or partial successes, but these sorts of challenges always exist in properly supporting new OS features, providing stability, reliability, etc. Half-baked code will never cease to exist.

5) Google will eventually make Android a success on tablets, why wouldn't they? It's still early. Besides, even if they don't, like I said, I predict Apple to go in the same direction anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Bing, Windows Phone, Xbox... any of which are much more successful than Google's chromebooks.

Are Google's Chromebooks a feature parity port of Android, or some other experimental/prototype sort of Linux-based OS?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How do most people get their home internet anyway? Mine is cable, so I don't see the loss of cable TV to be eating anyone else's lunch.

Maybe not now, but it seems pretty obvious that cable/DSL will eventually be replaced with fiber, which the current cable companies may or may not get in on.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yes, I agree that your screen idea could be a solution to a problem I don't realize exists.

Also agree with your comment on other required cables - I've got a separate DAC, preamp, turntable, and amp for my audio system, all with multiple cables - but there have also been innovations in those areas in terms of cutting down on wiring. (In-wall audio/theatre wiring is a very standard option on most new home builds around here.........in addition, wireless speaker systems are getting increasingly better and/or more popular - this past weekend I purchased a wireless dongle so I can put some bookshelf speakers in the kitchen to play whatever my main living-room system is playing).

But, at the end of the day, most people with a semi-modern TV has attached to it: cable box, possibly a separate PVR box, a hard media interface (DVD/BR), and likely a gaming device (XBox/Wii/etc.) and/or internet/streaming device (Roku/AppleTV/computer). All of which could seemingly be handled by one device.

And the increasing (and very Apple-like) trend of mounting the TV up on the wall, making a "set top box" a real problem.

Mine's on the wall but have no problem connecting a host of devices. Given the mini's current form factor, I don't see size/space as a serious issue here, especially given the number of devices my theoretical iTV is replacing.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

but a rich API is still needed for these clients to hold a network connection, handle dropped connections gracefully, interact with the local device (e.g. being able to upload photos taken on that phone), cache stuff, etc.

You mean duplicate most of what an operating system should be able to do? You're a developer aren't you? Bet your apps suck.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

You mean duplicate most of what an operating system should be able to do? You're a developer aren't you? Bet your apps suck.

Huh? I'm talking about OS APIs. Also, there is no need to be confrontational.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are Google's Chromebooks a feature parity port of Android, or some other experimental/prototype sort of Linux-based OS?

It's completely different, won't run Android apps (which are not Linux apps, they're Dalvik VM), and only offers a web browser.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

1) Why would you say that? Apple did it with fat binaries with the move to Intel.

"Fat binaries" are not what is considered "binary compatibility". In fact fat binaries are the exact opposite. Fat binaries package incompatible binaries. Therefore your whole argument is moot.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

[QUOTE name="TETENAL" url="/t/496696/besson3cs-predictions-linux-will-win-ios-binary-compatibility-etc#post_4209781"]
2.) You are aware that Macs and iOS devices, one being mouse based and the other being touch based, require a totally different user interaction model? Running the same application on both would suck on at least one of these architectures. Most likely it would become sub optimal on both. See Office on Windows RT.

3.) If you give developers the APIs to optimally support both mouse and touch based interfaces, where do they save in development, assuming they are going to do it properly for both?

2) I'm aware of this, but in some cases if you are talking about the workflow of a large business it will be appropriate to design a separate app for a server anyway, but this binary compatibility would at least make recycling a lot of code between these apps easier. Besides, not all apps will have these same UI hurdles, it just depends on the nature of the app.

3) It depends on the nature of the app. If the app is, say, a touch screen menu for a restaurant, you might be able to handle this same interface on a desktop with clickable icons or keyboard commands. It all depends.
[/quote]

Those are going to be *extremely* limited cases, mostly of the type you describe. Thing is, if you're basically just using a terminal for a database, designing the interface for the device is technically completely trivial (apart from the actual considerations for UI design). It is completely irrelevant whether stuff is binary-compatible, since executable code is mostly limited to the server anyway.

As soon as something requires a drop-down menu, it will suck on a tablet.

Use an iPad running VNC to control a Mac some time. It's quite surprising, and very revealing as to the differences. They're anything BUT skin-deep.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The mouse definitely makes a huge difference. When I VPN on the iPad I take a 50/50 guess every time I want to scroll up or down. You'd think it would not make much difference, but it does.