
Tablets - timf
http://paulgraham.com/tablets.html
======
replicatorblog
This is absolutely right. My company been working on a medical device
accessory for the iPhone and the possibilities the "tablet" form factor are
amazing.

Lower Cost Structure - In our industry (diabetes) you give away hardware to
get ongoing disposable revenue. This hardware is expensive to produce and
develop. Plus you spend a lot of effort on areas that don't add much value
e.g. reinventing the wheel re: display drivers. This completely changes the
economics of the industry.

Higher Product Quality - By taking advantage of the core Tablet attributes
like color touch screen display and processor you can do things feature wise
that would be prohibitive with custom hardware. The amount of "ooohs" we get
showing off our iPhone UI vs the current LCD one is staggering.

New Revenue Opportunities - Again our business has thrived on a single revenue
stream, the disposable test strips. With connections to the web all manner of
"virtual good", subscription services, and other digital business models get
opened up.

Overall it is a huge win for both user and entrepreneur and is going to
fundamentally change a bunch of hardware businesses.

If you want to see our product, here is a nice review
([http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662351/blood-glucose-monitor-
fo...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662351/blood-glucose-monitor-for-the-
iphone))

~~~
dejb
Doesn't it concern you that Apple could shut you down at any stage? They could
easily just decide that your app isn't suitable for their store. This would be
especially true for industrial applications where there might be good reasons
to want to step outside their TOS or guidelines.

~~~
Xuzz
I'd also be concerned that on Android that the user might have a device that
doesn't allow off-Market installs, and then I'd have to use a distribution
mechanism I don't prefer (maybe even an alternative market like Amazon was
rumored to be creating).

No platform is perfect.

~~~
statictype
Less of a concern. If Apple decides to go into the Medical gadgets field and
updates their terms of service accordingly, you are basically hosed. There's
no recourse. Not even an alternate 'off-Market install'.

~~~
Xuzz
Unless your customer's Android device happens to come from AT&T, where you
have the exact same issue.

(This isn't to say I don't agree with you that they shouldn't be able to kick
you off, but, you know what? No mobile platform is good in that respect.)

~~~
dejb
Yes but your program will still work on other android platforms that don't try
to prevent non-app software so the software development effort investment
isn't wasted.

------
DanielBMarkham
Worth noting here that most analysts feel that the reason the original iPod
was successful was that it only did one thing in an extremely friendly format.

I think the key question here is whether or not the app-universe grows in size
until consumers desire separation of widgets again.

I know from my own experience that I found I maximize productivity by having
separate devices responsible for separate things. For instance, when I pick up
my blue iPod it's for education -- I keep books and lectures on there. But
when I pick up my black iTouch it's for fun -- I keep only tunes there. My
phone -- although it has all kinds of neat wizardry in it -- I use solely for
talking to other people.

Perhaps both trends are true. Perhaps we end up individually separating our
apps into physical devices based on preference instead of tradition. Neat
stuff.

~~~
mortenjorck
This, in my opinion, is the genius of Apple's choice of form factor. By
omitting any physical buttons apart from meta-functionality, and allowing only
full-screen applications, an iOS device essentially becomes dedicated hardware
for whatever it happens to be running.

I remember marveling at the YouTube app the first time I picked up an iPad. It
was the best YouTube experience I'd seen; it felt like I was holding a
purpose-built device for YouTube viewing. The home button simply prepared it
to morph into a different purpose-built device.

~~~
arethuza
Video on the iPad is its killer app for - I don't check email with it, I do a
fair amount of Web browsing and I have read a few books through Kindle on it -
but with video (a ripped DVD, iPlayer or a movie rented from iTunes) it is
simply wonderful.

[NB I noticed the other evening that an iPlayer at the distance I normally
cradle it is larger than our 50" plasma at whatever distance that is from
where I sit - no wonder it feels so immersive]

~~~
Psyonic
That mono sound really sucks you in

~~~
arethuza
To watch an action movie with others I'd put it on the big screen and turn up
the surround sound. Watching a history/science documentary by myself I prefer
the iPad.

YMMV

------
edw519
_Developers have used the accelerometer in ways Apple could never have
imagined._

That sentence is one instance of this sentence:

Developers have used <platformFunction> in ways <inventor> could never have
imagined.

What better argument for open standards, APIs, and community cooperation?

~~~
alanthonyc
Doesn't the fact that the iPad is itself a closed...errr, integrated...system
counter your argument?

I'm all for open standards, API's and community cooperation of course. I just
don't think that Apple is necessarily the antithesis.

The fundamental difference between Apple's position today to Microsoft's
monoculture of the previous decade lies in their motivations.

Apple wants to make great stuff.

Microsoft wanted to control the world.

btw PG: I rfs8.html is not on the rfs.html page yet.

~~~
lukeschlather
Microsoft's control was superficial, and that's how they like it. They don't
want to control what you put on your computer, they just want you to pay them
the same reasonable price.

Apple on the other hand clearly does care what you put on your iOS device, and
in ways that go beyond a desire for good UX to a desire to control what is
acceptable for society: [http://www.ncregister.com/blog/apple-finds-
christianity-offe...](http://www.ncregister.com/blog/apple-finds-christianity-
offensive-to-large-groups-of-people-removes-app)

~~~
alanthonyc
Here's the difference:

You don't have to use any Apple device if you don't want to. _That_ choice is
yours.

I spent many years working in places where you had to use Microsoft products.
There was _no_ choice.

Microsoft didn't care what you put on your machine because all they care about
is making money selling you stuff.

~~~
zmmmmm
> I spent many years working in places where you had to use Microsoft
> products. There was no choice.

That's ridiculous - you had choice - you could have chosen to work elsewhere.
Can't get the same pay, conditions, etc? That's not the point.

These days there are plenty of jobs where you'll have to use a Mac because
Jobs has dictated that you can only do iOS development on a (recent) Mac.

~~~
extension
Microsoft's entire empire was built on platform lock-in and network effects --
from business to business, to customers, and to the homes of their employees.
It was a staggeringly successful strategy that everyone copied, Apple being
the most prominant exception. They've always made products to please the
consumer who bought it and nobody else. Cherry pick counter-examples all you
like, but this is pretty much how it was.

~~~
cookiecaper
Really? I don't think that Apple has acted with such altruistic intentions.
Certainly they're not just pumping out whatever they can to get more cash, but
they're obviously working to make a profit.

If their number one priority was really to please the end-user, they'd be
selling everything at cost, open-sourcing and giving away OS X for free, etc.
People are generally greatly pleased when they can get cool stuff for cheap or
free.

Apple wants to please their customers so much that Apple is deciding what apps
their customers are allowed to use, because their customers are too stupid to
correctly choose the application that works best for his/her needs. And if you
attempt to circumvent this restriction, Apple will do everything in its power,
technically and legally, to stop you from doing so.

Did Microsoft ever endeavor to do this? Personally, I find top-down control of
the entire distribution channel more of a "platform lock-in" thing than
encouraging the use of proprietary IE extensions.

It seems to me that Apple develops more to please Apple than to please end-
users. The worship that Apple gets is so very silly, in my opinion.

~~~
extension
It has nothing to do with altruism, it's about selling directly to the person
using the product vs selling to someone who forces other people to use the
product. Even if the seller is acting primarily out of self interest, users
are going to end up much happier buying something because they _like it_ , and
not because forces out of their control have conspired to make it their only
viable option.

EDIT: here, straight from the horse's mouth
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=22hEtutXybw#t=520s)

~~~
encoderer
Apple wouldn't be in existence without the billions it made volume selling to
schools. From grammar school to graduate school I was forced to use an
Apple/Mac.

Your comment, while mostly fiction IMO, does have a nice storyline.

~~~
extension
Were you forced to buy one because your school had one? Was the school forced
to buy them so they could interoperate with some other system?

~~~
cookiecaper
Why do you keep insisting that people are "forced" to buy these things? Nobody
has been forced to buy Microsoft. If your job required a Microsoft product,
and you didn't want to buy Microsoft products, you could find a new job. You
were not forced to buy from Microsoft any more than anyone has been "forced"
to buy from Apple.

I've known plenty of people whose jobs didn't even require the use of a
computer; if you are so picky about the software you use, perhaps you could
consider a line of work that doesn't involve much computer usage.

------
drcode
> I wouldn't be surprised if by playing some clever tricks with the
> accelerometer you could even replace the bathroom scale.

Galileo might take issue with that:
<http://www.jimloy.com/physics/galileo.htm>

~~~
brc
I'm glad there aren't too many dumb readers of HN. Otherwise we'd see a post
'I just stood on my iPad and now the screen is cracked'.

~~~
ph0rque
Well, the length of the crack would be proportional to the weight, and you
could calculate the number from that :~)

------
pg
Incidentally, I know the Wikipedia article has been deleted, but I'm assuming
someone will fix that.

(Is this the current world record for deletionism, or have there been more
egregious examples?)

~~~
alex_stoddard
It looks like there is some confusion over whether the correct term is
etherialization or ephemeralization.

The wikipedia article on ephemeralization is somewhat more complete and what
is linked from the page on Fuller.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization>

Other internet sources seem to indicate that ephemeralization is the term he
used.

~~~
pg
You're right. Fuller says that etherealization was a name suggested by someone
else, but that he preferred to stick with ephemeralization. I fixed the essay.
Thanks!

------
Vivtek
What blows my mind is that I might have been able to see this coming in the
80's - but Buckminster Fuller saw it coming in 19 fricking _38_. That man was
incredible.

~~~
pg
It was already happening then. It's older than computers. In his day it meant
e.g. replacing cams with variable speed motors.

~~~
Vivtek
Or, I suppose, Jacquard cards replacing cams in the 1800's. There's a lot more
history to this than it's easy to see today. But Fuller's _insight_ , Good
God.

~~~
pyrhho
Whenever people drop accolades upon historical figures (Fuller included) I
always have to wonder if there is a bit of survivorship bias at play. I'm not
saying that Fuller wasn't a complete genius (he definitely was), but I wonder
how many other incorrect predictions, and other "geniuses", have been
forgotten because they were incorrect.

~~~
rbarooah
How is this a bias? What value would it be to pay attention to all incorrect
statements people have made over the years except to understand why they were
wrong? People like fuller who had insight that seems to have lasted over time
are interesting because we can learn something not just from the statements
they made, but from _how they thought_ that gave them insight.

~~~
DougBTX
Imagine you have a set of people over history, all thinking in different ways,
all making statements about the future. There's a good chance that some of
those statements will be true, just by chance. If you don't account for that,
you will be biased towards people who just got lucky (the survivors).

~~~
rbarooah
I understand the selection principle, but do we realistically think that's
what's happening? Are there really lots of people recording detailed,
insightful, coherent, highly varied, but wrong theories of the future that we
are rejecting? Why would I have to imagine it if it were really going on?

~~~
kbutler
Yes. "detailed, insightful, coherent, highly varied, but wrong theories of the
future" are made all the time.

The really amazing things are not the genius predictions that are right and
venerated, but the predictions that are wrong but the predictors are still
venerated.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus> \- 1798 predictions of
"gigantic inevitable famine" because of population growth. (Industrialization
and technology have allowed population growth dramatically beyond Malthusian
limits. The same arguments are still made today however.)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Marxism> \- "the socialist
revolution would occur first in the most advanced capitalist nations and once
collective ownership had been established then all sources of class conflict
would disappear" <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/> "labour intensive
industries ought to have a higher rate of profit than those which use less
labour" (argue about whatever forces you want that have defeated socialism,
but the argument continues)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager> Malthusian
environmentalist Ehrlich predicts hundreds of millions of people starving to
death in 1970s and 80s, and a genuine age of scarcity." He also loses 10-year
bet against economist Simon. "All of [Ehrlich's] grim predictions had been
decisively overturned by events...Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be
an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker."
[Wired]

Recorded, detailed, insightful, coherent, highly varied, completely wrong.

Oh, and Ehrlich won the MacArthur Foundation genius award AFTER his
predictions were proven wrong...

kb

------
pkulak
"I wouldn't be surprised if by playing some clever tricks with the
accelerometer you could even replace the bathroom scale."

I'd be surprised. Very, very, very surprised.

~~~
grayrest
I was mystified at this. I can't imagine a way to measure weight with
accelerometer that doesn't involve spinning around in circles or jumping up
and down on springs.

~~~
IsaacL
Isn't it obvious? Drop your iPad on the floor; it won't fall exactly
downwards, but will veer ever so slightly off course towards you, and the
amount of displacement is proportional to your mass. Done.

------
ziadbc
The naming convention for these goes back to some research at Xerox PARC
<http://www.ubiq.com/weiser/testbeddevices.htm>

Ubiquitious Computing is upon us, and much like the PC revolution, it will
have been invented at Xerox and perfected at Apple.

------
sanjayparekh
Just tweeted pg this but thought I'd say it here too. This is exactly what
iRobot did when they saw the Roomba platform being taken apart and used for
projects. They gave hackers the tools to use their platform and now sell quite
a few Roomba based development kits instead of just plain old robot vacuums.

------
devindotcom
Haven't we been calling them tablets for ages? People have been designing
around the idea of tablets for decades. They had the ideas for the
applications of tablets fifty years ago. I'm not sure I understand what this
article says that is in any way original.

~~~
petercooper
Yeah, I was nonplussed by the response to this piece. If it had 2007 stamped
on it instead of 2010 I'd get it, but it's recycling ideas that have become
commonplace over the last couple of years.

------
duck
_The fact that you can change font sizes easily means the iPad effectively
replaces reading glasses._

Really? I mean it might help someone not need reading glasses for the tasks
they do on the iPad... but they still have to have them to read the dinner
menu, instructions on the box of food, and so on. If you can't replace it
fully how good is it? The iPhone replaced regular cell phones because of the
fact you no longer need two devices.

Or... I read too much into that.

~~~
billswift
Or maybe an app that will immediately redisplay what the camera views in a
larger format on the screen. Probably be a bit clunky, but might not be too
bad. Might even help more for people who need high magnification for reading
but whose distance vision is still good.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I bought my dad a Desire HD for it's big screen (the pixel resolution is the
same as the standard Desire) and installed a magnifier app:

[http://www.appbrain.com/app/ideal-
magnifier/com.ideal.magnif...](http://www.appbrain.com/app/ideal-
magnifier/com.ideal.magnifier)

It not only magnifies, it lights up with the camera flash, it can reverse the
black/white or add color filter if you find that easier, take a snapshot and
let you zoom around it etc.

------
lian
This isn't that surprising or revolutionary, it's all just part of the
inevitable movement towards ubiquitous computing. It's obvious that we won't
always be reliant upon one device's built-in sensors to constantly gather and
supply relevant data in real-time, and inevitably we'll have an incredibly
integrated network of real-time, physically collocated devices.

For now, tablets are great. And Apple is great at supplying them. But by no
means does this mean anyone will be enslaved to Apple in the long term –
someone else has the opportunity to create an open platform that enables any
and all technologies to communicate with each other. Someone else will have to
sell this platform to businesses, governments and, most importantly,
consumers. And someone else will have to create the other, new interfaces by
which we access and derive meaning from this data collection. And the
challenge of preventing this from being too closed, too proprietary, is what
will distinguish the best approach from the most profitable approach, and
where we as users can choose to avoid a "client monoculture."

The tablet approach is just a step in an ongoing direction. It's way bigger
than this.

------
tomjen3
Replacing keys sounds like an interesting idea, but on one hand you have the
problem that the tech needs to be rock-solid (if github is down I get mildly
annoyed. If I can't get my door to open, I freeze to death) and you are
competing against an already established technology that works really well
(rfid tags) and isn't very expensive.

That said, I would love to hear more about your idea, if possible.

~~~
pclark
You _can_ still use a key with the YC startup replacing keys.

------
ludwigvan
"For historical reasons, the device in your pocket or purse - the one that you
use to browse the Internet and send email, is called a "phone." We need a new
name for that thing." Scott Adams. He suggests calling them "head".
<http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/phone/>

On a side note, I really need an innovation for keys, they scratch my iPhone!
So, go, that new yc company, go!

~~~
parbo
In Sweden, a mobile phone is called a "mobil". In Germany it's called "handy".

~~~
ludwigvan
In Turkey, they are called "cep telefonu" or "cep" in short, for "pocket
phone" or "pocket".

~~~
eru
And it's pronounced roughly `djep' or perhaps `shep'.

------
acgourley
This raises a question of how Apple will deal with "Made For iPod" interfaces
that get increasingly generic. Right now they have a good framework for
evaluating apps and hardware produced by one company to work together. They
don't have a good way to understand hardware from company A working with
software from company B.

What happens when someone wants to release a NES inspired D-Pad controller for
iOS but wants to allow existing game makers to create apps that support it?
Right now that is sort-of possible but it's very high friction.

Apple is a company who likes to build the whole stack from hardware to
software; they feel like is necessary to create beautiful experiences. Will
they compromise on this to facilitate a world where you can connect your
iphone to any device in the house?

If they don't, progress may stagnate, hacks (like communication over wifi)
will persist, and potentially they are giving up market share. Obviously they
need to maintain the integrity and stability of the iOS devices but in my
opinion they error too far on the side of caution.

------
roadnottaken
Tablets are obviously great, but does anyone think they'll really replace
cameras or GPSes? It seems to me that tablets will cut the _bottom_ out of
these markets (those with casual interest in photography or GPS or computing
won't need to buy a dedicated device) but they'll never approach the quality
of an SLR or a dedicated GPS. Or am I just being short-sighted?

~~~
PanMan
The iPhone is already the biggest camera in number of pics on Flickr. I think
the camera ( non slr) switch has largely already happened..

~~~
gammarator
An interesting question for the DSLR makers is what they could learn from the
tablet. The pictures are great, but especially at the entry level there's
opportunity for improved interfaces and easier publishing.
(<http://www.bythom.com/design2010.htm>) has some interesting ideas.

~~~
roadnottaken
I think one of the biggest issues is _transfer_. It's SO easy to get your
pictures off the iPhone -- no wires, no computer, dead-simple (hence the
Flickr succes). High-end camera-makers would be wise to add 3G/wifi/cloud
features, although the file-sizes of high-res photographs might be prohibitive
for a while...

------
pedalpete
Doesn't the etherealization of hardware mean that we won't be referring to
tablets, mobile devices, or laptops at all?

Isn't the only difference between an iPad and iPhone the screen size. So
really, we're starting to refer to these devices based on size rather than
power/memory/speed.

~~~
alain94040
Why do you place more value on "power and memory", than the way people use a
device (tablet vs. PC)?

Let me give you a clear example: my computer 10 years ago had 128 MB of RAM.
My iPhone has 16 GB of RAM. Does that make my old computer not a computer?

My point is that the usage is what matters. I still use my computer to browse
the web, compile code, run Excel and Word, etc.

~~~
jaredmck
pretty sure your iPhone doesn't have 16 GB of RAM- iPhone 4 apparently has 512
MB RAM...so still more than your old computer, but not so drastic.

~~~
alain94040
To be pedantic, Flash memory is closer to DRAM than to disks, although it's
used for storage. It has similar access cycles as DRAM, the chip architecture
of controller plus array is closer than that of a HDD.

~~~
megablast
Surely it is more important what it is used for, rather than anything else.

------
luigi
I think they're still just computers, and will be thought of as such. Sure,
they're computers you hold in your hand, not the kind that sit on your desk.
Gaming consoles and set top boxes are morphing into general purpose computers
too. Those are computers that sit on a table near the TV. But they're all
computers the same.

<http://luigimontanez.com/2010/the-computer-for-the-room/>

~~~
cryptoz
"Computers" still get viruses, require backups done by the user to be safe
from data loss, have out-of-date software packages (each with its own broken
update mechanism), take ages to boot up, are clunky and slow...the list goes
on.

Sure, none of those are specific to the "computer" form factor. But they are
all things that people think of when they think about their desktop computer
(some mac and linux users excluded, of course: but that's still only 10% of
the computer-using population). NONE of those items I just listed are problems
with any "Tablet" computer.

The form factor is different, but so is the very model of user software and
computing.

~~~
whatusername
iPhones: * Have the potential for Viruses (don't call it an exploit it's a
jailbreak is not great security reporting) * Reqquire backups done by the user
to be safe from data loss * Since I'm currently rocking a 3G running IOS4 --
are "clunky and slow"

Of your 5 points - boot up and software update are reasonable. The other 3 can
be absolutely issues.

~~~
Xuzz
That's not the point. Has anyone actually made a virus? No. Will somebody?
Yes. Are they perceived as better in that regard? Yes.

The point is that they are not _perceived_ in that way, so people are not
scared of them. It doesn't matter how true it actually is, it matters what
people think.

------
patrickk
Other stuff being replaced by smart devices: watches, alarm clocks, portable
radios, cheap digital cameras, spirit levels, dictionaries and perhaps soon
your wallet and physical mass-produced books. Looking at some of the creative
stuff people do with mounting their iPad in vehicles, perhaps iPad-like
devices will replace traditional dials in cars in the near future.

 _The only reason we even consider calling them "mobile devices" is that the
iPhone preceded the iPad. If the iPad had come first, we wouldn't think of the
iPhone as a phone; we'd think of it as a tablet small enough to hold up to
your ear._ Hence the joke calling the iPad a giant iPhone. That was a pretty
good description. If the future of telephony is VoIP, then that is pretty much
bang on.

~~~
roc
> _"perhaps iPad-like devices will replace traditional dials in cars in the
> near future."_

The dashboards of the near future are going to start piping a lot of control
over to paired devices, but I think they'll maintain their current level of
sophistication in and of themselves. But those paired devices will be a huge
opportunity.

And in the same arena: automotive diagnostic machines are going to be
replaced. (e.g. OBD tools becoming an OBD->bluetooth adapter + software) As
well as repair and service manuals. (Who needs a book to tell them when to
rotate the tires if the car tells your phone?)

~~~
patrickk
I'm actually working on a college project getting OBD-II diagnostics to your
i-device. Some amazing stuff avaliable already e.g:
<http://www.devtoaster.com/products/rev/>

------
RyanMcGreal
Last summer, I rather surprised myself by using my android phone as a level
while working on a backyard building project.

Also in the summer, I was camping when my flashlight died en route to the
washroom. On the side of the path, I downloaded and installed a flashlight
app, and then used it to find my way.

I volunteer in an after-school guitar class at my son's school, and use my
phone to tune the kids' guitars before class starts.

A few weeks ago, a website I maintain went nonresponsive and I used my phone
to ssh into the server and restart apache.

Just for fun, I installed an app that measures my heart rate using the camera.

Just five years ago, if you had suggested these uses for a phone, I would have
thought you were nuts.

~~~
xuki
My Nokia can do flashlight years ago without any 3rd-party app.

------
pinko
Am I the only person who thinks the iOS usability is declining as its feature
set and resulting complexity grows? It's still simple for me, but while my
mother could handle the original iPhone, I think she'd get a little confused
by the current one. (Double and triple clicks on the home button, cut and
paste UI popping up unexpectedly, etc.)

~~~
jamn
Of course the complexity will increase as a function of the number of
features.

However, I'd make the following claims:

(1) Some of the functions are simply not that used. You can get by perfectly
well without knowing what double and triple clicks on the home button, for
example, If you don't know they exist, you will never even notice.

(2) iOS has less features than Android and arguably this makes it somehow less
powerful but also less confusing for my mom (e.g. no task manager, no
intents).

(3) Switching to a Mac was actually quite challenging coming from PC land
("where's maximize?", "where's a working Alt-Tab?", etc). I'd say the
usability still kicks in as far as how easy it is to do your job for most
after the learning curve has passed. Your mileage may vary, but I find myself
enjoying using my Mac more than I ever did using Windows on my PC for usual
tasks, and that's part of what makes it usable for me. I'd expect a similar
phenomenon with iOS.

------
ulf
I think a really disrupting and interesting field will be tablets as
replacement for textbooks in education. The possibilities to create amazing
educational material are endless.

On the other side, you have textbook publishers, who generally learn a lot of
money with ever slightly changing editions and will do a lot to not see that
income stream dying...

~~~
eftpotrm
A few years back I was working for a supplier to academic libraries, who also
did a lot of ebook sales to this market.

In my final days there they were just starting to get interest from some
institutions who wanted to buy Sony eBook Readers (as the best devices then on
the market) preloaded with 30-50 books, then dish these out to students on
some high-cost courses. They felt the students would prefer this (a not
unreasonable belief with that volume of material) and it'd be easier for them
to manage.

So, yes, this sort of device (in the broad sense) will very likely replace
textbooks at least partially. I saw it happening first hand a few years ago
and see no reason it should have slowed down since.

------
Chris_Newton
> Many if not most of the special-purpose objects around us are going to be
> replaced by apps running on tablets.

I respectfully disagree.

The trend for specialised vs. generalised devices seems to go in cycles over a
period of a few years, in a similar way to the classic thick vs. thin client
cycle. Consider games consoles vs. gaming on PCs, the iPod vs. mobile phones
with media storage, etc. Neither extreme is ever going to take over entirely,
and the bias moves as technology evolves.

I think this is mostly driven by trying to balance convenience and power. When
new tools come along that are generic enough to make a certain broad class of
jobs easier, we tend to jump on them. Many jobs get moved to those devices,
and specialist devices that used to perform those jobs become obsolete. On the
other hand, if you get too generic, you start to introduce waste and therefore
inefficiency, which pushes things back the other way. Also, if your generic
device is OK at doing lots of things but not particularly good at any of them,
there is still a market for specialised devices that do a particular job
better because their priorities are more appropriate.

We used to write software that ran on desktop PCs, but it turned out that a
lot of practically useful software is essentially a simple user interface to a
simple database. Native applications had common pain points in this field that
could be overcome by hosting the code and data centrally, in areas like
installation/updating/backup. Thus Web apps were born.

However, today, we're seeing major players in the industry trying to turn just
about everything into such an application, and they are failing. It turns out
that while Web apps are great for presenting relatively simple database UIs,
they are relatively weak at performing most other tasks. Cloud computing is a
pretty direct extension of the same argument.

I suspect things will go the same way with phones/tablets/mobile devices. A
generic mobile device with a bunch of common built-in peripherals and sensors
will solve a wide variety of real world problems, and thus various kinds of
mobile app have been born. No doubt many more variations will follow over the
next few years, as these devices support new functionality that was not
previously available and ideas will spring up to take advantage of that
functionality. The devices will be _good enough_ for these purposes and will
be widely adopted as a result.

On the other hand, Swiss army phones could easily start to suffer from both
overspecification in breadth of features and underspecification in performance
of individual features. For example, the suggestion in the article to replace
reading glasses with a smart phone seems unrealistic and oversimplified to me:
it sounds great initially, given that we have cameras and screens on these
devices, but then you consider the vast range of different reasons that people
are prescribed glasses, the consequent individuality of each prescription, and
the fact that glasses do not generally require holding in your hand to use
them.

In short, I'm afraid I don't buy pg's argument here at all. A certain class of
applications, some of which already exist and some of which will be developed,
will probably move to handheld multipurpose devices. However, specialised
tools aren't going away any time soon, because any generic device is always
going to be either a poor replacement for a good tool or too highly specified
to be efficient for a broad market, even if the technology exists to combine
high-quality implementations of all the required features within the required
space and cost constraints in the first place.

~~~
johnthedebs
I think you make a good argument, but miss the mark on one important point.
The specialization/generalization you're talking about seems to apply to apps,
not the devices themselves.

Devices like the iPhone and iPad replace a _lot_ of things; the examples of
glasses really wasn't a strong one. Consider this list of things being
replaced: phone, mp3 player, GPS, maps, compass, books, wrist watch, stop
watch, alarm, photo album, voice recorder, notepad + pen, calculator. From now
on, _most_ people with a tablet device will use that instead of anything on
the list _most_ of the time (except probably notepad + pen). These things will
just never be nearly as popular as they once were, and the list is very
incomplete.

It's just too convenient to have all those things condensed into one easy-to-
use device, and in many (but certainly not all) cases the tablet is better
than the device it's replacing.

~~~
Retric
An iPod makes a terrible compass, wrist watch, photo album, notepad,
calculator and or camera. The advantage is a bad X is better than no X. So,
while most people may end up using their cell phone as a stopwatch, people
that need a good stopwatch will still buy it.

------
rdl
What's the YC funded startup which is a replacement for keys? As in "We funded
one startup that's replacing keys."

~~~
daeken
I know you specifically asked about the YC startup, but there are a few really
cool lock-related startups out there. There have been a lot of NFC (near-field
communication) startups popping up for the last few years, but those require
special hardware in the phone, so a company (I can't recall which one at the
moment -- sorry) came up with a novel approach: have an app on the phone that
plays a series of tones on the speaker, which the lock receives and uses as an
audio key. While this could very well be dangerous if not designed properly,
it's a really novel approach, and could very well be more secure than existing
electronic locks; I know that in the hotel lock industry at least, security is
horrendous as it stands, so hopefully this could help there.

~~~
rdl
I stayed at the airbnb corporate apartment and mentioned a reprogrammable lock
as an awesome upgrade to their service back in 2009. I hacked something crappy
together with a schlage lockset for my own use, but ended up having to go to
Afghanistan a couple weeks later. I actually prefer the usability of what I
had to how the lockitron appears to work.

Hotel locks are amazingly lame. Audio is an interesting output from the phone;
flashing the display in front of a photosensor in a pattern would be cool too.

Mechanical locks are basically obsolete in the age of digital photographs and
rapid prototyping...if you let me look at a mechanical key for a second, I can
make you a perfect copy in 15 minutes.

------
seldo
I look forward to the day when fat people everywhere will pulverize their
iPads using them as bathroom scales.

------
chr15
In 2001, Bill Gates said that by 2006 tablets would be the most popular form
factor for PCs. They obviously weren't back then. It's funny how Apple changes
ecosystems.

[http://gizmodo.com/5324866/vintage-bill-gates-predicts-
table...](http://gizmodo.com/5324866/vintage-bill-gates-predicts-tablets-to-
be-the-most-popular-form-of-pc-sold-in-america)

~~~
cryptoz
I think MS could have delivered on the prediction if they had changed their
software to match the form factor. All Windows tablets run a (basically) stock
Windows XP / Windows 7. If the iPad used a (basically) stock OS X, it would
not have sold! Too many small buttons, mouse-centered experience, etc.

Apple's key was realizing that the software had to change, too.

~~~
acgourley
This is key. Another interesting observation is that in 2006 tablet
manufacturers probably thought it vitally important that users could _print_

------
walkon
_The fact that you can change font sizes easily means the iPad effectively
replaces reading glasses._

I disagree. Reading glasses are close to the eye and magnify without
sacrificing the amount of text to viewable surface area. People who need to
significantly increase the font size (i.e. the same people who would use
reading glasses) are going be constantly interacting with the iPad to tell it
to pan/scroll the viewable (magnified) surface around so that they can see
everything. Pagination is only a partial workaround (still have to interact,
just deal with the large increase in page turns) and only makes sense with
text-type data (e.g. pictures lend themselves to panning, not paging).

------
timdellinger
In general, the tablet enables all the ideas that people have had over the
years that were perfect "except you'd have to carry around a computer to run
the thing". I'd love to see communications protocols and hardware (next gen
bluetooth?) developed to allow devices that need a computer to wirelessly use
the one in my pocket.

I'd also like to see more innovation in the space where users hold tablets
while they're facing a television set. The tablet-as-remote-control where the
program listings are on the tablet. The tablet-as-gaming-controller where you
and your opponent both have tablets (draw a path on a map to move a character
instead of guiding the character turn-by-turn).

~~~
glhaynes
I'm trying to think of something where I'd need more computing power in my
pocket - most apps seem to either have enough power in the device itself or
draw the extra needed compute/storage from the cloud... just wondering what
you have in mind.

~~~
timdellinger
I'm saying that many things you own would work better if they had a little
computing power in them, or if they had access to a computer. So, for
instance, it would be too expensive to put a PID controller in your toaster
oven. That's why there's a simple thermostat and a simple timer in there. But
imagine if your toaster could send temperature data in a bluetooth-esque way
to your tablet. The tablet does the proportional-integral-derivative
calculations and sends commands back to the toaster. So you get all of the
benefits of PID controlled temperature without the cost of the PID controller.

Another idea (likely in the works somewhere): tablet as guitar effects pedal.

~~~
glhaynes
Interesting thought. I don't know anything about PID controllers - are they so
compute intensive that they need a processor significantly more expensive than
a Bluetooth controller?

On the guitar effects pedal: Apple has actually run an iPad ad that included a
shot of a guitar plugged into an iPad running an "amplifier emulator" (not
sure what the right term is for that sort of thing). Not sure which app it is,
but it's probably $10 or less. :)

------
kenjackson
Tablet is the wrong term. In fact I fear the use of it becoming _the_ term to
use as I think it immediately prunes potential avenues of exploration. I think
mobile or personal device is a better term as its really about the intent of
the device, which is to be with you always. Tablet really seems to describe
the form factor. I'm not convinced that the form factor is all that important.

~~~
RoyG
Form factor means everything; look at how many new iPad only apps there are,
strictly due to increased screen size. Jobs made this clear when he nixed the
7" iPad.

~~~
kenjackson
Let me be clearer. I don't mean form factor isn't important in general. I mean
form factor isn't the underlying principle that unites these various devices.

Is the Droid Pro a tablet? What about the rumored Playstation Phone? Tablet
seems to imply a form factor, and I don't think that's what is important in
how we categorize these devices.

It's like if we called PCs "beige boxes" when they came out or if we called
TVs "two through thirteen dial machines".

I expect the form factors for these devices to continue to evolve and improve,
yet I think the general category of device will be the same (much like how a
3D LED HDTV is still a TV, although looks very different than an old B&W TV
from the 50s).

------
blahedo
Here's the thing: people who aren't geeks often like and even _prefer_ single-
purpose devices. There is, as has been noted (see
[http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/DICE-2010-Design-Outside-the-
Bo...](http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/DICE-2010-Design-Outside-the-Box-
Presentation/)), a "pocket exception", but for larger devices, people who
aren't us are often intimidated or confused by devices that do many things.

And of course there are dangers in making a machine more general-purpose than
it needs to be. Machines that are too general-purpose becomes more susceptible
and sometimes tempting targets for hacking. (As usual, ground well-trod by
xkcd: <http://xkcd.com/463/>, <http://xkcd.com/801/>)

~~~
timcederman
This doesn't explain the iPhone though.

~~~
Psyonic
"pocket exception," also trendiest phone (phones are fashion accessories as
well as devices)

------
AN447
I always thought of these devices as 'casual computing'

------
faramarz
As much as the software is the _window to opportunity_ for these devices, the
hardware is just as important. Apple's form factor is exceptional! Their
Industrial Design sense and abilities is one of the most important recipes to
their success, I think.

Google unfortunately discounts this, or rather, is late to understand how
important UX is in the tangible world as much as the intangible. When you
pickup a phone, tablet rather, your first impressions are based on the
physical device. The intrinsic value during this interaction is irreplaceable
by any software, no matter how good.

------
moontear
Was Paul trying to coin the word "tablet" for these kind of devices? I don't
know how this is anything new, I have read of the iPad "tablet" or "tablet
computer" many times.

------
someone_here
The real thing that makes these "tablets" interesting is the number of
features they have packed into them. The "ease of use" that people are talking
about when referencing Apple's products is just a part of Apple's marketing
for their devices. Android (and Maemo and MeeGo and etc) devices are much more
capable and much more hackable. Why the praise for such a bland device such as
the i-OSes when there's an awesome OS and device market sitting right next to
it?

~~~
xenophanes
"Capable" and "hackable" are completely different than "ease of use". Apple
really does have great ease of use (for normal people), and part of how they
get it is by reducing the other two.

~~~
orangecat
I continue to disagree with that concept. Mac OS X would not suddenly become
better for normal users if Apple ripped out Terminal.app and forbade anything
that replaced its functionality.

------
prakash
Here's another good example of etherealization: With Skype one can get a US
(and a few other countries) number that gets routed to my skype id.

------
rbarooah
I think it's clear that Steve Jobs is fully aware of this. It's why he
_changed the name of the company to Apple Inc_ , just before announcing the
iPhone - he wasn't indicating that he was going to start building hundreds of
different consumer electronics products - he was telling the world that a the
iPhone and it's variants would replace most of them.

------
albemuth
One thing that now seems ridiculous is the bank authenticator tokens, the
blizzard authentication apps are a great example

------
anthonycerra
Apple's tablets are just one aspect of this etherealization. The real hero
here is software. From the ability to create a physical three dimensional
object to the manipulation of DNA - software makes it possible.

What's reassuring is that Apple doesn't have control over all the hardware
interfaces that make (and will make) this possible.

------
xenophanes
Another possible recipe for a startup (not saying this would be easy) is to
find an important way that Apple is handicapping their devices and overcome it
on Apple's own platform in a way that Apple will allow. If you can do that,
users will love it and buy your product.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>If you can do that, users will love it and buy your product.

I'm trying now to remember a story relayed here about a company who developed
a product that bested Apple, Apple considered buying them/it but the
negotiator dropped the ball or something and then Apple wiped them out by
besting them.

Anyway, if you beat Apple then they'll either lock you out (why handicap it if
they'd let you carry on) or integrate your idea working around your IP. You're
going to need lots of IP/anti-monopoly lawyers. You might get bought out too,
especially if it's cheaper than there end of the court cases ... I guess what
I'm saying is that building hardware on top of Apple's platform seems it would
always be limited in some way.

But I'm probably wrong.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
You could be referring to the story about how Panic's Audion nearly became the
basis of iTunes, rather than Soundjam which they bought instead, though it is
quite an old story.

<http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/>

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Yup, that was it (extract):

    
    
        "Hi Steve, it's Cabel, from Panic."
    
        "Oh, hey Cabel! Nice to meet you. So tell me, what'd you think of iTunes?"
    
        "Well, I think it looks great! You guys have done a great job with it. But, you know, I still feel we'll do all-right with Audion."
    
        "Oh, really? That's interesting, because honestly? I don't think you guys have a chance."

------
bergie
I'm a bit surprised that there was no mention of Jef Raskin's information
appliance concept

[http://gizmodo.com/5452501/the-apple-tablet-interface-
must-b...](http://gizmodo.com/5452501/the-apple-tablet-interface-must-be-like-
this)

------
quickpost
The other question is for Apple - what other sorts of addressable hardware
could be added to the iPad to make it even more versatile (temperature sensor,
various transducers, etc.).

------
aditya
Typo in the last line: "and inch" should be "an inch"

~~~
pg
fixed; thanks

------
charlesju
I just can't wait for the Kinect sensors to be an open standard with a
commododized component in every electronics we have.

------
buss
I fancy the term "communicator," personally.

------
bfung
seems like there's still a lot of work todo, and a lot of room for growth. A
survey of how people use their ipads, coincidentally from today:
<http://www.businessinsider.com/ipad-survey>

------
replicatorblog
FYI, the link to RFS 8 is broken.

~~~
pg
I know; I'm making that page now.

------
gasull
In Spanish the word "tabletas" is already used for this.

------
orionlogic
i wish there is direct rss feed for the essays other than some intermediary
channel.

~~~
allwein
<http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/feeds/pgessays.rss>

~~~
orionlogic
That feed doesn't update when the article is published. That's what i was
trying to say. Anyway, its not that important to get real time. Oh, the signs
of my urge to be informed under the influence of real-time web.

------
extension
computer

minicomputer

microcomputer

...nanocomputer?

~~~
metageek
That'd make sense, but "nanocomputer" already has a meaning: a nanotech
computing device.

~~~
extension
When that field produces a viable mainstream product, they can have
"picocomputer".

