Comments on: Tablet is the New iMac

By: Justin Spohn

Justin Spohn — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:30:49 +0000

Thanks Gary! I’ll be interested to hear what you think of the other post as they’re sort of sister topics.

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:18:03 +0000

Nice job calling it, Justin! You are spot-on in your assessment of the thing as a next-generation computer/communication device, though as jiro points out, it’s more the successful combination of technologies in a useful package that make it notable than the capabilities themselves. Now on to your recent post to comment on the lament of delivery.

By: Apples Win, Wrapped in a Miss, Rolled in Confusion

Apples Win, Wrapped in a Miss, Rolled in Confusion — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:06:59 +0000

[...] I pointed out Monday, something as seemingly basic as the file system is a total mystery to most people. And forget [...]

By: Apples Win, Wrapped in a Miss, Rolled in Confusion

Apples Win, Wrapped in a Miss, Rolled in Confusion — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:51:29 +0000

[...] this is violence ← Tablet is the New iMac [...]

By: Tweets that mention Tablet is the New iMac -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention Tablet is the New iMac -- Topsy.com — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:09:35 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Spohn, Denny Mcentire. Denny Mcentire said: RT @aDogNamedPants: The last horse crosses the finish line: My take post on the Tablet (like we needed another one…) http://bit.ly/4R94qt [...]

By: Justin Spohn

Justin Spohn — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:48:17 +0000

Thanks Jeremy – Interesting point on the Air. I’ve always thought of that as super niche product designed to fill a really specific, but existing need: basically, someone who needs a laptop form factor, but just a really small one. But it’s interesting to think about it as a laptop alternative. In that way, it makes even more clear why the Tablet needs to be (and I would say will be) something going a totally different direction. After all, no one needs another, tinier, less convenient, version of the same old thing (see: netbooks)

By: Justin Spohn

Justin Spohn — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:43:00 +0000

Well – I might argue the devil in the details.

Sure, Apple may not make a lot from scratch, but then, who does? But the act of taking all these things, and creating a thoughtful, considered product is, perhaps sadly, still revolutionary. Nothing on or in the iPhone was necessarily revolutionary, but the total package, and more importantly, the approach, was revolutionary and it resulted in a product that was truly paradigm shifting. But more than technology, Apple seems to have a way of understanding the relationship between culture and technology, and I think that’s where they have consistently brought new ideas to bear. Macintosh, iMac, iPod, iPhone; all these changed peoples relationships with technology.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:42:07 +0000

Really well done. I especially agree with the mantra being “simpler is better than faster, stability is more important than openness, accessibility is more important than compatibility.” — the iphone proves easily that compatibility really isn’t necessary on a device that is so all-inclusive of most of the daily tasks (and distractions) I use.

If the iTablet pulls off instilling senses of true/non-fragile portability, continuous and immediate) info availability (like my phone), and accessibility to both tech and non-tech folks, it is going to redefine the target. I think the MacBook Air tried to do that, but really came up short for many of us who see it as an overpriced pretty laptop (*ducking*) that is too much for a home machine and too little for a work machine.

Thanks for writing this – really clarified for me why I should give a rip , given my ongoing obsession with my phone…

By: jiro

jiro — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:28:10 +0000

Well, here’s where I piss off the Mac fans. I don’t believe Apple creates interaction paradigm-shifting products. They package stuff together nicely, fit some technologies together well, and with a well thought out interface, but have they taken on a whole new interaction language before? I feel like it has all been refinements and good design.

Now of course some would say the iPhone can be used as a counter example. There wasn’t anything interface wise that wasn’t seen elsewhere first, though. Apple took it all simplified it, and stuck it together in a great design. I would say this is different, though. Design, interface, interaction, utility, all of these would be different. Even the selling of why people need this device in the first place would be something Apple would have to do (which of course with cell phones or computers isn’t an issue).

By: Justin Spohn

Justin Spohn — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:14:56 +0000

Jiro – Of course, you’re right, the iMac didn’t bring a new interaction model to the table, but thats why I think the Tablet is the iMac for now. In 1998, the challenges were different. At that time just getting people to see the computer as something non-threatening, and something that could be part of their daily lives. In 2010 the challenge is to create something that addresses the needs of a society in which computers are ubiquitous. And in my mind, this is exactly why they need to come to the table with a new interaction model.

All the models for input we have now are based on 30 year old paradigms that aren’t all relevant any more for a lot of people. In a lot of cases, Im not sure they ever were. Keyboard commands for example, where born out of necessity and limited options, but are totally random and have no metaphor that people can quickly relate to. And learning one doesn’t help you learn any others or move from application to application. In this way, I’d like a system were keyboards are for typing, and I have other options when Im editing photos or watching videos or browsing the web.