6 ms·

I mean the author explains his thoughts in the article, you should read it again.

kelnos 2y ago
The author's thoughts don't make sense, though. He's expecting a locked-down tablet appliance to suit the same needs and use cases as a laptop running a general-purpose OS. Or at best, he's not expecting that, but is at least complaining about it, which feels a little pointless. He can get what he wants by buying a new Mac, as he suggests. It's not like what he wants doesn't exist. He's just complaining that some other random product doesn't do what he wants, even though it's not designed to. Pointless.
- drdaeman 2y ago
  My understanding is that the post is essentially a complaint about deceptive marketing. iPads are marketed as capable of "doing all the things you love", how it's "so versatile it's up to any task" and so on - leading to perception that it's like a computer, except in a different form factor. While, in reality, of course it's not. Personally, I never found any subjectively meaningful use case for iPads except for portable media consumption (aka watching movies on the Porcelain Throne, and even then it's not a great option as it lacks multi-user support). Every time Apple announces a new one, I have this feeling of cognitive dissonance between what the device actually is and how it's marketed. (I'm sure there are lots of good use cases for iPad - just nothing I personally need or care about. Aka "I'm not in the target market")
  - matwood 2y ago
    Apple is marketing to everyone and not just the HN crowd. For many people their phone is their only computing device and for them an iPad is likely a big upgrade. When I have to proof photos or do a bunch of office type work, an iPad has become my goto device. When I'm programming, not so much. But I don't think that's a big secret to this crowd.
    - quitit 2y ago
      Are you telling me people use computers for different reasons? No I won’t believe it. My specific workflow is all that is important and if that doesn’t fit to every form factor of device out there, then the manufacturer of that device is a fraud who is deliberately trying to spite me.
      - drdaeman 2y ago
        > then the manufacturer of that device is a fraud who is deliberately trying to spite me That's a weird conclusion, even for a sarcastic remark. Is it a fraud - is the marketing deceptive? Possibly, yes, I personally believe it can be said so. I think it could be the case because it fails to mention the nuance that iPads aren't a good device for certain tasks. If an ad says "for everyone" without any asterisks and small print to it, it's valid to complain that this is not true. It could be the norm, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a gap that may affect uninformed person's decision making towards purchasing the device that is not a good fit for them. I mean, anecdotally that's what happened to the author after all. Is it a deliberate fraud, though? I haven't been in a room when that ad was discussed, so I cannot possibly tell. I'm not versed in marketing, but I believe I've heard that it's quite a common practice to not include any negativity (aka "when or why you wouldn't want our product?") from marketing materials, for the money doesn't smell. I have respect to the people and companies that do so, for I perceive it as a signal they respect me (aka not wasting my time researching). But whenever it was actually discussed and dismissed ("Should we mention if developers should rather get a Mac? Nah, we want them to buy an iPad too, even if it's useless to them!") or if the idea haven't even been mentioned (e.g. if it's simply not a thing in Apple culture) is unknown to me. Are they trying to spite anyone? I don't have any evidence that suggests so, so I find it highly unlikely. While Apple has different system of beliefs and values, drastically different from some freedom-loving software crowds, I don't think I've seen signs of any significant deliberate hatred towards those who don't share their values, or willingness to make their lives worse somehow. There could've been some less than great attitudes (but my memory fails me here, I only have a vague idea that I might've possibly heard or read something that didn't resonate well with me), but I don't recall anything seriously hateful. All this said, I would love for us all have more discussion about ethics in marketing. Honest, open, and ideally without any sarcastic remarks (for they rarely help and frequently discourage civilized discussion).
- frosting1337 2y ago
  "Even though it's not designed to" It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad. His point is that over the years, Apple has blurred that line a lot. You can use keyboards and mice. You can do all your daily computing on an iPad - email, spreadsheets, YouTube, whatever. But it's still locked down, for whatever reason, despite being a perfectly capable computer that doesn't necessarily need to be. It's honestly really obvious what he's saying. iPads have changed over the last 5 or so years, and people on HN clearly haven't used one in a while. The author isn't _wrong_. Apple spends all this effort to blur the lines between personal computer and a device you can compute on, and it mildly tricks users who don't necessarily realise there's a difference between the computer and the tablet, especially amongst younger generations who grew up on tablets ("iPad kids").
  - GeekyBear 2y ago
    > It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad. An XBox's hardware is designed to run general purpose Windows software. However, it's been clear for a decade that Microsoft is selling the XBox as a game playing appliance, and has no intention of allowing you to run general purpose Windows software on it. If you choose to buy an appliance instead of a computer, that's your call. You gain ease of use and freedom from having to manage device complexity, but lose the ability to do whatever you want.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      Just because it's commonplace doesn't make it any less hostile to users. The tradeoff argument is legitimate, but it would be easy enough to have a yolo-mode button somewhere that voids the warranty and unshackles the user. This is why I prefer Android. Google is evil, sure, but at least they don't treat me like a child. If I want to take one of their devices and shoot myself in the foot with it, that's fine with them (and thanks to nix-on-droid, there's plenty of ammo for such adventures).
      - musicale 2y ago
- iteratethis 2y ago
  "He's expecting a locked-down tablet appliance to suit the same needs and use cases as a laptop running a general-purpose OS." Which is a perfectly valid complaint since it doesn't need to be locked down. It's an entirely artificial limitation. An iPad pro is like selling a Ferrari that can only turn left at 30mph. I don't understand the "buy something else" mentality. Freedom of computing on hardware you own used to be core to the tech community, but I guess it's now cooler to side with monopolists.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    An iPad doesn't have the thermals of a laptop. They are not the same device. People who want root on everything and a command line are a tiny minority of the population. Most users don't even know what root is. They don't want to know. It doesn't interest them. They don't find it a limitation because command line computing is something they're actively indifferent to. Having a powerful engine (for burst computing) changes nothing. They still don't care. They want something that runs CapCut or whatever, and that's the extent of their interest in technology.
threeseed 2y ago
I read it and don't understand it at all. He's bought something whose limitations and target demographic are well known. And then complaining when he hits one of those limitations.
- frosting1337 2y ago
  He's complaining because Apple of the year have started to blur the line between a personal computer and a device that you can personally compute on.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  The infuriating thing is that a huge number of those limitations exist as a few bytes that Apple does not let you flip, somewhere in the OS's code or configuration. It would be unreasonable to buy, say, a flip phone in 2007 and complain that it can't replace a graphics workstation. It didn't have the hardware for that workload. Today, it's the artificial nature of the limitations that make the device akin to a cage.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    Yes because flipping those bits would make the iPad a Mac. And the whole point of an iPad is that you have a simple and consistent experience.
    - stickmunch 2y ago
      I don't recall which WWDC it was.. They had a slide with the largest text they ever used. The question was "will ipadOS and macOS merge? "NO"
      - stickmunch 2y ago
        Found it. it was iOS and macOS but still... https://youtu.be/DOYikXbC6Fs https://youtu.be/DOYikXbC6Fs
        2y ago

The author's thoughts don't make sense, though. He's expecting a locked-down tablet appliance to suit the same needs and use cases as a laptop running a general-purpose OS. Or at best, he's not expecting that, but is at least complaining about it, which feels a little pointless. He can get what he wants by buying a new Mac, as he suggests. It's not like what he wants doesn't exist. He's just complaining that some other random product doesn't do what he wants, even though it's not designed to. Pointless.

drdaeman 2y ago
My understanding is that the post is essentially a complaint about deceptive marketing. iPads are marketed as capable of "doing all the things you love", how it's "so versatile it's up to any task" and so on - leading to perception that it's like a computer, except in a different form factor. While, in reality, of course it's not. Personally, I never found any subjectively meaningful use case for iPads except for portable media consumption (aka watching movies on the Porcelain Throne, and even then it's not a great option as it lacks multi-user support). Every time Apple announces a new one, I have this feeling of cognitive dissonance between what the device actually is and how it's marketed. (I'm sure there are lots of good use cases for iPad - just nothing I personally need or care about. Aka "I'm not in the target market")
- matwood 2y ago
  Apple is marketing to everyone and not just the HN crowd. For many people their phone is their only computing device and for them an iPad is likely a big upgrade. When I have to proof photos or do a bunch of office type work, an iPad has become my goto device. When I'm programming, not so much. But I don't think that's a big secret to this crowd.
  - quitit 2y ago
    Are you telling me people use computers for different reasons? No I won’t believe it. My specific workflow is all that is important and if that doesn’t fit to every form factor of device out there, then the manufacturer of that device is a fraud who is deliberately trying to spite me.
    - drdaeman 2y ago
      > then the manufacturer of that device is a fraud who is deliberately trying to spite me That's a weird conclusion, even for a sarcastic remark. Is it a fraud - is the marketing deceptive? Possibly, yes, I personally believe it can be said so. I think it could be the case because it fails to mention the nuance that iPads aren't a good device for certain tasks. If an ad says "for everyone" without any asterisks and small print to it, it's valid to complain that this is not true. It could be the norm, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a gap that may affect uninformed person's decision making towards purchasing the device that is not a good fit for them. I mean, anecdotally that's what happened to the author after all. Is it a deliberate fraud, though? I haven't been in a room when that ad was discussed, so I cannot possibly tell. I'm not versed in marketing, but I believe I've heard that it's quite a common practice to not include any negativity (aka "when or why you wouldn't want our product?") from marketing materials, for the money doesn't smell. I have respect to the people and companies that do so, for I perceive it as a signal they respect me (aka not wasting my time researching). But whenever it was actually discussed and dismissed ("Should we mention if developers should rather get a Mac? Nah, we want them to buy an iPad too, even if it's useless to them!") or if the idea haven't even been mentioned (e.g. if it's simply not a thing in Apple culture) is unknown to me. Are they trying to spite anyone? I don't have any evidence that suggests so, so I find it highly unlikely. While Apple has different system of beliefs and values, drastically different from some freedom-loving software crowds, I don't think I've seen signs of any significant deliberate hatred towards those who don't share their values, or willingness to make their lives worse somehow. There could've been some less than great attitudes (but my memory fails me here, I only have a vague idea that I might've possibly heard or read something that didn't resonate well with me), but I don't recall anything seriously hateful. All this said, I would love for us all have more discussion about ethics in marketing. Honest, open, and ideally without any sarcastic remarks (for they rarely help and frequently discourage civilized discussion).
frosting1337 2y ago
"Even though it's not designed to" It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad. His point is that over the years, Apple has blurred that line a lot. You can use keyboards and mice. You can do all your daily computing on an iPad - email, spreadsheets, YouTube, whatever. But it's still locked down, for whatever reason, despite being a perfectly capable computer that doesn't necessarily need to be. It's honestly really obvious what he's saying. iPads have changed over the last 5 or so years, and people on HN clearly haven't used one in a while. The author isn't _wrong_. Apple spends all this effort to blur the lines between personal computer and a device you can compute on, and it mildly tricks users who don't necessarily realise there's a difference between the computer and the tablet, especially amongst younger generations who grew up on tablets ("iPad kids").
- GeekyBear 2y ago
  > It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad. An XBox's hardware is designed to run general purpose Windows software. However, it's been clear for a decade that Microsoft is selling the XBox as a game playing appliance, and has no intention of allowing you to run general purpose Windows software on it. If you choose to buy an appliance instead of a computer, that's your call. You gain ease of use and freedom from having to manage device complexity, but lose the ability to do whatever you want.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Just because it's commonplace doesn't make it any less hostile to users. The tradeoff argument is legitimate, but it would be easy enough to have a yolo-mode button somewhere that voids the warranty and unshackles the user. This is why I prefer Android. Google is evil, sure, but at least they don't treat me like a child. If I want to take one of their devices and shoot myself in the foot with it, that's fine with them (and thanks to nix-on-droid, there's plenty of ammo for such adventures).
    - musicale 2y ago
iteratethis 2y ago
"He's expecting a locked-down tablet appliance to suit the same needs and use cases as a laptop running a general-purpose OS." Which is a perfectly valid complaint since it doesn't need to be locked down. It's an entirely artificial limitation. An iPad pro is like selling a Ferrari that can only turn left at 30mph. I don't understand the "buy something else" mentality. Freedom of computing on hardware you own used to be core to the tech community, but I guess it's now cooler to side with monopolists.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  An iPad doesn't have the thermals of a laptop. They are not the same device. People who want root on everything and a command line are a tiny minority of the population. Most users don't even know what root is. They don't want to know. It doesn't interest them. They don't find it a limitation because command line computing is something they're actively indifferent to. Having a powerful engine (for burst computing) changes nothing. They still don't care. They want something that runs CapCut or whatever, and that's the extent of their interest in technology.

threeseed 2y ago

I read it and don't understand it at all. He's bought something whose limitations and target demographic are well known. And then complaining when he hits one of those limitations.

frosting1337 2y ago
He's complaining because Apple of the year have started to blur the line between a personal computer and a device that you can personally compute on.
idle_zealot 2y ago
The infuriating thing is that a huge number of those limitations exist as a few bytes that Apple does not let you flip, somewhere in the OS's code or configuration. It would be unreasonable to buy, say, a flip phone in 2007 and complain that it can't replace a graphics workstation. It didn't have the hardware for that workload. Today, it's the artificial nature of the limitations that make the device akin to a cage.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Yes because flipping those bits would make the iPad a Mac. And the whole point of an iPad is that you have a simple and consistent experience.
  - stickmunch 2y ago
    I don't recall which WWDC it was.. They had a slide with the largest text they ever used. The question was "will ipadOS and macOS merge? "NO"
    - stickmunch 2y ago
      Found it. it was iOS and macOS but still... https://youtu.be/DOYikXbC6Fs https://youtu.be/DOYikXbC6Fs
      - 2y ago