> full abstraction of system operations (i.e. file and process management) from the user.
There have been plenty of attempts to do that in the past, the iphone does it as well.
Revolutionary is to me something that will literally change the face of computing as we know it, the world wide web was revolutionary, the personal computer was revolutionary.
The ipad is a nice gadget, it may be revolutionary but for that to be the case we will have to wait for the future to happen first, and it definitely isn't revolutionary in all possible futures.
edit: Interestingly enough, I'd peg the ipad's chances at being 'revolutionary' a lot higher if apple decided to make it a completely open platform. Just like the web and the PC succeeded because in essence they were open. The fact that the iphone is closed and is a success makes you wonder how big a success it could have been if it were more open. I think that it might have been a lot bigger still.
For some reason 'closed' is the new black and I really don't think that's the right direction, which probably shows from my feelings about all this.
Of course Steve Jobs is in a much better position than I am to say that he's right, but I can't shake the feeling.
btw, multi-touch has been around in one form or another since 1982...
"btw, multi-touch has been around in one form or another since 1982..."
And almost no one is using it on a tablet scale yet. Nor has anyone (other than Apple) actually designed a tablet UI consistently around it yet, as opposed to trying to duct tape together a multitouch screen and a desktop UI.
"> full abstraction of system operations (i.e. file and process management) from the user.
There have been plenty of attempts to do that in the past"
And when that approach ultimately succeeds for most users, it will be a combination of web apps and iPad-like clients.
The iPad might be colossal failure overall, it might fail to catch on until it's cheap enough for the average user to have about three, or it might change the world next month--I'm not convinced any of these is true.
"Just like the web and the PC succeeded because in essence they were open. The fact that the iphone is closed and is a success makes you wonder how big a success it could have been if it were more open. I think that it might have been a lot bigger still."
If your hypothesis is true, Android is going to become an even bigger success than iPhone. Likewise, there's going to be an open (probably Linux) alternative to iPad, just as there's Android now and there were IBM-compatibles to compete with the Apple II and Mac proprietary hardware platforms.
As it stands, Google's attempt at abstracting the system away is Chrome OS, which limits you exclusively to web apps. While that might be enough, it's hard to praise a design for "openness" when it doesn't let you run more than a web browser on your own machine. (Sure, you can install a different Linux on a Chrome OS netbook, but you can jailbreak iPhones and iPods touch as well--presumably iPads.)
Edit: Can someone explain to me why I'm being downmodded here?
> Can someone explain to me why I'm being downmodded here?
Happens all the time. Very annoying.
I'm not advocating chrome os in favor of the the ipad, it seems a step back. The PC revolution is slowly being rolled back and that's not revolutionary at all, that's regression.
The whole reason open source took off is because we own these machines, if we end up just getting a piece of glass that puts us in touch with all kinds of software that we are allowed to use remotely then we are well on our way to the 60's.
We'll see about android, I'm keeping my fingers (and my toes) crossed that open will win out over closed, no matter how slickly packaged closed can be (that really is it's big advantage, the fact that the 'cathedral' usually has a single architect makes it a lot more aesthetically pleasing to the eye).
"The PC revolution is slowly being rolled back and that's not revolutionary at all, that's a step back."
I used to think the same thing for years. I was always for thick clients and the like, but I've seen how ineptly probably 75% of people are at using a PC. Most people can't be sysadmins, and those of us who can don't always want to be. It's not simply a matter of the UI being poor, because even computers with good UI have intractable usability problems.
If we had high speed network access and graphical terminals everywhere we went in the 1960's, there would have been no PC revolution. As it stands, PC's are going to be a niche in the long run. That's probably fine--a stripped down machine like an iPod or Chrome OS or something would actually be helpful even to, for instance, me because I could segregate serious work (which I do on my MacBook) from wasting time on HN and the like (which I could do on a more limited device.)
That would be a real pity, let me try to put in to words why I think that's the case.
Computers as 'property' and in 'peer-to-peer' mode are a democratic institution. Even if they have their shortcomings, as you rightly observe, they are a powerful tool for information processing in the hands of the masses.
If you take all that power and move it to the other side of a network cable in the hands of a relatively small number of corporations then the knowledge on how to program and operate those machines 'under the hood' will probably become part of some kind of new priesthood.
I think that a real information revolution should not come from locking things up and walling them off but from tools that allow a large majority of the people to enter in to a dialogue with their own computers, where they are in control of their own information and can retrieve at will from large repositories of information.
Unless you're publishing your blog or whatnot on a server that's run out of your own bedroom, you've already lost that. I share your sympathies, but most people don't want what we want. The internet is democratic enough for those of us who don't own our own servers, and computing is going to have to become democratic enough for people who don't own their own general purpose computers.
I don't think PC's will become unavailable, though--there's too much work they're necessary for.
edit: Interestingly enough, I'd peg the ipad's chances at being 'revolutionary' a lot higher if apple decided to make it a completely open platform. Just like the web and the PC succeeded because in essence they were open. The fact that the iphone is closed and is a success makes you wonder how big a success it could have been if it were more open. I think that it might have been a lot bigger still.
You just paraphrased my post. To your credit, your version is more succinct and to the point.
btw, multi-touch has been around in one form or another since 1982...
The culture still lags the research labs by decades. See "The computer revolution hasn't happened yet" by Alan Kay.
So by your use of "revolutionary," the Gutenberg press wasn't because movable type predated it and he just used it to replicate Bibles in 2 better, faster way.
Apologies, I had completely failed to spot that, you are absolutely right.
> So by your use of "revolutionary," the Gutenberg press wasn't because movable type predated it and he just used it to replicate Bibles in 2 better, faster way.
No, te Gutenberg press was revolutionary because it opened up books to the masses.
On a technical level it was a relatively minor improvement over movable type, but the fact that the social consequences were enormous is what makes it revolutionary.
Technology is only revolutionary when it has large effects in the real world.
By that yardstick the laser was revolutionary, even if at the time it was invented we couldn't foresee any of the changes that it would bring. In fact, for the longest time it was called a solution in search of a problem.
I simply take exception to calling the ipad revolutionary before it has had a chance to prove itself. It's hype, and hype leads to over-expectations which almost always lead to disappointment.
Let's just wait and see, what this ipad thing is when you finally get your hands on it, let's see what kinds of uses people will put it to.
Then give it 5 to 10 years, and then we'll be in a position to judge whether or not it was revolutionary.
Remember the Osborne-1 ? that was revolutionary. But only because it made people think that computers didn't have to be stuck in one spot.
Gutenberg press was revolutionary because it opened up books to the masses.
On a technical level it was a relatively minor improvement over movable type, but the fact that the social consequences were enormous is what makes it revolutionary.
Yes. And it took the next 4 centuries for all of them to fully unfold.
Remember the Osborne-1 ? that was revolutionary. But only because it made people think that computers didn't have to be stuck in one spot.
