Everyone in this thread getting offended by casual use of the term "real work" is missing the point. The iPad can obviously be used for "real work" -- but the point of this argument is not to criticize people and the work that they do, it's to criticize the limitations of the iPad's operating system.
Computer power users like composability, interoperability, "unix philosophy" / "do one thing well" -- whatever you want to call it -- because it's a powerful tool.
RodgerTheGreat summed it up really well:
> On a desktop, any user can invent new workflows. On an ipad, a user can only buy them wholesale. Users are at the mercy of the degree of forethought the app developers put into their designs.
Power users are frustrated because we like the iPad hardware and want to be able to use it, but Apple seems to have latched onto the idea that good tablet design requires them to sacrifice this idea. I and many others don't believe this is necessarily a requirement. Yes, the form factor is different, and you need to be careful with input methods, but good composability should still be possible, and could even be better than on a PC -- but Apple doesn't seem interested in actually trying. That's the criticism.
The criticism is that the iPad isn't better than a PC? Neither is a hammer or a saw ... but both are used professionally every minute.
The iPad is a tool. Would someone argue that a hammer is flawed because it only can be used in some ways, some professions and for some tasks? A laptop is a tool, a PC is a tool, a mainframe is a tool, a calculator is a tool and a saw is a tool. So what?
Of course, a PC might be a better tool for your workflow, your work, your results. But that might be different for someone else. Work with the tools that fits your needs best!
Why do we need to criticize one tool because it is not equal or better to another? Gruber is right in regards of discoverability and consistency of (multitasking) gestures on iPadOS. There is room for improvement. The lack of "professional" iPad software should be directed more towards the developers than Apple - why needs some iPad app to be crippled in comparison to its Mac counterpart? Valid concerns.
But calling the iPad a failure because it doesn't fit to your work, your workflow and your processes? Because it isn't the ultimate general purpose tool? I know authors still using a typewriter. I know some that use iPads because of the "single app interface" and less distraction. I know others using laptops (and complaining about distraction). All are doing "real" work (as many other professions mentioned in this thread) and all have their preferred way of working.
If a developer/power user is happy with his Mac/Win/Linux setup, why does s/he need to criticize the iPad for NOT being the right tool? Or are these folks just unhappy with their setups and desperately hoping Apple will give them a better (-toy-) tool for less bucks? Or is it just en vogue to bash Apple?
You're making exactly the mistake I described. You're getting hung up on how the criticism was lobbed, when it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Obviously it's not actually a failure: it's made billions of dollars for Apple.
> The lack of "professional" iPad software should be directed more towards the developers than Apple - why needs some iPad app to be crippled in comparison to its Mac counterpart?
The problem isn't the software, because the goal isn't to have one or two magically complex IDEs that can do everything, the goal is to allow useful ways to shovel intermediate data around in between apps. That has to happen at the operating system level, and so the criticism needs to be directed at Apple.
> Why do we need to criticize one tool because it is not equal or better to another?
Because it fucking could be better, and it's maddening that it isn't! That is a totally valid reason to criticize something!
If you want to use a woodworking tool analogy, it's like a tablesaw with a crosscut sled welded to the table. Sometimes I want to make a rip cut. I could buy a new table with a welded-on rip fence and spend an hour retooling every time I want to switch tasks... But interchangeable fixtures are useful, and I'm allowed to be upset when other people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this.
If the issue persists and remains unacknowledged even after a decade of criticism, you should expect that people are going to start using hyperbole out of sheer frustration. But that's "frustrated person language" -- you still shouldn't get hung up on the literal phrases.
But I think "real work" is a bad criticism. If the kind of work it can do is the problem with the iPad, then why is the iPhone so popular?
The real "problem" with the iPad is the size. Laptop have been getting smaller and thinner (gigantic 17" laptops used to be a thing). iPhones have been getting bigger (more iPad-like or at least iPad mini-like), but it's probably close to big enough.
It turns out Steve Jobs was wrong. The iPhone is not a too small version of an iPad, the iPad is an iPhone that's too big. That's not to say there's no room for it in the product lineup. It just happens to be more like the Mac Mini than the iMac.
For the third time, "real work" is not the actual criticism. It's inexact language used by a frustrated person, and you're taking it literally when you shouldn't be.
> If the kind of work it can do is the problem with the iPad
Nobody is saying this. The kind of work you can already do on an iPad is great. We're just frustrated because with a little bit of thought at the operating system level, the device would also be capable of doing a lot of other things well, without any sacrifice to the all of the existing apps and workflows that make the device popular.
> We're just frustrated because with a little bit of thought at the operating system level, the device would also be capable of doing a lot of other things well, without any sacrifice to the all of the existing apps and workflows that make the device popular.
I wonder how true this really is? Removing the need for files or composability was a “feature” of the iPad from the beginning. To simplify things. For example, add in more native support for a real file system from the beginning, and many of the apps that were designed without a file system /composability in mind now is designed completely differently, and may no longer work as well/simply as the current users experience them today.
I don’t pretend to have a crystal ball and know how things “might’ve been”, but I think saying that by supporting a native file system/composability, things would be “the same but better” may be a bit naive.
You're saying that the iPad could do these additional Mac-like things with a few tweaks or additions. I'm saying the sweet spot is in the other direction. You want it to do more (essentially 'real work'). The device that's doing better is the one that's just like it, but is smaller and does less.
That's why "real work" is a bad criticism. I put it in quotes, because yes, I read what you wrote and you're frustration. It sucks but I don't think the iPad is ever going to be that. It would be better for you, but it won't make the iPad a more popular product.
I really like my iPad but I find it sometimes maddening that the closest I can get to using it for software development is with a character terminal, yet it's actually faster than my MacBook.
I have found it really great for one type of serious work: writing. (With an external keyboard of course, which I think is fair.).
And I think there are some places where it really ought to be the better tool for professionals:
* Editing photos (pretty good already but not pro-level)
* Audio workflows (can't judge but seems good?)
* Video workflows (maddeningly weak at this point)
* Storyboarding (again can't judge)
I get that Apple doesn't consider this a tool for making software, and I sort of wish I could get by with just writing and editing the occasional photo, and I realize that I could of course write whatever I want in Xcode if I had time.
But as a UNIX guy, having returned to the Apple ecosystem after it became a UNIX ecosystem, the inaccessibility of the UNIX sitting under iPadOS still rubs me the wrong way.
> Why do we need to criticize one tool because it is not equal or better to another?
Probably because we want it to become better :-)
> But calling the iPad a failure because it doesn't fit to your work
I'm sorry that's the impression you took away from the article, because that wasn't what I was trying to communicate. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "failure", but I did try to explain what I meant by the word, by going back to what the iPad was originally meant to be: the car to the PC's truck, a better device than a PC for the vast majority of users.
I think it's unfortunate that it failed to achieve this.
It's great that there are authors who still use typewriters, but that's exactly my point: that's what the iPad is. It's a niche tool for people who have very specific needs. That's fine, but I don't think it's the iPad's full potential.
>> Computer power users like composability, interoperability, "unix philosophy" / "do one thing well" -- whatever you want to call it -- because it's a powerful tool.
Which equates to a fraction of computer use globally. I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money, most people who use a computer couldn't even tell you what composability is. They just don't care.
You're frustrated because the iPad is not a replacement for a laptop.
Er, yeah? So what?
That's not what it's designed for. You're complaining that a Tesla Model 3 is crap off road.
FTR, I have an iPad and I wouldn't even consider doing my day job on it. Could it be redesigned to fit my workflow? Of course, but then it would be worse for the things I actually use it for.
I agree, even among programmers, not everybody is a poweruser. Some will want a prebuild IDE with streamlined single workflow. Others will assemble git / procfs / binutils / sqlite / hexdump / younameit to hack through a task in wild ways. But I very rarely see this around.
Computer power users like composability, interoperability, "unix philosophy" / "do one thing well" -- whatever you want to call it -- because it's a powerful tool.
RodgerTheGreat summed it up really well:
> On a desktop, any user can invent new workflows. On an ipad, a user can only buy them wholesale. Users are at the mercy of the degree of forethought the app developers put into their designs.
Power users are frustrated because we like the iPad hardware and want to be able to use it, but Apple seems to have latched onto the idea that good tablet design requires them to sacrifice this idea. I and many others don't believe this is necessarily a requirement. Yes, the form factor is different, and you need to be careful with input methods, but good composability should still be possible, and could even be better than on a PC -- but Apple doesn't seem interested in actually trying. That's the criticism.