New Apple Lust Objects for 2010 and onward

http://www.quickpwn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/jailbreak-ipad1.jpg

i assume iphone 4.0 will let you change the home screen background

other thought:

was reading the knife thread which has a link to the knife's site to stream the new album. i wouldn't be able to stream that on the ipad, right? that is frustrating. more crying.

no flash

it sounds like ass, so let's have no tears, big guy

even if it was a link to an mp3 stream i wouldn't be able to listen to it!

getamacbook

it's all about the software, it's just waiting for it's killer app. Even the game developers were like "this is what we could do in two weeks modifying what we've already made". I think while it was mostly dull, and I could care less about iWork, that was the most telling aspect of the show.

I have a Touch and I love it...sometimes I wish the screen was larger, and that the apps were better. I think when/if developers step up it can be great.

I'm also interested in how the apps work with documents. Obviously as a PRO user I like to be able to have control over where files go and whatnot, but what if the iPhone OS w/ tablet gets more advanced and creates a whole new dynamic for working with documents? When OSX came out I was like "what the fuck is this documents folder?" and I still am. But what if every document that came into the system was controlled by the system the way iLife/OSX does in a half-assed way but better.

You're using the iPad and somebody emails you a jpg. You "download" the jpg. It goes into a folder that you can't see, basically Photos becomes your media manager. Adobe Bridge/lightroom etc. You don't move it around. You open Brushes or Adobe Photopad or Superfuckingpaint and you access all your images out of the same directory. Maybe it goes all web 2.0 and instead of moving things around to folders, everything is managed by Photos and has tags.

I think iWork just hints at things, it'll be other developers who come up with more robust apps with cool interfaces, just hope somebody does. And unlike other tablets, you're never running an application that isn't designed to be used with fingers.

Of course most applications can barely be operated with a mouse and keyboard, so maybe it's a bit much to hope most companies will do anything interesting with interactivity.

I can see games and music apps kicking ass.

crying people, dont forget that the ipod/itunes can play in the background even on reg ol' iphone/tooch

there ARE some apps that can multi, they're just apple's

cant imagine apple wont introduce a certain limited kind of multitasking, if only so ppl can run ichat or something in the background

ya but apple stifles iphone 3rd party apps from the app store that let you customize shit like being able to puts apps in folders or add stuff to the lock screen. why would ipad be handled any differently wrt to app dev

man i just tried adding homescreen to my iphone and it is JANKY

When OSX came out I was like "what the fuck is this documents folder?" and I still am

you put your documents in there

i tried to add hometree and some space marines blew it up :(

oh yeah...it's also about the media distribution. As above, I didn't think the NYTimes app looked much better/different from the website version, especially when the website version looks so good on the iPad browser. It was a bit strange for Steve to be like "look how awesome the NYTimes website is!" then have the NYTimes come out and be like "download our App so you can REALLY enjoy reading the NYTimes."

Especially when NYTimes is thinking about charging for it.

The real success comes when publishers can build apps/publications that are better/more interactive than their own websites...somehow. Then offer it as a paid app, maybe with recurring charges, or distribution through iBooks or iTunes. Thus Apple saves magazines and newspapers. Having a hard time figuring out how that could be better than the website though. Maybe if it's more like a magazine...you get 1 download a week, it's not confusing like a website where you're looking at the archives wondering if you've seen everything. And it's downloaded so you can read it and not have 3g OR wifi access.

I'd be into that. I don't need to go online to visit the New Yorker's website. I'd pay a dollar a week to have a new issue downloaded to me, with some interactive features and videos and games, you know the kind of stuff the New Yorker loves.

It was a bit strange for Steve to be like "look how awesome the NYTimes website is!" then have the NYTimes come out and be like "download our App so you can REALLY enjoy reading the NYTimes."

this, totally

I put nothing in my documents folder.

i usually put my documents there

you put your documents in there

― sir ilx-a-lot (cutty), Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:59 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

but the idea of the os creating a folder for your stuff that it treats differently to other folders (like you can create something called "my docs" and put it somewhere else on the hard drive, but it's not a same -- there are a bunch of folders like this) was a new thing in OS X. i guess dan's point was that resulted in much wailing from the old school, but has not turned out to be _that_ much of a problem in real life. and further locking down the filesystem might be the same.

peripherals I want:

1) waterproof sleeve for bathtime reading
2) Barcode scanner (I could make this into an awesome DB front end and lab tracking tool with that and justify work buying me one), of course if it had a camera then it wouldn't need a barcode scanner. Although maybe I can connect one through bluetooth and have it emulate a keyboard. DB is web interfaced, hmm, maybe I can make work buy me one.

never put any documents in my documents folder on any of my macs

i'm not trying to be obtuse here, but how does OS X treat your documents folder differently? just cause it has that little icon on it? i don't get it. i'm being sincere.

spotlight/quicksilver obliterated my need to actually care about where I put anything on my mac tbf

for instance, before they created the "downloads" folder, i would create a folder named "downloads" in my home folder.

if you put your documents outside of Documents, Spotlight won't search it

ah, thanks.

my point is that it is neither here nor there. If there's gonna be a documents folder, then the system should control all your documents and put them there automatically and not let you put them anywhere else. You can make folders inside it, or tag stuff or whatever. Day one I didn't want anything in my documents folder as I keep everything on a different hard-drive. Move the documents folder out of the home? It's really the way the multi-user set-up works that has fucked OSX since the beginning. I have how many libraries? Fonts go in how many different folders? Remind me where InDesign keeps it's workspaces? In system>library>app support or library>preferences or USER>library>preferences etc etc. Guess what? It has more than one, one user specific and one system-wide. I think it's all bullshit.

I think for most users, a "documents" folder or "movies" folder is great, but for POWER USERS like myself its pretty useless. I think Apples philosophy for several years now has been "we'll kind of make it simple and easy for novices to use so long as they don't fuck around with stuff too much, and the pro users will do what they want anyway, so why bother designing software and/or and interface for them?"

e.g. I don't even know where the downloads folder is on my mac (except on the dock). if I were to accidentally delete it from my dock I wdn't know where to go to get it back, except via spotlight obv

it's in your home folder dude.

unless you are talking about a mercenary downloads folder created by you

I don't even know wht my home folder is

does all of this mean ipad is for me? I'm the problem aren't I

oh, the one with the wee home icon!

lol

http://i.imgur.com/wApCi.png

I'm also getting a kind of 'nintendo wii' vibe from this
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GDcK6VtL4g4/Safaa6DRfyI/AAAAAAAAACY/rEXANAiTzqY/s400/08.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/oRffH.jpg

Guess what? It has more than one, one user specific and one system-wide. I think it's all bullshit.

I am with you an a lot of what you're saying, but I don't see any real alternative here, unless you want a single-user machine.

Sounds good to me.

Cozen if you deleted yr downloads from the dock and didn't know it was in the home folder wouldn't you just Spotlight for it?

but i'm sure with a little imagination there's another way to handle this stuff. How about there's only one library, only one font folder etc etc, and each user has their own prefs and when an application is booting it knows what user is logged in and looks at their preferences. It shouldn't be as messy as it is.

yeah, that's what I said

spotlight rules

xp so rather than something like the filesystem, you're advocating some kind of database to store preferences and configuration?

also 500% of the the problem with this in creative suite is adobe's fault. per-user stuff involves nowhere near this much confusion in almost any other application (including lightroom)

going back to content distribution: it's tantalizing to restrict the ways we can work with files, so that it can all be monetized better. The question is whether it's made appealing enough so that people want to do it rather than doing things the old way (cf. Netflix on xbox, xbox originals). The app store seems to do this because enough apps kick ass on the iPhone.

and Apple also gets, as it were, to outsource development partly without entirely giving up quality control by controlling the app store so tightly...and these companies pay Apple for each sale they make! It's a great deal for Apple!

hitler vid's up btw but it's underwhelming

I think Apples philosophy for several years now has been "we'll kind of make it simple and easy for novices to use so long as they don't fuck around with stuff too much, and the pro users will do what they want anyway, so why bother designing software and/or and interface for them?"

OTM. This is why (and I can't believe I'm writing this) I'm enjoying my Lenovo Win7 laptop at work more than my MacBook at home these days...

hitler vid's up btw but it's underwhelming

― all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:41 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

u should do a hitler vid about it

http://gawker.com/5458812/collage-of-shame-media-who-took-obvious-ipad-prank-seriously

Small bit of info from the 3.2 SDK docs. (reported here: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/ars-ipad-reax.ars/3 - I'm not busting NDAs)

One of the benefits of iWork on the Mac is that content from one app can be easily included in documents for the others. For instance, you could include a chart based on data from a Numbers spreadsheet in a Keynote presentation. When that data is updated in the spreadsheet, the chart can be automatically updated in Keynote. If documents were sequestered away from each other on the iPad, you wouldn't be able to do this. Furthermore, how would you get your iWork files onto the iPad for editing, and how would you get files created on the iPad back to your Mac?

Thankfully, Apple has addressed this in the iPad-only iPhone OS 3.2. The documentation for the SDK indicates that it uses a "shared folder" that any iPad application can read and write. This shared folder will also mount as a disk whenever an iPad is plugged in to a Mac or PC, allowing easy file transfer.

I'm very curious about iPhone OS 4.0. I suspect that feature set (whatever it is) will induce a fair amount of crow-eating in iPad detractors.